HARVARD HISTORICAL STUDIES
PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY
FROM THE INCOME OF
THE HENRY WARREN TORREY FUND
VOLUME XVIII
HARVARD HISTORICAL STUDIES
=I. The Suppression of the African Slave-Trade to the United States of
America, 1638-1870.= By W. E. B. DU BOIS, Ph.D., Editor of “The Crisis.”
8vo. $1.50 net.
=II. The Contest over the Ratification of the Federal Constitution in
Massachusetts.= By S. B. HARDING, Ph.D., Professor of European History in
Indiana University. 8vo. $1.25 net.
=III. A Critical Study of Nullification in South Carolina.= By D. F.
HOUSTON, A.M., LL.D., Secretary of Agriculture. 8vo. $1.25 net.
=IV. Nominations for Elective Office in the United States.= By FREDERICK
W. DALLINGER, A.M., late Member of the Massachusetts Senate. 8vo. $1.50
net.
=V. A Bibliography of British Municipal History.= Including Gilds and
Parliamentary Representation. By CHARLES GROSS, Ph.D., late Gurney
Professor of History and Political Science in Harvard University. 8vo.
$2.50 net.
=VI. The Liberty and Free Soil Parties in the Northwest.= By THEODORE
CLARKE SMITH, Ph.D., Professor of History in Williams College. 8vo. $1.75
net.
=VII. The Provincial Governor in the English Colonies of North America.=
By EVARTS BOUTELL GREENE, Ph.D., Professor of History in the University
of Illinois. 8vo. $1.50 net.
=VIII. The County Palatine of Durham.= A Study in Constitutional History.
By G. T. LAPSLEY, Ph.D., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. 8vo. $2.00
net.
=IX. The Anglican Episcopate and the American Colonies.= By ARTHUR
LYON CROSS, Ph.D., Professor of European History in the University of
Michigan. 8vo. $2.50 net.
=X. The Administration of the American Revolutionary Army.= By LOUIS
CLINTON HATCH, Ph.D. 8vo. $1.50 net.
=XI. The Civil Service and the Patronage.= By CARL RUSSELL FISH, Ph.D.,
Professor of American History in the University of Wisconsin. 8vo. $2.00
net.
=XII. The Development of Freedom of the Press in Massachusetts.= By C. A.
DUNIWAY, Ph.D., President of the University of Wyoming. 8vo. $1.50 net.
=XIII. The Seigniorial System in Canada.= By W. B. MUNRO, Ph.D.,
Professor of Municipal Government in Harvard University. 8vo. $2.00 net.
=XIV. The Frankpledge System.= By WILLIAM ALFRED MORRIS, Ph.D., Assistant
Professor of English History in the University of California. 8vo. $1.50
net.
=XV. The Public Life of Joseph Dudley.= By EVERETT KIMBALL, Ph.D.,
Associate Professor of History in Smith College. 8vo. $2.00 net.
=XVI. Mémoire de Marie Caroline, Reine de Naples.= Edited by ROBERT
MATTESON JOHNSTON, A.M., Assistant Professor of Modern History in Harvard
University. 8vo. $2.00 net.
=XVII. The Barrington-Bernard Correspondence.= Edited by EDWARD CHANNING,
Ph.D., McLean Professor of Ancient and Modern History in Harvard
University. 8vo. $2.00 net.
=XVIII. The Government of the Ottoman Empire in the Time of Suleiman the
Magnificent.= By ALBERT HOWE LYBYER, Professor of European History in
Oberlin College. 8vo. $2.00 net.
HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS
CAMBRIDGE, MASS., U. S. A.
THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE
IN THE TIME OF SULEIMAN
THE MAGNIFICENT
BY
ALBERT HOWE LYBYER, PH.D.
PROFESSOR OF EUROPEAN HISTORY, OBERLIN COLLEGE
“Our empire is the home of Islam; from father to son the lamp of our
empire is kept burning with oil from the hearts of the infidels.”
MOHAMMED II, THE CONQUEROR.
“A lord and his bondsmen.”
RANKE.
“Les Turcs ... nées de la guerre et organisées pour la conquête.”
CAHUN.
“The Ottoman government ... seems to have attained during the
sixteenth century the highest degree of perfection of which its
constitution was capable.”
ROBERTSON.
[Illustration]
CAMBRIDGE
HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS
LONDON: HENRY FROWDE
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
1913
COPYRIGHT, 1913
BY HARVARD UNIVERSITY
PREFACE
The Ottoman Turks, after the world had long despaired of them, have
in these last years shown signs of renewed vigor. The time is, then,
perhaps not inauspicious for an examination of the structure of their
organization in the period of its greatest power and prestige. It is not
easy for the present age to realize how large the empire of Suleiman
bulked in the eyes of contemporaneous Europe. Amid the vast energies
and activities, the magnificent undertakings and achievements, of the
marvellous sixteenth century, nothing surpassed the manifestations of
power that swept forth from Constantinople. The following pages will have
been worth while if their incomplete presentation shadows forth, however
dimly, the secrets of Ottoman greatness and success.
This book was originally prepared in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Harvard
University, and was subsequently awarded the Toppan Prize. The writer
desires to acknowledge his very great indebtedness for advice,
suggestion, and criticism to a number of kind friends with whom he has
consulted, but especially to Professor A. C. Coolidge and Professor G. F.
Moore. Nor can he let the book go to press without recording his extreme
obligation to his wife for unwearying assistance at every stage of its
preparation.
A. H. L.
OBERLIN, OHIO, 1912.
CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION
IDEAS CONSTITUTE A NATION 3
THE BACKGROUND OF OTTOMAN HISTORY 5
CHARACTER AND MISSION OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE 7
THE RACIAL DESCENT OF THE OTTOMAN TURKS 10
SELJUK AND OTTOMAN TURKS IN ASIA MINOR 14
THE SOURCES OF OTTOMAN CULTURE 18
CHAPTER I
THE CHARACTER OF THE OTTOMAN STATE IN GENERAL
DEFINITION 25
THE LIMITATIONS ON DESPOTISM 26
THE TERRITORIAL BASIS 28
THE PEOPLES 33
INSTITUTIONS OF GOVERNMENT 35
CONTEMPORARY DESCRIPTIONS OF THE TWO GREAT INSTITUTIONS 38
CHAPTER II
THE OTTOMAN RULING INSTITUTION: AS A SLAVE-FAMILY
I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION 45
II. THE SLAVE-FAMILY 47
METHODS OF RECRUITING 49
THE TRIBUTE BOYS 51
ESTIMATE OF THE SYSTEM 53
THE SLAVE STATUS 55
THE HAREM, THE EUNUCHS, AND THE ROYAL FAMILY 56
OTHER OTTOMAN SLAVE-FAMILIES 58
CHARACTER OF OTTOMAN SLAVERY 60
CHAPTER III
THE RULING INSTITUTION: AS MISSIONARY ENTERPRISE
AND EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM
I. THE MISSIONARY MOTIVE 62
THE OTTOMAN ATTITUDE 63
OTHER MOTIVES FOR INCORPORATING CHRISTIANS 65
THE REQUIREMENT OF CONVERSION 66
SINCERITY OF CONVERSION 68
EFFECT OF THE PROCESS 69
II. THE EDUCATIONAL SCHEME 71
THE COLLEGES OF PAGES 73
THE HAREM 78
THE AJEM-OGHLANS 79
ADVANCEMENT BASED ON MERIT 82
PUNISHMENTS 88
CHAPTER IV
THE RULING INSTITUTION: AS AN ARMY
THE MILITARY ASPECT 90
THE JANISSARIES 91
THE SUCCESSION TO THE THRONE 93
THE SPAHIS OF THE PORTE 98
THE FEUDAL SPAHIS 100
OFFICERS OF THE FEUDAL SPAHIS 103
OTHER BODIES OF TROOPS 105
DISCIPLINE AND ARDOR 108
THE SUPREME COMMAND 109
INDIVISIBILITY OF THE ARMY 111
CHAPTER V
THE RULING INSTITUTION: AS A NOBILITY AND A COURT
I. PRIVILEGES OF THE KULLAR 114
NOBILITY NOT HEREDITARY 117
II. CHARACTER OF THE SULTAN’S COURT 120
ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSEHOLD 123
THE HAREM 124
THE INSIDE SERVICE 126
THE OUTSIDE SERVICE 128
THE CEREMONIES OF THE COURT 133
INFLUENCE OF THE COURT 141
CHAPTER VI
THE RULING INSTITUTION: AS GOVERNMENT
SUMMARY 146
FUNCTIONS OF THE OTTOMAN GOVERNMENT 147
THE SULTAN AS HEAD OF THE STATE AND OF THE GOVERNMENT 150
THE SULTAN AS LEGISLATOR 152
THE LEGISLATION OF SULEIMAN 159
THE VIZIERS 163
THE DEFTERDARS OR TREASURERS 167
TAXATION IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE 175
SULEIMAN’S INCOME 179
THE NISHANJI OR CHANCELLOR 182
THE DIVAN OR COUNCIL 187
THE RULING INSTITUTION AS A WHOLE 193
CHAPTER VII
THE MOSLEM INSTITUTION OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE
GENERAL DESCRIPTION 199
FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF THE MOSLEM INSTITUTION 200
THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM 203
CLERGY, SEIDS, AND DERVISHES 206
JURISTS AND THE MUFTI 207
THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 215
THE MOSLEM INSTITUTION AS A WHOLE 224
CHAPTER VIII
COMPARISON OF THE TWO GREAT INSTITUTIONS
LIKENESSES 227
DIFFERENCES 230
INTERACTIONS 232
THE RELATIVE POWER OF THE INSTITUTIONS 233
APPENDICES
I. THE SECOND BOOK OF THE AFFAIRS OF THE TURKS
Written in 1534, supposedly by BENEDETTO RAMBERTI.
Translated from the Italian 239
II. PAMPHLET OF JUNIS BEY AND ALVISE GRITTI
Printed in 1537. Presented in the original Italian 262
III. INCOMPLETE TABLE OF CONTENTS OF THE KANUN-NAMEH, OR
COLLECTION OF EDICTS, OF SULEIMAN THE MAGNIFICENT
AS ARRANGED BY THE MUFTI EBU SU’UD
Translated from the Turkish 276
IV. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE MOGUL EMPIRE IN INDIA
General Comparison of Ottoman and Indian Conditions 278
The Personnel of the Mogul Government 279
Relation of Government to Religious Propagation 283
The Army 285
The Court 287
The Government Proper 292
The Moslems and the Moslem Church 299
Books consulted in the Preparation of Appendix IV 303
V. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
i. Origins of Ottoman Governmental Ideas 305
ii. The Ottoman Government in the Sixteenth Century 307
iii. Alphabetical List of Works Cited 322
GLOSSARY OF TURKISH WORDS 331
INDEX 339
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE
INTRODUCTION
IDEAS CONSTITUTE A NATION
A nation, when considered from its earliest to its latest days, is much
more a body of ideas than a race of men. Men die, families decay, the
original stock tends to disappear; new individuals are admitted from
without, new family groups take the lead, whole tribes are incorporated
and absorbed; after centuries the anthropological result often bears but
slight resemblance to the original type. Undoubtedly the fabric of ideas
which a nation weaves as its history develops also undergoes changes
of pattern; old principles pass out of sight, and new ones, born of
circumstance, or brought in from without, come to controlling influence.
But ideas are not, like men, mortal: they can be transmitted from man to
man through ages; they can be stored in books and thus pass from the dead
to the living; when built together into a solid and attractive structure,
they impart to the whole something of their individual immortality.
Singly they pass as readily to strangers as to kindred; when organized to
rounded completeness as the culture of a great living nation, they have
a power which lays hold of men of many races, alone or in masses, and in
the absence of strong prejudice compels acceptance.
Such an assimilative force can clearly be seen in vigorous operation in
the United States of America today. A system of ideas, woven of countless
threads spun by Egyptian, Babylonian, Hebrew, Greek, Roman, and Teuton,
preserved and enlarged by Frank, Anglo-Saxon, Norman, and Englishman,
recombined in a new and striking pattern by the founders of the republic,
is thrown over men from every nation under heaven, who under its
influence all become of one type, not to be mistaken wherever it is seen.
The history of the Ottoman Empire reveals the constant working of a
like assimilative force. It was not merely, and not even mainly, the
compulsion of the sword that built up and maintained the strongest
national power of the sixteenth century. Swords must be wielded by men;
and how were enough strong and capable men found and bound together
in willing coöperation to conquer large sections of Europe, Asia, and
Africa, to organize and govern their conquests in a fairly satisfactory
fashion, and to establish a structure which, after more than three
hundred years of decay, disaster, and disintegration, has yet enough
strength to form the basis for a new departure? The only answer possible
is that the attraction of a great body of national ideas gathered men
from every direction and many races to unite in a common effort. Although
much violence, injustice, and destructive passion was involved, the
result was a great and on the whole a durable and useful empire.
The government of the Ottoman Empire when at the height of its power
cannot be understood from a description of its court, costumes,
ceremonies, and officials, with a catalogue of their provinces and
duties. A thorough comprehension of the main political ideas that
constituted the life of the empire is essential. Since most of these
ideas were old and tried, and were wrought in a thousand ways into the
general scheme, a complete treatment would demand that they should be
considered historically from the time of their adoption. Nor would it
be sufficient to go back to the beginning of the house of Osman. The
Turkish nucleus which gathered around him, and the Mohammedans and
Christians from near and far who joined his rising fortunes were already
in possession, in a fairly systematic form, of most of the ideas of the
completed Ottoman government. The inquiry should be begun farther back,
among Byzantine Greeks, Seljuk Turks, Mohammedans of Persia and Arabia,
and Turks of Central Asia. Many of the ideas, indeed, can be traced yet
farther, through Tartary to China and through Parthia and Rome to Babylon
and Egypt.
These origins, however, cannot be considered here except in the briefest
possible fashion. All that can be done is to outline the background of
Ottoman history, the general character of the Ottoman Empire and its
service to the world, the racial descent of the Ottoman Turks, and the
main influences which affected their institutions and culture.
THE BACKGROUND OF OTTOMAN HISTORY
From early times the developing Chinese civilization in the valley of
the Yellow River had to contend with intermittent attacks from the
barbarians of the north and west. In the latter half of the third century
B.C. China’s work of domestic consolidation and centralization reached
completeness, and foreign conquest began. The policy was then initiated
which has never since been departed from,—the subjugation of the outlying
lands and the cultural assimilation of their inhabitants.[1] Following
up with armies, governors, and garrisons the nomads who fled to the
west, by the beginning of the second century A.D. China held vassal all
the population of the steppe country from the Great Wall to the Caspian
Sea; her frontiers marched with those of Parthia. Early in the third
century she entered upon four hundred years of weakness, and her western
possessions fell away; but she regained strength and restored her western
dominion just in time to confront the rising Saracen flood. During three
brilliant centuries, the seventh, eight, and ninth of our era, she held
the nomads in fairly constant subjection, and presumably taught them many
of her orderly, organized ways. It was probably in part by the strength
of her discipline that in the succeeding half-millennium the descendants
of these nomads, Turks and Mongols, wrought their will from the Sea of
Japan to the Adriatic, over most of Asia, half of Europe, and a goodly
portion of Africa.
From the eighth century Turks drifted southwestward in ever-increasing
numbers out of Chinese territory into the declining Saracen Empire.
Early in the eleventh century an army followed this course and set up
the vast but short-lived empire of the Seljuk Turks. These broke the
eastern frontier of Asia Minor, which had protected the Greeks and
Romans for fourteen hundred years, and pushed on until they could see
the domes of Constantinople. The eastward pressure of the crusading
period kept them from European shores for two centuries, near the close
of which the Mongols overran their disintegrated lands. A remnant, the
Seljuk Sultanate of Rûm, struggled on in Asia Minor until the close of
the thirteenth century, when it fell into ten parts. The East Roman, or
Byzantine Empire, had by that time also been thoroughly wrecked, and the
Balkan Peninsula was divided among Frank, Italian, and Catalan, Greek,
Serb, Albanian, Wallach, and Bulgarian.
The people of one of the ten fragments of the Seljuk Sultanate of Rûm
took the name of Osmanlis from their chief Osman. Located on the border
of the Greek and Turkish groups of principalities, they drew men and
governmental ideas from both. The rapidity of their growth from so small
a beginning, and under such apparently unfavorable circumstances, into
a durable state is one of the marvellous things of history. In about
two and a quarter centuries from the time of their independence they
were able to attempt for the last time to unite the entire Mediterranean
civilization into one empire. North Africa, Egypt, Syria, Arabia,
the Tigris-Euphrates valley, Armenia, Asia Minor, Greece, the Balkan
Peninsula, a large part of modern Austria-Hungary and of modern Russia,
were theirs; they threatened Italy, Central and Eastern Europe, and
Persia. They thus held all three of the earliest centers of Mediterranean
civilization, the western half of the Old Persian Empire, and all the
dominions of Rome except the northwestern one-third. Apart from Spain and
the lands east of the Zagros Mountains, they ruled the Saracen Empire.
With the exception of Italy (with Illyricum and the adjacent islands) and
the short-lived Byzantine conquests in Spain, the empire of Justinian
lay within their boundaries. The later Byzantine Empire became the heart
of their dominions, and its two chief supports—the trade which passed
through the Bosphorus and the products and men of Asia Minor—became their
own principal supports. The inheritance of lands and of institutions by
the Ottoman Turks from the two great medieval empires of the Levant, the
Saracen and the East Roman, is by all odds the most pregnant fact of
their existence. They were the immediate heirs of a part of the territory
and of the whole of the culture of the Seljuk Turks. The scene of the
“world’s debate” formed but an insignificant part of their dominions.
They gathered into one net all the shoal of feudal, royal, and imperial
powers which made the Levant of the thirteenth century as decentralized
as the Holy Roman Empire or the Italy of the fifteenth century.
CHARACTER AND MISSION OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE
This rapid survey leads to a number of significant observations. First,
the Ottoman Turks of the sixteenth century ruled countries wholly within
the sphere of the Mediterranean civilization. The only possible exception
was the steppe lands north of the Black Sea; but these had been almost
as much under the sway of Rome and Constantinople as they ever were
under that of Stamboul. Even communication with Eastern and Southern
Asia was well-nigh cut off. The road to China north of the Caspian Sea
alone remained open, but after the break-up of the Mongol Empire it had
become long and dangerous. The rival and hostile New Persian power firmly
closed the southern land route to India and China; and even the sea-way
from Egypt eastward was blockaded by the newly-arrived Portuguese. Thus
the Ottoman Empire, except in remote origins, which, indeed, profoundly
influenced it, grew and flourished within what is commonly considered
the main field of history. Accordingly, it has a greater claim upon the
Western world on the score of kinship than has hitherto generally been
allowed.
Second, within the Mediterranean civilization the Ottoman Empire combined
regions of both Orient and Occident. The classical world knew chiefly
Romans, Greeks, and Orientals. The Ottoman Turk succeeded to two-thirds
of this world, the lands of Greece and the East. From the day of Issus
to the day of Menzikert, Asia Minor had to all intents and purposes
been a part of Europe. After Menzikert it became a center of Turkish
rule, to which, in the course of time, territories from both Asia and
Europe were added in widening circles. No deep knowledge of historical
forces is necessary to suggest that neither in Southern Europe nor in
Asia Minor itself could the teachings of fourteen centuries or more be
obliterated in five centuries or less, or even in an eternity; nor would
they fail to exert a profound influence from the moment of conquest. To
regard the Ottoman Empire as a mere Oriental state would be to misread
history and to misunderstand human nature. Its lands were of both Orient
and Occident, so also were its people, so also were its culture and its
government.
Third, the Ottoman Turks drew men and ideas from both Mohammedans and
Christians. They have commonly been regarded as wholly Mohammedan, and
therefore they have been shut off by a well-nigh impenetrable barrier
from the sympathies of a world still possessed by the prejudices of
crusading days. The foundations of such prejudices are easily open to
attack. The main religious ideas of Mohammedanism are not, except as
to the divinity of Christ, inharmonious with those of Christianity;
they were, indeed, in all probability drawn chiefly from the religious
teachings of the Old Testament. The social system of Mohammedanism
is also much like that of the Old Testament. Its most objectionable
features, the seclusion of women, polygamy, and slavery, may be regarded
as survivals from an older condition of mankind out of which a portion
of the human race has emerged—not without frequent cases of atavism—and
which Mohammedans themselves are tending to abandon. But, leaving aside
the question of the kinship of Christianity and Mohammedanism, no one can
deny that the Ottomans ruled over many Christians, that many of their
ablest men and families were of Christian ancestry, and that, according
to the nature of humanity, as much of their civilization and ruling ideas
may have come from Christian as from Mohammedan sources.
It is true that as a nation the Ottoman Turks remained Mohammedan; this
has constituted the real “tragedy of the Turk.” Bound hand and foot by
that scholastic Mohammedanism which was reaching rigid perfection at the
time when the Turks first became prominent in the Saracen Empire, and
which only in very recent days seems tending toward a Reformation, they
could not amalgamate the subject Christian peoples, already confirmed
in nationalism by the events of centuries. The deadening system stilled
their active spirits, imprisoned their extraordinary adaptability,
and held them at a stage of culture which, though in some respects it
distinctly led Europe in the sixteenth century, was before long passed
through and left behind by the progressive West. Nevertheless, the Turks
were no more limited to Mohammedan ideas than to Mohammedan men, and they
are entitled to be considered in the light of their double origin.
Fourth and last, the great task before the Ottoman Turks was a work of
unification. Lands which had been united under the great Theodosius, and
then during eleven centuries had been more and more disintegrated by
invasion of German, Slav, Arab, Tatar, and Turk, by war of Byzantine,
Persian, Moslem, Crusader, and Mongol, by destruction of roads and safe
water-routes, and by general decay of civilization, until confusion
and disorder reigned and anarchy seemed not far ahead—these lands were
once more brought under a single control. Was it their destiny to be
genuinely reunited, not merely in a common subjection, not merely by
an external shell of authority, but in the pulsing life of a vigorous
nation, harmonious in every part and run through by patriotism? This
was the well-nigh insoluble problem which the Ottoman Turks attempted
bravely. How they solved the administrative and governmental phase of it
the present treatise will try to show. Religious unity was out of the
question; and in the sixteenth century, in East and West alike, social
and cultural unity waited upon the religious. Had the Ottoman Empire
been able four hundred years ago to set apart religious considerations
as matters for the individual—a process which affords the chief hope of
the new Turkey of the twentieth century—her whole subsequent history must
have been very different.
But in the measure in which unity was attained in the Levant under the
Ottoman authority, in that measure did the Ottoman Empire render service
to civilization and humanity. After the close of the thirteenth century
Western Europe, absorbed in its own affairs, was able to give little
attention to the East. Two centuries were taken up with the consolidation
of national powers, chiefly at the expense of feudalism and the medieval
church. By the sixteenth century a measure of internal solidarity had
been attained and the struggle for external supremacy over the West
had been begun. The whole situation was complicated by the actively
leavening force of the New Learning and the explosively rending force
of the Reformation. Under such circumstances even the advance of the
Turks into Central Europe could only temporarily divert attention from
absorbing problems and direct it toward the East. To what a state of
minute division and infinite disorder the Levant would have come by that
time, had the Ottoman Empire not grown up, can only be imagined. Egypt,
the only Levantine power of consequence after the close of the crusades,
had reached the natural limits of her dominion, and had she aimed at
wider conquests the Mameluke government would scarcely have been capable
of imperial sway. No other of the countless principalities of the eastern
Mediterranean showed enough life to accomplish unity. But the Ottoman
Turks, cruelly and destructively, imperfectly and clumsily, yet surely
and effectively, built up and maintained a single authority, to which the
world probably owes most of that measure of enlightenment, culture, and
order which can be found in the Levant today.
THE RACIAL DESCENT OF THE OTTOMAN TURKS
The question as to the origin of the Ottoman Turks was raised in Western
Europe as soon as the race began to appear upon the stage of history.
There seemed to be something mysterious and uncanny about their rise to
power. If an innumerable horde of strange barbarians, a second invasion
of Attila, had overrun the Levant and settled down to rule its conquests,
cause and effect would have been apparent. But this nation seemed to
arise out of the earth. Organized and disciplined beyond any parallel in
the West, it seemed to come from nowhere and to begin at once to take
a very real part in human affairs.[2] The problem of its origin is by
no means completely solved as yet, but the main elements can perhaps be
outlined. A search for these carries the inquiry to the steppe lands.
The great band of open country which stretches with hardly a break across
the whole of Asia and far into Europe resembles the ocean both in its
vastness and in its character as an intermediate region through which
the travel of commerce, statesmanship, religion, learning, and curiosity
can pass between more thickly-settled lands. It differs from the ocean,
however, in being everywhere more or less habitable. The ethnic relations
of its families, tribes, and nations are by no means clear. China,
with a markedly Mongolian population, lay at the east and southeast;
Indo-Europeans of the Caucasian race dwelt at the southwest and west. The
tribes between seem from the earliest recorded times to have presented
every intermediate stage of physical type, as they do now; and in general
the shading from yellow to white appears to have proceeded regularly from
east to west, a circumstance that may have been due largely to climatic
influence, but was probably far more the result of admixture.[3] These
peoples were given to frequent warfare, one of whose objects was the
capture of men, women, and children as the most valuable booty. They
seem to have had no race aversions that would hinder inter-mixture,
and no race pride that would prevent captives, in the course of time,
from attaining full equality in any rank to which their abilities could
carry them. Accordingly, the process of admixture that can be observed in
historic times has probably been followed from the remote past.
The name Tatars may be used to designate all the inhabitants of the
steppe-ocean who were not distinctly Caucasian. By geographical
designation they are properly called the Ural-Altaic peoples, while
ethnically they constitute the Mongolo-Turki group.[4] Included perhaps
among those unclassified peoples who were known of old to the Greek
as Scythians, to the Persians as Turanians, and to the Chinese as
_Hiung-nu_, the Tatars, despite many differences, show unmistakable
kinship, usually in their physical features, always in their language
and institutions. They have been grouped since medieval times into two
great divisions, the Mongols and the Turks. This division may be said to
correspond in a very general way to their greater and lesser resemblance
to the Chinese, and to a narrower and wider geographical separation from
China. Many tribes possess such intermediate characteristics that they
cannot easily be classified as Turks or Mongols;[5] but a tribe that is
markedly like the Chinese is clearly Mongol, and a tribe that differs
widely from the Chinese is clearly Turkish. If these explanations be
adopted, the Turkish peoples are then in general those Tatars who have
had the greatest admixture of Caucasian blood. Their original seat seems
to have been in Mongolia, but in historic times they had come to occupy
the whole central part of the steppe region, from the Desert of Gobi to
the Volga, in contact with their Mongol kindred on the east and with
Iranians on the south and Slavs on the west. The theory of admixture
receives support from the fact that the peoples of the Mediterranean
civilization found Mongolians repulsive in appearance, but prized Turkish
slaves for their beauty.[6]
The name Turk does not appear prominently in the Byzantine and Chinese
annals before the fifth century A.D., when the people of a Tatar empire
were designated Τοῦρκοι and _Tu-kiu_.[7] The word _Turcae_ was used by
classical writers soon after the beginning of the Christian era.[8] The
name has been suspected of lying hidden in the _Targitaos_ of Herodotus
and the _Togharmah_ of Scriptures. However this may be, ancestral peoples
possessing the characteristics of the Turks of course existed, and
perhaps appeared in history, in very early times.
Some have suggested that the Sumero-Accadians of Babylonia were Turks,
but this question hardly bears on the present subject. The relations of
Turks and Persians on the Central Asian frontier is much more apropos.
The legends of the long wars of Iran and Turan, however little detailed
historical value they may have, illustrate the circumstances of continual
contact both in war and in peace.[9] Princes and nobles whose lives
were forfeit in their own country fled over the border; princesses were
exchanged in marriage; and unnumbered thousands of less exalted folk
passed the frontier as captives or slaves. The frontier itself was not
fixed, but left great regions now to the rule of the Persian and now
to the rule of the Turk. The Parthians may have been Turks.[10] After
their downfall the lines of Persian and Turk were drawn sharply by the
nationalist Sassanians. From the middle of the fifth century, indeed, the
Persians had their fill of wars with the Ephthalites, whose appellation
of White Huns may indicate their mixed Mongolian and Caucasian origin;
the Chinese annals specify the kinship of the _Tie-le_ with the _Tu-kiu_.
No sooner had the Arabs engulfed Persia than they began to welcome the
Turks whom they found to the north, and whose semi-nomadic culture was
singularly like their own. The Saracen Empire was administered for about
a century chiefly by Arabs, for another century chiefly by Persians,
and after that chiefly by Turks, who rose rapidly through slavery and
military service to the rule of provinces and even of kingdoms. Thus
great numbers of Turks came or were brought into many parts of Western
Asia. When Toghrul, grandson of Seljuk, led the first great Turkish
invasion into the heart of the Saracen Empire, he found his kindred
everywhere. Under the Seljuk Sultans large numbers of Turks streamed in
and were settled in Persia, Azerbaijan, Syria, and Asia Minor.
The Turkish occupation of Asia Minor has been called the most thorough
piece of work done by the race.[11] Few details of it have been recorded,
but one great fact stands out: under the Byzantine Empire, Asia Minor was
Greek, Christian, and the home of the empire’s most vigorous and loyal
citizens; under the Ottoman Empire, Asia Minor is Turkish, Mohammedan,
and the home of the empire’s most vigorous and faithful subjects.
The process of this transformation, so far as it is known, deserves
examination.
SELJUK AND OTTOMAN TURKS IN ASIA MINOR
The Seljuk Turks were orthodox, and often fanatical, Moslems; accordingly
they put great pressure upon the inhabitants of the peninsula to make
them exchange Christ for Mohammed. “Great numbers apostatized, ‘many
thousand children were marked by the knife of circumcision; and many
thousand captives were devoted to the service or the pleasures of their
masters.[12]’”
The Seljuk Turks were already a mixed race, and had no greater objection
than their ancestors to the reception of new members. They had come as a
Turkish army followed by a host of Turcoman nomads.[13] The soldiers took
wives from the women of the land and servants from the men and children,
and the nomads filled the gaps left among their women and children after
the long, hard journey. Those of the adult Anatolians who were left
free found a thousand temporal advantages in following the Prophet,
whose simple faith and consoling doctrines, moreover, suited both their
temperament and their circumstances. Christianity had sat lightly upon
many of them, and Mohammedanism seems to have been accepted as lightly;
for traces of Christian and perhaps of pre-Christian practices and
beliefs can be seen among the Moslems of Asia Minor today.[14] To turn
Moslem was then, as ever since, to turn Turk. In the course of three
centuries the process of settlement and conversion reached virtual
completion; nearly all the plateau of Asia Minor became Mohammedan and
Turkish. Nothing approaching the nature of statistics is available for
determining what the proportion was between invading Turks and converted
Christians. The probabilities, based on the known character of Turkish
invasions and the length and difficulty of the journey from the steppe
lands, point to a relatively small number of Turkish settlers.[15] Yet
this doubly-mixed people has contributed those subjects of the Ottoman
Empire who are accounted the most characteristically Turkish.
The invasion of Western Asia by the Mongols of Genghis Khan in the
early part of the thirteenth century drove an unknown number of
Persians and Turks to take refuge in Asia Minor. Among these is said
to have been a group led by a chief named Suleiman, whose grandson
Osman gave the Ottomans their name.[16] This group reached the Seljuk
kingdom of Rûm, and was allowed by good custom of the time to proceed
to the Christian frontier and conquer what it could. About the time of
settlement tradition specifies the number as four hundred families, or
444 horsemen, a figure which has clearly been shaped with reference to
the sacred number four, but which shows the belief that the group was
not large.[17] The growth of this band was far more rapid than could
have been accomplished by natural increase. A part of the additional
membership was supplied by Turks and other Moslems of adventurous spirit
who sought the fighting and booty of the border-land. But these were by
no means all. The Ottoman traditions and history reveal at countless
places the hospitable incorporating spirit of the embryonic nation,
which rapidly increased its numbers from the Christian population by
conversion, marriage, and capture, and most strikingly by the tribute
tax of Christian male children. The Ottoman conquests to the eastward
brought gradually into the brotherhood all the Seljuk Turks of Asia
Minor, and as many as were or became Mohammedan from the various
conquered peoples—Greeks of Trebizond, Armenians, Syrians, and others.
The conquests in Europe converted _en masse_ some sections of Bulgarians
and Albanians, who still show evidence of their origin; a very great
number of individuals among the subject Christians, however, were so
completely incorporated as to lose all trace of their source. Thousands
upon thousands of captives from the whole of Southeastern Europe, from
all of Southern Russia and Poland, from the Caucasus region, from Central
Europe as far as Regensburg and Friule, and from the shores and islands
of the Mediterranean were likewise incorporated; till, as a result of all
this Western admixture, the ruling nationality of the Ottoman Empire,
though called Turkish today, retains no physical trace whatever of
Mongolian ancestry.[18] Many of its members undoubtedly have no Tatar
blood in their veins; as for the rest, they are, if the above discussion
be well founded, a mixture of Europeans chiefly with Turks of Asia
Minor, who were themselves a mixture of the former Christian population
with Seljuk Turks, while these again were a mixture dating back through
countless ages of contact between the white and the yellow races. A
simple computation will illustrate the matter. Osman is said to have
captured a fair Greek lady named Nenuphar, or Nilufer, the Lotus-flower,
and to have given her as bride to his son Orchan, the first of the
Ottoman sultans.[19] From that time it became increasingly the policy of
the sultans to take their wives from the Caucasian race.[20] If Orchan
be set down as of pure Mongolian descent, and if it be supposed, as is
certainly very near the truth, that all the mothers of succeeding sultans
were not of Turkish blood, and if the mother be assumed to contribute to
the child an influence equal to the father’s, the proportion of Mongolian
blood in the veins of the reigning sultan, who is of the twentieth
generation from Orchan, can readily be calculated,—about one part in one
million.[21] Similar proportions would hold good for many of the Osmanli
Turks. Probably the nation as a whole has no more of Tatar blood than the
American nation has of Norman.
THE SOURCES OF OTTOMAN CULTURE
The question at once arises: What significance, then, has the name Turk
as applied to modern Turkey? To this query a general answer only can be
given here, as part of a rough statement in regard to the derivation of
the main elements of Ottoman culture.
Of the whole body of ideas and institutions and intangible inheritances
possessed by the Ottoman Turks in the sixteenth century, no small number
of the most fundamental ones were derived from the remote Tatar ancestors
of a part of the nation, from whom even this part was far separated
in time and space. Foremost among these inheritances is the Turkish
language, which in its principles of monosyllabic stem, inflexion by
postfixes alone, and assonance, and in its general system of grammar and
body of words of ordinary life, has survived from the early days through
all vicissitudes.[22] Old Turkish is the Anglo-Saxon of the Osmanli, as
Persian is his Greek and Arabic his Latin. Somewhat more hospitable than
those who use Western languages, the Turk has nearly always accepted with
a foreign thing its foreign name; and the great majority of the foreign
words and phrases so accepted he has not changed in any way, except to
modify the pronunciation of some sounds about which the tongue does not
readily curl. Among other Tatar bequests to the Osmanlis may be named
the hospitable assimilative tendency to which reference has already been
made; a predisposition to war and conquest, accompanied by an openness
of mind as to the best methods and means of prevailing; an ability and
inclination to govern, combined with great adaptability as to methods and
means; and some acquaintance with systematic and bureaucratic methods
of government impressed upon the nation by the Chinese. Again, the
Tatars, possessed of the tenacious conservatism of a primitive people,
predisposed the Ottomans to a close adherence to custom—to the doctrine
that, when a thing had been done once in a certain way, it should always
thereafter be done in the same way. Finally, the Tatars contributed
various elements of the national character, such as a touch of the old
love of nomad life, a certain stolidity of spirit and calm sobriety of
temper (taught, perhaps, by the vastness of the steppe in comparison with
the littleness of man), and a lack of originality which hindered the
construction of freely-borrowed ideas into new forms of higher relation.
In general, therefore, the foundations of the national character of the
Ottomans were laid in the early days, in a body of ideas which was passed
down continuously from man to man, not so much through blood-relationship
as through willing acceptance or enforced adoption.
The nature of a Tatar nation in the steppe lands, manifesting many of
the elements mentioned above, is extremely significant as foreshadowing
some features of the Ottoman government. A Tatar nation was a voluntary
association, independent of kinship, formed about a promising leader, and
interested in war and conquest; thus it might grow with extreme rapidity
until the geographical extent of its dominion would be marvellous. The
empire of the _Tu-kiu_, for example, gathered in about twenty-five years
after its foundation territories which reached from China proper to the
confines of the Byzantine Empire. The leader of such a nation maintained
his control by the right voluntarily given him to punish treason and
conspiracy by death;[23] when his controlling hand grew weak, the nation
went to pieces. “A Turkish tribe could maintain a political organization
and a compact grouping only by war; without benefits from pillage and
tributes, it would be obliged to dissolve and to disperse by clans, whose
fractions would group themselves anew, and form another nation about
the strongest man.... In regard to empires like those of the Huns, or
the Turks, military associations without ethnic bonds, one cannot say
that they dissolve; they disband. Reversing the custom of other peoples,
with the Turks it is the king who feeds his people, who clothes them,
who pays them.”[24] Add to this system a loyalty to a hereditary leader
which makes the bonds of union permanent, and the description would apply
fairly well to the growing Ottoman nation. A passage from the _Kudatku
Bilik_ applies yet more closely, since it shows a military government in
the midst of a subject population:[25]—
“In order to hold a land one needs troops and men;
In order to keep troops one must divide out property;
In order to have property one needs a rich people;
Only laws create the riches of a people:
If one of these be lacking all four are lacking;
Where all four are lacking, the dominion goes to pieces.”
The ancient Persian seems to have given the Ottoman at long range a
number of his ideas of government, such as the exaltation of the monarch,
the separation of officials of the court from those of the government
proper, the division of the ministry into five departments, the council
of state, the giving of large powers to local governors, and the
beginnings of the so-called “legal” system of taxation.[26] From him also
seems to have come the policy of allowing subjects who professed alien
religions to form separate organizations, which lived in a measure under
their own laws. One writer goes so far as to say: “All investigations
into the oldest state regulations of the Orient, into the origin of
monarchical forms and constitutions, into the ceremonial of courts and
the hierarchy of officials, lead back to the great kingdom of the ancient
Persians, from whom they have come down more or less modified, to the
Arabs, who sat as caliphs on the thrones of the three continents, to
the Seljuk Turks and the Byzantines, who at the same time grew up on
the ruins of the Saracen and Roman kingdoms in Asia and Europe, and
through both to the Ottomans who swallowed up the kingdoms of Iconium
and Byzantium.”[27] The Sassanian Persians handed down through the
Moslems the completed “legal” system of a land tax of two sorts based on
cadasters, and a capitation tax levied on those who practised a foreign
religion. They may also have contributed many features of the Ottoman
feudal system. During the Abbassid period the Persians and the Turks who
gradually displaced the Arabs in the civil and military administration of
the Saracen Empire were thrown into very close contact with each other.
It was only natural, therefore, that the Persians, who possessed the more
advanced culture, should influence the Turks in many directions. Their
chief direct gift lay in the domain of poetry and literature, a field in
which they added a vast number of words and ideas to the original Turkish
stock.
The Saracens gave the Ottomans a complete religious and social system,
united under a Sacred Law which professed to provide for all relations
of life, and which became more and more rigid as time went on. Into this
had been wrought slowly by generations of learned men most of the Persian
governmental ideas that have been mentioned, together with others from
Arabian and Byzantine sources, such as a species of laws of inheritance
and a system of juristic responses. The Saracens gave also their alphabet
and a large stock of Arabic words. All that the Moslems gave the Ottomans
was embodied in one great, complex institution, which was founded upon an
elaborate system of education and supported by the revenues from a large
part of the land of the empire, and which possessed great solidity and
an almost changeless permanence. In the Ottoman Empire, as in all other
Moslem lands, the influence of this completed institution was ultimately
very injurious; when added to the Tatar love of custom, it laid a heavy
hand on all movements toward improvement and progress. Its ultimate
attitude toward earthly affairs is well expressed in the following
couplet:—
“To build in this world palaces and castles, there is no need;
They will at last be ruins: to build cities, there is no need.”[28]
A development which took place among the Turks within the Saracen Empire
was of the profoundest significance to Ottoman history. From some date
in the early ninth century, Turkish youth were brought to Bagdad in
large numbers as purchased, but by no means unwilling, slaves. Having
been trained as soldiers, they became generals and local governors, and
after no great length of time the central government also passed into
their hands. The training of such young Turkish slaves in the palaces of
caliphs and governors clearly foreshadowed Ottoman methods. The account
that perhaps looks farthest back in relation to the Turks is found in the
_Siasset Namèh_, and refers to the time of the Samanid dynasty, which
ruled in East Persia from 874 to 999. It describes the external aspect of
the system of education, such as promotion and marks of honor, but leaves
the severe work which lay behind to be inferred:—
“This is the rule that was followed at the court of the Samanids:
“They advanced slaves gradually, taking account of their services, their
courage, and their merit. Thus a slave who had just been purchased served
for one year on foot. Clothed in a cotton tunic, he walked beside the
stirrup of his chief; they did not have him mount on horseback either in
public or in private, and he would be punished if it were learned that he
had done so. When his first year of service was ended, the head of the
chamber informed the chamberlain, and the latter gave the slave a Turkish
horse which had only a rope in its mouth, a bridle and a halter in one.
When he had served one year on horseback, whip in hand, he was given a
leathern girth to put about the horse. The fifth year they gave him a
better saddle, a bridle ornamented with stars, a tunic of cotton mixed
with silk, and a mace which he suspended by a ring from his saddle-bow.
In the sixth year he received a garment of a more splendid color; and in
the seventh year, they gave him a tent held up by a pole and fixed by
sixteen pegs: he had three slaves in his suite, and he was honored with
the title of head of a chamber; he wore on his head a hat of black felt
embroidered with silver and he was clothed with a silk robe. Every year
he was advanced in place and dignity; his retinue and his escort were
increased until the time when he reached the rank of chief of squadron
and finally that of chamberlain. Though his capacity and merit might be
generally recognized, though he had done some noteworthy deed and had
acquired universal esteem and the affection of his sovereign, he was
obliged nevertheless to wait until the age of thirty-five years before
obtaining the title of _emir_ and a government.”[29]
In this system of the training of slaves for war and government lay the
nucleus of the fundamental institution of the Ottoman state, which,
together with the institution based on the Sacred Law, was to sum up
practically the entire organized life of the Ottoman nation. Under
the Samanids it was Turkish boys who were thus educated by Arabs and
Persians, but the Ottomans were later to apply the same principle to the
education of Christian youth.
The Seljuk Turks brought most of the ideas that have been mentioned into
Asia Minor. They served chiefly as mediators between the older Turkish,
Persian, and Mohammedan systems and that of the Ottomans. Besides
adding some features out of their own experience, such as a method of
book-keeping, and handing on a taste for constructing public buildings
like caravanserais, khans, and mosques, they gave rise to several
important religious orders which were to have a place in Ottoman life.
What was left for the Byzantines to contribute to the Ottoman? He had
received already the main features of his national character,—language,
literary influences, law, and religion. One of his two leading
institutions was already almost fully developed in Moslem lands, and
required only transplantation. The other, however, the institution of war
and government, could still be modified considerably; and this was to
incorporate much from the Byzantines.[30] Many details of governmental
organization, both imperial and local, a supplementary system of
taxation, a greatly elaborated taste for court ceremonial and splendor,
a plan of organizing foreign residents under a special law, and a host
of lesser usages and customs were to be taken over by the Ottomans.
The Ottoman feudal system also probably owed its final form to the
Byzantines; and perhaps it was from them that the Ottomans learned their
abnormal love for fees and gifts. The matchless structure of Saint Sophia
served as a model for the superb mosques that lift the shapely masses of
their great gray domes, supported by clusters of semidomes and lesser
domes, above the cypress trees and gardens of the rounded hills which in
Constantine’s city slope down to the blue waters of the Sea of Marmora,
the Bosphorus, and the Golden Horn.
This sketch of the origin of the elements of Ottoman culture does not
profess to be in any sense complete. So great a subject is worthy of
separate and extended treatment. No more has been attempted here than
partly to prepare the way for an understanding of the strange system
of government which the Ottoman Turks developed, and to show that that
system was no new creation, but was made of elements which in their
origins reached far back into the past. Out of old and tried ideas was
built up a double structure which was individual, conservative, and
efficient, strong, durable, and useful.
CHAPTER I
THE CHARACTER OF THE OTTOMAN STATE IN GENERAL
DEFINITION
The Ottoman Turkish state of the sixteenth century was a despotism,
limited and supported by the Mohammedan Sacred Law; it governed a vast
territory, which had been gathered by the progressive conquest of
many separate lands, and which was consequently held in many diverse
relationships; it ruled a multitude of peoples, some of which were
favored as holding to the state religion, and others of which, though in
an inferior position, had yet the right by sacred compacts to practise
other religions and obey other laws.
This description reveals at once the complex and parti-colored character
of the Ottoman Empire at the period when its power and prestige were
greatest, when its armies were feared from the shore of the German
Ocean to the borders of India and its fleets from Gibraltar to Bombay,
and when its favor and goodwill were sought by powers great and small
in Asia, Africa, and Europe. For the state as for the individual, the
penalty of greatness is increase of responsibility and care. In any
conquering nation the growth of governmental institutions must keep pace
with increase of territory and population, or advance will be stifled
by confusion. The growth may, however, be too rapid to be intelligently
directed. Most great institutions, in fact, tend to develop a separate
life of their own which may become too vast and powerful for human
comprehension and control; for political, religious, economic, and social
forces proceed out of and act upon them in numerous and unexpected
ways. In the case of the Ottoman Empire the situation was rendered
more difficult by the presence in its territory of stable and vigorous
institutions centuries older than its own. These were profoundly hostile
to its inner spirit, far too powerful and individual to be destroyed or
absorbed by it, and therefore an eternal obstacle to unity. In addition,
the Ottoman institutions themselves grew more and more apart into two
unified groups, which were in striking contrast in many ways; dwelling
together, they acted upon each other continually; and unfortunately they
were so constituted that their reciprocal influence was to the injury of
both. A fuller explanation will make the complicated situation clearer.
THE LIMITATIONS ON DESPOTISM
It may seem a contradiction in terms to speak of a despotism as limited;
yet a little reflection will show that there never has existed and never
can exist a despotism that is not limited. In what land has the will of
one man been obeyed instantly, everywhere, and by all? In what land have
there not been stubborn traditions, ineradicable prejudices, and powerful
organizations, which have blocked the way of the despot as effectively
as lofty mountains and stormy channels? The great limitation upon the
power of the Ottoman sultan was the _Sheri_, or Sacred Law of Islam,
which claimed to be wholly above him and beyond his alteration.[31] He
might by act of violence transgress its provisions, but he had even
then done it no damage; it was still what it had always been. And he
knew well that his transgressions must not be too many, and must not at
all touch certain matters, else he would be declared to have forfeited
the throne.[32] The Sacred Law divided with him the allegiance of his
Mohammedan subjects; it demanded to be consulted before he removed the
head of a criminal,[33] or went to war with an enemy;[34] it took for
itself the revenues of a large share of his lands, and so controlled the
imposition of general taxation as seriously to embarrass his finances; it
even protected his Christian subjects from all efforts of his to bring
them forcibly under its sway;[35] it entered into his very spirit and
persuaded him to relinquish harmless pleasures,[36] while it supported
him in the execution of able and worthy brothers and sons.[37] The
_Sheri_ was a form of rigid constitution which by its own provisions
was incapable of amendment. It purported to regulate for all time the
matters included in its scope. Open to a small measure of modification
by juristic interpretation, it was probably on the whole as changeless
a system as has ever prevailed among men. The sovereign had no right to
modify it in the least respect.
Nor was the Sacred Law the only real limitation upon the sultan’s power.
Although he was not bound to observe the legislation of his ancestors or
maintain their institutions,[38] yet he could not lightly destroy what
he must at once replace. Some of their laws he might cease to observe,
some institutions he might neglect, improve, or reform; but the main
substance of their work was too useful and too well-established to be
undone. Suleiman bears the name of Legislator (_El Kanuni_); but in his
case it was even more true than in similar instances in other lands that
he did not so much ordain and create anew as rearrange and put in order,
reorganize and regulate.
Again, few other peoples in the world, perhaps, have been so much under
the power of custom as was the Ottoman nation.[39] That which had
been once done in a certain way must always be done in the same way,
or in what was believed to be the same way, unless a change had been
accomplished by the distinct intervention of fully recognized authority.
The inertia of the people was so marked that the sovereign power seldom
found it worth while, and then only when driven by necessity, to put
forth the great exertion required to make a change in the established
order.
Restricted thus by an unchangeable constitution, by the presence of
deep-rooted laws and institutions, and by the settled customs of a highly
conservative people, the power of the Ottoman sultan could be exerted
freely in certain directions only. What these were will appear as the
scheme of the government is unfolded.
THE TERRITORIAL BASIS
A fundamental characteristic of the modern state is considered to
lie in the fact that its power is territorial, that it exerts equal
authority over every part of a certain territory, and over every human
being and every material object upon, above, or under the surface of
that territory. Although an authority so evenly applied may be possible
theoretically, it is never in actual existence in any particular
state; for special laws and arrangements always modify the situation.
For example, lands and property devoted to religious or educational
uses, or owned by a foreign nation for its ambassador, are regularly
exempted from taxation. Or, again, the government of the United States
of America stands in different relations toward the soil of the District
of Columbia, the state of Massachusetts, the territory of Alaska, the
Philippine Islands, and the Panama Canal Zone.
By the laws of Islam the soil of a conquered land is granted by God as
the absolute possession of the _Imâm_, or divinely commissioned prince,
who commands the conquering army.[40] Apart from the question as to where
the sovereignty rests, this theory of ownership is substantially that of
the modern state. The fact that the soil of the Ottoman Empire came into
highly complex relationships with the government, therefore, arose not
so much from a different fundamental theory as from a greater number of
special arrangements based on circumstances and on the personality of
religion and law.
The Ottoman Empire consisted, first, of a great body of lands which
were directly administered according to a system that was exceedingly
intricate but approximately uniform; second, of a number of regions less
directly administered under special regulations; third, of numerous
tributary provinces; and fourth, of certain protected or vassal states.
Outside the whole, except where the frontiers were natural, lay a belt
of neutral or disputed territory, which tended to be depopulated by
continual raids from both sides, only less frequent and terrible in time
of peace than in time of war.[41] The great significance of this belt
to the Ottoman people and government was that it furnished a continuous
supply of captives for the enormous slave-trade of the empire. Outside of
the raided belt, again, lay the _Dar-ul harb_, or land of war, inhabited
either by peoples whose religions were regarded as inferior, or by
heretics, whom it was a duty to conquer, at least when practical.[42]
The order in which these several regions are mentioned, an order based
on progressive diminution of control, corresponds in general to an
increasing distance from Constantinople. While the Ottoman Empire was
growing, each sort of territory tended to absorb the next, proceeding
from the center outward.
These lands may be considered rapidly in the reverse order. The
territory in which raiding was frequent consisted of a strip extending
across Austria-Hungary from the head of the Adriatic in a northeasterly
direction, and another band stretching eastwardly across Southern
Poland and Russia in the edge of the forest region. The latter was
separated from Crimean Tartary by the steppe land, which the Tartars kept
uninhabited in order to afford a free passage to their light horse. The
Persian frontier also lay waste; but the country was too much broken for
easy raiding, and Mohammedans, even though heretical, could not lawfully
be enslaved.[43] Similar conditions existed on the Moroccan frontier,
except that the majority of the inhabitants of Morocco were orthodox
Moslems. Another section that may properly be regarded as one of the
raided regions from which slaves and booty were drawn was the Christian
shipping on the Mediterranean Sea, and the islands and shores of that
sea so far as they were held by Christians. Crimean Tartary, Georgia,
Mingrelia, and parts of Arabia were vassal territories, more or less
lightly attached and paying no regular tribute.[44] Venice’s island of
Cyprus, the Emperor Ferdinand’s possessions in Hungary, the territories
of Ragusa, Transylvania, Moldavia, and Wallachia, all paid regular
tribute with occasional presents, for the privilege of maintaining their
own administrations. Egypt was under a special government, adapted
with slight changes from that of the Mamelukes, headed by a pasha sent
out from Constantinople for a term of three years, and delivering a
large part of its annual revenue to the imperial treasury. The Holy
Cities of Mecca and Medina, far from paying tribute, received a large
annual subsidy at the cost of Egypt.[45] North Africa, conquered by
the Corsairs, was brought into the empire by Khaireddin Barbarossa
principally for the sake of prestige and support; but, though in its
organization it imitated the parent government, it was seldom in close
obedience.
The regions directly administered were divided into districts, or
_sanjaks_, each of which had a separate law or _kanun-nameh_, of
taxation, which rested upon terms made at the time of conquest.[46]
Parts of the mountain lands of Albania and Kurdistan, and the desert
of Arabia, though nominally under direct administration, were in very
slight obedience; they retained their ancient tribal organizations, under
hereditary chieftains who were invested with Ottoman titles in return
for military service, and whose followers might or might not submit to
taxation.[47] The remaining _sanjaks_, more closely under control, were
yet organized in no simple way.
Parcels of land in the great central portion of the Ottoman Empire were
in three classes,—the tithe lands (_ersi ’ushriyeh_), the tribute lands
(_ersi kharâjiyeh_), and the state lands (_ersi memleket_).[48] The tithe
lands had been granted to Mohammedans in fee-simple (_mulk_) at the time
of conquest, on condition of paying a relatively small portion (not more
than one-tenth) of the produce to the state. The tribute lands had been
granted or left to Christians in fee-simple at the time of conquest, on
payment of one of two taxes—either a fixed sum for the land itself or
a share of the produce—the latter ranging in amount from one-tenth to
one-half.[49] The state lands were such as had never been granted in
fee-simple, and hence their title remained in the sultan. He received
the revenue, however, from only a part of them; for a very large portion
had been given to mosques as endowment (_vakf_) for their maintenance
and the support of their attendants, or for the benefit of the schools,
hospitals, and other buildings attached to them; and another large
portion had been granted in fief to Mohammedans, who in return rendered
military service on horseback.[50] The comparatively small remainder of
the state lands was held as crown domain, administered in a special way
by the sultan as owner. The tenants of state lands held title only by
lease, or _tapu_, and paid both money and crop rent to the church, the
fief-holder, or the crown.[51] All the lands in Europe were regarded as
state land,[52] for the Ottomans gave out in fee-simple few lands that
were conquered from Christians. Asia Minor was also largely state land;
but Syria, Mesopotamia, and Egypt were held under older arrangements,
and were mainly tribute lands. Arabia and Bosra were almost wholly tithe
lands, as being the oldest Arabian possessions.[53] The fundamental
quality of all tribute land was unchangeable;[54] but original tithe
lands which had come into the hands of Christians were temporarily
regarded as tribute lands,[55] and lands in fee-simple (tithe and
tribute lands) might be devoted by their owners as religious endowments
(_vakf_).[56] Original small fiefs might be made into one large one; or
a number of persons might come to hold a fief without division of it,
provided they jointly furnished the required military service.[57] Many
endowments (_vakf_) were made by private individuals for various public
purposes; in time, through the attachment of pension provisions and by
other devices, a system was built up which had many of the features of
the employment of uses under English law.[58]
No small amount of land of every sort went out of cultivation, and after
a certain time had elapsed, if the owner was unknown, became state land.
If this or any other unoccupied land was brought again under the plow, it
might be granted to the new cultivator.[59]
This rapid survey is sufficient to reveal the tangled nature of the
Ottoman land system in both its farther and its nearer aspects, and to
show why the administration had to become markedly and increasingly
bureaucratic. Such a multiplication of relations acted powerfully toward
decentralization, since the regulation of countless details could be
attended to better from points near at hand; and the immense amount of
adjustment to which officials and clerks must devote their time afforded
infinite opportunities for corruption and extortion. Suleiman, in his
legislation, made a series of efforts to simplify and systematize the
situation, and with some success; but he could not remove the causes of
the complications, or arrange matters so that they would not eventually
become worse than before.
THE PEOPLES
The wide Ottoman territory held a great number of peoples, marked off by
differences of race, language, religion, and customs. The raided belt
was inhabited chiefly by Southern Slavs, Germans, Hungarians, Poles,
and Russians; and the Christian shores and islands of the Mediterranean
chiefly by Greeks, Italians, French, and Spaniards. Accordingly, slaves
from all these peoples were constantly forwarded to the center and
distributed widely—in the service of the sultan, in the households of
the great, and on the estates of country gentlemen. They were treated
without prejudice in accordance with their abilities, and in the end the
great majority were brought into the Moslem fold, many of them rising
to the highest positions. The inhabitants of the tributary states were
left in possession of most of their own institutions, but whether to
their advantage in the long run is a question open to debate.[60] They
were plundered directly by their own princes and indirectly by the
Turks, and they had almost no part in the work and life of the empire.
The Mingrelians and Georgians captured and even raised children for the
slave-trade of the empire proper and of Egypt.[61] The Egyptian fellahs
toiled, as they have done through all ages, to produce wealth for their
masters, who were now in two bodies—the Mamelukes, recruited as always
from slaves of many races, and the group of officials and Janissaries
who aided and sustained the Ottoman pasha. The Berbers of North Africa
furnished a sufficient task of government to their rulers, who consisted
of a body of officials and Janissaries recruited from captives and from
the Turks and other inhabitants of southwestern Asia Minor,[62] but
connected only at the top with the central government of the empire.
In the region which was under more or less direct administration,
Albanians, Servians, Croatians, Bulgarians, and Greeks—in general,
the Christian subjects in the Balkan Peninsula—furnished most of the
tribute children; but some were taken from the Christians of western and
northeastern Asia Minor and the Caucasus region.[63] Kurds and Arabs,
being Moslems, could not be enslaved, but they fought for the empire on
the eastern frontiers. Armenians and Jews were, by ancient privilege,
exempt from both blood tribute and military service.[64]
The principle of the personality of law and religion came most visibly
into play in the heart of the empire. Prevalent in the Orient from the
time of Assyria’s greatness to the present day, it is not easily to be
understood in a land that has wholly separated religion and law. Where
these two ideas are united, two men who hold different faiths must
perforce live under different laws.[65] Islam inherited the idea of the
personality of law through the Sassanian Persians, and endeavored to
apply it with simplicity by drawing a single line between Moslem citizens
(_Muslim_) and non-Moslem subjects (_Zimmi_).[66] The Ottomans adopted
the idea unreservedly and worked it out into a complicated system: each
considerable body of their non-Moslem subjects, Greek Orthodox, United
Greek, Armenian, and Jewish, they left, in time, not merely to its own
religion, but to its own law and the administration of its law in all
matters that did not concern Moslems.[67] Proceeding yet farther with
the same principle, they granted even greater privileges to foreigners
who wished to reside within the empire. Except for a tax upon the land
which they might occupy, for the necessity of paying customs duties, and
for responsibility to Ottoman courts of justice in civil cases in which
Ottoman subjects were concerned, such foreigners were almost wholly free
from Ottoman control, freer far to do as they pleased than they could be
in their native lands.
Regions existed where nearly all the inhabitants obeyed one law. In
Bulgaria and Greece few were not Greek Orthodox. In the interior of
Asia Minor few were not, at least legally, Mohammedan. But in the great
cities of the empire, and especially in the capital, there was an immense
variety of obedience. Not only did the various colonies of foreigners
and the various subject nationalities have their separate rights under
different systems, but individuals among them, such as ambassadors
and clergymen, had special privileges and immunities. Even among the
Mohammedans there were various distinctions. Several large classes were
privileged, and in different ways, including all the people of court and
church, of the army and the law, of government and education. The social
and legal structure was thus scarcely less complicated than that of
medieval Western Europe, with its interlocking of feudal and official and
royal privilege, of clergy and nobility, of free and chartered cities.
INSTITUTIONS OF GOVERNMENT
In the midst of so much territorial complexity and among so many peoples
which enjoyed different rights, what unifying institutions did the
Ottoman Empire possess? In the largest sense, the government included
every organization that could lay claim to any public character, and
all of these must be brought into view if there is to be a complete
understanding of the conditions. In the first place, however, it is
necessary to discover and comprehend the genuinely great and powerful
institutions. These were two, and not, as is essential to the modern
conception of the state, a single one. Each was, it is true, composed
of several parts, which may be regarded as distinct institutions in
themselves; and yet each had an inherent unity that must be firmly
grasped and held if the situation is to be understood.
If names must be assigned to these two great composite institutions, the
nearest approximation would perhaps be to call them State and Church.
But these words give no adequate idea of them, since each embraced
a little less and at the same time far more than is included in the
conception of the corresponding Western institutions. They will therefore
be described and discussed as the “Ottoman Ruling Institution,” and the
“Moslem Institution of the Ottoman Empire.” The character of each and
the distinction between them will become clear as they are explained in
detail. For the present, a brief statement of the composition of each and
of its function in the government of the empire will suffice.
The Ottoman Ruling Institution included the sultan and his family, the
officers of his household, the executive officers of the government,
the standing army composed of cavalry and infantry, and a large body of
young men who were being educated for service in the standing army, the
court, and the government. These men wielded the sword, the pen, and
the scepter. They conducted the whole of the government except the mere
rendering of justice in matters that were controlled by the Sacred Law,
and those limited functions that were left in the hands of subject and
foreign groups of non-Moslems. The most vital and characteristic features
of this institution were, first, that its personnel consisted, with few
exceptions, of men born of Christian parents or of the sons of such; and,
second, that almost every member of the Institution came into it as the
sultan’s slave, and remained the sultan’s slave throughout life no matter
to what height of wealth, power, and greatness he might attain.
The Moslem Institution of the Ottoman Empire included the educators,
priests, jurisconsults, and judges of the empire, and all who were
in training for such duties, besides certain allied groups, such as
dervishes or monks, and emirs or descendants of the Prophet Mohammed.
These men embodied and maintained the whole substance and structure
of Mohammedan learning, religion, and law in the empire. They took
part in the government by applying the Sacred Law as judges assisted
by jurisconsults, and in these capacities they paralleled the entire
structure of administration to the remotest corner of the empire.[68] In
fact, their system extended to regions where direct administration was
not exercised. In the Crimea, for example, the rendering of justice was
in their hands, while the other functions of government were performed by
a vassal state in light obedience. The situation in Arabia and in North
Africa was somewhat similar, though complicated by the presence of rival
systems of jurisprudence. In direct contrast to the Ruling Institution,
the personnel of the Moslem Institution consisted, with hardly an
exception, of men born of Moslem parents, and born and brought up free.
Both these institutions, while uniquely powerful and independent within
the empire, were paralleled by lesser institutions, but in different
ways. The Ruling Institution was followed closely by the governments of
Egypt and North Africa, and less closely by those of the tributary and
vassal states; but all these were strictly subordinate, and exercised
what authority they possessed only within definite territorial limits.
The Moslem Institution was followed closely by the Greek and Armenian
and Jewish national institutions, and to some extent by the organization
of the foreign colonies. Each of these various institutions rested on
a religious organization or theory, cared for the learning, religion,
and law of its people, and rendered justice in matters not covered by
the Ottoman administration; but all were wholly independent of the
Moslem Institution, and, since they were based on personality instead
of territory, they exercised jurisdictions which were territorially
co-extensive with its jurisdiction and often with the jurisdictions of
each other.
The two great institutions and the lesser parallel ones included
practically all the government of the empire when regarded in its widest
aspect. In the time of Suleiman the Ruling Institution was perhaps of
greater power and influence than the Moslem Institution, but the tendency
of the latter was to gain upon the former. Notable progress in that
direction was made during his reign, and indeed through his personality.
The policy of both toward the parallel lesser institutions was to prevent
them from gaining in power, and, so far as possible, to weaken them.
In the former aim this policy succeeded with all but two classes,—the
governments of North Africa, which were separated by a sea under their
own control, and the organizations of the foreign settlements, which were
supported by active and increasing powers outside of the empire. But the
two great institutions were restrained by circumstances and their own
inherent structure from extirpating the parallel institutions, and in
time they were to cease to weaken them. The greatest dangers to the whole
Ottoman system lay, however, in the rivalry of the two great institutions
and in a tendency of the Ruling Institution toward decentralization and
division into its component parts.
CONTEMPORARY DESCRIPTIONS OF THE TWO GREAT INSTITUTIONS
Few writers on the history and government of the Ottoman Empire since the
sixteenth century have grasped the individual unity, the parallelism,
and the contrast of its two leading institutions. D’Ohsson and Von
Hammer understood the Moslem Institution, but missed the conception of
the Ruling Institution, the unity of which had disappeared long before
their time. Ranke obtained from a few of the Italian writers a very vivid
conception of the Ruling Institution, particularly as a slave-family and
an army; but he did not see the Moslem Institution in its due proportion
and importance. Zinkeisen, making wider use of the Italians, came nearer
than any other to a clear understanding of the whole scheme; yet his
exposition does not leave a distinct impression. Bury, in his lucid
chapter in the _Cambridge Modern History_, describes well the _Spahis_
and the Janissaries, and notes that many tribute children rose to high
positions; but he does not grasp the unity of the Ruling Institution,
and he seems hardly at all to see the Moslem Institution. Jorga, the
latest to write a general history of Turkey, makes it his avowed purpose
to exhibit cultural and institutional growth; he comes near, but does
not attain, a distinct conception of the Ruling Institution; while
giving especial attention to the renegades who reached high position in
the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, he seems not to recognize how
definite, and how intelligently constructed and directed, were the policy
and organization which raised them to power.[69]
In order to show how clearly some of the Italian writers of the sixteenth
century understood the two institutions, though not under any particular
names, translations of certain quotations are subjoined. Since they will
serve also to justify the present writer’s point of view, no apology need
be made for their length.
Andrea Gritti, Venetian orator extraordinary to Bayezid II, in his report
to the Venetian senate on December 2, 1503, mentions the highest Turkish
officials as follows:—“For affairs of state and every other matter of
importance His Majesty is wont to take counsel with the pashas.... These
are ordinarily four in number, who reside in Constantinople; they are
born of Christian parents, seized from the provinces while small, and
educated in different places by men delegated for that purpose; raised
then to certain positions either through the affection which the Grand
Signor bears for them, or by some enterprises valorously carried through,
they quickly become very rich, selling, among matters of importance,
justice and favors; but when they find themselves at the summit of
felicity they live in great danger.”[70]
Antonio Barbarigo, Venetian _Bailo_ at Constantinople from 1555 to 1560,
speaks further of the high officials: “Nor does there exist in this so
great empire either superiority or illustriousness of blood, so that any
one can glory in his descent, but all are in an equal condition, and
they themselves wish to be named and called slaves of the Grand Signor,
and their greatest pride is when they say that they are slaves of the
Signor; and all his chief men and governors are slaves, and Christian
renegades, and sons of Christians brought up from an early age in the
seraglio, and then in time, according to their worth, exalted and
rewarded and made great by His Majesty.”[71]
Marcantonio Barbaro, _Bailo_ of Venice at Constantinople from 1568 to
1573, seems to have been the first to discern clearly the contrast of the
two institutions.
“It is a fact truly worthy of much consideration, that the riches, the
forces, the government, and in short the whole state of the Ottoman
Empire is founded upon and placed in the hands of persons all born
in the faith of Christ; who by different methods are made slaves and
transferred into the Mohammedan sect. Then whoever will carefully direct
his attention to this principal consideration, will come more easily to
an understanding of the government and nature of the Turks....
“Other sorts of persons are not ordinarily admitted to the honors
and the pay of the Grand Signor, except the above-mentioned, all
Christian-born....
“The emperor of the Turks has ordinarily no other ordinances and no
other laws which regulate justice, the state, and religion, than the
Koran; so that, as the arms and the forces are wholly reposed in the
hands of persons all born Christians, so, as I have already said, the
administration of the laws is all solely in the hands of those who are
born Turks, who bring up their sons in the service of the mosques, where
they learn the Koran, until being come of age they are made _kazis_ of
the land, who are like our _podestas_, and administer justice, although
the execution remains in the hands of those who wield arms....
“I have taken much space to demonstrate to your most excellent Signory
how the government of this empire is wholly reposed in the hands
of slaves born Christians, this appearing to me a matter for much
consideration....”[72]
Gianfrancesco Morosini, Venetian _Bailo_ at Constantinople from 1582 to
1585, later made a cardinal of the Roman church, yields to none in the
fulness and depth of his observation of the Turks. He too distinguishes
clearly the great institutions:—
“There are two sorts of Turks: one of these is composed of natives born
of Turkish fathers, and the other of renegades, who are sons of Christian
fathers, taken violently in the depredations which his fleets and sailors
are accustomed to make on Christian territories, or levied in his own
territory by force of hand from the subjects and non-Moslem tax-payers
(_carzeri_) of the Signor, who while boys are by allurement or by force
circumcised and made Turks.... Not only does the greater part of the
soldiery of the Turks consist of these renegades, but in yet greater
proportion all the principal offices of the Porte are wont to be given
to them, from the grand vizier to the lowest chief of this soldiery, it
being established by ancient custom that the sons of Turks cannot have
these positions....
“To the native Turks are reserved then the governing of the mosques, the
judging of civil and criminal cases, and the office of the chancery: from
these are taken the _kazis_ and the _kaziaskers_, the teachers (_hojas_),
and their _Mufti_, who is the head of their false religion; and the
_kazis_ are like podestas, and render justice to every one, and the
_kaziaskers_ are like judges of appeal from these _kazis_....”
“The renegades are all slaves and take great pride in being able to
say, ‘I am a slave of the Grand Signor’; since they know that this is a
lordship or a republic of slaves, where it is theirs to command.”[73]
Lorenzo Bernardo was _Bailo_ of Venice in Constantinople from 1584 to
1587. After a second period of service in 1591 and 1592 he presented the
longest extant report to the Venetian senate on the Ottoman Empire. After
describing the principal officers of the Ottoman government at the time
he says in his involved style:—
“These are they, in whom is reposed not only the whole government of the
state, but also the command of all the arms of this so great an empire;
and yet these are neither dukes, nor marquises, nor counts, but all by
origin are shepherds, and persons base and vile; wherefore it would be
well if this most serene republic, imitating in this direction the Grand
Signor, he who from this sort of persons, his slaves, creates and makes
the best captains, _sanjaks_ and _beylerbeys_, giving them in this way
credit and reputation....
“Just as the whole government of the affairs of the state and the command
of its arms is reposed in the hands or the control of slaves by origin
Christian, and then made Turks by various accidents; so the government
of the affairs which look toward justice, and all the charge of affairs
of religion are located in the hands of native Turks, sons of Turks, who
having been educated in the universities instituted by the Grand Signor
and the present ministers, and made learned in their laws, which consist,
both civil and criminal, in no other teaching than that of the sole book,
the Koran, become _imâms_, or priests, who govern mosques; _kazis_, or
podestas; _hojas_, or preceptors of great men; and finally _kaziaskers_,
or judges of supreme appeal, of whom there are only two, the one in Asia
and the other in Europe; and the head of all these and supreme in their
religion is the _mufti_, like the pope among us, who is chosen by the
Grand Signor.”[74]
Lastly, Matteo Zane shall speak, Venetian _Bailo_ in Constantinople
from 1591 to 1597. In the imperfect record of his vigorous report,
the illustrious diplomatist says: “The Turks are partly natives and
partly renegades; the natives, who live for the most part in Asia, are
in comparison with the renegades less depraved and less tyrannous,
because they still have in them some religion, which the others have
not,—the most arrogant and scoundrelly men that can be imagined, having
seemingly with the true faith lost all humanity. This alienation from
religion is fitting in desperate characters, who are induced to it by
licentious freedom of life, and by seeing placed in their hands the arms,
the government, the riches, and in short the whole empire, excluding
the native Turks, who are admitted only to the careers of justice, as
that of _kazi_ and the like, and to those of religion, such as _mufti_,
_hoja_, and _imâm_, as is very well known.”[75]
The impending break-down of the system near the close of the sixteenth
century is also set forth clearly by Zane: “The government of the Turkish
Empire is suffering within itself so many and such great alterations,
that one may very reasonably hope, divine aid mediating, for some notable
revolution within a short time, because the native Turks continue to
sustain the greatest dissatisfaction, from seeing all the confidence
of the government reposed in the renegades, who, at a tender age for
the most part, are taken into the seraglio of the king or of private
citizens, and made Turks. To the renegades is committed not merely the
care of arms, but the entire command and the execution of the acts
of justice of the _kazis_ (although they do not allow appeals), and
the superintendence of religion; whence one may say that they rule
everything and that the native Turks are their subjects as are servants
to their masters; which was not true in other times to such excess as at
present.”[76]
To these testimonies from Italian writers may be added a paragraph
written about 1603 by the great English historian of Turkey, Richard
Knolles. Knolles shows no acquaintance with the Moslem Institution, but
his recognition of the Ruling Institution is good:—
“The _Othoman_ Government in this his so great an Empire, is altogether
like the Government of the Master over his Slave, and indeed meer
tyrannical; for the Great Sultan is so absolute a Lord of all things
within the compass of his Empire, that all his Subjects and People, be
they never so great, do call themselves his Slaves and not his Subjects;
neither hath any man power over himself, much less is he Lord of the
House wherein he dwelleth, or of the Land which he tilleth, except some
few Families in _Constantinople_, to whom some few such things were by
way of reward, and upon especial favour given by _Mahomet_ the Second, at
such time as he won the same. Neither is any man in that Empire so great,
or yet so far in favour with the Great Sultan, as that he can assure
himself of his Life, much less of his present Fortune or State, longer
than it pleaseth the Sultan. In which so absolute a Sovereignty (by any
free born People not to be endured) the Tyrant preserveth himself by
two most especial means; first, by taking off all Arms from his natural
Subjects; and then by putting the same and all things else concerning the
State and Government thereof into the Hands of the Apostata, or Renegade
Christians, whom for the most part every third, fourth, or fifth Year
(or oftner, if his need so require) he taketh in their Child-hood, from
their miserable Parents, as his Tenths or Tribute Children; whereby he
gaineth two great Commodities: First, For that in so doing he spoileth
the Provinces he most feareth, of the flower, sinews, and strength of
the People, choice being still made of the strongest Youths, and fittest
for War; then, for that with these, as with his own Creatures, he armeth
himself, and by them assureth his State; for they, in their Child-hood,
taken from their Parents Laps, and delivered in Charge to one or other
appointed for that purpose, quickly, and before they are aware, become
Mahometans; and so no more acknowledging Father or Mother, depend wholly
on the Great Sultan; who, to make use of them, both feeds them and
fosters them, at whose hands onely they look for all things, and whom
alone they thank for all. Of which Fry, so taken from their Christian
Parents (the only Seminary of his Wars) some become Horse-men, some
Foot-men, and so in time the greatest Commanders of his State and Empire,
next unto himself; the natural Turks, in the mean time, giving themselves
wholly unto the Trade of Merchandise, and other their Mechanical
Occupations; or else to the feeding of Cattel, their most ancient and
natural Vocation, not intermedling at all with matters of Government or
State.”[77]
CHAPTER II
THE OTTOMAN RULING INSTITUTION: AS A SLAVE-FAMILY
I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Perhaps no more daring experiment has been tried on a large scale
upon the face of the earth than that embodied in the Ottoman Ruling
Institution. Its nearest ideal analogue is found in the Republic of
Plato, its nearest actual parallel in the Mameluke system of Egypt;
but it was not restrained within the aristocratic Hellenic limitations
of the first, and it subdued and outlived the second. In the United
States of America men have risen from the rude work of the backwoods
to the presidential chair, but they have done so by their own effort
and not through the gradations of a system carefully organized to push
them forward. The Roman Catholic church can still train a peasant to
become a pope, but it has never begun by choosing its candidates almost
exclusively from families which profess a hostile religion. The Ottoman
system deliberately took slaves and made them ministers of state; it took
boys from the sheep-run and the plow-tail and made them courtiers and
the husbands of princesses; it took young men whose ancestors had borne
the Christian name for centuries, and made them rulers in the greatest
of Mohammedan states, and soldiers and generals in invincible armies
whose chief joy was to beat down the Cross and elevate the Crescent. It
never asked its novices, “Who was your father?” or “What do you know?” or
even “Can you speak our tongue?”; but it studied their faces and their
frames and said, “_You_ shall be a soldier, and if you show yourself
worthy, a general,” or, “_You_ shall be a scholar and a gentleman, and
if the ability lies in you, a governor and a prime minister.” Grandly
disregarding that fabric of fundamental customs which is called “human
nature,” and those religious and social prejudices which are thought
to be almost as deep as life itself, the Ottoman system took children
forever from parents, discouraged family cares among its members through
their most active years, allowed them no certain hold on property, gave
them no definite promise that their sons and daughters would profit by
their success and sacrifice, raised and lowered them with no regard for
ancestry or previous distinction, taught them a strange law, ethics, and
religion, and ever kept them conscious of a sword raised above their
heads which might put an end at any moment to a brilliant career along a
matchless path of human glory.
The members of this system were, in a general way, as long as they lived,
at once slaves, proselytes, students, soldiers, nobles, courtiers, and
officers of government. To be understood fully, the institution should
be considered from each of these points of view. The aspects which were
of central and controlling importance, however, were those of war and
government; the others were preparatory or accessory. Furthermore, the
sultan was the head and center of the institution in every one of its
aspects. He gave it its unity, its vigor, and its propelling force.
Although his despotic power was limited in many directions, it knew no
limits with regard to the members and the mechanism of this institution.
The person, the fortune, the property, and the life of every member lay
in his hand.[78]
The absolute character of the sultan’s authority was an element of great
strength to the institution, but it contained also the possibility of a
great danger. To manage the system well required an almost superhuman
intelligence. The sultan held the position of Deity toward his slaves,
and he needed the omniscience and benevolence of Deity to exercise his
power wisely and justly. Unfortunately, his position, which controlled
the whole scheme, was the only one that was filled by the uncertain lot
of heredity. While strong men came to the throne, the system worked out
marvellous results. When weak men were to come, as happened immediately
after Suleiman, the system was to begin to fall apart into dangerous
fragments. Yet its vitality was so strong that it lived on through
nearly three centuries of alternate decline and rehabilitation, and its
spirit may almost be said to abide still.
The Ruling Institution contained certain component parts, which were
capable of separate existence, and some of which at times tended
to escape complete control. Among these the best-known, though not
intrinsically the most important, was the body of permanent infantry
known as the Janissaries. They represented the brute force of the system
and its most dangerous element. Another component institution was the
permanent cavalry, the _Spahis_ of the Porte.[79] These were more
numerous than the Janissaries, but being better educated and encouraged
by the presence of greater opportunities, they were not so dangerous. A
third important sub-institution was the hierarchy of governing officials.
Although these had great power, they could be dealt with individually;
and the sword was never far from their necks. Subordinate bodies of a
secondary influence were the _Ajem-oghlans_, or apprentice Janissaries,
and the colleges of pages, which trained many of the _Spahis_ of the
Porte and most of the officers of government. Each of these component
parts will be dealt with in its proper place. Theoretically, and except
at certain junctures practically, they were strictly subordinated to
the main institution and yet fully incorporated with it. The Ruling
Institution as a whole will be considered as a slave-family, a missionary
institution, an educational system, an army, a court, a nobility, and a
government.
II. THE SLAVE-FAMILY
Every one who belonged to the Ruling Institution in any capacity from
gardener to grand vizier, save only the members of the royal family, bore
the title of _kul_, or slave, of the sultan.[80] Nor was this title a
mere form: with few exceptions, all members entered the system as actual
slaves, and there was nowhere along the line of promotion any formal or
real process of emancipation. The power of the sultan over the lives,
persons, and property of the members of the institution, and his right
to their absolute obedience, bear every mark of having been derived from
the idea of slavery. The very word despot means by derivation the master
of slaves, and it was only over his _kullar_ that the sultan’s power was
despotic in the fullest sense.[81]
Entrance to the system came by the door of slavery, which was open
regularly only to Christian boys from ten to twenty years of age. It
is an error, found in some writers even lately, to name eight years as
the usual age.[82] The correct limits are given approximately by many
contemporary writers.[83] It is probable that the preferred ages were
between fourteen and eighteen, and that only in exceptional cases were
boys taken before the age of twelve or after the age of twenty.
METHODS OF RECRUITING
Four methods were employed for obtaining recruits for the system,—by
capture, purchase, gift, and tribute. Of these only the last is commonly
considered;[84] but it was originally, and probably always, merely
supplementary to the others.[85] The four methods ultimately rested on
two. Slaves who were bought for the sultan or given to him had nearly
all been either taken as captives or levied illegally with the tribute
boys; there was hardly any other way, since slaves passed too rapidly
into the Moslem fold to have their children available for the system. As
to the comparative numbers obtained by the different methods there are
few data for calculation. Probably about three thousand tribute boys was
the annual average in the sixteenth century,[86] but there is no reason
to think that this was a majority in the number of annual recruits. The
whole number in the system may be estimated at about eighty thousand.[87]
Since the losses by war were sometimes tremendous, it is probable that
the average annual renewal required was as much as one-tenth, or between
seven and eight thousand. On this basis the tribute boys furnished
somewhat less than one-half of the whole number. These calculations are,
of course, more or less arbitrary.
It is true that children of _Spahis_ of the Porte might be admitted
to the college of pages at the pleasure of the sultan, but their
grandchildren and the children of all other Moslems were excluded by
rigid rules.[88] These rules began to be invaded about the close of
Suleiman’s reign by the admission of the sons of Janissaries,[89] an
innovation that was of ultimately fatal import to the system. A certain
number of adults were also received and some of these were sons of
Moslems; exceptional individuals from among the irregular troops were
admitted to the _Spahis_ of the Porte by way of reward,[90] and that body
contained a Foreign Legion of about two thousand, composed of renegade
Christians, Arabs, Nubians, and the like.[91] Occasionally, also, some
high official of Suleiman’s government had been born a Moslem.[92] But
the total effect of all these exceptions was so slight as to cause them
to be disregarded by more than one contemporary observer.[93]
The original homes of the captives have been described.[94] By the
Sacred Law the sultan was entitled to one-fifth of all captives taken in
war;[95] and he chose as his share, through agents, such young men as
seemed suitable for a place in his system.[96] Since by special Ottoman
regulation the sultan’s fifth belonged to the church, he was accustomed
to pay twenty-five aspers to the church for each slave that he took.[97]
His officers also purchased in the public slave-market of the capital
such youths as were available.[98] These came from the captives that the
Tartars of the Crimea took in great numbers, from the quasi-slave-farms
of the Caucasus,[99] from the irregular raids in Austria, and from the
corsair expeditions. The sultan received a large number of boys as gifts,
since it was well known that no presents were more acceptable.[100] Those
who desired his favor kept a lookout for such as would please him.
THE TRIBUTE BOYS
Although the levying of tribute boys in the Christian provinces of the
empire seems not to have produced the majority of neophytes for the
system, the practice has always received a share of attention far beyond
its numerical importance. Several reasons for this suggest themselves.
In the first place, it rested on a unique and almost unparalleled idea;
then, it involved an extraordinary disregard of human affection and of
the generally acknowledged right of parents to bring up their children
in their own law and religion;[101] and, finally, it produced the ablest
and highest officials of the system.[102] In the latter respect its youth
seem to have borne some such relation to those obtained by capture as the
cultivated fruits of the garden do to those gathered in the woods.
The levying was accomplished by a regular process, the _devshurmeh_.
Normally every four years, but oftener in case of need,[103] a body
of officials more skilled in judging boys than trained horse-dealers
are in judging colts were sent out by the government to the regions
from which tribute was taken.[104] The whole of the Balkan Peninsula,
Hungary, the western coast of Asia Minor, and the southern and eastern
shores of the Black Sea were included in the territory visited; but the
strongest and ablest youths came from the mountain regions inhabited by
Albanians and the Southern Slavic peoples.[105] The recruiting officers
were commissioned each to bring in a certain number, which had been
apportioned to them out of a total determined at the capital.[106] There
was no principle of tithing, and no fixed proportion or number of boys
was levied from each village or family;[107] the quota desired from
each district was obtained for the government by selection of the most
available youths. The recruiting officers sometimes collected a larger
number than was asked for, and sold the surplus on their own account to
high officials or wealthy private citizens.[108] A regular procedure was
followed. The officers obtained from the Christian priest of the village
a list of the boys whom he had baptized, and who were between the ages
of twelve and twenty years or thereabouts.[109] All these were brought
before the officers, who selected the best.[110] Parents who had strong
and well-favored sons might lose them all, while those who had weaklings
would lose none.[111] On leaving each village, the officer took with him
the boys whom he had selected; and, when his quota had been gathered, he
took them to the capital.[112]
ESTIMATE OF THE SYSTEM
This levying of boys as tribute has always elicited a great amount
of moral indignation, as representing an extreme of oppression,
heartlessness, and cruelty. The religious factor has increased the odium
of the custom. Certainly no argument can be found which will justify it
to those who believe in the liberty of the individual, the absolute right
of parents over minor children, and a complete withdrawal of human beings
from the category of property,—principles which seem in the sixteenth
century to have had no place in Ottoman philosophy or jurisprudence, at
least as regards Christian subjects. It may be said at once that the
custom cannot be brought into harmony with Western ideas. So much being
granted, how did the system bear upon the parents who were despoiled and
the boys who were taken?
In the midst of the conflicting testimony of reputable witnesses, it is
evident that the parents of tribute boys did not all feel alike. The
grief at parting was often a heart-breaking thing to witness;[113] the
mother whose son was taken by force to an unknown life among enemies of
all that she had been taught to hold dear would hardly have suffered more
at the death of her son. At the same time, she might hope to see him one
day in the possession of great wealth and power. It is not to be supposed
that youth taken at from twelve to twenty years of age would ever forget
their parents; and, if they lived and prospered, they would sometimes
seek them out, as did Ibrahim, even though they might not try his
unfortunate experiment of bringing them up to the capital.[114] Fathers
would appreciate the opportunities which arose before their sons much
more than would the mothers. Both would be more or less reluctant to let
them go, according as their Christian religious convictions were deep or
shallow. Parents who wished to keep their sons would sometimes marry them
in tender years, since married boys were ineligible; those who had means
bought exemption for their sons from the recruiting officers, who thus
reaped great rewards.[115] On the contrary, many parents were glad to
have their sons chosen, knowing that they would thus escape from grinding
poverty,[116] receive a first-rate training suited to their abilities,
and enter upon the possibility of a great career. Some parents, in fact,
came to regard the process as a privilege rather than a burden;[117]
and they had reason to do so, since Turkish parents envied them the
opportunity, and sometimes tried to evade the regulations by paying
Christians to take their Moslem sons, and declare them as Christian
children, so that they might be enrolled as the sultan’s slaves.[118]
Apart, then, from political theory and religious prepossession, the
levying of tribute children was by no means a mere evil to the parents.
The situation of the boys themselves, considered under the same
reservations, was almost wholly favorable. They were taken at an age when
they would not feel the parting as they might have felt it in earlier
or later years, when their attachment to things and places would be at
its weakest, and before their religious convictions were likely to have
become fixed. They were taken from the narrow mountain valleys and the
labor-hungry plains. They were taken at the age when the bounding pulse
and the increasing strength of youth suggests great hope and promises
great achievement. They were taken to opportunities as great as their
utmost abilities, greater often than they could possibly imagine. They
might still have to labor for a time, but a distinct career lay ahead.
The best military education in the world would certainly be theirs.
If their abilities lay in that direction they could have a finished
and thorough, though specialized, education of the mind. They could
look forward to travel, wealth, power, and all else that human ambition
desires. In that land and that age of the world, the question of the
religious and social systems being laid aside, an unprejudiced observer
could hardly imagine a more brilliant opportunity than that which lay
before the tribute boys.
THE SLAVE STATUS
Whether captured, purchased, presented, or levied, the young men who
entered the system were the slaves of the sultan, the personal property
of a despot. They were his slaves for life, and, though they felt honored
by the title,[119] they were never allowed to forget the responsibilities
of their condition. They must to the end of their days go where the
sultan chose to send them, obey his slightest wish, submit to disgrace as
readily as to promotion,[120] and, though in the highest office of state,
they must accept death by his order from the hands of their humblest
fellow-slaves.[121] If one of them was executed, all his property went
to his master. The time had not yet come when heads would be removed for
the sake of the owner’s possessions; yet Suleiman profited greatly by the
death of several of his slaves, in particular from the estates of the
_Defterdar_ Iskender Chelebi and the grand vizier Ibrahim.[122] When one
of the sultan’s slaves died leaving sons or daughters, the master sealed
up his property, and took the tenth part for himself before distributing
the rest to the children;[123] the nine-tenths was, indeed, given to the
children rather by the favor of a bountiful and wealthy master than as a
right. If the slave had no sons or daughters, the sultan took his whole
estate;[124] and a day was to come when his empty treasury would demand
the whole estate under all circumstances.[125] Thus in all essential
respects the eighty thousand _kullar_ of the sultan constituted one great
slave-family.
THE HAREM, THE EUNUCHS, AND THE ROYAL FAMILY
Two or three less numerous but highly important groups may properly be
discussed in the present connection. The imperial harem and the imperial
family itself were virtually parts of the same slave system.[126] The
harem of Suleiman was not the large and costly institution that was
maintained by some of his successors; like his father Selim,[127] he was
not given to sensuality, but is said to have been faithful to Khurrem
from the time that he made her his wife.[128] The character of an
Oriental royal harem has often been set forth incorrectly. While it may
contain hundreds or even thousands of women, a very few of these are the
actual consorts of the monarch. A large number are the personal servants
and entertainers of himself, his mother, his consorts, his daughters, and
his infant sons. Another section consists of those who are being educated
for the same personal service. A fourth group, probably the great
majority, are mere house-servants, who attend to all the domestic labors
of the harem and are seldom promoted to more honorable positions. There
is, finally, a group of older women who preserve order and peace, teach,
keep accounts, and manage the establishment generally.[129]
Suleiman’s harem contained about three hundred women, who were kept in a
separate palace well fortified and guarded.[130] His harem fully deserves
to be reckoned as part of the great slave-family, since all its inmates
except his children were purchased or presented slaves.[131] These
women, brought for the most part from the region of the Caucasus,[132]
and including in their number some of the fairest female captives of
many lands, were nearly all daughters of Christians. Khurrem herself
was a Russian, while the rival of her youth seems to have been a
Circassian.[133] In another respect the harem deserves to be reckoned
with the Ruling Institution, in that its inmates, upon attaining the age
of twenty-five, were, if they had not attracted the sultan’s special
attention, as a rule given in marriage to distinguished _Spahis_ of the
Porte.[134]
A comparatively small group, not hitherto mentioned, of the attendants at
the sultan’s palace and harem belong within the slave-family. Although
the Sacred Law strongly disapproved of the employment of eunuchs, that
unfortunate class was thought too useful to be dispensed with entirely.
Some were white, brought mainly from the Caucasus region; but the great
majority were negroes brought from Africa. Tribute children seem rarely
to have been made eunuchs.[135] The class deserves mention because
several of the important offices of state among the “men of the pen” were
held by eunuchs, and now and then one rose to high place in the army or
the administration.[136]
The royal family also may rightly be included in the slave-family. The
mothers of the sultan’s children were slaves; the sultan himself was the
son of a slave; and his daughters were married to men, who, though they
might be called vizier and pasha, wore these titles at the sultan’s
pleasure, whereas they bore indelibly the title of _kul_, or slave.[137]
The sultan’s sons, though they might sit upon the throne, would be the
consorts of none but slaves. Long before Suleiman’s time, the sultans
had practically ceased either to obtain brides of royal rank, or to give
the title of wife to the mothers of their children.[138] Suleiman, given
to legality and religious observance, and greatly devoted to the lovely
Roxelana, made her his lawful wife. Since, by the Sacred Law, the status
of the mother as wife or slave does not affect the legitimacy of the
children if the father acknowledges them,[139] all children born in the
harem were of equal legitimacy and rank.
OTHER OTTOMAN SLAVE-FAMILIES
The ruling institution of any state is apt to be copied in miniature by
many organizations within the same state. The municipalities of Rome, and
the state and city governments of the United States, were each modeled
after the central government. In a similar way, every great officer
of the Ottoman court built up a slave-family after the model of the
Ruling Institution. The grand vizier had a very large establishment;
the viziers had somewhat smaller ones; the governors of provinces had
households in proportion to their incomes;[140] and each adult prince
kept a miniature government. Not only the slave-family feature but all
the other features of the Ruling Institution were imitated. All deemed it
meritorious to purchase Christians and turn them into Moslems. Iskender
Chelebi had a highly successful educational system;[141] he also kept a
little standing army, and at a later time so did Rustem.[142] Each great
officer protected his slaves, each kept them about him like a court, each
used them as a little government to rule his affairs. Such imitation
might easily become a danger to the state, but ordinarily a prompt
remedy could be applied. Every such household was strictly personal;
it was gathered about a living man; that man was ordinarily himself a
slave of the sultan: let him show the least movement toward treason, and
his head would be removed, his property would come to his master, his
household would be incorporated with the central slave-family, all danger
would be at an end, and the sultan would only be the stronger. Further
safeguards lay in the close relations of the head of each slave-family
to the sultan, and in the fact that some _Spahis_ of the Porte and other
imperial _kullar_ of inferior position seem usually to have been attached
to the suite of each great official.[143] Moslem private citizens also
kept slave-families as numerous as they could afford,[144] but these
could hardly become dangerous under any circumstances. They might emulate
the missionary and educational character of the greater households, but
they would not dare attempt any imitation of the military features.
Further, the whole Ottoman system so discouraged great accumulations of
wealth that private citizens could never hope to compete with the power
of officials and of the sultan.
CHARACTER OF OTTOMAN SLAVERY
Ottoman slavery was a very different institution from that which
Anglo-Saxons have practised. In it there could ordinarily be no
color-line, and therefore no ineffaceable distinction. Where difference
in color existed it counted for nothing, by old Islamic customs. Nor
did the fact of slavery impart any indelible taint. Islam knew slave
and free;[145] in the Ottoman Empire, at least, it knew no intermediate
class of freedmen.[146] The sultan seems never to have emancipated
his slaves, probably because of a lingering Oriental theory, foreign
to Mohammedanism,[147] that all his subjects were his slaves. Private
citizens had the power of emancipation,[148] and they often exercised
it as a meritorious act. The slave who was set free was immediately
in possession of full rights.[149] Slavery had therefore no inherent
quality. It was merely an accidental misfortune from which complete
recovery was possible. The idea of Aristotle, that some men are born to
be slaves, was wholly absent.
Where no permanent wall of separation exists, natural human affection
can have free play. The Moslem religion teaches kindness and benevolence
to all but armed enemies of the faith.[150] Moslem masters, in constant
personal association with persons whose condition led them to strive to
please, were apt to become very friendly toward them. Such friendliness
often led to warm affection and the bestowal of benefits. Emancipation
was one of these; and, further, not only the sultan but many of his
subjects did not hesitate to give their daughters in marriage to worthy
slaves.[151] A slave was often beloved above a son;[152] it was felt
that, while a son possessed a character which was more or less a matter
of chance, a slave had been selected. Thus it is clear why the sultan’s
slaves were sometimes called his children,[153] and why the title of
_kul_ was prized.[154] Suleiman was a stern, and sometimes a cruel parent
to his great family; but he was as just in rewarding as in punishing, and
it is not surprising that all his slaves were true to him.[155]
Thus was woven what has well been termed “a wonderful fabric of
slavery.”[156] History may have known as large a slave-family, but
certainly none that was more powerful and honorable, better provided for
and rewarded, more obedient and more contented.
CHAPTER III
THE RULING INSTITUTION: AS MISSIONARY ENTERPRISE AND EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM
I. THE MISSIONARY MOTIVE
Although almost every member of the governing group in the Ottoman
Empire had been born a Christian, it was absolutely necessary for his
advancement that he should profess the Moslem faith. A keen contemporary
observer knew of only one Christian who had been entrusted with great
power. Alvise Gritti was allowed to hold special command in Hungary, but
this appointment was made outside the system, as a personal affair of the
grand vizier Ibrahim, without the concurrence of the sultan.[157] Various
Christians were employed in such matters as the superintendence of
ship-building and cannon-founding;[158] but this was a purely commercial
relationship, and such a man had no place in the _cursus honorum_. The
fundamental rule, open to the few exceptions previously described, was
very simple. Every member of the Ruling Institution must have been born a
Christian and must have become a Mohammedan.
A number of questions arise at once. Why were none but sons of Christians
admitted? Why was conversion essential to promotion? What was the process
of accomplishing conversion? How thorough was the conversion? Why were
the sons of most of the converts, and the grandsons of practically all,
carefully pushed out of the system?
The first of these questions might be answered in terms of policy of
state; but since, in all Moslem thinking, church, state, and society
form one undivided whole, such an answer would be inadequate. Conversion
to Mohammedanism meant much more than an inward change and an outward
association for religious purposes with a new group of worshippers.
It meant the adoption of a new law for the whole of life, beginning
with the religious and ethical, but including as equally essential
portions the regulation of all social, commercial, military, and
political relationships.[159] It meant admission to a new social system,
naturalization in a new nation, an entire separation from the old life
in all its aspects and a complete incorporation with the new. Expansion
of membership was always a cardinal principle of Mohammedanism; and the
expansion was to be not merely by the aid of the sword, but far more by
peaceful means. The sword took the land and sometimes the body of the
unbeliever; but his soul was to be won by the benefits of the system,
first religious, then social, financial, and political.[160] Every nation
that has reached eminence has believed firmly that its general system
was immensely the superior of every other in the world, and no nations
have been more thoroughly convinced of this than those of Moslem faith.
Accordingly, their desire to convert the unbeliever was founded primarily
on benevolence. Closely connected with this motive was a burning interest
in the grandeur of Islam as a militant, expanding system; and subordinate
thereto was a purpose to increase the wealth, numbers, and power of the
state.
THE OTTOMAN ATTITUDE
The Ottoman system incorporated young Christians not merely to obtain
more faithful, more obedient, and more single-hearted servants, but,
before and beyond this, to obtain new members of the Ottoman nationality,
new believers in the Moslem faith, and new warriors for the Ottoman
Empire as representing Islam. This missionary purpose stands out
very clearly in the words attributed to Kara Khalil Chendereli, the
traditional founder of the corps of Janissaries, by a poet-historian
of the early sixteenth century, who no doubt here, as elsewhere in his
writings, introduced the ideas of his own day: “The conquered are slaves
of the conquerors, to whom their goods, their women, and their children
belong as a lawful possession; in converting the children to Islam by
force, and in enrolling them as soldiers in the service of the faith, one
is working for their happiness in this world and their eternal salvation.
According to the words of the Prophet, every infant comes into the world
with the beginnings of Islam, which, developing in an army formed of
Christian children, will encourage even in that of the infidels the ardor
of conversion to Islam; and the new troop will recruit itself not merely
with the children of the conquered, but also with a crowd of deserters
from the enemy, united to the believers by common origin or pretended
opinions.”[161] The sentiment of this declaration is woven of two
strands, both ultimately religious,—a desire to convert great numbers to
Islam, and a purpose to strengthen the army which wars for the faith.
Mohammed the Conqueror expressed the same idea poetically in a letter
to Uzun Hassan: “Our empire is the home of Islam; from father to son
the lamp of our empire is kept burning with oil from the hearts of the
infidels.”[162] This declaration seems to reveal two things. First, the
Conqueror asserts that, since by Moslem theory there can be but one _Dar
ul-Islam_, or land of Islam, his empire is the sole lawful Moslem state;
second, he declares that, by the policy of his house, the empire derives
its strength from the ever-renewed supply of Christians. Whether this
exegesis be exact or not, the fact is indisputable that the fundamental
missionary spirit of Islam was strong in the Ottomans of the sixteenth
century,[163] and that the Ruling Institution was deliberately conducted
for the purpose, among others, of transferring the ablest and most useful
of the subject Christians in each generation into the dominant nation. As
the first Western observer who comprehended the system remarked, “This
comes from no accident, but from a certain essential interior foundation
and cause, which,” he feels it his Christian duty to say, with a helpless
admiration, “is desperation of good, and obstinacy in evil, and ... is
the work of the devil.”[164] Not only did Mohammedanism encourage the
practice of taking in outsiders to serve, fight, and aid in ruling, but
this practice was thoroughly in harmony with the old Turkish spirit which
prevailed in the steppe lands, and a similar policy had been followed
by the Byzantine Empire. Thus, in encouraging the incorporation of
foreigners the three great influences which met in the Ottoman state had
exerted a combined activity as perhaps in no other direction. The Ruling
Institution acted for centuries as a great steadily-working machine for
conversion.
OTHER MOTIVES FOR INCORPORATING CHRISTIANS
Besides the combined religious and national purpose which led to the
introduction of Christian youth into the system, other motives helped
to give it definite shape. That purpose alone would hardly have caused
a rigid rule to be laid down which would exclude Mohammedans. Here,
undoubtedly, the well-known tendency of governments that rest on force
to rely upon servants brought from a distance and owing all to their
favor came strongly into play.[165] The sultan’s _kullar_ were uniformly
faithful to the hand that had raised them from poverty to high position.
“Being all slaves by condition, and slaves of a single lord, from whom
alone they hope for greatness, honor, and riches, and from whom alone
on the other hand they fear punishment, chastisement, and death, what
wonder that in his presence and in rivalry with each other they will
do stupendous things?”[166] Having expected ill treatment from the
enemies of their nation, they were drawn by the surprising contrast to
deep gratitude and boundless devotion;[167] they were not attached to
interests and traditions of family and property which would prevent full
and loyal obedience; they learned what was taught them by their master’s
command, and were not possessed by ideas and prejudices that would make
them independent in mind and intractable. On the contrary, Moslems born
and bred in pride of religion and nationality could not easily be moulded
to the shape desired; the very title of _kul_ was out of harmony with
their beliefs; hence they were inherently unavailable for the system, and
the recognition of this fact led to their rigid exclusion. An important
reason for excluding children of renegades was that heredity of privilege
and office was against Ottoman policy. The immunity from taxation that
was enjoyed by the sultan’s officials would tend to the building up of
vast fortunes that would be beyond the reach of public taxation;[168] and
the power of great families entrenched behind large property interests
would in time endanger the supremacy of the throne.[169]
THE REQUIREMENT OF CONVERSION
Conversion was a principal object of the system, and favor and promotion
waited as rewards upon acceptance of the Moslem faith. In fact, a young
man was not fitted to participate in the system until he had turned
Moslem. He could not be an Ottoman warrior and statesman and fail to
profess and practise, in most respects, at any rate, the system which
inspired his fighting and on whose principles the state rested. The
garment was seamless: it must be either worn or not worn.
At the same time, conversion of the neophytes of the Ruling Institution
seems not ordinarily to have been forcible.[170] The Ottomans were too
wise to believe that the best results could be accomplished by such
means. Their policy was rather to throw every difficulty in the way
of remaining a Christian, and to offer every inducement to make the
Moslem faith and system seem attractive. To this end their educational
scheme helped greatly;[171] for it involved complete isolation from
Christian ideas of every sort, and complete saturation in all the ideas
of Mohammedanism, religious, moral, social, and political. Even those
whose education was mainly physical were isolated from Christians in a
strict Moslem environment. No doubt there were special rejoicings and
rewards when a _kul_ was ready to declare, “There is no God but Allah
and Mohammed is His Prophet,” as there were in like circumstances in the
rest of the Ottoman world.[172] But the _kullar_ seem not to have been
urged to change their faith; on the contrary, an attitude of apparent
indifference was sometimes taken with them.[173] Probably, however, few
who remained long in the system failed to surrender sooner or later.
Prejudices of child-hood would in time be overcome; what the majority
did would tend to act powerfully upon the individual; the reward of a
brilliant career would take clearer and more alluring shape, until in
time, in the absence of all contrary suggestion, the real truth and value
of the Mohammedan religion would make it appear to be the only worthy
system. It is not surprising that the scheme seemed to Christians one of
diabolical ingenuity.
What went on in the sultan’s slave-family in regard to the conversion
of slaves went on in every Mohammedan household. Conversion was desired
but not compelled, and reward awaited it.[174] Among female slaves also,
even in the imperial harem, the same process was employed. Not merely
the imperial slave-family, but the entire system of slavery that existed
in the Ottoman Empire, was thus a great machine for the conversion of
Christians into Turks.
SINCERITY OF CONVERSION
It is not easy to learn what thoughts possessed the hearts of the members
of the Ruling Institution. Enough is recorded, however, to show that not
all who turned Moslem did so without mental reservation, and to prove
that it was possible to hold fast to an inward belief in the superiority
of Christianity through many years spent in the sultan’s service. It
has been said sometimes that the converted Christians were more severe
than the Moslems toward their brethren who remained steadfast.[175] This
would be natural both because of the zeal of new converts, and because
Christianity is intrinsically less tolerant than Mohammedanism; but the
accusation does not seem to be supported as against the members of the
Ruling Institution. A distinction must be drawn between behavior in time
of war and in time of peace. The Janissaries were fierce fighters and
terrible enemies; but religiously they belonged to a sect which was so
liberal as to be accused of rank heresy, and even, it is said, to have
been denied the name of true believers.[176] Many of the renegades were
persons who held no sort of religion.[177] The grand vizier Rustem told
Busbecq, after offering him great rewards if he would turn Moslem, that
he believed in the salvation of those of other faiths;[178] and a _deli_,
or scout, in his service confided to a French gentleman that, while he
pretended to follow Mohammedanism, he was a Christian at heart.[179]
The fact that a Genoese boy, taken at twelve years of age, educated as
a favored page for eight or nine years, and evidently trained carefully
in Mohammedan beliefs, would seize the first opportunity to escape shows
what was possible beneath the surface.[180] Two generations earlier there
was a renegade who cursed the day when he had turned Turk, but who felt
that he could not go back.[181] Nor were the members of the system always
submissive to the stricter rules of Mohammedan ethics. The Janissaries,
for example, forced Bayezid II to reopen the wine shops of the capital,
which in the religious fervor of his later years he had ordered
closed;[182] and the members of the government were led by fondness for
display and lavish expenditure into shameless venality, the cause and the
effect being equally contrary to the teachings and example of Mohammed.
The probability is that large numbers of the sultan’s slaves were merely
nominal Mohammedans in religious belief, though they necessarily followed
the larger part of the Moslem scheme of life.
EFFECT OF THE PROCESS
Sons of Janissaries were not allowed to become Janissaries, although the
rule began to be infringed about the end of Suleiman’s reign.[183] Sons
of _Spahis_ of the Porte might be admitted as pages and to the corps of
_Spahi-oghlans_, but their grandsons were rigidly excluded.[184] Sons of
great officials were provided with fiefs, or pensions, and so usually
passed out of the Ruling Institution into the territorial army.[185]
Thus few were allowed in the scheme beyond the first generation in the
Moslem faith, and almost none beyond the second. The explanation of this
has been given already: descendants of renegades were Moslems, and hence
subject to the same disqualifications as members of Mohammedan families
of long standing. Not all Moslems of the empire were counted Ottomans,
or, as they called themselves, Osmanlis, or, as they are commonly called
nowadays, Turks; for Arabs, Kurds, and other Mohammedans who had not
adopted the Turkish language did not bear the Turkish name. But all
the descendants of members of the Ruling Institution were added to the
Ottoman-Turkish nationality. The total number of Janissaries in the three
centuries during which they were recruited from Christian children has
been estimated at five hundred thousand;[186] but, as reckoned above,
the tribute boys furnished less than one-half of the recruits of the
institution,[187] and the page system persisted in its original form
after the Janissaries had become hereditary. From one to two millions of
the flower of the Christian population must have been brought into the
Ottoman nation by the operation of the Ruling Institution.
It does not necessarily follow that a like number of new Turkish families
were thus founded. The Janissaries were not supposed to marry, although
the rule was not strictly enforced;[188] a hundred years later, at
any rate, the majority are said to have been unmarried.[189] As the
_Spahis_ of the Porte probably married late, when they married at all,
the whole system had thus something of a monastic aspect.[190] High
officials, it is true, were apt to keep harems of some size; yet the
children even of these were ordinarily few in number.[191] Furthermore,
the frequent fierce wars carried off many of the sultan’s slaves, and
the danger of execution and of confiscation of property put a check on
their establishment of families. It is probable, therefore, that the
Ruling Institution, like most great slave-families, was wasteful of
human life.[192] But although its Christian-born members may not have
perpetuated their numbers, they nevertheless increased the Ottoman nation
by the addition of such children as were born to them; and the Moslem
descendants of these, sailing in quieter waters, doubtless became, both
numerically and otherwise, a great strength to the nation.
II. THE EDUCATIONAL SCHEME
Plato would have been delighted with the training of the sultan’s great
family, though his nature would have revolted from its lowliness of
birth. He would have approved of the life-long education, the equally
careful training of body and mind, the separation into soldiers and
rulers (even though it was not complete), the relative freedom from
family ties, the system’s rigid control of the individual, and, above
all, of the government by the wise. Whether the founders of the Ottoman
system were acquainted with Plato will probably never be known, but they
seem to have come as near to his plan as it is possible to come in a
workable scheme. In some practical ways they even improved upon Plato,—as
by avoiding the uncertainties of heredity, by supplying a personal
directing power, by insuring permanence through a balance of forces, and
by making their system capable of vast imperial rule.
In the largest sense the Ruling Institution was a school in which the
pupils were enrolled for life. Constantly under careful drill and
discipline, they advanced from stage to stage through all their days,
rewarded systematically in accordance with their deserts by promotions,
honors, and gifts, and punished rigorously for infraction of rules, while
both rewards and punishments increased from stage to stage until the
former included all that life under the Moslem scheme could offer, and
the latter threatened to take away the life itself. The system also cared
for all sides of the nature of its pupils, subject to the considerable
limitation that it was especially a school of war and government. The
bodies of all were trained as thoroughly as were the minds of the
best. Though all received some mental training, including at least an
acquaintance with the Moslem mode of life, the ablest were put through a
severe course in Oriental languages and Moslem and Ottoman law, which
embraced ethics and theology. Thus both body and mind, as well as the
religious nature, were provided for systematically and through life.
Looked at thus, the Ottoman educational scheme, in its relations to the
whole lives of those under instruction, was more comprehensive than any
Western institution of learning. The officers of a Western army are
educated and organized in a life-long system which provides for both
body and mind; but they do not learn theology and they do not govern the
nation. Great American railroads and manufacturing corporations possess
schemes of education and advancement which bear comparison to the Ottoman
system in life-long scope, promotion for merit, and the possibility of
rising from the bottom to the top; but the mental training which they
give even to their ablest helpers is of a highly technical sort, which
bears no comparison to the general learning and finished culture bestowed
upon the most studious in the Ottoman scheme. In general, Western
universities and educational systems, although they far surpass the
Ottoman scheme in the scope and character of the intellectual training
which they give, do not provide a comparable systematic training of the
body; and their control over the lives of their students ceases early.
The superior comprehensiveness of the Ottoman system was, of course,
based upon the fact that its members were slaves. Their master could keep
them at school all their lives, in order that they might become better
and better trained to serve him. At the same time, reward was considered
more potent than the rod. Unequalled prizes were offered in this school,
so skilfully disposed and graded as to call out the utmost strivings and
the best work of every pupil.
The first stages of the wide scheme, which constitute the educational
system in its narrower sense, were a fitting introduction to the rest.
All the recruits for the sultan’s slave-family, whether captured, bought,
presented, or levied, to the number of probably three or four thousand
annually, with an addition of ten or twelve thousand in the years of
the _devshurmeh_,[193] were brought by a regular process before trained
officials, carefully registered, and divided into two classes.[194]
Those who best satisfied the criterions of bodily perfection, muscular
strength, and intellectual ability so far as it could be judged without
long testing,[195]—about one in every ten of the whole number,—were
chosen for a superior quality of training, especially on the intellectual
side. The remainder were destined for a different education, which was
mainly physical.[196] The first regularly became pages and _Spahis_
of the Porte, and the ablest of them rose to the great offices of the
army and the government. The others regularly became _Ajem-oghlans_ and
Janissaries, but the ablest of these might also rise to positions as
_Spahis_ of the Porte and even as generals and officers of state.[197]
Failure to be selected for the higher school was not, therefore, a
final restriction to low position. Merit was recognized everywhere, and
regularly led to promotion. At the same time, it was a distinct advantage
to a young man to be chosen for the higher training, since he would
receive greater care, would acquire more of both ornamental and useful
learning, and would associate with those already great, and perhaps with
the sultan himself.
THE COLLEGES OF PAGES
Of those selected for the higher training, a portion were distributed
among the households of the provincial governors and high officers at
the capital.[198] These were probably brought up in much the same way as
if they had remained with the sultan. The very choicest of the recruits,
to the number of perhaps two hundred annually, or twelve to fifteen
hundred in all,[199] were taken into three palaces of the sultan as
_Itch-oghlans_, or pages. Three or four hundred were in the palace at
Adrianople,[200] a like number in one at Galata,[201] and from five to
eight hundred in the principal palace at Stamboul.[202] These were all
handsome boys, physically perfect, and of marked intellectual promise.
An excellent idea of the international character of the college is given
by a Venetian writer, who said that the pages of the palace included
Bulgarians, Hungarians, Transylvanians, Poles, Bohemians, Germans,
Italians, Spaniards, a few French, many Albanians, Slavs, Greeks,
Circassians, and Russians.[203]
The _Itch-oghlans_ were dressed in suitable raiment and were well cared
for without luxury.[204] That the sultan took a particular interest in
the arrival of excellent specimens is evident from the reception that
Menavino received.[205] The general Ottoman attitude toward the pages,
and indeed toward all recruits, has been well expressed by a thoughtful
observer: “The Turks rejoice greatly when they find an exceptional man,
as though they had acquired a precious object, and they spare no labor or
effort in cultivating him; especially if they discern that he is fit for
war. Our plan [that is, in Western Europe] is very different; for if we
find a good dog, hawk, or horse, we are greatly delighted, and we spare
nothing to bring it to the greatest perfection of its kind. But if a man
happens to possess an extraordinary disposition, we do not take like
pains; nor do we think that his education is especially our affair; and
we receive much pleasure and many kinds of service from the well-trained
horse, dog, and hawk; but the Turks much more from a well-educated man
(_ex homine bonis moribus informato_), in proportion as the nature
of a man is more admirable and more excellent than that of the other
animals.”[206]
That the primary object of the page system was educational appears from
all contemporary observations. Not merely are their palaces termed
“places for nourishing youths,”[207] but Menavino calls the place where
he was taught “the palace school.”[208] Another writer gives chapters
on “The Education of Young Men in the Seraglio,” and “The Studies and
Learning in the Seraglio,”[209] and speaks of the young men as “designed
for the great offices of the empire.” Another says, “And the said emperor
does this good for the profit of his soul, and when they are grown up he
takes them from there and gives them dignities and offices, according
as it seems to the emperor they have deserved.”[210] Some of the pages
were the personal servants of the sultan, and a band of thirty-nine
constituted his gentlemen of the bedchamber, or _Khas Oda_.[211] These
were the élite of all, chosen by selection after selection; and, though
young, they ranked very high in the system. Since only a few of all
the pages could attain to this honor, the remainder were at school for
outside service.[212]
Besides many less direct descriptions of the course of training,
two exist which are derived from men who passed through the palace
school. Menavino tells his own story;[213] and Ricaut records what
he learned from a Polish captive who had spent nineteen years in the
sultan’s service and had reached high position.[214] Although these
accounts were written one hundred and fifty years apart, they agree in
essentials. Menavino does not refer to the physical training in arms and
horsemanship; but at the time of his escape he showed himself, if not a
courageous, yet an accomplished horseman. Postel, some twenty years after
Menavino’s time, describes this training in some detail. He probably had
his information from a French page named Cabazolles, whom he quotes as
authority on one point.[215]
The pages were trained in the art of war, the use of all sorts of arms,
and good horsemanship.[216] Suleiman took especial delight in watching
their cavalry evolutions, and occasionally summoned a page who pleased
him, conversed with him, and dismissed him with presents.[217] Also, by
old Oriental custom, every page was taught some handicraft useful in his
master’s service, and, no doubt, intended to provide for his own support
in case of need.[218]
Menavino describes the course of study in the so-called _Yeni Oda_, or
New Chamber, which contained from eighty to a hundred boys. “When a boy
has remained five or six days in that school, they set him to learning
the alphabet. There are four teachers in the school. One drills the
boys in reading during their first year. Another teaches the Koran in
the Arabic (_Moresco_) language, giving explanations of the different
articles of their faith. After this a third teaches books in the
Persian tongue, and some write a little, but they do not teach writing
willingly. A fourth teaches Arabic books, both vulgar and literary.” It
is interesting to notice that, from the first, rewards in the form of
pay were given for labor. “These boys,” continues Menavino, “have a daily
allowance of two aspers during the first year, three during the second
year, four during the third year, and thus their allowance increases
each year. They receive scarlet garments twice a year, and some robes
of white cloth for the summer.”[219] Postel describes how they learned
with great diligence Arabic and Turkish letters and the law.[220] Ricaut
explains in more detail that the chief object of the course of study
was to teach reading and writing for the purpose of giving inspection
into the books of law and religion, especially the Koran. He says that
Arabic was taught to enable the boys to inspect the writings of the
judges and to have knowledge of religion, Persian to give them quaint
words and handsome and gentle deportment, and adds that both tongues
might be needed in governing Eastern regions. He gives a list of their
text-books, and remarks that those who wished to become men of the pen
studied with greater exactness. They were not, he says, taught logic,
physics, metaphysics, mathematics, or geography, and their knowledge of
ancient history was much mixed. “Yet as to the successes and progress
of Affairs in their own Dominions,” he adds, “they keep most strict
Registers and Records, which serve them as Presidents and Rules for the
present Government of their Affairs.”[221] This shows that the pages were
instructed in Turkish history and the various _Kanun-namehs_, or imperial
laws. Most of the teachers were Anatolian Turks,[222] chosen no doubt, as
imparting better pronunciation and more orthodox religious views.
Discipline was severe,[223] but was kept within bounds. A page could be
beaten on the soles of his feet with no more than ten strokes, and not
more than once on any one day.[224] The boys, organized in groups of ten,
were watched carefully by eunuchs, both day and night.[225] Absolute
obedience, modest behavior and decorum, and good manners were taught
with great insistency.[226] The two sections, or _odalar_, at the palace
seem to have been of equal rank,[227] while the schools in Pera and
Adrianople ranked lower.[228] Select boys who had finished their studies
were promoted through the different chambers of the personal service of
the sultan to the Inner Chamber,[229] where twelve or fifteen of the
thirty-nine held titular offices.[230] On reaching the age of twenty-five
every page was sent out from the school.[231] Those from the Inner
Chamber passed at once to places in the Noble Guard (_Muteferrika_), or
to governorships of towns.[232] Ibrahim passed almost directly to the
place of grand vizier;[233] but he was the first to break the regular
order of promotion, and in after times much evil was held to date from
the precedent.[234] The majority passed into the regular cavalry, or
_Spahis_ of the Porte.[235] Those who left the school were honored by a
ceremony of farewell. The sultan personally commended each one, and gave
him encouragement for good conduct in his new position. He presented each
with an embroidered coat and one of his most beautiful horses, and often
a gift in money. The young man, with all the presents he had received
during his stay, was escorted to the great gate, where he mounted his
horse triumphantly, and departed from the palace forever.[236]
THE HAREM
Probably because of the tendency of the human mind to construct along
parallel lines, the imperial harem partook of the characteristics of the
schools of pages. There were two _odalar_, or rooms, for the recruits of
the harem, in which they were taught housework, sewing and embroidery,
manners and deportment.[237] They were organized in groups of ten,
each group under a matron. Those with a taste for music and dancing
learned those accomplishments, those who were studious learned to read
and write. All were carefully instructed in the system of Islam. Like
the pages, nearly all of them passed out of the palace at the age of
twenty-five, being given in marriage to _Spahis_ of the Porte or to other
officials.[238] Thus the harem might be considered a training-school of
slave-wives for the sultan himself and for the most highly honored of his
_kullar_.
THE AJEM-OGHLANS
The term _ajemi-oghlanlar_ signifies “foreign youth,” and was sometimes
applied to all the young recruits. Ordinarily, however, it was given
only to the remainder left after the pages had been selected. These, for
the most part destined to become Janissaries, probably numbered about
twenty thousand.[239] Their training was largely physical, industrial,
and military, with oral instruction in the Turkish language and the
principles of the Mohammedan system. The _Ajem-oghlans_ usually passed
through two or three stages. Unless they knew Turkish and something
of Turkish ways, they were first scattered through Asia Minor in the
service of Moslem country gentlemen.[240] There they were set at hard
agricultural labor, to strengthen their bodies to the utmost. They were
expected to learn to speak and understand the Turkish language and to
learn the faith, the laws, and the customs of the Turks. The sultan
allowed them no pay. The gentlemen whom they served, responsible for
them to the sultan, supplied them with food and clothing and whatever
else they were pleased to give.[241] The number of these _Ajem-oghlans_
of the first stage may be estimated as ten thousand.[242] At the
end of two or three years, or perhaps at about the time for a new
_devshurmeh_,[243] officers came to examine them. If they knew enough
Turkish and were strong and well-grown, they passed to the next stage.
Having been brought to Constantinople, and once more carefully inscribed
and estimated,[244] the _Ajem-oghlans_ were again distributed, but now
in groups. About two thousand were assigned to service with the fleet
at Gallipoli.[245] Another two thousand, probably the most intelligent,
were appointed as gardeners, or _Bostanjis_, to the sultan’s palaces in
Stamboul, Adrianople, Brusa, and Magnesia;[246] and five hundred or more
served in other capacities about the palaces, as wood-cutters, helpers
in the kitchen, and the like.[247] Five or six thousand were kept in
Constantinople and employed in the shipyards or on public buildings,[248]
or were hired out in bands of one hundred or more to private citizens
for hard labor of various sorts.[249] Some were hired out similarly in
other cities.[250] In the midst of such a variety of occupations, two
objects seem always to have been kept in mind,—the _Ajem-oghlans_ were
to develop the utmost strength of body, and they were to learn some
trade useful in war.[251] In this stage they were normally organized
in groups or messes of ten. The gardeners were under the charge of an
official of high rank and great authority, who bore the humble title of
_Bostanji-bashi_, or head gardener; he was aided by under officers and
an administrative staff. Those in Constantinople were under the orders
of an _Agha_, or general officer, with a staff of under officials,
clerks, and accountants.[252] Being filled with the spirit of youth,
conscious of their superior physical strength and privileged position,
gathered together in large groups, and unrestrained by substantial mental
instruction, the _Ajem-oghlans_ were by no means easy to manage. They
frequently raised great disturbances in the city, in emulation perhaps
of the Janissaries.[253] Those who wished were allowed to learn to read
and write, but they were not obliged to do so.[254] They received a small
amount of pay, with food and clothing.[255]
After a certain time spent in this stage of development, the majority
of the _Ajem-oghlans_ were assigned, one by one as each seemed ready,
to the service of the _odalar_, or messes, of the Janissaries.[256] The
latter then became responsible for their training in the art of war,
and discharged this duty with much zeal. In the course of time, as the
_Ajem-oghlans_ acquired sufficient skill, and as vacancies occurred,
they were enrolled as full-fledged Janissaries.[257] The gardeners of
the sultan’s palaces and the palace servants seem not ordinarily to have
become Janissaries, but to have been advanced toward the directing of
the transport, commissary, and artillery services, the oversight of the
imperial stables, and like positions in the administration of the army
and the great household.[258] No doubt some of those assigned to the
fleet were promoted in the navy, but most of them seem to have become
Janissaries.[259] Thus a large number and variety of openings lay before
the _Ajem-oghlans_, who as they became ready were advanced into them. The
ordinary age of graduation from the corps was twenty-five years,[260]
which may be regarded as the age of majority for all the sultan’s
slaves. At times war caused such depletion of the upper service that
_Ajem-oghlans_ were promoted before they had reached the desired age or
were thoroughly ready.[261]
ADVANCEMENT BASED ON MERIT
The entire system from start to finish was designed to reward merit and
fully to satisfy every ambition that was backed by ability, effort, and
sufficient preparation. Two parallel lines of reward were established,
the honorable and the financial. In the page school the first was
represented by promotion from class to class, and, in the case of those
who were observed to be the most suitable, by advancement through the
chambers of personal service to the _Khas Oda_. In this _oda_ they were
promoted in regular order through the twelve or more special offices.[262]
Among the _Ajem-oghlans_ the process seems to have been carried on by
carefully observing and testing individuals, by advancing them from
stage to stage on this basis, and by entrusting them in the later stages
with greater and greater responsibilities. The financial reward began
for the pages immediately upon admission to the school. It was then
probably about equal to the daily wages of an unskilled laborer. This
was increased regularly year by year, and in the _Khas Oda_ reached the
proportions of a handsome salary.[263] The _Ajem-oghlans_ depended
during the first stage on the rewards assigned by their temporary
masters. After that stage they began to receive a small amount of
pay from the sultan, which was gradually increased.[264] All were
provided with food, lodging, and at least a part of their clothing, and
individuals might hope to obtain special gifts.
This double system was continued without a break through the entire
institution. The lowest Janissary might hopefully aspire to promotion,
either through the hierarchy of office in his own corps, or by
being lifted out of it for service in the cavalry or the active
administration.[265] The pages who had passed out of the school were
already well up in the scale of advancement, and every place except the
sultan’s own was within their grasp. The grand vizier, indeed, might
wield almost the whole of the sultan’s power, a fact which Ibrahim,
shortly before his fall, realized so fully that he added to his title of
_Seraskier_ the word Sultan.[266] The losses occasioned by fierce and
frequent wars, and by not infrequent depositions and executions, gave
abundant opportunity for men to rise from below. Conquest was continually
adding new offices and commands. The whole Ruling Institution was, so to
speak, in a constant state of boiling, in which the human particles were
rapidly rising to the top, and, alas, disappearing, while others rose as
rapidly behind them.
The figure just employed is applicable, however, only to the mere
phenomenon of rising: the upward movement was not in the least accidental
or automatic; it was conducted with keen intelligence at every stage.
Now and then, as in the case of Ibrahim, favor disturbed the scheme;
but this happened very seldom before the end of Suleiman’s reign.
Sometimes a temporary confusion resulted from extraordinary losses in
war, but order was soon restored. There is reason to believe that human
history has never known a political institution which during so long a
period was so completely dominated by sheer intellect, and thereby so
unerringly held to its original plan and purpose, as was the Ottoman
Ruling Institution. The democracy of Athens attained an unexampled level
of average intelligence, but under its sway the exceptional mind received
discouragement rather than exceptional training. The free democracies of
the present age allow the gifted individual opportunities to fight his
way upward, but against obstacles which sometimes become insuperable.
These systems are unquestionably superior on the whole to the Ottoman
scheme, because of their inclusiveness and individual freedom; but as
regards sheer efficiency, unobstructed opportunity, and certainty of
reward, their operation is wasteful, clumsy, and blind by comparison.
Some testimonies of shrewd contemporary observers will show how they
regarded the Ottoman scheme of promotion both in itself and in comparison
with Western ways. The intelligent author of the _Tractatus_ is impressed
by the unity and control of the scheme. “Out of the aforesaid slaves,” he
writes, “promotions are made to the offices of the kingdom according to
the virtues found in them. Whence it comes about that all the magnates
and princes of the whole kingdom are as it were officials made by the
king, and not lords or possessors; and as a consequence he is the sole
lord and possessor, and the lawful dispenser, distributer, and governor
of the whole kingdom; the others are only executors, officials, and
administrators according to his will and command.... Whence it follows
that in his kingdom, although there is an innumerable multitude, no
contradiction or opposition can arise; but, united as one man in all
respects and for all purposes, they look to his command alone, they obey
and serve unwearyingly.”[267]
Postel says: “The Seigneur [or sultan] has four or several principal
personages for all the business of his empire, whether in war or justice,
and they are promoted to this honor by degrees from lower offices,
always mounting and giving good examples of living, unless by some
extraordinary favor the prince raises them from some low place, which is
very perilous.”[268] Speaking of the pages in the palace, he adds: “When
they have lived there a long time and done well, they are given a place
where they receive pay, and they are made Castellans and given other
offices used among them. If there are some who have the ability to make
themselves known, they may have the best fortune in the world, and become
governors of the land and Pashas; for there they judge of nobility by the
worth which they see appearing in a man, and they give honors according
to the evidence of his past.”[269] Of Suleiman, Tanco says, “He sows hope
of certain reward in all conditions of men, who by means of virtue, may
succeed in mounting to better fortune”; and of the Janissaries, “Each has
his good and real fortune in his hand.”[270]
Among all observers, Busbecq seems to have been most impressed with the
system of advancement by merit. “The Turks,” he tells us, “do not measure
even their own people by any other rule than that of personal merit. The
only exception is the house of Ottoman; in this case, and in this case
only, does birth confer distinction.”[271]
Referring to his audience with Suleiman, he says: “There was not in all
that great assembly a single man who owed his position to aught save
his valour and his merit. No distinction is attached to birth among the
Turks; the deference to be paid to a man is measured by the position
he holds in the public service. There is no fighting for precedence; a
man’s place is marked out by the duties he discharges. In making his
appointments the sultan pays no regard to any pretensions on the score
of wealth or rank, nor does he take into consideration recommendations
or popularity; he considers each case on its own merits, and examines
carefully into the character, ability, and disposition of the man whose
promotion is in question. It is by merit that men rise in the service, a
system which ensures that posts should only be assigned to the competent.
Each man in Turkey carries in his own hand his ancestry and his position
in life, which he may make or mar as he will. Those who receive the
highest offices from the sultan are for the most part the sons of
shepherds or herdsmen, and so far from being ashamed of their parentage,
they actually glory in it, and consider it a matter of boasting that
they owe nothing to the accident of birth; for they do not believe that
high qualities are either natural or hereditary, nor do they think that
they can be handed down from father to son, but that they are partly the
gift of God, and partly the result of good training, great industry, and
unwearied zeal; arguing that high qualities do not descend from a father
to his son or heir, any more than a talent for music, mathematics, or
the like; and that the mind does not derive its origin from the father,
so that the son should necessarily be like the father in character, but
emanates from heaven, and is thence infused into the human body. Among
the Turks, therefore, honours, high posts, and judgeships are the rewards
of great ability and good service. If a man be dishonest, or lazy, or
careless, he remains at the bottom of the ladder, an object of contempt;
for such qualities there are no honours in Turkey!
“This is the reason that they are successful in their undertakings, that
they lord it over others, and are daily extending the bounds of their
empire. These are not our ideas; with us there is no opening left for
merit; birth is the standard for everything; the prestige of birth is the
sole key to advancement in the public service.”[272]
Finally, Ricaut, after describing the _Ajem-oghlans_, declares that this
part of the system “is one of the most Politick Constitutions in the
World, and none of the meanest supports of the _Ottoman_ Empire.”[273]
Financial rewards paralleled advancement in office with great exactness.
When a man came to high position, he was provided with the means to live
splendidly in proportion to his rank. In addition to his salary, many
opportunities of increasing his income presented themselves; and though
some of these would be considered undignified in Western eyes,[274]
and others were undoubtedly stained with rapacity and extortion,[275]
they were allowed to be enjoyed under all ordinary circumstances.
The sultan’s higher officials not only lived in great splendor, with
a numerous retinue, a large harem, and many costly garments, dishes,
gems, and the like, but they often accumulated great wealth in money,
houses, lands, mills, horses, cattle, sheep, and everything else that is
considered worth collecting.[276] Thus, as men were promoted, they were
enabled regularly to proportion display of wealth to rank and office.
The example of one of Suleiman’s chief servants will illustrate
the _cursus honorum_ in the Ottoman system. Ali Pasha was a native
of Dalmatia. Levied with the tribute boys, he was admitted to the
principal palace at the time when Ibrahim was _Oda-bashi_, or head
of the Inner Chamber of pages. In the course of time he was made
_Kapuji_, or gatekeeper. When Ibrahim became grand vizier, Ali became
_Chasnejir_, or chief taster, to Suleiman, and held that office during
the expedition to Vienna in 1529. In due course he was discharged from
the palace, and appointed to high office outside. He soon reached the
grade of _Agha_, or general or the _Ghurebas_, the lowest of the four
divisions of the regular cavalry, and was then promoted to be _Agha_
of the _Spahi-oghlans_, the highest of the cavalry divisions. Next he
became second equerry and later first equerry (_Emir-al-Akhor_), then
_Agha_ of the Janissaries, then _Beylerbey_ of Rumelia. In the last
capacity he attended the sultan in the Persian war of 1548-1549. As a
reward for special services in the war he was made pasha of Egypt in
1549, and at the time of his departure was nominated vizier. Returning
to Constantinople in 1553, he was made third vizier, and upon the
death of Rustem in 1561, he became grand vizier. Because of jealousies
and enmities caused by his promotions he had hardly a friend left;
nevertheless, he was able to hold the favor of Suleiman until his death
in 1565.[277]
PUNISHMENTS
The system did not attempt to rely wholly upon the glittering attractions
of indefinite promotion and enormously increasing wealth. Not all men
can be allured to remain unswervingly within a narrow path of strict
obedience and whole-hearted service. Pages and _Ajem-oghlans_ were held
to severe discipline by sufficient and certain punishment; but their
teachers and eunuch masters were required to keep that punishment within
bounds by the certainty of yet severer punishment.[278] _Ajem-oghlans_
might be beaten, or sold out of the sultan’s service. After the close
of the strictly educational period, punishment, like reward, followed
continuously the law of proportionate increase. The higher the position,
the heavier the punishment of being passed over in promotion, or of
being actually degraded. Fines and confiscations also grew with rank. At
no great height in the scale, the personal punishments reached that of
death, and death was always very near the highest officials. Any tendency
toward treason or revolt, any act of disobedience, sometimes a plot
against a higher official, sometimes even a disagreement with the sultan
in a matter of policy,[279] would lead to sudden execution. The viziers
of Selim I carried their wills in their bosoms; and well they might,
since the heads of seven are said to have fallen at his command.[280]
Thus was the system carefully kept clear of all the human material
that seemed to endanger its working or threaten its unity. There was
no sympathy for weakness, no accepting of excuses, no suspension of
sentence, no mercy. Suleiman did not always have the heart to execute
promptly; but in the end he had no alternative, so remorseless was
the system. Even his best friend, Ibrahim, went too far and had to be
removed. Two of his sons, the oldest and ablest, threatened the system
in turn, and one after the other suffered the bow-string. Small wonder
that Suleiman’s soul was not filled with joy at the victory of Jerbé.
“Those who saw Solyman’s face in this hour of triumph,” says Busbecq,
“failed to detect in it the slightest trace of undue elation. I can
myself positively declare, that when I saw him two days later on his way
to the mosque, the expression of his countenance was unchanged; his stern
features had lost nothing of their habitual gloom; one would have thought
that the victory concerned him not, and that this startling success of
his arms had caused him no surprise. So self-contained was the heart of
that grand old man, so schooled to meet each change of fortune however
great, that all the applause and triumph of that day wrung from him no
sign of satisfaction.”[281] Arbiter of the destinies of so many men,
compelled to be remorseless as fate, Suleiman could allow joy no place in
his soul. He who wielded as severe a rod as ever man held must maintain
over himself the sternest discipline of all.
CHAPTER IV
THE RULING INSTITUTION: AS AN ARMY
THE MILITARY ASPECT
The Ottoman government had been an army before it was anything else.
Like the Turkish nations of the steppe lands, the Ottoman nation was
“born of war and organized for conquest.”[282] Fighting was originally
the first business of the state and governing the second. As time went
on, and particularly after the capture of Constantinople, the necessity
of administering immense territories transferred the preponderance to
the governmental aspect; but even in Suleiman’s time the two great
functions of the Ruling Institution were very closely united. War
carried practically the whole government into the field.[283] Of course
substitute officials had to be left behind to attend to what public
business was absolutely necessary, but these were paralleled by, and
indeed were usually identical with, the officers and soldiers who had to
be left behind to preserve public order. So completely was the government
an army, that the more important judges, who did not belong directly
to the Ruling Institution, were taken into the field. Suleiman on his
last campaign had 48,316 men under pay.[284] Acceptance of the sultan’s
pay by ordinary usage signified that the recipient was a _kul_.[285]
Evidently, then, almost the entire personnel of the Ruling Institution,
except the younger pages and the _Ajem-oghlans_ who were as yet unfit,
accompanied the master to war.[286] In fact, army and government were
one. War was the external purpose, government the internal purpose, of
one institution, composed of one body of men. On the military side,
this institution carried on war abroad, repressed revolt at home, kept
itself in power, and preserved sufficient order in the empire to allow
a busy and varied economic and social activity. On the governmental
side, it supplied itself with funds, regulated its own workings,—which
was no small task,—kept the operations of the other institutions of the
empire in order, and enforced the law. The high officials of government
held high command in war. The generals of the army had extensive
administrative duties in regard to the affairs of the troops under them,
the management of departments of state, or the government of provinces.
The scope of the present treatise confines the discussion of the
Ruling Institution as an army to those features which lie nearest the
governmental aspect. The great majority of its members constituted the
standing army of the empire, in the two great sections of Janissaries,
or infantry, and _Spahis_ of the Porte, or cavalry. Subordinate sections
cared for the artillery and transport services, and for other necessary
adjuncts to campaigning. Although the feudal _Spahis_ did not receive pay
from the sultan, and hence were not properly _kullar_, their officers
were his slaves, even though many of them were supported during their
term of service from fiefs. Besides these regular troops there were
also attached to the Ottoman army certain irregular bodies of a lower
order,—the _Akinji_, the _Azabs_, the Kurds, and so on.
THE JANISSARIES[287]
The body of regular infantry known as _Yenicheri_, or “new troops,” a
name which the West has changed to Janissaries, comes near to standing
in the Western imagination for the sultan’s entire slave-family.[288]
In the sixteenth century, however, it formed not more than a fourth of
the whole number; nor does its importance seem to have been beyond its
numerical proportion, except in one or two respects. Since its members
were physically trained beyond comparison with their intellectual
education, since they were kept in poverty and hence were comparatively
irresponsible, and since a large portion of them were in comparative
idleness in time of peace, they were liable to act as an organized and
very dangerous mob. They might start a riot on short notice, or burn a
section of the city in order to pillage the neighboring houses, or rifle
the shops of the Jews, or plunder the grand vizier’s establishment.[289]
They could not easily be restrained from plundering cities which had
capitulated or from violating terms of surrender.[290] They felt that
the death of a sultan gave them an interregnum of license before the
accession of a new sovereign.[291] They demanded donatives at the
succession of a new ruler with such increasing rapacity as to embarrass
the treasury;[292] and they needed to be braced at critical moments
by liberal presents.[293] In time of battle, however, they drew up an
invincible line behind which the person of their sovereign was as safe as
in an impregnable fortress. Their devotion to his person was the greater
because they were in a special sense his _kullar_, and because he was one
of them, being inscribed in one of their _odas_ and receiving his pay
regularly.[294] In small groups on garrison duty their severe training
seems to have made of them an efficient police.[295] Yet their _esprit de
corps_, resting on consciousness of power, made them feared at all times.
They took an active part in determining the destinies of the empire in
two ways,—by limiting conquests, and by influencing the succession to
the throne.[296] They compelled the mighty Selim to turn back from both
Persia and Egypt.[297] They murmured before Vienna, and without doubt
hastened the raising of the siege.[298]
THE SUCCESSION TO THE THRONE
The Janissaries had no small influence in determining the succession to
the throne.[299] There was no law fixing the succession, since neither
the _Sheri_ nor the _Kanuns_ provided for such things;[300] but it was
a matter of fundamental custom that a prince of the house of Osman
should rule, and it was almost as fundamental that a son of a sultan
should succeed him. Not until 1617 was the present rule established, by
which the oldest male of the royal house is heir apparent.[301] Before
that, when a sultan had several sons, the eldest had no inherent right
to succeed, as is the practice in Western Europe. The Turkish father
naturally desired to choose which of his sons should follow him; and to
this end, when he gave them provincial governments, he often placed the
favorite nearest the capital. After Mohammed II had issued his famous
_Kanun_, by which the son who reached the throne was legally authorized
to execute his brothers,[302] a situation of unstable equilibrium arose
as soon as the sons of a sultan began to grow up. Each knew that he must
either obtain the throne or die soon after his father; hence revolt
was almost forced upon a son who found himself placed farther from the
capital than a favored brother. When Bayezid II grew old and feeble, his
active and warlike son Selim opposed his wish to leave the empire to
Achmet;[303] in the end Selim triumphed, and Bayezid, forced to abdicate,
met a death that was believed by many not to have been natural.[304]
The Janissaries turned the scale in this struggle, and henceforth they
were felt to be a dangerous element whenever a sultan came to have more
than one grown son. They had a great part in the death of both Mustapha
and Bayezid, the ablest sons of Suleiman; indeed, their sympathy for
the former was undoubtedly a chief reason in determining Suleiman to
execute him, since only thus could his own safety be assured.[305] In
the case of Bayezid, the fact that the Janissaries did not support him
spelled his doom, even though his father, beyond all precedent, pardoned
his first revolt, and though the influence of his mother Roxelana was
strong in his favor.[306] Speculation is dangerous; but the Janissaries
may have done Western Europe a great service on these occasions. Had
either Mustapha or Bayezid come to the throne instead of the drunken and
dissolute Selim II, the issue of Lepanto might have been different, a new
expedition against Vienna led by a vigorous and idolized young monarch
might have succeeded, the Ottoman power might have ruled more widely and
permanently than it did, and the decay of the Ruling Institution might
have been long postponed.[307]
The Janissaries in Suleiman’s time numbered between twelve and fourteen
thousand;[308] and this number probably did not include the garrison
which supported the power of the empire in Egypt,[309] still less that
which upheld the corsair rule in North Africa. Except in time of war many
of the Janissaries were distributed in garrisons, so that probably not
more than half resided in the capital.[310] Such of these as were married
lived at home, and the others were lodged in two great barracks.[311]
They were organized in messes of ten; ten messes constituted an _orta_
or _oda_, of which there were one hundred and sixty-five in Suleiman’s
time.[312] Each _orta_ had its officers, who had been promoted from its
ranks; and above all the _ortas_ was a graded set of officers, under the
_Agha_, or general, of the Janissaries.[313] This official had never
been a Janissary, but had come through the colleges of pages.[314] He
not merely commanded the Janissaries, but was a sort of minister of war
for them. Aided by his _Kiaya_, or lieutenant,[315] his chief _Yaziji_,
or scribe, and a bureau of clerks, he directed their enrolment, the
distribution of their pay, their promotions, their location, the purchase
of their supplies and clothing, and all the other business of the corps.
He was well paid and was of great authority, outranking all other
generals, though on some occasions he was obliged to yield precedence to
two of the generals of cavalry, whose corps were older than those of the
Janissaries.[316]
The Janissaries had a regular ladder of promotion through the offices of
their _odas_ and above, as far as the position of _Segban-bashi_, which
was the office next below that of _Agha_.[317] One hundred and fifty of
their best bowmen were honored by being detailed to accompany the sultan
on the march, as his _Solaks_.[318] They might also for distinguished
ability or service be taken into the regular cavalry, and have all its
opportunities open to them. No less than the rest of the army, they kept
marvellous order in camp, and, except at the crises above described, were
completely obedient to their officers.[319] They were punishable only by
their own officers, not even the grand vizier having direct jurisdiction
over them.[320] They had a strong sense of maintaining their privileges
and what they considered to be their rights. Busbecq, who gives
illumination at so many points, shows how the grand vizier Rustem, and
even Suleiman himself, felt toward these men when they were all together
and their blood was hot. On one occasion Busbecq’s servants quarreled
with some Janissaries, and he was disposed to back his men up; whereupon
Rustem sent a trusty messenger to him with a verbal message, asking
him “to remove every cause of offence which might occasion a quarrel
with those atrocious scoundrels. Was I not aware,” he asked, “that it
was war time, when they were masters, so that not even Solyman himself
had control over them, and was actually himself afraid of receiving
violence at their hands?”[321] Great care had to be taken to keep the
Janissaries under control, for they were capable of wrecking the whole
government. They were, to be sure, constantly drained of their ablest
men by promotion; but this only left the others the more liable, like
sheep, to follow a new leader into evil. They could be repressed more or
less by punishment: now and then an especially active promoter of trouble
was executed;[322] officers who offended were sometimes sent to command
distant garrisons, and sometimes they were stricken from the roll.[323]
Suleiman succeeded, on the whole, in keeping the Janissaries in hand, and
he was able to lead them farther east than could his father Selim. They
never revolted against him,[324] and they supported him against Bayezid.
THE SPAHIS OF THE PORTE[325]
The regular cavalry were all included under the general name of _Spahis_,
or horsemen; but the name was also applied to one of the four divisions
into which Osman’s corps of daring riders had been organized after the
model of the cavalry of the caliph Omar I.[326] Their organization
was older than that of the Janissaries; it had come down continuously
from the early days.[327] The members were not organized into a single
body, they had high pay, and they were in the presence of excellent
opportunities to acquire wealth and to rise with rapidity. Accordingly,
they appear never to have caused Suleiman any special trouble.[328]
The four corps were the _Spahis_ in the narrower sense, often called
_Spahi-Oghlans_; the _Silihdars_, or weapon-bearers; the _Ulufajis_,
or paid troops, in two divisions, the left and the right; and the
_Ghurebas_, or Foreign Legion, also in two divisions, the left and the
right.[329] The _Spahis_ were most honored and best paid, but each
had to bring with him to war five or six armed slaves on horseback.
The _Silihdars_ had less pay and furnished four or five horsemen. The
_Ulufajis_ furnished two or three horsemen each.[330] These three corps
were recruited from the pages and the Janissaries, the _Ulufajis_
receiving also occasional members by special promotions from the
irregular troops.[331] The Foreign Legion had least pay of all, and its
members came alone; not having begun as the sultan’s _kullar_, and often
not even as Ottomans, they enjoyed small honor.[332] Each of the first
two corps, and each division of the last two corps of the _Spahis_ of the
Porte, was organized separately after the fashion of the Janissaries,
with its own general, who supervised the administration of all its
affairs.[333] The number of the _Spahis_ of the Porte is given on two
bases. In Suleiman’s time the actual members of the four corps counted
from ten to twelve thousand men, or a little less than the number of the
Janissaries;[334] but, since most of them had each to bring from two to
six additional horsemen, the total force which they assembled was from
forty to fifty thousand.[335] Whether the entire number or only the
actual members were regularly considered to be the sultan’s _kullar_,
under his pay, does not appear clearly. Probably he did not pay the
additional horsemen directly; for strictly speaking, they were _kullar_
of his _kullar_. In time of battle all the regular troops, _Spahis_ and
Janissaries alike, were drawn up to protect the sultan, the Janissaries
being aligned in front, the _Spahis_ proper on the right, the _Silihdars_
on the left, and the _Ulufajis_ and _Ghurebas_ in the rear.[336]
THE FEUDAL SPAHIS[337]
Outside the towns the greater part of the European dominions of the
sultan, and a large part of Asia Minor, were granted in fief to Moslems
who were for the most part not _kullar_ of the sultan.[338] They
deserve to be considered in a discussion of the government, however,
not only because they collected the revenues and exercised seigniorial
jurisdiction in their estates,[339] but also because they were officered
by the sultan’s _kullar_. The estates were of different sizes and were
reckoned in three classes: _timars_, when the yearly revenue was under
twenty thousand aspers; _ziamets_, when it was twenty thousand to one
hundred thousand aspers; _khasses_, when it was over one hundred
thousand aspers.[340] _Timars_ might be united into a _ziamet_, but
_ziamets_ could not be divided.[341] Every fief-holder must appear in
person when summoned to war. If the annual income of a _Timarji_, or
Timariote, reached six thousand aspers, he must bring with him an armed
horseman; and he must bring another for each additional three thousand
aspers of his revenue. The holder of a larger fief must bring with him
an armed horseman if his income amounted to ten thousand aspers, and
another horseman for each additional five thousand aspers of income.[342]
In the sixteenth century this service was strictly exacted, and the
fief-holders were held to residence on their estates. The principle
of heredity entered into the distribution of these estates, but under
limitations. One son of the holder of a small fief had a right to the
fief;[343] not more than three sons of the holder of a large fief were
entitled to small fiefs.[344] The sons of _kullar_ in high position might
receive fiefs large in proportion to the rank of their father;[345] by
this means they were honorably conveyed from the ruling Institution into
the Moslem population. The _Zaims_ and Timariotes, as the holders of
the corresponding fiefs were named, were a class of country gentlemen,
honest, sober, true to the Moslem faith and to the sultan, better in
morals than the _kullar_ if not so able of intellect, the substantial
middle class of the empire, ancestors of those who today give hope that
Turkey may become a modern nation. It was these who gave the first
training to the _Ajem-oghlans_, starting them well on the road from
Christianity to Islam, and preparing them to become members of the
Ottoman nation.
In the time of Suleiman the system of fiefs had become greatly
disarranged.[346] The distribution of them had been left to the local
governors, and corruption had crept in; the frequent wars also had led
to rapid changes and consequent confusion. Moreover, the army always
contained a large number of _Gonnullu_, or volunteers, who came at their
own expense, and fought with the hope, often realized, of receiving the
fiefs of slain men as the reward of signally brave conduct.[347] It is
said that during the course of a single bloody day one fief changed
owners seven times. If fiefs might thus be granted in the midst of
battle, it is not easy to see how a condition of reasonable order could
have been preserved in the feudal system. Suleiman, therefore, by a
_Kanun_ of the year 1530, attached the granting of all fiefs above a
certain size once more to the central government.[348] Each holder of
such a fief must obtain a _teskereh_, or document, from Constantinople,
in order to have good title.[349] The central treasury administered such
estates during vacancies. Only those fief-holders who held by _teskereh_
were entitled to be called _Spahis_;[350] the others were known as
_Timarjis_, or Timariotes. The feudal _Spahis_ of Anatolia were more
under the authority of the governor than were those of Europe; they were
not so well paid, did not have so much practice in fighting, and were not
so highly esteemed as soldiers.[351]
Thus the country gentry were kept under good control; the accumulation
of estates was prevented, any tendency toward independence could easily
be thwarted, and the sultan obtained regularly the service for which the
lands were granted. In addition, most of the subject Christian population
was governed locally without any trouble to the sultan, and was held
down well and uniformly by resident seigneurs. A great advantage of the
system was that, by the granting of new fiefs in newly-conquered lands,
the territorial army was automatically increased in proportion to the
increase of the empire.[352]
OFFICERS OF THE FEUDAL SPAHIS
Local government and the command of the feudal _Spahis_ was cared for
by officials who belonged to the sultan’s great slave-family, and who
brought with them to their posts a number, proportioned to their rank,
of _Spahis_ of the Porte, pages, _Ajem-oghlans_, and slaves of their
own. The lowest of these officers were the _Subashis_, or captains, who
were in time of peace governors of towns, with enough Janissaries and
_Azabs_, or irregular infantry, to police the locality.[353] Next above
these were the _Alai Beys_, or colonels, who in time of peace were ready
with a company of from two hundred to five hundred troops to pass from
place to place as there might be need.[354] Above these again were the
_Sanjak Beys_, who governed important cities and held superior rule over
a number of towns and the district in which they lay.[355] Finally, in
the Balkan Peninsula and in Western Asia Minor there was from of old a
_Beylerbey_, who had authority over all the _Beys_ of his region. Incomes
were provided by the assignment of fiefs proportioned in size to each
officer’s importance.[356] All of these officers of local government
had a sufficient staff of lieutenants, treasurers, book-keepers and
clerks.[357] The _Beylerbey_ of Rumelia resided in time of peace at
Constantinople. The _Beylerbey_ of Anatolia seems to have spent much time
in his dominions,[358] though undoubtedly he was often at the capital,
since he had his regular place in the Divan.
In time of war this official scheme, detached from its function of local
government, drew together the feudal _Spahis_, section by section, into a
perfectly organized territorial army for each of the two regions. Notice
of time and place was sent round, and within a month every man called had
joined his proper standard.[359] After uniting with the sultan’s regular
army, the army of Rumelia under its _Beylerbey_ had the right of the
battle-line when fighting in Europe, and the army of Anatolia under its
_Beylerbey_ had the right of the line when fighting in Asia.[360] The
enrolled feudal troops of Europe numbered about fifty thousand, and those
of Asia, including Anatolia, Karamania, Amasia, and Avandole, thirty
thousand.[361] In each case the number should be doubled or tripled to
allow for the additional horsemen which all the _Spahis_ were required to
bring.[362] On the other hand, a considerable proportion of the feudal
troops, sometimes estimated at one-half,[363] remained on duty at home
in time of war to protect the provinces and prevent uprisings. The feudal
troops, while brave, eager, and regardless of their lives, had not the
physical strength nor the practice of fighting in squadrons which the
regular troops had, and hence were not their equals.
The _Beylerbeys_ of Rumelia and Anatolia were called out with their
troops for every campaign. The eight other _Beylerbeys_ of Suleiman’s
time,—those of Karamania, Amasia, Avandole, Syria, Mesopotamia, Egypt,
Hungary,[364] and Temesvar,[365]—who had fewer feudal troops at command
and more need of them at home, were summoned only when the war was in
their region.
OTHER BODIES OF TROOPS
There were three principal bodies of irregular troops, the _Akinji_ or
cavalry, the _Azabs_ or infantry, and the Kurds; besides various smaller
groups, such as the descendants of the ancient corps of _Yayas_ and
_Mosellems_, who held fiefs of a sort in the oldest _sanjaks_ of the
empire, and the _Deli_ or “crazy” company of scouts.[366] The _Akinji_
numbered perhaps thirty thousand in time of peace and were mainly near
the European frontier, where they made a living by raiding. They received
no pay either in peace or in war, but gathered booty and slaves and hoped
for promotion.[367] The _Azabs_ numbered perhaps ten thousand in peace
and forty thousand in war.[368] Some of them served in the garrisons and
some with the fleet.[369] The number of the _Akinjis_ and _Azabs_ was
greatly augmented in time of war by the addition of volunteers, many of
whom were criminals and ruffians.[370] The irregular troops were the
terror of the invaded lands in war time; for the regular army was held
under iron discipline, but these irresponsible creatures carried fire,
rapine, and sword over wide areas of country. In time of siege and battle
the _Azabs_ were sent forward to break the charge of the enemy, or to
aid in filling the moats by their own bodies.[371] Such as lived were
rewarded generously; the rest were believed to pass at once by a martyr’s
death to heavenly reward.[372] The Kurds lay near the Persian frontier
to the number of about thirty thousand. Individuals among the _Akinji_,
_Azabs_, and Kurds might hope to become gentlemen through distinguished
bravery, by being made _Ulufajis_ among the _Spahis_ of the Porte.[373]
Attached to the regular army there were also various auxiliary corps of
armorers, cannoneers, men of transport service, musicians, commissaries,
and the like, to the number of three or four thousand in all.[374] The
Tartars of the Crimea, and the Moldavians and Wallachians, were also
obliged to furnish contingents.[375] All told, the enrolled strength of
the entire army was something more or less than two hundred thousand
men. But, since the _Spahis_ were required to bring other fighting men
with them in proportion to their revenues, since numerous slaves and
private servants accompanied the soldiers, and since the feudal and
irregular troops were joined by great numbers of volunteers, both horse
and foot, high and low, the complete army for the greatest expeditions
probably numbered about three hundred thousand men.[376] At the close of
Suleiman’s reign the paid nucleus was about fifty thousand strong; the
feudal _Spahis_ for a European campaign numbered about sixty thousand,
with perhaps a like number of helpers. The remaining troops were of no
great value in battle, unless to break the first shock of the enemy’s
charge. They served chiefly to lay waste the hostile country and to
gather booty and slaves.
DISCIPLINE AND ARDOR
Contemporary observers were strongly impressed with the wonderful
discipline and intense zeal for fighting that was seen among the
Turks. The silence, order, and cleanliness of the camps, the absolute
obedience, enforced if need be by severe punishments and executions,
the submissiveness to long marches, hard labor, and scanty food, the
eagerness for battle, the joy in conflict, the recklessness of life,
presented a perfection of discipline, self-control, and single-hearted
purpose that seemed miraculous. A few of the many witnesses may be heard
briefly:
“The Turks come together for war as though they had been invited to a
wedding.”[377]
“The Great Turk is the best obeyed by his subjects of all the lords that
I know.”[378]
“I think there is no prince in all the world who has his armies and
camps in better order, both as regards the abundance of victuals and of
all other necessities which are usually provided, and as regards the
beautiful order and manner they use, in encamping without any confusion
or embarrassment.”[379]
“Their military discipline has such justice and severity as easily to
surpass the ancient Greeks and Romans; the Turks surpass our soldiers
for three reasons: they obey their commanders promptly; they never show
the least concern for their lives in battle; they can live a long time
without bread and wine, content with barley and water.”[380]
“Peace and silence reign in a Turkish camp.... Such is the result
produced by military discipline, and the stern laws bequeathed them by
their ancestors.”[381]
“It is marvellous how the force and rigor of justice increase in war....
If the soldiers rob or beat, the head comes off, or they are so beaten
that they can never be well again.”[382]
“They keep the divinest order in the world.”[383]
“In truth the discipline could not be better, nor the obedience
greater.”[384]
“For such as are acquainted with the Histories of the Turkish affaires,
and doe aduisedly looke into the order and course of their proceedinges:
doe well perceiue, that the chiefest cause of their sodaine and fearefull
puissaunce, hath beene the excellence of their Martial discipline joyned
with a singular desire and resolution to aduaunce and enlarge both the
bounds of their Empire and the profession of their Religion. The which
was alwaies accompanied with such notable Policie and prudence, that
the singularitie of their vertue and good gouernment, hath made their
Armes alwaies fearefull and fortunate, and consequently, hath caused the
greatnesse of their estate.”[385]
THE SUPREME COMMAND
The sultan was commander-in-chief of the entire army, standing, feudal,
and irregular. When the army was summoned for a great campaign, it
gathered about him; on the march and in camp every body of troops had
its place with reference to him;[386] in formation of battle, he was the
central point about which the whole vast display was organized. When
the army was assembled, and then only, the sultan stood forth visibly
and palpably as the head and center of the Ruling Institution and of
the Ottoman nation upon which it rested. His _kullar_ were gathered
about him in devotion of body and soul; they were going forth under his
leadership against the infidel or the heretic; they were manifesting the
results of the long and careful training that he had given them; they
marched, encamped, and fought under his eye and command; they formed
an honored and privileged nucleus in the midst of a vast, loyal, and
ambitious national army; they surrounded and served him as monarch with a
splendor seen at no other time;[387] with complete apparatus of council,
ministry, treasury, and chancery, they carried on his government from
whatever city, valley, mountain, or plain he might be occupying. Here was
the Ruling Institution in being, exhibiting in varying degrees all its
aspects, revealing its essential unity, enforcing the despotic will of
its master, commander-in-chief, and chief executive.
The very greatness and unity of the Ruling Institution as an army was not
without serious disadvantages. The power could not wisely be delegated,
and the army could not effectively be divided. At the opening of the
campaign of 1529 Suleiman issued to Ibrahim a commission as _Seraskier_,
or general of the army, which placed the Ruling Institution, the Moslem
Institution, the Ottoman nation and all the subject nations under his
command. The Sultan’s order ran as follows: “My Viziers, _Beylerbeys_,
Judges of the Army, Jurists, Judges, _Seids_, _Sheiks_, Dignitaries
of the Court and Supports of the Empire, _Sanjak Beys_, Generals of
Cavalry or of Infantry, _Alai Beys_, _Subashis_, _Cheribashis_, and all
the victorious Soldiery great and small, high and low, the Officials
and Appointees, all inhabitants of My kingdoms and lands, the people of
city and country, rich and poor, distinguished and ordinary, and all
men are to recognize My above-named Grand Vizier as _Seraskier_ ...
and to consider all that he says and desires as a command from My own
mouth....”[388] This was a delegation of the supreme command of the
army and all the human military resources of the empire to Ibrahim.
Since Suleiman himself went on this campaign, the supreme command was
not then exercised apart from the sultan’s presence. Four years later,
however, Ibrahim, clothed with the same authority, was sent ahead to
open the Persian campaign. On the return march he added the title of
Sultan to that of _Seraskier_ in issuing his daily orders.[389] Perhaps
he felt like Pepin the Short, that he who had the power of king should
also bear the name. But Suleiman was no _roi fainéant_; Ibrahim had
gone too far, the empire could have but one head, and Ibrahim suffered
the bow-string.[390] Suleiman profited by the experience; he appointed
no more _Seraskiers_ with such exalted powers, but himself led the
army when it was assembled as a whole. The campaign of Szigeth was the
thirteenth which he directed in person.[391] The precedent of delegating
the supreme command was, however, a fatal one; for Selim the Sot and
all his successors were to use this method to avoid the exertion of
campaigning, and from this step was to date the beginning of the empire’s
downfall.[392] “This so constituted organization had need of two things:
it needed for its animation a man filled himself with a vivid spirit
and free and mighty impulses, and to give it movement and activity it
required continual campaigns and progressive conquests; in a word, war
and a warlike chief.”[393] When another than the sultan should become
head of the Ruling Institution as visibly assembled, and yet be only an
official removable at a cloistered monarch’s caprice, the army would lose
the keystone of its organization, and ere long victory would depart from
its banners.
INDIVISIBILITY OF THE ARMY
The essential oneness of the army, based on the sultan’s ownership of
the standing body of cavalry and infantry and its attachment to his
person,[394] and on the incapacity of the territorial armies to carry on
great campaigns alone, was also a fact injurious to the Ottoman power.
At the accession of Selim I, the empire had been nearly identical in
territory with the Byzantine Empire under the Macedonian dynasty. No
great power had marched with it. The conquests of Selim in the East
and of Suleiman in Hungary had pushed the frontiers to the borders of
two great powers: Persia on the east and Austria on the west remained
henceforth constantly hostile in feeling and often hostile in fact to the
Ottoman Empire.[395] They were so far away from the Ottoman capital that
the road to either was a journey of months for the army, and relations
with both were often disturbed at the same time; but there was only
one great army, and there could be only one serious war. If, while war
was in progress on one frontier, conditions became intolerable on the
other, it was necessary to make peace on what terms could be had, and
carry the army to the other extremity of the empire. Thus, Suleiman and
Ibrahim concluded the peace of 1533 with Charles and Ferdinand, in order
to be free to proceed against Persia at once;[396] and thus Suleiman
was obliged to arrange terms with Ferdinand in 1547, in order to march
against Persia in 1548.[397] Had a Cardinal Cesarini absolved Charles and
Ferdinand from either treaty, and had they been able to act, they could
have marched to Constantinople in 1534, 1535, or 1548 against practically
no resistance.[398] On the other hand, had the Ottoman standing army been
divisible, and separable from the person of the monarch, the Sultan could
have kept a steady pressure at both frontiers; and by taking advantage
of opportunities he might have conquered far to the west and north, and
realized his ambition of adding all the heretical Persian dominions to
his empire so as to reach the Chinese frontier, and of sending the
horsetail standards to the Atlantic shore of North Africa.[399] Or
he might have carried out the intention expressed through Ibrahim in
1533—which was quite in keeping with his character—of aiding the Emperor
Charles V to enforce unity of religious belief upon the Protestants and
the pope.[400] It is interesting to notice that Austria possessed two
great advantages over Persia in the wars with Turkey. The Ottomans did
not wish to pass the winter in the cold north, but they did not object
seriously to staying in Aleppo or Bagdad. This attitude probably saved
Vienna for Austria and lost Bagdad for Persia. Again, since the journey
from Vienna to Constantinople was much easier than that from Tabriz to
Constantinople, the Austrians could have reached Constantinople while
the Ottoman army was in the East, whereas the Persians could not have
reached Constantinople while the Ottomans were in Austria. This advantage
remained theoretical, however, in Suleiman’s time, since neither Austria
nor Persia was ever able to attempt invasion.
Thus the inherent character of the Ottoman Ruling Institution, as a
single magnificent army united under the supreme command of the sultan,
made the institution incapable of adaptation to an indefinitely expanding
empire, and so set bounds, certain as those of fate, to Ottoman conquest.
The sultan had but one arm; it was a long arm and a strong one, yet it
could reach only a fixed distance, and it could strike but one blow.
CHAPTER V
THE RULING INSTITUTION: AS A NOBILITY AND A COURT
I. PRIVILEGES OF THE KULLAR
No disgrace was attached to the condition of being the sultan’s slave;
on the contrary, the title of _kul_ was felt to be an honor. Boys longed
to bear it.[401] No one who had it desired to be rid of it. It carried
marked distinction and secured deference everywhere. Those who revealed
by their costume, bearing, or assertion that they were the sultan’s
property were treated with the consideration always granted in monarchies
to property and persons closely related to the sovereign.
This honor shown to the _kullar_ rested, however, on no mere servile
attachment to the sultan and on no mere fear of an Oriental despot. The
sultan’s slaves from lowest to highest were set off from his subjects
by a distinct set of privileges which in Western minds were associated
only with nobility. Besides a general protection over them all by means
of careful registration and watchful organization, the sultan bestowed
upon all his _kullar_ the personal rights of immunity from taxation,[402]
and responsibility to none but their own officials and courts and to
him.[403] At the same time he freed them all from anxiety about the
necessities of life, and enabled most of them to enjoy its luxuries, by
regular pay from his treasury, or, in the case of some high officials,
by revenues from ample estates. In return for these privileges they
were all sternly required to render him honorable service, usually of
a military character. This service was not always of a character that
the West considered honorable. The labors of the _Ajem-oghlans_, and
the foot service of the Janissaries and auxiliary corps were not noble
in Christian feudalism, which knew no implements but sword and spear
and fought from the back of a horse. But these humble slaves of the
sultan possessed the same privileges as the highest, and any service was
honorable which would make their muscles stronger for fighting and teach
them to contribute to the sultan’s military undertakings on sea and land.
All members of the sultan’s family were supposed to use their income in
strengthening his military forces. Janissaries had pay for themselves
alone. _Ghurebas_ had only enough to keep themselves and one horse for
each man. Other _Spahis_ of the Porte brought additional horsemen in
accordance with their pay. Higher officials were expected to support
armed households large in proportion to their revenues. After the model
of the sultan’s household, every _kul_ according to his means built up a
military establishment which followed him and his master to war.
Immunity from taxation grew naturally out of the slave status. There
would be no advantage to the sultan in exacting taxes from persons
whom he supported and who were supposed to devote all their energies
to his service and use all their income for him. As long as the Ruling
Institution was kept firmly to its purpose, pressure was applied, not
so that successful _kullar_ would surrender part of their income to the
master, but so that they would bring as large a contingent as possible
to fight his battles. Suleiman’s grand vizier, Rustem, following a
long-disused precedent of the time of Bayezid I,[404]—a reign which
had in various ways foreshadowed later evils,—established a tax upon
the greater offices of the empire;[405] but, since the sultan did not
receive the whole of such charges, the custom amounted to the sale of
offices. Not only was such a practice out of harmony with the theory
of the Ruling Institution, but it proved very injurious in operation,
and was rightly accounted one of the causes of the decay of the empire.
The sultan took pay at the granting of an office, and so presently did
every official from the men under him; until in time the practice became
so systematized that a regular tariff was arranged and brought into
use on the occasion of every appointment.[406] Those who thus were put
to great expense on coming into office felt the necessity of recouping
themselves by whatever means lay in their power.[407] Hence arose not
merely oppression of the sultan’s subjects, both Christian and Moslem,
but also a partial recovery of losses at the expense of the sultan
himself. His servants were forced to devote to personal affairs a large
part of the attention that should have been all his, and to curtail by
various devices the contingent which they furnished for his military
service. When the members of the Ruling Institution began to prey upon
each other, the grand vizier, on behalf of the sultan, taking the lead,
the solidarity of the institution began to be broken. It may be true
that in the West, as Montesquieu said, the honor of a monarchy was not
inconsistent with the sale of office;[408] but in the Ottoman Empire it
opened the door to fatal corruption.
The members of the Ruling Institution had not always had their own
system of justice; they had long been under the jurisdiction of the
ordinary Moslem courts. This had led to an essential difficulty; the
ordinary courts were part of another institution and were recruited in a
wholly different way; their judges had risen through a rival system of
education, and were men of letters rather than men of war; the favored
_kullar_ of the sultan had, therefore, come to feel averse to obeying
them.[409] Accordingly, Bayezid II had ordered that the members of his
family should be judged by their own officers.[410] This was a radical
change; for it brought into prominence the distinction between the two
institutions, and had the further effect of setting off the _kullar_
from all the rest of the population of the empire, and of constituting
them almost a separate nationality. Their position became one greatly
to be desired. The Moslem-born population came to feel that somewhere
there was a great injustice. They whose ancestors had shed their blood
for the faith were, in the lands which their fathers had conquered,
denied admittance to the class which not only filled most of the offices
of army and state but enjoyed high privileges. Sons of the conquered
inhabitants, infidel-born, might alone become nobles, paid by the state
rather than contributing to its expenses, not subject to the judges
trained from boyhood in the Sacred Law; while their own Moslem sons were
rigidly excluded from the honored class, were obliged to bear a part in
the burdens of the state with small hope of sharing its glory, and were
expected to take their chances before the same courts to which Christians
and Jews were brought for civil and criminal cases. The very extent of
the privileges of the _kullar_ made toward the break-down of the system.
NOBILITY NOT HEREDITARY
The privileges of the sultan’s _kullar_ fell short of those of Western
nobility in one very important respect, namely, that they could not
normally be handed on to the descendants and heirs of those privileged.
This exception is so important that various Western writers have affirmed
that the Turks had no nobles.[411] As the word is used in this treatise,
heredity is not regarded as of the essence of nobility; the latter is
considered to lie in the possession of special personal privilege,
recognized in the structure of the state.
In the early Ottoman days, several of the high offices of state became
the appanages of particular families. The family of Kara Khalil
Chendereli held the office of grand vizier continuously for a century,
and furnished an occupant of the office at a later date.[412] The
descendants of Michael of the Pointed Beard led the _Akinjis_ until
the time of the first siege of Vienna.[413] The family of Samsamat
Chaush held the office of master of ceremonies for generations.[414] A
descendant of the thirteenth-century poet Jelal ad-din Rumi held office
under Suleiman.[415] Some writers of the early sixteenth century said
that, whereas Osman had been aided in winning his dominions by two Greek
renegades, Michael of the Pointed Beard, and Malco, and by Aurami or
Eurcasi, a Turk, he had promised that he would “never put hand in their
blood or fail to give them a magistracy.”[416] The promise had been kept,
and in 1537 one of the Michaloglou was _Sanjak_ in Bosnia and one of the
Malcosoglou was _Sanjak_ in Greece. The other family was then extinct. It
is said that these were considered to be of royal blood, and that in case
of failure in the line of Osman the succession to the throne would fall
to them.
Apart from these few exceptions, the principle of heredity in office
had been excluded from the Ottoman system by the time of Suleiman. The
Ottomans, by old Turkish rule probably derived from the Chinese, knew
no nobility apart from office and public service. An exception was
introduced by Islam in the case of _Seids_, or _Emirs_, descendants
of the Prophet; but this modification the Ottomans did not wholly
respect.[417] Accordingly, Ottoman nobility became official,[418]
personal, and without hereditary quality. It was, in fact, the reverse of
hereditary, since nobility in the father was an actual hindrance to the
son and to all his descendants. But the _kullar_ were not the only class
in the Ottoman Empire which enjoyed official, personal nobility. The
members of the Moslem Institution were also exempt from taxation, were
supported out of public revenues, and were left in enjoyment of their own
government as a part of their general jurisdiction in the empire. They
had an advantage over the _kullar_ in that their property was not subject
to confiscation. Their position will be discussed later.[419]
In the program of the Ruling Institution the policy of avoiding heredity
of nobility fitted in exactly with the slave system, the educational
scheme, and the army arrangements; for the knowledge that every man
was considered to be “his own ancestry,” and that increased honor and
privilege depended on achievement alone, made every ambitious member a
devoted slave, an indefatigable learner, and a dauntless warrior. The
reasons for this policy, the method of applying it by advancement through
merit, and the vivid impression which it made on thoughtful Western
observers have been described already;[420] but for its observance an
additional reason of great weight may be mentioned. Not only did it
prevent the accumulation of property and power in the hands of the
members of one family, but it allowed no influence to become intrenched
in the offices of central and local government. No _Beylerbey_ or _Sanjak
Bey_ could hope to rebel successfully. All were “but strangers and
foreigners in the countries they ruled,”[421] and held their positions
by the most insecure tenure. The Ottoman Empire was not destined to go
the way of that of Charlemagne or of the Seljuk Turks. Whatever decay it
might undergo, it could not break up into small independent states under
officials who had converted their governorships into sovereignties, so
long as its two great institutions were maintained consistently.[422]
Against this policy two main tendencies conspired, both based on “human
nature,” the strife of favor against merit, and the desire of the
excluded to share in privilege. The first was liable to disturb the order
of promotion, the second to open the system to the sons and descendants
of the officials and to other Moslems. No one but Selim the Grim was
fitted to maintain the policy rigidly against such pressure. Suleiman
yielded a little on the first point, in such matters as the promotion of
Ibrahim and Rustem;[423] and the second began in his time to gain ground
at the bottom, by the admission of sons of Janissaries to the ranks of
the _Ajem-oghlans_. Within a generation after his death, however, the
flood-gates were to be opened.[424] The body of Janissaries and the body
of _Spahis_ of the Porte were gradually but swiftly to be made Moslem
and so cut off from the Ruling Institution; the age at which the pages
passed out of the palace was to be postponed; and in time the divided
Ruling Institution was to cease to be the admiration of the West and was
to become its laughing-stock. But Suleiman was spared the sight of such
a decadence. Near the end of his reign, after Rustem and Roxelana had
ceased to disturb, the system brought to the top one of the greatest of
Ottoman statesmen, Mohammed Sokolli. At about the same time the Moslem
Institution also raised up a great legist, Ebu su’ud.[425] These two
upheld the institutions and the empire at the height of their glory for
nearly thirty years, of which fifteen lay after the death of Suleiman.
II. CHARACTER OF THE SULTAN’S COURT
In the early stages of all monarchies the household of the prince and
the government of the state have probably been identical.[426] After
the period of establishment has come to an end and settled institutions
have been organized, the household and the government have tended to
draw apart into separate and distinct systems under different officials.
Which of the two has become of the greater importance in the eyes of
the sovereign and in influence upon the policy and destiny of the nation
has depended on circumstances, and particularly on the character of
individual monarchs. While such a state has been in a period of increase
of power and influence, the government has regularly been the more
prominent: men of practical experience in affairs and in the field have
overshadowed the palace servants. When decay and decline have set in, the
household, partly by way of cause and partly by way of effect, has risen
to supremacy: individuals of more or less secluded life, but possessing
opportunities for personal intercourse with the monarch,—favorites,
body-servants, women, and eunuchs,—have made the men of affairs and of
war dependent upon them for place and authority. The Ottoman Empire
came clearly into the stage of differentiation between household and
government after the conquest of Constantinople in the reign of Mohammed
II. In the time of Suleiman the empire was still in the period when
government was greater than household; but clear signs were appearing
that a less active and more plastic sovereign would turn the scale.
The household of the Ottoman sultan was curiously divided and limited.
An essential difference between the courts of Christian and Moslem
monarchs was created by the seclusion of women in Mohammedan society. In
the West, women appeared with the men of the court not only on occasions
of amusement and diversion, but also in public parades and ceremonies
of less and greater importance, and the ladies of the royal family led
the fashionable society of the land. In the East, on the other hand,
the visible court and retinue of the monarch was wholly ungraced by the
presence of the fair sex; all the great ceremonies and cavalcades were
participated in by men alone. It seems to be a fact that, before the
middle of the reign of Suleiman, no woman resided in the entire vast
palace where the sultan spent most of his time.[427] The women of his
family were elsewhere, carefully guarded behind walls which with very
few exceptions no man but himself might pass.[428] The men and the women
who were associated with the sultan constituted two separate worlds,
between which the only bond was himself.
The sultan’s household was divided in another way. By the maxims of
despotic government it is forbidden that the ruler should associate on
terms of intimate friendship with those who are his high officials of
state. In order to avoid this regulation and yet provide his master
with intelligent and amusing companionship, the _Nizam-al-mulk_ advised
the Seljuk sultan Melik Shah to choose as boon companions a band of
courtiers who would be allowed to have no share whatever in the conduct
of affairs.[429] This resource was hardly open to the Ottoman sultans,
first because the dignity and independence of Moslem-born Ottoman Turks
deprived them of the pliancy which is expected from courtiers, and second
because the sultan’s Christian-born slaves, who had been led onward by
ambition ever since they had entered his service, and at the end of
their education were ready to become men of affairs, were not fitted
to be mere courtiers. The difficulty became greater after Mohammed II,
filled with the Byzantine notion of imperial sacredness, ordered that
no one should sit with him at table.[430] A sultan was thus practically
forced by a combination of principles and circumstances to spend his
leisure hours with boys, eunuchs, and women.[431] The only mature men
with whom he could converse freely were a small and select group of
religious advisers, astrologers, and physicians; all the other men of his
household met him only formally and for the transaction of business. So
great limitations on his companionship could not fail to influence his
character, and in the course of a few generations to tend greatly toward
the predominance of household over government.
To confine the consideration of Suleiman’s court to his immediate
household would be to narrow the discussion too much. The chief officers
of government formed a part of his retinue on all ceremonial occasions,
and had not ceased to be counted as his personal followers. In fact,
all the members of the Ruling Institution, except the _Ajem-oghlans_
and young pages, may be regarded as belonging to the sultan’s court in
that large sense of the term which includes all those individuals who
are attached to the person of the monarch as his daily associates, his
councillors, the officers and members of his household, his body-guard
and palace-guard, and his retinue on ceremonial occasions and in camp.
The splendid court of Suleiman the Magnificent is worthy of separate and
special treatment for which there is no room here; in describing it, as
in describing his army, only those aspects which are of a governmental
nature can be considered. The topics that will claim attention are the
subdivisions of his household and the main features of its organization,
the importance given to personal and public ceremony, the splendor of the
court, and the influence of the court on the destiny of the empire.
ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSEHOLD[432]
The sultan’s household may be considered in three principal subdivisions,
each of them composed of a number of parts: the outside service of the
palace, the inside service of the palace, and the harem. The outside
service was composed of men and _Ajem-oghlans_, the inside service of
white eunuchs and pages, the harem of black eunuchs and women. The first
two subdivisions were, in time of peace, in attendance at the principal
palace which had been built by Mohammed II on the site of the acropolis
of ancient Byzantium. The grounds of this palace were extensive: within
the first gate was a large open space used on state occasions as a
parade ground; within the second gate were the buildings of the palace
proper, a beautiful garden, and an exercise ground for the pages. The
members of the outside service, except the gardeners, did not ordinarily
pass beyond the second gate of this palace. The harem was permanently
located some distance away in the center of the city, in the first palace
occupied after the conquest, known in the sixteenth century as the Old
Palace.[433] In time of war, practically the entire outside service, and
the principal officers and personal attendants from the inside service,
accompanied the sultan. None of the women of the harem were taken with
the army, as this was against the Ottoman custom, though permitted by the
Sacred Law.[434] In excursions during time of peace some of the ladies
might accompany their lord.[435] The three subdivisions of the household
will be considered in the reverse order.
THE HAREM
The harem was so distinct in Suleiman’s time from the rest of his
household, so little seen and known, so much his personal affair, that it
would seem scarcely to demand attention in a consideration of his court.
The importance of its officials and personages was small as compared with
later times, after the harem had been removed to the principal palace and
the sultans had begun to spend a much larger portion of their time in
its society. Yet the influence of two of its ladies upon Suleiman was so
great as to give them a place in history and a relation to the destiny
of the nation. Accordingly, the harem cannot be passed over without
mention. Its organization has already been sketched so far as regards the
recruiting, conversion, and education of the women;[436] its groupings
and principal personages remain to be described.
The guard and order of the palace of the harem was committed to forty or
more black eunuchs,[437] under an official known as the _Kizlar Aghasi_,
or, literally, the “general of the girls.” This _Agha_ was held in great
honor, and was made administrator of many religious endowments for the
benefit of various mosques, and particularly of the _vakfs_ of the Holy
Cities of Mecca and Medina. His importance in Suleiman’s time bears no
comparison with what it became later. Other black eunuchs held official
positions in the service of the principal ladies, and had the oversight
of the education of the young princes.[438]
The greatest lady of the harem, while life was spared to her, was the
sultan’s mother, the _Sultana Valideh_. Not only did she receive great
respect and deference from her son, but she had a general oversight and
authority over all his women. The next lady in importance was the mother
of the sultan’s first son; and after her came the mothers of other sons.
Mothers of daughters enjoyed much less consideration. Each of these
favored ladies had her own suite of apartments, her business staff under
a woman known as her _Kiaya_, which may here be translated as steward or
housekeeper, and her group of personal and domestic servants. The _Kiaya_
of the queen mother enjoyed great importance. The group of slave girls
who were the sultan’s personal and domestic servants when he visited
the harem were also under a _Kiaya_ with assistants. Sons of the sultan
lived with their mothers during their tender years. They were carefully
educated in letters and arms, much as were the pages, but with greater
deference.[439] At a suitable age they were sent out, with carefully
selected little courts, to the governorship of provinces. Daughters were
married at an early age to high officials of the sultan.[440] In later
generations infant sons who might be born to them were not allowed to
live, lest they might become a menace to the throne. This seems not
to have been the case in the time of Suleiman, who avoided danger by
excluding them carefully from office.[441]
Information about Suleiman’s harem and family comes guarded with
explanations of the difficulty found in obtaining trustworthy reports.
Some facts are known, and probabilities exist as to others. Suleiman’s
mother lived until far along in his reign. The mother of his eldest son,
Mustapha, held, according to custom, the next place in his harem. After
the year 1534 she divided her time between the palace at Magnesia, where
her son was _Sanjak Bey_, and the harem palace in Constantinople.[442]
Khurrem, usually called Roxelana, had supplanted her in favor at some
previous date, and, being legal wife of the Sultan, held a position
superior to hers in some respects. Suleiman seems not to have visited his
harem very often.[443] Mihrmah, his daughter by Roxelana, who became the
wife of Rustem, was very dear to him.
THE INSIDE SERVICE
The five chambers of pages, under the control of white eunuchs, and
the doorkeepers supplied the inside service of the principal palace.
The head of this service was the _Kapu Aghasi_, or “general of the
gate,” a white eunuch, who was also charged with the management of many
religious endowments. He had the right to speak to the sultan when he
wished,[444] and hence was very highly regarded. The _Kapuji-bashi_, or
head doorkeeper, was also a white eunuch, who had charge constantly of
the second gate of the principal palace, with a company of twenty or more
white eunuchs who were guards under him.[445] The pages have already
received attention from the educational point of view. Nearest the person
of the sultan were the pages of the _Khas Oda_, or Inner Chamber, of whom
there were probably thirty-nine, the sultan himself being reckoned the
fortieth.[446] A number of these pages later bore the title of _Agha_,
but they seem not to have done so in Suleiman’s time. Their chief officer
was the _Khas Oda-bashi_, or head of the Inner Chamber, one of the
pages in Suleiman’s day, but in later times a white eunuch. The pages
of highest rank were the _Silihdar_, who outside the palace carried the
sultan’s weapons, the _Chokadar_, who carried his garments, and the
_Sharabdar_, or cup-bearer.[447] The others took care of his apartments
and his wardrobe, and brought his food to him. The second group of pages
constituted the _Khazineh Odassi_, or treasury, under a well-paid white
eunuch, the inside _Khazinehdar-bashi_. These, to the number of sixty or
seventy, cared for all the treasures in the sultan’s palace, made all
payments, and kept all accounts.[448] Another _Khazinehdar-bashi_ took
care of all the financial affairs of the inside service which needed
attention outside the palace walls. The _Kiler Odassi_, or pantry, under
a white eunuch called the _Kilerji-bashi_, cared for the bread, pastry,
and game of the sultan; their chief controlled also the kitchen service
of the palace. The pages of this chamber seem not yet to have finished
their education.[449] They, together with the pages of the Inner Chamber,
rode with the sultan whenever he left the palace. The remaining two
chambers, the Large and the Small, or the Old and the New, were concerned
wholly with the education of the pages.[450] They were under the general
direction of the _Ikinji-Kapu-oghlan_, or eunuch of the second gate.[451]
The entire personnel of the inside service amounted to from six to eight
hundred persons. The eunuch officers maintained severe discipline, exact
obedience, and perfect order among them all.[452] The groups of eunuchs
who had charge of the colleges of pages in Pera and Adrianople may also
be reckoned in the inside service. It would seem that the accounts of all
these palaces were kept as one, and that therefore the chief officers of
the principal palace must have supervised the officers of the others.[453]
THE OUTSIDE SERVICE
The members of the household who were not held within the inner regions
of the palace or near the person of the sultan were far more numerous.
Many stood in close relations to the members of the inner service, either
being under their authority or having regular dealings with them. All,
of course, served the sultan, either directly or nearly so, through
the mediation of one or more officers. To describe at length their
subdivisions, duties, and officers would be to repeat an account which
has been given often by others. Only a general sketch will be attempted
here, by way of distinguishing the various groups of the service.
Beginning with those in closest relations to the sultan, they were the
learned associates of the master, the kitchen service, the body-guard,
the palace-guards, the gardeners, the stable service, the tent-pitchers,
the masters of the hunt, and the intendants.
The learned associates of the sultan belonged chiefly to the corps of
the _Ulema_. They therefore represented the Moslem Institution near the
person of the monarch. Chief among them was the sultan’s _Hoja_, or
teacher, a confessor or adviser in religious matters, who was held in
very great esteem and was often advanced to high judicial office. Next
came two _Imâms_, or preachers to the sultan, associated with whom were a
number of muezzins, or chanters. After these ranked the _Hekim-bashi_, or
chief physician, who had ten or more associates; the _Munejim-bashi_, or
chief astrologer, whose services were believed to have a very real value;
and the _Jerrah-bashi_, or chief surgeon, with ten or more helpers.
The kitchen service under the oversight of the _Kilerji-bashi_ comprised
bakers, scullions, cooks, confectioners, tasters, and musicians, each to
the number of from fifty to one hundred.[454] Allied to these were the
companies of tailors, shoemakers, furriers, goldsmiths, and the like, who
were employed exclusively in the palace service.[455] Each group had its
responsible head and was subject to a thorough oversight, since even such
remote affairs, when under the care of the Ottoman Ruling Institution,
were regulated and ordered with great precision. A number of these
servants, such as the scullions, wood-cutters, and water-carriers, were
_Ajem-oghlans_.
The body-guards were three, the _Muteferrika_, the _Solaks_, and the
_Peiks_. The _Muteferrika_, or Noble Guard, consisted of from one to two
hundred of the choicest graduates from the page schools and of sons of
high officials.[456] Among them, in 1575, were brothers of the _Voivodes_
of Wallachia and Moldavia. The _Muteferrika_ followed immediately after
the sultan on horseback, and in time of battle were ready to defend him
to the end. The _Solaks_ were veteran Janissary archers, to the number
of about one hundred and fifty, who marched on foot beside the sultan
wherever he went, with bows and arrows ready for instant use. The _Peiks_
were a picturesque company of halberdiers of about one hundred men,[457]
which had been taken over, arms, costumes, and all, from the Byzantine
emperors. They ran in front of the sultan when he rode, and were always
ready to be sent on missions.
The palace-guards were the _Kapujis_, the _Chaushes_, and the
_Bostanjis_. The _Kapujis_, or gatekeepers, were _Ajem-oghlans_ who, to
the number of three or four hundred,[458] watched the outside gates of
the principal palace and of the palace of the harem. Like all the other
guards, they accompanied the sultan to war, where they were the guards
of his tent. The _Chaushes_, who numbered about one hundred,[459] were
ushers who acted as marshals on the days of Divan and of state ceremony,
and who in time of war dressed the ranks of the troops.[460] They also
acted as messengers of state within the empire. When a distant officer
had been condemned to death, a _Chaush_ was sent to execute the sentence
and bring back the offender’s head.[461] Since among the _Chaushes_
there were many renegades who knew various European languages, they were
useful as interpreters and were sometimes sent as envoys on important
missions.[462] The _Bostanjis_, or gardeners, were _Ajem-oghlans_,
and as such have been mentioned already. To the number of about four
hundred,[463] they cared for the garden and grounds of the principal
palace, and rowed the sultan’s caiques when he wished to enjoy the
matchless scenery of the Bosphorus. Their chief, the _Bostanji-bashi_,
who had risen from their ranks, seems to have been the only adult
man besides the sultan who resided within the inner regions of the
palace.[464] His general charge over all the sultan’s gardens, wherever
they might be, included oversight of the banks and shores of the
Bosphorus, the Sea of Marmora, and the Dardanelles.[465] This gave him
great power, and his favor was much courted.
The stable service was exceedingly important in a nation which relied
so much upon cavalry, and which was still under the influence of the
tradition of the steppe lands. The sultan for his own use kept a
stable of two hundred horses tended by a hundred men, and for the use
of his retinue four thousand horses tended by two thousand men.[466]
Besides these, a thousand or more Bulgarian Christians known as Voinaks
tended herds of horses on the great domanial pastures.[467] All these
followed the army to war as grooms. They were under the control of a
very great official, the _Emir-al-Akhor_,[468] or grand equerry, who,
with the second equerry, also had oversight of the numerous saddlers,
camel-drivers, and muleteers of the imperial service, and control of all
the domanial pastures and forests of the empire.[469]
The head gardener, the head gatekeeper, the grand equerry, the second
equerry, and the _Mir-Alem_[470] or standard-bearer, constituted the
special group of officers known as the _Rekiab-Aghalari_, or “generals
of the [imperial] stirrup.” The _Mir-Alem_ had charge of the imperial
standards and the six horsetails which were borne before the sultan.
He distributed standards and horsetails to _Beylerbeys_ and _Sanjak
Beys_, who thus in a way received investiture at his hands.[471] As
a consequence he ranked first among the officers of the household
as related to the government. He also had superior control over the
gatekeepers, and he commanded the military music.
The tent-pitchers, under a _Mihter-bashi_, cared for the sultan’s tents
in peace and war. Similar groups were the _Veznedars_ (who weighed the
money received by the sultan), the guards of the outside treasury, the
purchasing agents of cloth and muslins for the palace, and the guardians
of presents.[472]
The masters of the hunt were important officials in the time of Suleiman,
who practised the ancient royal custom of going with great state and
numerous attendants to hunt over a large region.[473] Heads of the
dog-keepers, falconers, vulturers, gerfalconers, and hawkers held
honorable position. A number of the pages of the higher _odalar_ had
subsidiary duties as falconers;[474] Ibrahim was chief falconer at the
time of his promotion to the position of grand vizier. A part of the
regular army aided in the hunts. The Janissaries show by the names of
some of their chief officers that their corps grew in part out of the
hunting organization of the early sultans.[475]
The intendants, or _Umena_, had charge of various departments of supply
and administration. They were the _Shehr-emini_, or intendant of
imperial buildings; the _Zarabkhaneh-emini_, or intendant of mints and
mines; the _Mutbakh-emini_, or intendant of the kitchen and pantry; the
_Arpa-emini_, or intendant of forage for the stables of the palace; and
the _Masraf-shehriyari_, or substitute for the intendant of the kitchens.
This rapid survey, though by no means complete, shows something of
the complicated organization, the numerous personnel, and the various
functions of the groups of the imperial household. The number of
individuals connected with it may be estimated to have been between ten
and fifteen thousand, many of whom were not the sultan’s slaves, but his
servants and employees in various capacities. All, however, except the
few members of the _Ulema_, were under the complete control and command
of members of the Ruling Institution. No confusion resulted from such
great complexity, for each group of servants had its definite duties,
and knew exactly from whom to receive orders and to whom to report
accomplishment.
It is clear that the functions of many of the officials of the household,
especially those of the head gardener, the grand equerry, and the
standard-bearer, intrenched upon the province of government. The chief
black eunuch and the chief white eunuch collected and administered the
revenues of many parcels of land which were devoted to special purposes.
The _Umena_ were so clearly recognized as exercising governmental
functions that they were regarded as chancellors,—an exception, made
for the sake of convenience, to the rule of separating household and
governmental officials. It resulted, therefore, that, while order was
maintained with comparative ease within the mechanism of the household
and, as will be seen, of the government, difficulty and confusion
accumulated in the relations of the Ruling Institution to the rest of
the empire. The splendid organization worked admirably down a certain
distance from the top; but, as the energy of the single will became
mediated by many officials, and as the multiplex land-ownership and
varied population of the empire was approached, disorder to the extent
of unworkability was so constantly threatened that only more or less
convulsive readjustments, resorted to from time to time, enabled the
institutions of the empire to remain in being.
THE CEREMONIES OF THE COURT
The Sacred Law, based on the practice of Mohammed and the four early
caliphs, discouraged display of every sort;[476] nor did the Seljuk
Turks take readily to the magnificence which under Persian influence had
prevailed at the court of the Bagdad caliphate.[477] So, too, the early
Ottoman sovereigns appear to have maintained simplicity of life down to
the time of Murad II. A contemporary observer said: “The very Magnates
and Princes observe such simplicity in all things, that they cannot be
distinguished from others. I saw the King going a long distance from his
palace to Church accompanied by two youths.... I saw him also praying in
Church, not in a chair (_cathedra_) or royal throne, but seated like the
rest on a rug spread on the ground; nor was there about him any ornament,
either suspended or exhibited or displayed. He used no singularity in
regard to his garments or his horse, by which he could be distinguished
from others. I saw him at the funeral of his mother, and I could not
possibly have recognized him, had he not been pointed out to me.”[478]
In the understanding of Mohammed II, however, the capture of the
imperial city seems to have included the appropriation of imperial
forms and ceremonies; for no small number of his _Kanuns_ dealt with
matters of rank and ceremony.[479] By the time of Suleiman the _Kanuni
Teshrifat_, or Law of Ceremonies, had become a collection of considerable
magnitude.[480] It is significant that the regulations concerning such
matters as the color and shape and material of robes and turbans,
the order of precedence on small as well as great occasions, and the
observances proper to each such occasion were made a matter of law. On
the one hand, a body of practice was set up which, though not distinctly
forbidden by the Sacred Law, was contrary to its essential spirit. On
the other hand, to rules of court etiquette, which in the West are
often unwritten and certainly have not similar standing with acts of
legislation, were given the rank and authority of imperial laws. The Law
of Ceremonies stood on a par with the Law of Subjects, the Law of Fiefs,
the Law of Egypt, and the Law of Fines and Punishments. In fact, this law
was observed even more carefully than the others, since the matters which
it covered usually came under the eye of the sultan himself. It was as
much the duty of an officer to wear the proper costume, and to appear in
the right place and at the right time at public ceremonies, as to attend
to the business connected with his position.
All the classes of members of the sultan’s household, all the high
officers of government, and all the separate bodies of troops in the
standing army were clearly distinguished from each other by costume or
head-dress or by both. Each group and every officer in each group had
his exact place in every ceremonial assembly and his exact rank in every
procession. Each great official, beginning with the sultan, had his title
for use in public documents, a designation which, though not exactly
fixed, varied little from time to time.[481]
Ceremonial occasions were numerous and splendid. All were participated
in by representatives from each division of the Ruling Institution, and
on the greatest occasions practically its whole membership was present.
The ceremonies may be grouped as simple occasions, religious festivals,
and extraordinary ceremonies. Among the simpler ceremonial occasions were
the regular meetings of the Divan, which in time of peace took place four
times a week, on Saturday, Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday. On Fridays the
sultan rode forth to mosque in magnificent state.[482] On other days some
of the officials made visits of state to their superiors. Every three
months the Janissaries were paid with much ceremony in the parade-ground
between the first and second gates of the palace. For the sake of giving
an impression of wealth and magnificence, such occasions were frequently
chosen for the reception of ambassadors.[483]
The great religious festivals of Islam, in which all the Moslems of the
empire participated, were celebrated by the court with great pomp. These
were the two feasts of Bairam, one of which comes at the close of the
fast of the month of Ramazan, and the other and greater seventy days
later.[484] On the great day of Bairam the ceremony of kissing the hand
of the sultan was performed by all the officials of the household and
government.
The principal extraordinary ceremonies were those in celebration of
the birth of sons or daughters to the sultan, of the circumcision of
princes and the marriage of princesses, the accession to the throne, and
the going forth of the sultan to war. The greatest of all Suleiman’s
celebrations was probably that of the circumcision of his sons, Mustapha,
Mohammed, and Selim, in 1530. Twenty-one successive days of display,
feasting, games, and formal presentation of gifts contributed to the
unparalleled grandeur of the occasion.[485]
It is not impossible to obtain an idea of the appearance of the sultan’s
court and retinue at this time of the empire’s greatest splendor. One
observer, often quoted already, who was gifted with superb powers of
expression, has left a clear record. Seer and seen alike vanished from
the earth more than three centuries ago; yet through the keen eyes of
Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq the world has ever since looked upon the great
Suleiman as he sat and rode in state. Busbecq, ambassador to the Ottoman
court from Emperor Charles the Fifth and his brother Ferdinand, describes
his first audience with Suleiman in camp at Amasia in 1555, also the
train that attended the sultan as he went forth from Constantinople to
war against his son Bayezid in 1559, and a Bairam ceremony in camp near
Scutari a few weeks after the latter event. Some quotations from these
descriptions will give a better idea of Suleiman’s court than any number
of statistics. The first describes the audience at Amasia:—
“The Sultan was seated on a very low ottoman, not more than a foot from
the ground, which was covered with a quantity of costly rugs and cushions
of exquisite workmanship; near him lay his bow and arrows....
“On entering we were separately conducted into the royal presence by the
chamberlains, who grasped our arms. This has been the Turkish fashion of
admitting people to the Sovereign ever since a Croat, in order to avenge
the death of his master, Marcus, Despot of Servia, asked Amurath for an
audience, and took advantage of it to slay him. After having gone through
a pretence of kissing his hand, we were conducted backwards to the wall
opposite his seat, care being taken that we should never turn our backs
on him....
“The Sultan’s hall was crowded with people, among whom were several
officers of high rank. Besides these there were all the troopers of
the Imperial guard, Spahis, Ghourebas, Ouloufedgis, and a large force
of Janissaries.... Take your stand by my side, and look at the sea of
turbaned heads, each wrapped in twisted folds of the whitest silk; look
at those marvellously handsome dresses of every kind and every colour;
time would fail me to tell how all around is glittering with gold, with
silver, with purple, with silk, and with velvet; words cannot convey
an adequate idea of that strange and wondrous sight: it was the most
beautiful spectacle I ever saw.
“With all this luxury great simplicity and economy are combined; every
man’s dress, whatever his position may be, is of the same pattern; no
fringes or useless points are sewn on, as is the case with us, appendages
which cost a great deal of money, and are worn out in three days. In
Turkey the tailor’s bill for a silk or velvet dress, even though it be
richly embroidered, as most of them are, is only a ducat. They were quite
as much surprised at our manner of dressing as we were at theirs. They
use long robes reaching down to the ankles, which have a stately effect
and add to the wearer’s height, while our dress is so short and scanty
that it leaves exposed to view more than is comely of the human shape;
besides, somehow or other, our fashion of dress seems to take from the
wearer’s height, and make him look shorter than he really is.
“I was greatly struck with the silence and order that prevailed in
this great crowd. There were no cries, no hum of voices, the usual
accompaniments of a motley gathering, neither was there any jostling;
without the slightest disturbance each man took his proper place
according to his rank. The Agas, as they call their chiefs, were seated,
to wit, generals, colonels (bimbaschi), and captains (soubaschi). Men
of a lower position stood. The most interesting sight in this assembly
was a body of several thousand Janissaries, who were drawn up in a long
line apart from the rest; their array was so steady and motionless that,
being at a little distance, it was some time before I could make up my
mind as to whether they were human beings or statues; at last I received
a hint to salute them, and saw all their heads bending at the same moment
to return my bow.[486] On leaving the assembly we had a fresh treat in
the sight of the household cavalry returning to their quarters; the men
were mounted on splendid horses, excellently groomed, and gorgeously
accoutred. And so we left the royal presence.”[487]
On the second occasion, when Suleiman was going forth to war, Busbecq
obtained a place at a window:—
“From this I had the pleasure of seeing the magnificent column which
was marching out. The Ghourebas and Ouloufedgis rode in double, and the
Silihdars and Spahis in single file. The cavalry of the Imperial guard
consists of these regiments, each of which forms a distinct body, and
has separate quarters. They are believed to amount to about 6000 men,
more or less. Besides these, I saw a large force, consisting of the
household slaves belonging to the sultan himself, the Pashas, and the
other court dignitaries. The spectacle presented by a Turkish horseman is
indeed magnificent. His high-bred steed generally comes from Cappadocia
or Syria, and its trappings and saddle sparkle with gold and jewels in
silver settings. The rider himself is resplendent in a dress of cloth of
gold or silver, or else of silk or velvet. The very lowest of them is
clothed in scarlet, violet, or blue robes of the finest cloth. Right and
left hang two handsome cases, one of which holds his bow, and the other
is full of painted arrows. Both of these cases are curiously wrought,
and come from Babylon,[488] as does also the targe, which is fitted to
the left arm, and is proof only against arrows or the blows of a mace or
sword. In the right hand, unless he prefers to keep it disengaged, is a
light spear, which is generally painted green. Round his waist is girt a
jewelled scimitar, while a mace of steel hangs from his saddle-bow....
The covering they wear on the head is made of the whitest and lightest
cotton-cloth, in the middle of which rises a fluted peak of fine purple
silk. It is a favorite fashion to ornament this head-dress with black
plumes.
“When the cavalry had ridden past, they were followed by a long
procession of Janissaries, but few of whom carried any arms except their
regular weapon, the musket. They were dressed in uniforms of almost
the same shape and colour, so that you might recognize them to be the
slaves, and as it were the household, of the same master. Among them no
extraordinary or startling dress was to be seen, and nothing slashed
or pierced. They say their clothes wear out quite fast enough without
their tearing them themselves. There is only one thing in which they
are extravagant, viz., plumes, head-dresses, etc., and the veterans
who formed the rear guard were specially distinguished by ornaments of
this kind. The plumes which they insert in their frontlets might well
be mistaken for a walking forest.[489] Then followed on horseback their
captains and colonels, distinguished by the badges of their rank. Last
of all, rode their Aga by himself. Then succeeded the chief dignitaries
of the Court, and among them the Pashas, and then the royal body-guard,
consisting of infantry, who wore a special uniform and carried bows
ready strung, all of them being archers.[490] Next came the Sultan’s
grooms leading a number of fine horses with handsome trappings for their
master’s use. He was mounted himself on a noble steed; his look was
stern, and there was a frown on his brow; it was easy to see that his
anger had been aroused. Behind him came three pages, one of whom carried
a flask of water, another a cloak, and the third a box.[491] These were
followed by some eunuchs of the bedchamber, and the procession was closed
by a squadron of horse about two hundred strong [the Muteferrika].”[492]
Busbecq spent three months in Suleiman’s camp near Scutari:—
“I should have returned to Constantinople on the day before the Bairam,
had I not been detained by my wish to see that day’s ceremonies. The
Turks were about to celebrate the rites of the festival on an open and
level plain before the tents of Solyman; and I could hardly hope that
such an occasion of seeing them would ever present itself again. I gave
my servants orders to promise a soldier some money and so get me a
place in his tent, on a mound which commanded a good view of Solyman’s
pavilions. Thither I repaired at sunrise. I saw assembled on the plain
a mighty multitude of turbaned heads, attentively following, in the
most profound silence, the words of the priest who was leading their
devotions. They kept their ranks, each in his proper position; the
lines of troops looked like so many hedges or walls parting out the
wide plain, on which they were drawn up. According to its rank in the
service each corps was posted nearer to, or farther from, the place
where the Sultan stood. The troops were dressed in brilliant uniforms,
their head-dresses rivalling snow in whiteness. The scene which met my
eyes was charming, the different colours having a most pleasing effect.
The men were so motionless that they seemed rooted to the ground on
which they stood. There was no coughing, no clearing the throat, and
no voice to be heard, and no one looked behind him or moved his head.
When the priest pronounced the name of Mahommet all alike bowed their
heads to their knees at the same moment, and when he uttered the name of
God they fell on their faces in worship and kissed the ground.... When
prayers were finished, the serried ranks broke up, and the whole plain
was gradually covered with their surging masses. Presently the Sultan’s
servants appeared bringing their master’s dinner, when, lo and behold!
the Janissaries laid their hands on the dishes, seized their contents
and devoured them, amid much merriment. This licence is allowed by
ancient custom as part of that day’s festivity, and the Sultan’s wants
are otherwise provided for. I returned to Constantinople full of the
brilliant spectacle, which I had thoroughly enjoyed.”[493]
INFLUENCE OF THE COURT
The influence of the Ottoman court may be looked at in three ways,—as
affecting the sultan, the Ruling Institution, and the destiny of the
empire; but all three ultimately reduce to the last. The sultan was
influenced by his personal relationships with the different individuals
or groups which came into closest contact with him. Reference has already
been made to Roxelana. Undoubtedly she had much influence over her
imperial husband, but to what extent she pushed him toward particular
decisions and actions cannot be known. It is improbable that she had
anything of consequence to do with the death of Ibrahim, since the
favorite’s own actions had brought matters to such a pass that he was a
menace to the throne; moreover, her influence in public affairs seems not
yet to have become great. Some writers of that date do not mention her
at all, though she had already won the supreme affection of Suleiman,
and had, so to speak, passed round the superior position of the mother
of the first-born son by being made a legal wife.[494] Seventeen years
later the situation was clear: Roxelana had triumphed completely over
the mother of Mustapha; her son-in-law Rustem, married to Suleiman’s
well-beloved daughter Mihrmah, had held the supreme office of grand
vizier for nine years; her hump-backed son Jehangir was Suleiman’s
favorite child. Nevertheless, as late as the beginning of 1553 Suleiman
seems to have intended still that Mustapha should occupy the throne.[495]
Mustapha became a victim less of Roxelana and Rustem than of the
indeterminate and dangerous condition of the rules of succession to the
throne.[496] Had primogeniture been the established order, Mustapha need
only have been on his guard against poison; he would have lacked motive
for rebellion, and his father would not have been in fear of deposition.
Had not Mohammed II established the terrible _Kanun_ which ordered the
execution of the brothers of a sultan at his accession, Roxelana need not
have feared for the lives of her own sons. Had not the Janissaries helped
Selim to the throne ahead of time and against the wishes of his father,
their favor toward Mustapha would not have forced a crisis. If Suleiman
really desired Mustapha to succeed him, he made a great mistake in
sending him far away to the governorship of Amasia. Bayezid, the ablest
living son of Roxelana, was in Karamania; and Selim, the least promising
of Roxelana’s children, but apparently her favorite, was assigned to
the governorship at Magnesia. Selim was thus removed from the capital
by a journey of only five or six days, Bayezid by a somewhat greater
distance, and Mustapha by a journey of twenty-six days.[497] Suleiman
may have meant by these appointments only to promote his sons to more
distant governorships as they grew in experience and could be entrusted
with greater responsibilities; they, on the other hand, could hardly fail
to suspect that he had different intentions. Without further discussion,
suffice it to say that, with custom and law as it was, the situation
was untenable. First Mustapha, and later Roxelana’s own son Bayezid,
became the victims of inexorable circumstances in which she undoubtedly
played some part, though exactly what it was cannot be known.[498] In
so far as she contributed to the fatal outcome, she hastened the fall
of the empire. If ever a government demanded a strong man to keep it
in operation, the Ottoman government needed one to maintain its Ruling
Institution. From the beginning there had been as yet no failure; but
after Suleiman the Magnificent, the Legislator, was to come Selim the
Sot, the Debauché!
Nor was the beloved and pious Mihrmah without her influence on the fate
of the empire, if it be true that she urged her father on to the great
expedition against Malta.[499] His reign had opened with two great
triumphs: the fortresses that had defied the great Conqueror, Belgrade
and Rhodes, had fallen before his troops. He had failed before Vienna,
it is true; but in the thirty-five succeeding years he had made large
conquests, he had strengthened his power, and his prestige had grown
steadily. Now, near the close of his life, his mailed fist was broken
upon a rocky isle in the Mediterranean. What but the confidence gained
by that successful resistance gathered and nerved the Christian fleet
that won the day at Lepanto? The influence of Roxelana and Mihrmah
foreshadowed the power exerted in later reigns by far inferior and far
worse women.
The influence of Ibrahim, for whose promotion Suleiman violated the
rules of advancement in the government service, and of Rustem, for whom
he broke the rule of giving no high place to relatives of the imperial
family, has been discussed already.[500] In his late years the Sultan
came greatly under the influence of the _Ulema_, who had readier access
to him than had any other outside force,[501] and whose power over him
has been thought by some to have been unfavorable. Just what ills it
brought about in his own time, however, are not easily to be discovered.
The Ruling Institution was affected strongly by the splendor and luxury
of the court of Suleiman. The Sultan had so enormous an establishment,
and was so fond of display and ceremony, that a similar spirit developed
in all his _kullar_. Each officer of position became inordinately
ambitious to have a large household, many horses, much portable wealth,
and superb equipment for his horses and servants on state occasions and
in time of war. Just as Suleiman’s splendor embarrassed his finances, so
that he was willing that Rustem should require payment for office from
newly-appointed great officials, so most of his _kullar_, in order to
keep up display, were led to undignified and extortionate procedures.
In the time of Suleiman’s grandfather the Ottomans of high position
had already been excessively grasping. “And to tell the truth,” writes
Spandugino, “in that country they are more eager after money than devils
after souls. And one cannot accomplish anything with the princes or
lords except by the power of money. In general, as well the emperor as
his princes and lords have mouths only for eating, for if you go to them
without giving them some present you will accomplish nothing.”[502]
That eagerness for wealth with which Spandugino reproached the Turks
became only worse under the Magnificent sultan’s example. The members of
the Ruling Institution might prey on each other to a certain extent by
the sale of offices; but the ultimate evil effect fell upon the subjects
outside. They in the end must pay for all the luxury and splendor of
the great court and the little courts. The pressure upon them tended to
become worse and worse. Lands began to grow less productive and to pass
out of cultivation. That dead blight began to descend upon agriculture
and trade which persists in Turkey to the present day.[503] Yet in the
time of Suleiman this weakness hardly appeared. Although his best two
sons had come to cruel deaths, although twenty thousand of his troops
had lately died in vain at Malta, he went forth to his last campaign
with a train which surpassed in pomp and splendor all that he had led
before.[504]
CHAPTER VI
THE RULING INSTITUTION: AS GOVERNMENT
SUMMARY
The Ottoman Ruling Institution has now been considered in all but the
last of its aspects. The recruiting of its members from Christian
subjects and enemies, their conversion to Mohammedanism, and their
training for the duties of war and government were first explained; then
the military duties and organization of the sultan’s _kullar_, their
privileged and noble status, and their organization and activity as a
household and court were described. Of the seven aspects in which the
Ruling Institution may be considered only one remains, that of government
in the narrow sense.
With certain exceptions, the Ruling Institution constituted the
government of the Ottoman Empire. According to the Sacred Law, the
rendering of justice belonged to the Moslem Institution, and many
internal matters were left to be regulated by the subject nationalities,
which were organized as churches, and by the foreign colonies, which
remained under their own laws; but even over these bodies the Ruling
Institution held the sword, and in the case of the Moslem Institution
it held the purse-strings also. Aside from such exceptions, it attended
to all the functions of government that were performed within the
empire. These, however, as will appear, were by no means so numerous and
extensive as are the activities of a progressive twentieth-century state.
Some of the functions of government cared for by the Ruling Institution
have already been described in the previous chapters. The guidance of
the educational system, the management of the army of the empire, the
conduct of local government, the oversight of the household, the care of
the sultan’s gardens, pastures, and forests, the regulation of ceremonies
at his court, may be all be regarded as tasks of government. To some of
them it will be necessary to refer again briefly; but the fact that they
have been described already simplifies the problem of setting forth the
plan of the government in its narrower sense.
FUNCTIONS OF THE OTTOMAN GOVERNMENT
All governments must in some fashion maintain themselves in place and
in operation; they must obtain means to meet expenses, and they must
keep some kind of record of their receipts and expenditures and of their
acts. They must alter and expand the unwritten and the written rules
under which they operate, at least enough to keep their system workable.
They must protect their subjects sufficiently to enable them to earn a
living and the means to meet taxation. They must meet the efforts of
other governments of both a diplomatic and a military character. All
these things the Ottoman government did in its own way. In addition, it
remained in the sixteenth century strongly under the ancient impulse to
increase its bounds and the number of its subjects, particularly at the
expense of Christians and Shiites and in the interest of Sunnite Islam.
The Ottoman government did not include among its functions the building
and maintenance of systems of roads, bridges, and ferries, the conduct
of a public postal service, the promotion of agriculture, industry, and
commerce, the organization of a system of public and universal education,
the adjustment of taxation and customs duties in the interest of the
welfare of its subjects, or an extension of the activities and liberties
of its subjects. Benevolence toward the common people had hardly emerged
into the consciousness of any sixteenth-century state. Self-maintenance
in power by the most available means, which were usually military
force; increase of power, authority, and territory, by similar means;
and, incidentally, an assurance of the well-being of all the privileged
persons who were connected with the government, in proportion to their
importance: these were the chief objects aimed at by the governments of
that day, whether in the West or in the East.
Accordingly, the chief energies of the Ottoman Ruling Institution in its
capacity as government were directed toward the smooth running of the
machine. For this object the best and most devoted men were obtained and
trained. They, with as many other members of the Ottoman nationality
as possible, were organized into a magnificent army, which first of
all defended and maintained the government against enemies at home and
abroad, and then increased its dominions and greatness by victorious
campaigns in the “land of war.” The religious motive entered strongly
here, since the power and conquests of the Ottoman nation were felt to
be the power and conquests of Islam. The welfare and contentment of the
members of the government, beginning with the sovereign, were assured by
exclusive privileges, elaborate organization of personal service, and
ceremonies in which they could be flattered by opportunities for display
and by gradations of honor.
There remained as the special functions of government, first, the careful
elaboration and watchful improvement of the regulations under which the
Ruling Institution and the state were organized; second, the keeping of
every part of the administrative machinery in the best possible order
and condition; third, the acquisition of enough money and means to carry
out the purposes of the government, and the supplying of this money
and means in suitable quantity at the time and place needed and to the
proper persons; and, fourth, the preparing and recording of all written
acts necessary to the transaction of the business of the government. A
fifth function was the adjustment of disputes between subjects of the
empire who were not connected with the government; this was attended to
largely by another institution, though supported and executed by the
members of the government itself. The first of these functions, that of
legislation, was cared for chiefly by the sultan himself; the second, of
administration, was controlled by his viziers; the third, of finance,
was managed by the _Defterdars_ through twenty-five departments; the
fourth, of chancery, was under the power of the _Nishanjis_; the fifth,
of justice between the subjects, was, in matters controlled by the
Sacred Law, administered by the _Ulema_, the learned men of the Moslem
Institution, under the headship of the _Kaziaskers_. These five functions
were by no means so clearly separated as were the groups of officials
concerned with them. A logical classification of duties would have
necessitated much readjustment.
The striking way in which the Ottoman Ruling Institution, when regarded
as a government, limited its operations almost exclusively to its
own affairs seems to have resulted from its character as a single
slave-family. Although its essential character is somewhat obscured by
the facts that it was by far the largest slave-family in the empire, that
it had ruling authority, and that some of its members exercised general
governmental functions, it is nevertheless true that the legislation
of the sultans and of Suleiman himself was largely directed to the
regulation of the institution itself, most laws of wider and deeper
import being included in the almost unchangeable Sacred Law. The business
of the viziers was also largely that of the institution, aside from the
fact that the grand vizier, as representative of the sultan, headed also
the justice of the empire. The imperial treasury, again, was concerned,
in the first place, with obtaining the revenues due to the sultan, such
of them as did not come from his personal rights as the owner of domain
lands being farmed out, so that the government did not even here touch
the people directly. In the second place, the revenues were paid out to
the members of the institution as soldiers, servants, officials, and
members of the royal family. All who followed the sultan to war without
belonging to his great household provided their own support. Even the
officers of local government, though appointed from his _kullar_, were
supported by the assignment of lands which they administered themselves
by means of the Ruling Institution. The sultan’s chancery was similarly
confined in its operations to the preparation and registration of acts,
decrees, commissions, and the like, most of which were concerned with the
adjustment and operation of the Ruling Institution. Finally, the officers
of the army and the government rendered and administered justice to all
the _kullar_, besides deciding many law cases under imperial laws. To
a very great extent, then, the sultan’s government was that of a large
slave-family, which secured its own interests and managed to the best
advantage its own affairs, which cared little for the welfare of the
great majority of the people of the empire, and which had dealings with
them and attended to their affairs only when obliged to do so by the
pursuit of its own aims.
THE SULTAN AS HEAD OF THE STATE AND OF THE GOVERNMENT
Suleiman’s authority rested actually and immediately upon the military
might which he controlled. Psychologically, it was strongly supported
by the ancient Turkish tradition of absolute obedience to the ruler who
led and fed his people, and by the undying allegiance of the population
of wide areas to the Caesar of New Rome, to whose seat and splendor
Suleiman had succeeded. Theoretically, and, if a modern expression may be
used, constitutionally, Suleiman’s power was that of the ancient caliphs
of Islam. It is true that he suffered under one apparently complete
disqualification. A tradition of high order asserted that the _Imâms_
must be of the Prophet’s tribe, the Koreish;[505] but by an extension of
the principle of agreement (_ijma_) by which the consensus of the Islamic
doctors of the law of any period may establish an interpretation of some
passage of the Sacred Law, Suleiman’s father, after the acquisition of
the Holy Cities and the resignation of the last Abbassid caliph at Cairo,
had come into full rights as caliph. The title itself seems to have been
known by none of the Western writers of the sixteenth century, nor was it
commonly used by Suleiman in public documents.
In his capacity as caliph, Suleiman was head of the Islamic state,
defender, executor, and interpreter of the Sacred Law, and defender of
the faith. He was under obligation to punish heretics and unsubmissive
infidels, to protect true believers, and to extend the area of his
divinely-appointed rule. To him, after Allah and the Prophet, was due the
absolute obedience of all good Moslems within his dominions. As for his
Christian subjects, they also regarded him as their lawful sovereign,
given by God as a punishment for their sins. The Sacred Law recognized no
power of legislation in the head of the state, since God through Mohammed
had legislated once for all; but it entrusted to him the functions of
administration and justice, to be exercised to the fullest possible
extent, subject always to the prescriptions of the Law. The sultan being
thus supreme, all the great institutions of the Ottoman Empire are to be
thought of, not as built upward from a basis in the popular will, but
as extended downward from the divinely-appointed sovereign at the top.
To what extent the Ruling Institution held this relationship has been
indicated already. Central and local government, household and court,
standing, feudal, and irregular army, all depended upon the sultan. The
Moslem Institution recognized him as its head, and the highest officials
of the judiciary, chosen out of its membership, were appointed by him
and removable at his will.[506] So also the _Mufti_, the chief of the
jurists, was appointed by the sultan.[507] Even the ecclesiastical
organizations of the subject Christians and Jews were likewise extended
downward from his authority, since at the capture of Constantinople the
Conqueror had at once assumed that temporal headship of the Christian
churches which had been held by the Byzantine emperors.[508] The Greek
Patriarch received from the sultan appointment and investiture, including
a command to bishops, clergy, and people of his faith to render obedience
to him in matters within his province; the other Christian groups and
the Jews were likewise dependent. Finally, the privileges enjoyed by
the foreign settlements all depended upon grants from the sultan or
upon treaties made with him in his sovereign capacity.[509] As for the
officials of the Ruling Institution, they were all either directly or
indirectly the sultan’s appointees. Grand vizier, viziers, treasurers,
chancellor, generals of the inside service, generals of the outside
service and the army, _Beylerbeys_ and _Sanjak Beys_, all took their
places at a word from him, and at a second word all left them without
a murmur.
THE SULTAN AS LEGISLATOR
So far as legislation was possible under the Ottoman system, the sole
power to issue it rested in the sultan. The law which demanded obedience
within the Ottoman Empire was fourfold: the _Sheri_, or Sacred Law of
Islam; the _Kanuns_, or written decrees of the sultans; the _Adet_, or
established custom; and the _Urf_, or sovereign will of the reigning
sultan.[510] The _Sheri_ was above the sultan and unchangeable by him;
the _Kanuns_ and the _Adet_ were subordinate to the _Urf_; the _Urf_,
when expressed and written, became _Kanun_ and annulled all contradictory
_Kanuns_ and _Adet_.
The _Sheri_ was the whole body of Islamic law as accepted by the Ottoman
nation. Its long history cannot be detailed here. Based originally on
the Koran, supplemented by traditions of Mohammed’s legal decisions
and sayings, and by the decisions of the early caliphs and the
interpretations of early judges,[511] it was first formulated by Abu
Hanifa, who was the earliest of the four great orthodox Moslem doctors,
and who became the accepted teacher of all Turkish peoples.[512] His
code was worked over again and again in the course of six centuries,
as new decisions of judges and interpretations of jurists accumulated.
Mohammed II found it necessary to have a new code prepared, a task for
which he chose Khosrew Pasha, who, singularly enough, was a Christian
renegade, seemingly almost the only one who rose high in the Moslem
Institution.[513] This work, finished in 1470,[514] was not sufficient in
the days of Suleiman. At the time of its preparation the Ottoman Empire
had been still wholly within territory that had remained Christian during
all the early brilliant period of Islam; but since then the sultans had
conquered three seats of the later caliphate, Damascus, Bagdad, and
Cairo, and had come to hold the protectorate of the Holy Cities, where
Mohammed and the early caliphs had ruled. A new code of law, therefore,
better adapted to the more widely Moslem character which the empire
had assumed, was demanded. Suleiman charged Sheik Ibrahim Halebi (of
Aleppo) with the task of preparing such a code; and the result, prepared
before 1549, was the _Multeka ol-ebhar_, the “Confluence of the Seas,”
which remained the foundation of Ottoman law until the reforms of the
nineteenth century.[515] The _Multeka_ did not, however, entirely replace
the previous codes and collections of _fetvas_, or authoritative juristic
opinions, which continued to be used as law books of less weight.
Early in the process of formulation, the Sacred Law was separated
logically into two great divisions,—matters of faith and morals, and
practical regulations, groups corresponding more or less closely to
the Western conceptions of theology and law. The Moslems never made an
actual separation of these two divisions of the Sacred Law; both in
education and in practice they regarded them as parts of one great unity
of advice, precept, and command, divinely sanctioned and binding upon all
true believers. The practical regulations, or the Law proper, went by
the Arabic name of _fikh_; it included both jurisprudence and positive
law.[516]
A group of Dutch and German thinkers, led by Dr. Snouck Hurgronje,
has been so strongly impressed by the jurisprudential side of the
_Sheri_ as almost to deny that it has or has ever had an important
practical side;[517] but a careful consideration of the early history
of the Ottoman Empire suggests that their view in its entirety is not
supported by the facts. Dr. Goldziher says: “In later days, historical
consideration has proved that only a small part of this system,
connected with religious and family life, has a practical effect as of
old, while in many parts of merely juristical character this theological
law is entirely put aside in actual jurisdiction.... Snouck Hurgronje was
really the first who set forth with great acuteness and sure judgment the
historical truth, namely, that what we call Muhammedan law is nothing but
an _ideal_ law, a theoretical system; in a word, a learned _school-law_,
which reflects the thoughts of pious theologians about the arrangement
of Islamic society, whose sphere of influence was willingly extended by
pious rulers—as far as possible—but which as a whole could hardly ever
have been the real practical standard of public life. He finds there
rather _a doctrine of duties_ (_Pflichtenlehre_) of quite an ideal and
theological character, traced out by generations of religious scholars,
who wished to rule life by the scale of an age which in their idea
was the golden period, and whose traditions they wished to maintain,
propagate, and develop. Even the penalties for offenses against religious
laws are often nothing else but ideal claims of the pious, dead letters
conceived in studies and fostered in the hearts of God-fearing scholars,
but neglected and suppressed in life where other rules become prevailing.
We find even in the oldest literature of Islam many complaints about the
negligence of the religious law by _Ulema_ in their struggle against
the practical judges, that is to say against the executors of actual
law.”[518]
The last sentence quoted contains by implication a genuine distinction
between the “religious law,” which may be called jurisprudence, and
the “actual law.” It is true that at the present time “actual law” in
all Mohammedan lands consists only in a comparatively small proportion
of precepts drawn from the _Sheri_; yet a body of precepts which today
requires an elaborate system of courts for its enforcement, and which
offers a career to many thousands of living men as teachers, advisers,
and judges, can hardly be adjudged a mere “doctrine of duties.”[519]
Undoubtedly the _Sheri_ has suffered a gradual shifting of emphasis from
its practical to its jurisprudential side; undoubtedly it has suffered
progressive encroachment upon the area of its practical application,
beginning in very early times and leading up to an invasion in force in
the nineteenth century by the principles, practice, and procedure of
Western Europe. But in the Ottoman Empire of the sixteenth century the
_Sheri_ had no such inferior place. Even then, to be sure, it occupied
by no means the whole field of practical law; but an examination of the
quotations from the Venetian reports which were presented in an earlier
chapter is of itself sufficient to show that at that time the _Sheri_
held the place of overwhelming preëminence in legal matters, in point of
usefulness as well as of honor; that its practical precepts to the full
extent of their formulated scope were the private law of the land; that
its judges were of equal or greater authority and repute than were the
high officers of government; that the latter were in most cases obliged
to execute decisions of the former, their independent jurisdiction
being confined to a limited class of persons, and to the decision of
administrative cases according to _Kanuns_ outside the field of the
Sacred Law.[520]
The Sacred Law reached out far beyond the conception of law in the West.
It was originally supposed to be sufficient for the entire government of
the Islamic state (of which there was believed to be but one upon the
earth),[521] as well as for the minute regulation of the social, ethical,
and religious life of all its members.[522] From two circumstances,
however, it rapidly became inadequate as a political constitution: first,
from the expansion of the original simple Islamic society into a great
world-power, with interests and relationships far more complex than had
been dreamed of by the founders; and, second, from the fact that the Law,
believed to be of divine origin,[523] was proclaimed unchangeable by its
own provisions, and hence could not, except with extreme difficulty, be
adapted to new responsibilities and times. Judges and jurists labored
manfully to provide elasticity by interpretation, but the task was too
great to be completely successful. It became necessary, therefore, for
princes to supplement the Sacred Law by decrees of their own, a course in
which they could not transgress the positive commands of the Sacred Law.
But even within the Law itself the jurists had allowed them considerable
latitude, by classifying its provisions under different heads as of
various degrees of obligation: some acts were forbidden, some were
advised against, some were considered indifferent, some were recommended,
and some were rigidly prescribed.[524] Princes were compelled to keep
hands off all matters that were forbidden or prescribed; but in the wide
intervening field there was much that they might do, and an even larger
field was left open in matters that were not touched at all by the Sacred
Law because they had lain outside the experience of the fathers of Islam
or had developed since their time. In case of undoubted transgression of
the Sacred Law, the Moslem society, led by the _Ulema_, was considered
absolved from allegiance to the sovereign and justified in exercising the
right of revolution.[525] The _Sheri_ was thus a written constitution for
the Ottoman Empire, not subject to amendment, but capable of some slight
modification by judicial and juristic decision and interpretation.[526]
The sultan had no power over it except as guardian, interpreter, and
executor. The popular consent which allowed him to remain in authority
did not recognize in him any right to amend or abolish any part of the
Sacred Law.
The Ottoman sovereigns at first issued their new legislation as
_firmans_, or ordinances,[527] but in the course of time they adopted
from the Greek word κανών, or rule, the word _kanun_, which they applied
to every general law. This Greek word as applied to law thus came to
be used in contrary senses in the East and the West. To the canon law
of the West corresponded the _Sheri_, and to the civil or rather the
national law of the West, the _Kanuns_. It is to be noted, however, that
the _Sheri_ had wider sway in Turkey in the sixteenth century than the
canon law ever had in the West. Not only did it deal with a far larger
field, but its judges seem sometimes to have administered the _Kanuns_
also; they had, further, the support of the national government, whereas
the rival courts of the great officials had ordinarily a very limited
jurisdiction. The position of the ecclesiastical courts of the Christian
subjects was much more like that of similar courts in the West.[528]
The _Kanuns_ were issued in accordance with a general formula of the
Sacred Law. “The _Imâm_,” quotes Von Hammer, “has the right to make all
civil and political regulations which are demanded by prudence, the
circumstances, and the public welfare of the administration and the
highest executive power.”[529] The _Kanuns_ of previous sultans were not
binding upon a reigning sultan, except so far as he chose to put them in
force;[530] but the necessity of preserving a continuous administration
led ordinarily to the carrying over to a new reign of all _Kanuns_ that
were actually in use. Reforms or readjustments were often accomplished by
the revival, with modifications, of old _Kanuns_, rather than by wholly
new legislation.[531]
The _Kanuns_ dealt with matters of military, financial, feudal, criminal,
and police law, and with the law of ceremonies.[532] All these were also
covered in a measure by the Sacred Law, with two exceptions,—the feudal
law and the law of ceremonies, which had to do with matters non-existent
in the early Islamic state.[533] Within these two fields the sultans had
a free hand; in all others their _Kanuns_ were strictly supplementary and
administrative.[534]
The _Kanuns_ were issued separately to meet special circumstances. A
number of them, when collected according to subject-matter or under the
name of the sultan who issued them, constituted a _Kanun-nameh_, or book
of laws. Each department of the government had its own _Kanun-nameh_, and
the laws of taxation for each _sanjak_ were collected into a separate
group.[535] It is incorrect to think of a _Kanun-nameh_ of Mohammed II
or of Suleiman as bearing any resemblance to the codes of Theodosius or
Justinian. Not in magnitude, scope, character of contents, authorized
unification, or prevailing authority can any comparison be made. The
_Kanun-nameh_ of Mohammed II seems from its opening words to have had
his sanction as a collected body: “This is the _Kanun_ of my fathers and
ancestors, according to which my successors shall act from generation
to generation.”[536] These words themselves show, however, that the
contents were not a unified body, but a collection of _Kanuns_ issued at
different times by former sultans as well as by the one who was reigning;
and an examination of the contents bears out the statement. Nor does the
collection possess completeness in any sense. The first of the three
parts deals mainly with the relative rank of officials, the second with a
miscellaneous lot of usages, chiefly ceremonial, the third with fines for
some serious offenses and with the salaries of some great officials. The
whole code is brief and shows great economy of legislation.
THE LEGISLATION OF SULEIMAN
Suleiman’s laws are not contained in a single _Kanun-nameh_. He is
rightly named the Legislator by comparison with preceding Ottoman
sultans, who were men of the sword and not of the pen; who, saying
little, but doing much, had built up a great empire. With the empire,
institutions which started from small beginnings had also grown great;
but, resting as they did on few written laws or ordinances, they had
tended to reach a confused and complicated condition. The Ruling
Institution itself, gathered closely about the sultans and constantly
amended by them, was kept in excellent order; it needed no _Kanun-nameh_,
and as a whole never had one, though many _Kanuns_ of rank, ceremony,
salary, and inheritance had reference to it. More remote matters,
however, could not have so much attention. By the time of Suleiman’s
accession, for example, the feudal system, and the bearing of the various
forms of taxation and land tenure on the subject population, had come
into great disorder; criminal law also needed further development, and
the market and gild regulations of the cities of the empire demanded
attention. Egyptian affairs were likewise in wild confusion. Already
disordered under the last Mameluke sultans,[537] they were now, by
reason of the many deaths and confiscations in the war of conquest and
the setting-up of a new governing authority, imperatively demanding
settlement. In accordance with the needs of the time, therefore, Suleiman
issued a large number of _Kanuns_, dealing especially with _timars_
or fiefs, _rayahs_ or subjects, ceremonies, and criminal and market
regulations, and comprising a constitution for Egypt, the _Kanun-nameh
Misr_.[538] The latter appears to be the only body of _Kanuns_ which
the Legislator published as a whole, and which formed a complete
system; issued in 1532,[539] it was probably inspired by Ibrahim,
following up his visit to Egypt in 1524.[540] The collection of the
great _Mufti Ebu su’ud_, which is called the _Kanun-nameh_ of Suleiman,
contains chiefly his ordinances in regard to the land tenure and taxes
of the subject Christians, together with a number of laws designed to
regulate the feudal system, and a few relating to judges and legal
processes.[541] Suleiman was great as a legislator only by comparison
with his predecessors. He set nothing in final order; and the ground
had to be gone over again within fifty years after his death, in the
reign of Achmet I.[542] His legislation was doubly hindered: first, by
the conservatism of his people and his religion, which alike believed
that the old ways were the best, and which made radical departures
practically impossible; and, second, by the weakness inherent in despotic
legislation, in which the distance of the law-giver from the subjects
affected makes true adaptation to circumstances and complete enforcement
impossible of attainment. Because of the first hindrance, most of
Suleiman’s laws professed an attempt to restore a former better state of
affairs. As a matter of fact, they probably did not contain much more
than a statement in black and white, with necessary simplifications,
of a confused body of practice that had grown up gradually, formulated
in parts by the ordinances of his predecessors. Because of the second
hindrance to his legislation, Suleiman was not able to put into
satisfactory and enduring order matters of such vital interest to the
people as the feudal and financial systems. Conferring only with a few
religious men and a limited number of high officials, aside from the
shut-in members of his inner service, he could not possibly know how his
regulations would bear upon the holders of small fiefs and the Christian
tenants and tax-payers in remote parts of the empire. The officials who
formulated the _Kanuns_ for him were only a little better able than he to
judge of such matters; and the persons chiefly affected by the laws were
not consulted at all. Moreover, after issuing his laws the sultan could
not follow them up to see to their execution. In later times, orders to
readjust land titles were sometimes given, but with little further result
than to enrich officials by the bribes which they accepted for declaring
titles good, or by their confiscations of property on which the owners
could not pay enough.[543] Although official corruption was undoubtedly
not so bad under Suleiman as it became later, the suspiciously great
wealth of high officials like Ibrahim and Rustem and the fact that fiefs
and finances were in worse disorder than ever, after no great time had
elapsed, gives evidence that his laws were not faithfully enforced.[544]
Not much need be said about _Adet_ and _Urf_. _Adet_, or custom,
corresponds primarily to the body of unwritten regulations under which
the Turks of the steppe lands lived. As in most semi-civilized societies,
it was at once far wider in scope, more rigid, and more binding, as
enforced by popular opinion, than written laws in more advanced societies
usually are. Something of these primitive characteristics were carried
over into the Ottoman nation, with all its acquisition of new membership
and incorporation of useful ideas. The conservative character of Islam
strengthened the tendency to perpetuate established custom. It has been
remarked of the caliphate that in no other state have little causes near
the beginning produced such great effects, because of the tendency to
follow precedent minutely.[545] A very similar observation has been made
in regard to the Ottoman state: “The changeless perpetuity of a primitive
institution appears at every step in Ottoman history.”[546] What has been
shall be, was a precept observed by the Ottomans in matters small and
great. The principles of the Sacred Law, the accepted _Kanuns_, and the
local _Adet_ of towns, districts, and manors had almost equally binding
force. In fact, to the unlettered citizen they probably formed one
indistinguishable whole, which seemed almost a feature of the ordering of
nature. Although such sentiments tended strongly toward stability, they
were a great hindrance to improvement. The early Ottomans had adopted
new ideas and institutions with great readiness; but, since they held to
them with equal tenacity, in the course of time they had no room left
for the admission of more novelties. As fusion and combination were
processes little understood, the tendency was thus toward stagnation,
interrupted violently and for short periods when evils became too great
to be endured. But, while the disposition to adhere to the established
order was exceedingly strong among the Ottomans, _Urf_, the will of the
sovereign was recognized to be superior to _Adet_, much as the Creator
was held to be superior to the ordinary operations of nature. The
sultan’s will, however, penetrated but seldom so far as to the masses of
the people.
_Adet_ supplemented the Sacred Law and the _Kanuns_ in matters which
they did not cover.[547] It differed from district to district, as it
does in the West. _Urf_ was the sovereign will of the reigning sultan;
it was the seat and organ of sovereignty, being absolute to the full
extent in which, according to the Sacred Law, God has delegated the
right of legislation and rule to human beings.[548] The will of a past
sultan could prevail only if it had been expressed in a _Kanun_ and
was enforced by the reigning sovereign. It was by the expression of
_Urf_ that _Kanuns_ were issued or annulled and that _Adet_ was replaced
by _Kanun_. So long as the Sacred Law was untouched, _Urf_ might be
exercised oppressively, cruelly, or unworthily, without giving any one
the right to resist.[549] Against the _Sheri_, however, it had no force;
any attempt to exercise it thus was an invitation to disaster.[550]
Suleiman was never in danger from transgression of the Sacred Law. A
devout Moslem, whose piety increased in old age, he took seriously
his duty of enforcing its provisions, not even hesitating at such as
were unpopular, like the prohibition of wine-drinking,[551] or at
such as demanded self-sacrifice on his part, like the disapproval of
musical instruments and silver plate.[552] If he did not enact measures
directly to increase the welfare of the common people, his attempts to
regulate the tax and tenancy systems tended to lighten their condition.
Moreover, he used severe measures to put down extortion; and he strove
by his market and police regulations to maintain justice, fairness, and
order.[553]
THE VIZIERS
Ottoman writers represented their government under the figure of a tent
supported by four lofty pillars,[554]—the Viziers, the _Kaziaskers_, the
_Defterdars_, and the _Nishanjis_. It is not safe to press comparisons
too far, however; for, as a matter of fact, the pillars did not bear
equal weight. All four groups of officials were necessary, but they were
not of like importance: the _Nishanjis_ were far less esteemed than the
others; the grand vizier, on the other hand, carried, from the time of
Suleiman, so much greater a burden than any one else that he might be
compared to a central pillar which supported the entire tent.
The viziers were the chief councillors of the sultan for peace and war,
administration and justice; and they deliberated all important questions
in the meetings of the Divan, which will be described later. The word
vizier means burden-bearer, the idea being that an official so designated
lifted from the shoulders of the sovereign the burden of state, and bore
it upon his own shoulders. The number of viziers was not rigidly fixed,
but in the reign of Suleiman, there were ordinarily four, that being a
sacred number with both Turks and Moslems.[555] All bore the title pasha,
which was sparingly used in the sixteenth century. Ordinary viziers had
no regular responsibilities besides their function as councillors; they
had great incomes from both regular and irregular sources, and kept large
establishments modeled on that of their master.[556]
In the time of Suleiman, the office of grand vizier reached the climax
of a noteworthy development. Whereas formerly this official had been the
senior member of the sultan’s board of advisers, _primus inter pares_, he
now became a personage far above his fellow-viziers. His position came
to differ from theirs not merely in degree, but in kind, a difference
typified by the fact that, in reporting to Suleiman after the meetings of
the Divan, none spoke but the grand vizier.[557] This development of the
office seems to have resulted from Suleiman’s willingness to entrust much
power to a chosen instrument, who would thus relieve him of many of the
immense cares of empire. Ibrahim first held his master’s confidence for
many years. Later Rustem came to full power, supported by the wife and
the favorite daughter of the monarch. In Suleiman’s last years he left
well-nigh everything to Ali and to Mohammed Sokolli.[558]
The grand vizier thus came practically to wield the sovereign power of
the Ottoman state: the sultan might almost discharge his mind of public
care. That is why it became easy for Selim II and his successors to
withdraw into the harem, and devote most of their energies to carousing
and debauchery. Had the position of the grand vizier been more secure,
this change might have been for the good of the Ottoman state, as
affording a means of supplementing the scanty abilities of weak sultans
by those of the ablest men of the empire. In the case of Mohammed
Sokolli, and of the Kiuprilis three generations later, such was to be
the fact. More often, however, the place of grand vizier was to be so
thoroughly at the mercy of harem intrigue that only a master of this art
could retain his precarious position by immense efforts, such as would
leave a mere remnant of his energies free for the service of the state.
The increase under Suleiman of the relative power of the grand vizier was
thus a dangerous and eventually a disastrous development.
It is clear that the grand vizier fully deserved the name of
burden-bearer. Whereas even so earnest a sovereign as Suleiman appears to
have had a sufficiently leisurely life in time of peace, in spite of his
great responsibilities as head of a despotic government,[559] his grand
viziers must have been kept fully occupied. He that has been called the
greatest of all viziers, the _Nizam al-mulk_, spoke out of his experience
when he said: “It is necessary that the sovereign consider with his
vizier affairs of state and all that concerns the army, the finances
and general prosperity. He must needs give attention to the measures
which should be taken against the enemies of the empire and everything
that relates to the subject. All these matters give rise to a great many
annoyances and preoccupations and put the spirit to torture, for they do
not leave a single instant of repose.”[560]
The grand vizier represented the sultan as head of the civil and
military administration and as supreme judge.[561] He appointed the
highest officials in these departments. He presided over long sessions
of the Divan four days in the week. Some of his other duties, cares,
and obligatory ceremonies appear in the catalogue of his ten special
prerogatives:[562]—
1. He had the care of the imperial seal, with which, on the days of the
Divan, the doors of the treasury and chancery were sealed. The delivery
of the seal was the symbol of investiture with the office of grand vizier.
2. He might hold a Divan of his own at his palace in the afternoon. This
was an important session of court at which many cases, both great and
small, were decided.[563]
3. He had the right to be escorted by the _Chaush-bashi_ and all the
_Chaushes_ from his palace to and from the sultan’s palace.
4. He received visits of state from the _Kaziaskers_ and _Defterdars_
every Wednesday.
5. He was honored by the appearance of the officers of the imperial
stirrup every Monday in the Divan.
6. He went in solemn procession on Friday to the mosque, escorted by
the _Chaushes_, the _Muteferrika_, and others of the outside service in
turbans of ceremony.
7. He received a weekly visit from the _Agha_ of the Janissaries, and a
monthly visit from the other viziers.
8. He inspected the city of Constantinople and its markets, escorted by
the judge of Constantinople, the _Agha_ of the Janissaries, the provost
of the markets, and the prefect of the city.
9. He received a weekly visit of state from various magistrates and
_Sanjak Beys_.
10. He was honored at the two Bairams with official felicitations from
the other viziers, the _Defterdars_, the _Beys_, the magistrates, and the
generals of the army.
Customary ceremonies alone were evidently enough to absorb a very large
part of the grand vizier’s time; but they were a mere incident to the
vast amount of administrative and judicial business that demanded his
attention. It is not to be wondered at that the period of service in
this office was short, on the average. The post was a dangerous one;
for the possessor, with all his greatness, was the sultan’s _kul_, and
liable to summary execution if he failed to give satisfaction. Of some
two hundred men who served as grand viziers in the course of five hundred
years, about twenty were executed at the time of their deposition.[564]
Suleiman’s grand viziers held office for comparatively long periods.[565]
Seven, taken together, served him forty years; Mohammed Piri Pasha,
whom he found in office at his accession, served in all six years, and
Mohammed Sokolli, whom he left in office at his death, served fifteen
years. Thus in sixty-two years there were only nine in all. Three of them
deserve to be called great,—Ibrahim for his splendor, his breadth of
mind, and his continuance in favor, Rustem for his financial shrewdness,
and Mohammed Sokolli for his statesmanship. These three also served the
longest,—Ibrahim thirteen years, Rustem fifteen years in two periods, and
Mohammed Sokolli fifteen years without a break. Four of the nine ended
their service at death, two were deposed and executed, three were simply
deposed. All except Mohammed Piri Pasha were Christian renegades, who had
risen as slaves to the highest honor of the empire.
The _Kaziaskers_ were, under the sultan and the grand vizier, the heads
of the judiciary of the empire. They sat in the Divan, where they ranked
next to the grand vizier. Since they belonged to the Moslem Institution,
discussion of their duties will be postponed to the next chapter.
THE DEFTERDARS, OR TREASURERS[566]
The great labor of accounting for the receipts and expenditures of
the Ruling Institution in practically all its capacities was under
the care of the two principal _Defterdars_, or treasurers, one for
Rumelia and one for Anatolia, aided by two of lower rank, one for
Aleppo and the southwest and one for the Danubian countries.[567] The
principal _Defterdars_ were men of great position, with large incomes
and households, and possessing the right of audience with the sultan
in regard to matters of revenue.[568] Under them were twenty-five
departments or bureaus, as instituted by the Conqueror, each with a
chief, or _Khojagan_, who directed a number of clerks of different
grades. Between these and the _Defterdars_ were several intermediate
officials, of whom the most important were the two _Rusnamehjis_, or
book-keepers. The total personnel of the treasury department numbered
more than eight hundred.[569]
A list of the twenty-five bureaus, or _kalems_, with a statement of
the provinces of each, will give an excellent idea of the complicated
financial arrangements of the Ottoman government.[570] Taken as a whole,
they show in outline the economic substructure of the Ruling Institution,
as well as that of the Moslem Institution, with exception of the sultan’s
private treasury, out of which most of the inner service of the court
was paid, and of the provisions for the officers and judges of local
government:—
1. The _Buyuk Rusnameh Kalemi_, or greater book-keeping bureau, was the
central office to which all the accounts were brought from the other
bureaus. Once or twice a year it drew up a statement of the finances of
the government. The income of this bureau seems to have been the greatest
of all.[571]
2. The _Bash Muhasebeh Kalemi_, or head bureau of accounts, was the
largest of all in numerical strength, and the second in income. It kept
account of tithes and taxes from the _sanjaks_, of munitions of war of
all kinds, of the pay of the garrisons of Rumelia and Anatolia, of the
receipts and expenses of the intendants of buildings, the admiralty,
the kitchen, forage,[572] the mint, the three powder factories at
Constantinople, Salonika, and Gallipoli, and of the inspector of
artillery. This bureau received copies of all contracts made in the
public service, and it registered and countersigned the entire vast
number of orders on the treasury.
3. The _Anatoli Muhasebesi Kalemi_, or bureau of accounts for Anatolia
(though it was by no means confined to Anatolia in its scope), kept
accounts for certain domanial lands, for the garrisons in the Aegean
Islands, and for the pensions of veteran soldiers.
4. The _Suvari Mukabelesi Kalemi_, or bureau of control for the cavalry,
kept account of the salaries of officials of the inner service, of the
_Kapujis_, of the imperial stables, and of all the _Spahis_ of the Porte.
5. The _Sipahi Kalemi_, or bureau of the _Spahis_, issued orders for the
pay of the _Spahis_ proper, which required to be countersigned by the
head of the fourth bureau.
6. The _Silihdar Kalemi_, or bureau of _Silihdars_, was similar to the
fifth bureau, except that it was concerned with the _Silihdars_.
7. The _Haremein Muhasebeh Kalemi_, or bureau of accounts of the Holy
Cities of Mecca and Medina, kept the books of the religious endowments or
_vakfs_ of the imperial mosques, of the salaries of all persons connected
with these mosques, of all other religious endowments in Constantinople
and elsewhere in Rumelia, and of all Rumelian property dedicated to the
Holy Cities. All certificates of nomination to service in connection
with mosques in Rumelia were prepared here, to be presented to the tenth
bureau for the issuance of diplomas.
8. The _Jizyeh Muhasebesi Kalemi_, or bureau of accounts for the
capitation tax, issued orders yearly for the payment of this tax
according to the estimated number of adult male subject Christians. A
specified number of these orders was sent to each district, which was
held responsible for a corresponding revenue.[573] The income of this
bureau was only a little less than that of the second bureau.
9. The _Mevkufat Kalemi_, or bureau of tributes, kept account of taxes
paid in kind, of the quantity of grain in the public storehouses of
Constantinople and the border fortresses, and of the grants of supplies
from these stores to the several army corps and to the households of
military and civil _kullar_ who were required to follow the army.
10. The _Maliyeh Kalemi_, or chancery bureau of the treasury department,
issued diplomas to all employees of mosques who brought certificates
of nomination from the seventh and twentieth bureaus, and to all
administrators of religious endowments and pensioners upon such funds;
and it drew up for the approval of the sultan and the countersignature of
the _Defterdars_ all _firmans_, or administrative orders, that concerned
the treasury department.
11. The _Kuchuk Rusnameh Kalemi_, or lesser book-keeping bureau, kept the
accounts of the head _Kapujis_, the stewards, and the marine.
12. The _Piadeh Mukabelesi Kalemi_, or bureau of control for the
infantry, kept the books of the Janissaries and the auxiliary corps of
the standing army.
13. The _Kuchuk Evkaf Muhasebesi Kalemi_, or lesser bureau of accounts of
religious endowments, kept the accounts of all pensioners and attendants
of the endowed public hospitals, soup-kitchens, insane asylums, and the
like.
14. The _Buyuk Kalaa Kalemi_, or greater bureau of fortresses, kept
record of the garrisons and of the militia who were liable for the
service of the fortresses of the Danube regions.
15. The _Kuchuk Kalaa Kalemi_, or lesser bureau of fortresses, kept like
records for fortresses in Albania and the Morea.
16. The _Maaden Mukataasi Kalemi_, or bureau of mine leases, kept
account of the tribute required from gipsies, of the receipts from gold
and silver mines in Europe and Asia, of the tributes from Moldavia and
Wallachia, and of the customs duties of Constantinople, Adrianople,
Smyrna, Gallipoli, Chios, and other places.[574]
17. The _Saliyaneh Mukataasi Kalemi_, or bureau of salaries, arranged the
yearly pay of the captains of the fleet, and of the Khan of the Crimea
and some of his officials.
18. The _Khaslar Mukataasi Kalemi_, or bureau of domanial leases, kept
the books of the domain lands whose revenues were assigned to the chief
ladies of the harem, including the _Sultana Valideh_ and the sultan’s
daughters, and to the high officials of the government.[575]
19. The _Bash Mukataasi Kalemi_, or head bureau of leases, cared for the
revenues from the domains in some lower Danubian lands, from the rice
fields of Eastern Rumelia, from various salt works, from the fisheries of
the Aegean and Black seas, and from the forests.
20. The _Haremein Mukataasi Kalemi_, or bureau of leases of the Holy
Cities, was charged with regard to Anatolia, as was the seventh bureau
with regard to Rumelia.
21. The _Istambol Mukataasi Kalemi_, or bureau of leases for
Constantinople, kept account of the domanial leases of Salonika, Tirhala,
and Brusa, the market dues of Constantinople and Adrianople, the revenues
from silk and from the manufacture of articles in gold and silver.
22. The _Brusa Mukataasi Kalemi_, or bureau of the leases of Brusa, kept
account of the domanial leases in the neighborhood of that city.
23. The _Avlonia Mukataasi Kalemi_, kept similar accounts for the island
of Euboea, or Negropont.
24. The _Kaffa Mukataasi Kalemi_ kept similar accounts for Kaffa and
certain domain lands of Anatolia.
25. The _Tarishji Kalemi_, or bureau of dates, dated all public documents
that came from the other bureaus, and, at least in later times, prepared
assignments on the public revenues on behalf of creditors of the
government.
Supplementary bureaus, attached to some of the others, were the bureau
of confiscations and escheats to the crown, the bureau of the tax on
animals, and the bureau of the Christian churches and monasteries. An
additional office of great importance, called the _Oda_ of the treasury
department, attended to the correspondence of the _Defterdars_, to
their reports to the grand vizier and the sultan, and to the forwarding
of leases for sections of the crown lands. Attached to the treasury
department was a special court under a judge appointed by the _Kaziasker_
of Rumelia, which was designed to adjust disputes between the department
and private citizens.
A _Defter-emini_, or book-keeper intendant, kept the records of the
fief-holders and administered their estates during vacancies. He was
well paid, and had a staff of clerks.[576] He appears to have been
independent of the _Defterdars_. Two household treasurers were in charge
of the sultan’s personal funds: the eunuch _Khazinehdar-bashi_, already
mentioned as chief of the treasury chamber of pages, guarded the treasure
stored there, and paid the members of the inner service; a second
official, under the authority of the former and apparently called by the
same name, attended to the business of the sultan’s private purse outside
the palace.[577] The sultan had in the castle of the Seven Towers, or
_Yedi-kuleh_, another deposit of treasure which was supposed to be very
large.[578]
The characteristics of the treasury scheme give evidence that it
developed by a gradual growth without systematic revision at any time. As
new occasions for expenditure arose, they were put in charge of various
bureaus; as new provinces or other sources of fresh income appeared, they
were either assigned to existing bureaus or given to new ones created
for the purpose. The bureaus of Istambol, Avlona, and Kaffa evidently
date from the time of the Conqueror; most of the others must have been
older. That the conquests of Selim and Suleiman were not administered
from Constantinople is evident from a study of the bureaus, and from the
separate listing of the revenues from Syria, Mesopotamia, and Egypt in
contemporary estimates. Since the authorities give no source of revenue
for the first bureau, which nevertheless seems to have had the greatest
income of all, it is probable that the tribute from the later conquests
was paid into that department, and by it apportioned to bureaus of
expenditure, such as the fourth, the eleventh, and the twelfth. It is
worthy of notice to what an extent the sources of revenue were ear-marked
for expenditure. The second bureau received the tithes and taxes of the
_sanjaks_, and paid them out for munitions of war, the maintenance of
garrisons, and the expenses of the intendants of the outside service of
the court. The third bureau received the revenue from certain domanial
lands, and supported the garrisons of the Aegean Islands and soldiers
who had been pensioned. The eighteenth bureau administered domanial
lands for the support of the harem and high officials. The ninth bureau
received and delivered to the army taxes paid in kind. The seventh,
thirteenth, and twentieth bureaus took revenues from lands assigned by
religious endowment for the support of the Moslem Institution and certain
beneficiaries, and paid them out as stipulated by the givers.
Instead of one treasury, into which all revenues should come and out
of which all disbursements should be made, there were fifteen or more
bureaus which received, and as many which spent; and some of those which
both received and spent were, except for the oversight of the first
bureau, practically independent institutions. A distinct tendency toward
decentralization of management is manifest. Whatever could be set off
by itself was made as nearly independent as possible, subject only to
inspection and supervision. This policy undoubtedly resulted from the
despotic character of the government. Since one man, the founder of a
despotic state, can attend to only a limited number of duties, he is
forced, as his power develops, to assign more and more responsibilities
to subordinates. The method which most relieves the central management is
to entrust definite duties to definite groups of men, to support these
with sufficient revenues, and then to leave them to themselves. If things
go wrong in any department, the central authority intervenes, punishes
severely those who were responsible, sets things to rights forcibly,
and again leaves the department to itself. The system is very dangerous
unless the central management can be kept constantly strong and able to
assume full control promptly and effectively. This was the case in the
Ottoman Empire until after the time of Suleiman.
A yet stronger tendency toward decentralization appeared in connection
with local government. Each _Beylerbey_ had his own _mufti_, _reis
effendi_, and _defterdar_, with a considerable body of clerks, who
advised him, recorded his decisions, attended to the revenues from the
estates assigned for the support of his household, and kept account of
the fief-holders in his dominion.[579] Each _Sanjak Bey_ again had his
group of assistants, with similar duties on a lesser scale.[580] Some
generations later the extension of this decentralization was to become a
great evil.
The duties of the bureaus of the treasury department reveal clearly the
limited purposes and activities of the Ottoman government. The support
of the Ruling Institution as standing army, court, and government was
provided for; the revenues assigned by former sultans and by private
individuals to the support of the Moslem Institution in its religious
and charitable aspects were supervised; the navy was provided for; and
the _Khan_ of the Crimea was pensioned. But nothing was done for the
great mass of the population. They were expected to furnish the means for
these activities; and the duty of the most conscientious sovereign was
fully performed if he provided that they should labor unmolested, and
should not be burdened with taxation beyond their ability to pay. Under a
strong ruling hand the Ottoman system easily maintained order through the
standing and feudal armies, but it did not so easily regulate the burden
of taxation. This subject deserves special consideration.
TAXATION IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE[581]
A distinction was drawn between taxes authorized by the Sacred Law,
which were called legal, and all others, which were called arbitrary
as depending on the will of the sovereign. The early Islamic system
of taxation, taken over, it would seem, from the Sassanian Persian
Empire,[582] was extremely simple. No taxes were laid except on land and
on persons. The lands of Arabia and Bosra were charged with a tithe,
or _’ushr_, of their produce. Other conquered lands were more heavily
burdened, being assessed with a _kharâj_, or tax payable in money, and
with a share of the produce, which might be from the tenth to the half
according to the fertility of the land. The tax on persons, the _jizyeh_,
was limited to a poll or capitation tax on adult male subjects who were
not Moslems. The _’ushr_, the _kharâj_, and the _jizyeh_ were the only
taxes recognized by the Sacred Law.
Other methods of taxation were utilized almost from the beginning.
When, with the conquest of Syria and Egypt, the Byzantine Empire was
entered, it did not seem best to sweep away the customs, tolls, and other
impositions which drew revenue from trade. As such taxes did not rest on
a constitutional foundation, they were discouraged by some legists; but
they became more and more necessary as a worldly government developed,
and as the revenues from a large part of the land were set aside for
religious foundations.
The early Islamic state also had a vast source of revenue in booty.
Four-fifths of this went to the generals and soldiers actually concerned
in conquest; the remaining fifth was sent to Medina. After the capital
had been removed from Arabia, the “Prophet’s fifth” was still claimed for
the support of legists and judges.
The Islamic system, with its distinction of legal and arbitrary taxes,
its rules regulating the distribution of booty, and its custom of
devoting revenues to religious foundations, was taken up by the Ottoman
state. At the same time the feudal system, based upon both Seljuk and
Byzantine example, was applied to a large part of the lands conquered
from Christians, an arrangement which yielded considerable revenue for
the support of individuals; and a host of Seljuk and Byzantine imposts
lengthened the list of arbitrary taxes. Much land was retained as
imperial domain, perhaps in many cases land that was already domain of
the Byzantine emperors and other rulers whom the Ottomans dispossessed.
The conquests in Cilicia, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Egypt were left
under the old regulations, with some clearing away of arbitrary taxes,
and preparing of cadasters in the Turkish language.[583] Hungary was
carefully cadastered, to be administered thus during a century and a
half.[584] Special arrangements and exemptions were made for the foreign
colonists, of a character similar to old Byzantine and Saracen treaties
and agreements.
As a result of all this, the system of taxation in the Ottoman Empire was
very complex. It contained a great variety of taxes,—on persons, land,
trade, animals, produce, mines, markets, and the like,—differing from
_sanjak_ to _sanjak_ and from town to town; and it collected its income
by various methods and through various agencies. The details of the
system cannot be considered here, but a few general observations may be
made.
Until the time of Mohammed II the revenues were administered directly by
the treasury department, but this method led to so many malversations
at the cost of the government that he changed the system to one of
tax-farming. By this means the government became sure of its money. The
malversations did not stop, however, but went on now at the cost of
the tax-payers.[585] The taxes of regions of large size were sold by
the treasury, usually to high officers among the _kullar_, who did not
intend to collect the taxes themselves, but sold them again by sections.
This process might be repeated several times, till in the end it would
probably be, not Ottomans, but Christians and Jews who applied the screws
to the unfortunate subjects.[586] The amount wrung from them might easily
be double what the government received.
The strongly conservative tendency of the Ottoman people showed markedly
in regard to taxation. The taxes that had been agreed upon of old were
paid, but a general revision of the system in the direction of uniformity
was never thought of. The revenues of the empire were thus extremely
inelastic.[587] A special war contribution might be laid, as was done
by Suleiman before Mohacs,[588] and requisitions might be made upon the
inhabitants of a region through which the army passed; but a permanent
increase of revenue was practically impossible. The tendency was in the
other direction. As the value of money declined, not without assistance
from the sultans,[589] all revenues payable in agreed sums declined
likewise. Payments in kind from agricultural products may have increased
for a time under local peace and security, but in the end they were to
diminish also. Treaties with Western nations were so favorable to the
latter commercially as to prevent the receipt of extensive revenues
from foreign customs duties; and such trade must have increased with the
growth of the empire and the increasing luxury of the court. But on the
whole the sultan’s receipts from taxation, aside from the effect of new
conquests, and allowing for the fluctuations in tithes due to good and
bad harvests, were probably not far from stationary.
The receipts from the sultan’s fifth of booty taken in war, which
included slaves, must have been considerable up to the end of Suleiman’s
reign. They were all devoted, however, to the support of the Moslem
Institution.[590] Tribute came in from several countries, as Moldavia,
Wallachia, Transylvania, Ragusa, from Venice for Cyprus, and after
1547 from Austria for Hungary. This was forced up whenever possible
as punishment for unrest, and was shared by the sultan with high
officials.[591] Confiscations of the property of executed persons
brought several great sums to Suleiman. The estates of _kullar_ who
died without children, and the tithes of the estates of those who left
children, constituted a valuable though irregular revenue.[592] The great
treasure of the prince of Gujarat came to Suleiman after the prince’s
death.[593] Something was realized from the administration of the estates
of fief-holders who died without sons; but the lands of these had to
be granted again before long in order to keep up the strength of the
feudal army.[594] Fees connected with the administration of justice went
directly to the support of the judges and other officials concerned.[595]
With regular taxation nearly stationary, the increase from extraordinary
sources did not keep pace with advancing expenditures.[596]
Suleiman’s expenses grew particularly in regard to the fleet and the
household. Some Western writers remarked that the sultan was put to no
expense by war, since his standing army required to be paid in peace as
well as in war, and since the remainder of his troops came at their own
expense.[597] It is true that his additional expenditure was small as
compared with that for a contemporary Western army, built from a small
permanent nucleus by the hiring of mercenaries and the levy of national
troops which had to be supported by the treasury; but the sultan had
to replace large quantities of munitions of war that were used up or
destroyed, and great numbers of animals of transport. Moreover, the
Janissaries and _Spahis_ had to be placated at times by presents, and it
was more expensive to feed the army in the field than in the barracks.
But the fleet was a great and growing expense, despite the extent to
which it was supported by raiding and by revenues from North Africa;[598]
and the luxury and splendor of the Magnificent Sultan’s court grew apace.
In spite of fresh conquests and large confiscations, therefore, Suleiman
learned to feel the need of money. He found it necessary to compel his
great officials to help him, by exacting sums of money from them at the
time of their appointment.[599] These sums were moderate, but, as already
pointed out, they set a fatal example.[600]
SULEIMAN’S INCOME
Suleiman’s revenues have been variously estimated. The lowest, and
probably the most accurate for the field which it covers, during
the years between 1530 and 1537, is that given by Junis Bey, chief
interpreter of the Ottoman court, and Alvise Gritti, natural son of the
Doge of Venice, and business partner of the grand vizier Ibrahim.[601]
Junis Bey says: “The income of the Great Turk from _kharâj_ or tribute
amounts to 1,300,000 ducats from Anatolia and Greece, and 1,600,000
ducats from Egypt, and 700,000 ducats from Syria and 150,000 ducats from
Mesopotamia and 250,000 ducats from his farms, the islands which are
under him, and the customs of Constantinople and Pera. Signor Alvise
Gritti says that the income is rather more than less than I have stated,
and I think that the expenses of the Porte or of the Seigneur’s court
consume the entire income or a little less.”[602]
The total regular revenue of Suleiman would thus have been about four
million ducats.[603] Two estimates made twenty-five or thirty years
later differ notably, however. They indicate about half as much revenue
from Syria and Egypt, allow several times as much from the farms and the
customs duties, and introduce taxes on mines and salt works, tithes paid
in kind, the animal tax, tributes, escheats, and document fees.[604]
According to their estimated total of seven or eight million ducats,
it would seem that a million ducats ought to be added to Junis Bey’s
estimate for the mines, salt works, and tributes, and a million for the
other revenues mentioned. This would give an estimate of six million
ducats for Suleiman’s revenues in the early part of his reign. Toward
the close of his reign, after large territories in Europe and Asia had
been incorporated, and after Rustem had made new arrangements, the total
amount was probably seven or eight million ducats.[605] The bullion value
of six million ducats is less than fourteen million dollars. If, then,
the purchasing power of money be estimated at five times what it is now,
the regular revenue of Suleiman’s government was equivalent to less than
seventy million dollars nowadays, no large sum for so great an empire. It
is necessary to remember, however, that this by no means covers all the
expenses for public purposes within the empire. It probably includes none
of the revenues devoted to the Moslem Institution, nor those specifically
assigned by feudal grant to the officers of local government; certainly
it does not include those gathered by the permanent fief-holders and
used for their own support, which probably amounted to about twice as
much more.[606] Allowing for all this, the sum total, the equivalent
of perhaps two hundred million dollars, for all the expenses of central
and local government was small in proportion to population, according to
modern standards. Had there been no extortion, the people of the empire
would not have been burdened heavily. Even with it, as indicated already,
they probably did not suffer greatly in Suleiman’s time.[607]
THE NISHANJI OR CHANCELLOR
The chancery department of the Ottoman government seems not to have
reached such a stage of development in the sixteenth century as had the
treasury department; certainly it was not so conspicuous. Contemporary
writers give so little information about it that it is hard to draw a
reasonably complete picture of it. They mention several of the officials
who were prominent in the department in later times; but evidently those
of the earlier period were not under the same relationships to each other
as were later ones who bore the same titles. The _Nishanji-bashi_, often
called simply the _Nishanji_, was clearly the chief, but other details
are not easily to be ascertained. It seems necessary, therefore, to
describe the Ottoman chancery as it was two centuries after Suleiman’s
death, and then to endeavor to conjecture what it was in his time.[608]
In the latter part of the eighteenth century the Ottoman government
had three ministers of state and six under-secretaries of state. The
three ministers were the _Kiaya-bey_, the _Chaush-bashi_, and the _Reis
Effendi_, the last named being by far the most important. The _Kiaya-bey_
was the substitute or lieutenant of the grand vizier, and attended
especially to affairs of the interior and of war; under him were a
number of officials who formed connecting links between the grand vizier
and the various groups of _kullar_ in the household and the army. The
_Chaush-bashi_ was at the same time second official in the grand vizier’s
court of justice, minister of police, introducer of ambassadors, grand
marshal of the court, and chief of the _Chaushes_. To assist him in the
execution of these varied functions, he had a large number of under
officers and clerks. The _Reis Effendi_, whose full title was _Reis
ul-Khuttab_, “Chief of the Men of the Pen,” was minister of foreign
affairs, secretary of state, and chancellor. In the first capacity he was
prominent in international relations; in the second he was responsible
for the preparation of the addresses and reports which the grand vizier
made to the sultan; in the third, he was head of the three bureaus of
the chancery. In charge of these under him were a _Beylikji_, or general
director of the three bureaus, a _Terjuman Divani Humayun_, or chief
interpreter, and an _Ameji_, who drew up the grand vizier’s reports to
the sultan for the inspection of the _Reis Effendi_.
Of the three bureaus, the _Beylik Kalemi_ prepared, recorded, or
transmitted, as was proper in each case, _Kanuns_, treaties, and all
_firmans_ that did not concern the treasury department. The _Tahvil
Kalemi_ prepared the diplomas of governors, of judges of large towns, and
of fief-holders. The _Ruus Kalemi_ made out certificates for the clerks
of all bureaus, for _Kapuji-bashis_, professors in endowed colleges,
administrators of religious endowments, pensioners on the treasury or
on religious benefactions, and soldiers of the auxiliary corps of the
regular army. Together the three bureaus kept employed about one hundred
and fifty clerks of three grades, provided for by fiefs. The _Nishanji’s_
sole duty was to authenticate _firmans_ sent to the provinces, by
tracing at the head of each document the sultan’s _tughra_, or official
signature. He had no influence on the conduct of business, but, as
evidence of past greatness, he ranked above even the _Reis Effendi_ on
ceremonial occasions.[609]
The under-secretaries were attached by pairs to the ministers. The
_Teshrifatji_, or master of ceremonies, and the _Kiaya Katibi_, or
private secretary, of the _Kiaya-bey_ were attached to the _Kiaya-bey_.
The greater and lesser _Teskerejis_, or masters of petitions, were
attached to the _Chaush-bashi_. The _Beylikji_, mentioned above as head
of the three bureaus of the chancery, and the _Mektubji_, or private
secretary of the grand vizier, in which office he was assisted by a
bureau of thirty clerks, were attached to the _Reis Effendi_.
It is evident that all the functions of the officials and bureaus
described above must have been performed in some fashion in the time of
Suleiman. The conservative character of Turkish institutions simplifies
the problem of determining how they were performed. It has been seen,
partly by external and partly by internal evidence, that the bureaus
of the treasury department persisted from the time of Mohammed II to
the end of the eighteenth century with few changes. Accordingly, the
inference may fairly be made that the same was true of the chancery
department. Moreover, the chief officials of the later date are mentioned
in sixteenth-century writings, among them the _Kiaya_ of the grand
vizier, the _Chaush-bashi_, and the _Reis Effendi_; Junis Bey held the
position of chief interpreter;[610] and the duties of Suleiman’s master
of ceremonies must have been important. The great change in the chancery
in the interval was the decline of the _Nishanji_ from the highest place
in the department to one of little importance, and the rise of the _Reis
Effendi_ from a subordinate place to the top. From of old the _Nishanji_
had had the duty of affixing the sultan’s signature to documents; but
in early Ottoman days, when the pen was of very little consequence in
comparison with the sword, he had been held in small esteem. He was
responsible, however, for the accurate and legal formulation of the
papers which he signed; and as the nation grew his importance increased,
till by the sixteenth century he had become a great official, clearly the
head of the chancery department, and the recipient of a large salary.
A description of about the year 1537 says of the _Nishanji_: “There is
a _Teskereji-bashi_, who has the duty of engrossing the ordinances
and commands of the prince and the court, when it has transmitted them
to him, and is like a general secretary of the commands, or recorder
of the documents of the prince, which are called _Teskereh_; and it is
also his duty, in consultation with the pashas, to revise the writings
and take care that they contain no ambiguous expressions, as though
he were a keeper of the seals. The present occupant of the office has
seven thousand ducats of revenue from fiefs, and a large number of
slaves, and other lesser recorders who also prepare commands, licenses,
safe-conducts, and other letters as there may be need. These are paid
here for their trouble, and they may receive three or four hundred
livres. It is said that the present [_Nishanji_] is so just a man, that
he has never in his life received a _sou_ from any one with whom he has
transacted business.”[611]
The _Reis Effendi_ was at that time, it would seem, little more than
recording secretary of the Divan.[612] The reasons for the later change
in the relative importance of these two officials probably lay in the
withdrawal of the sultan into his inner palace, and the development
of foreign relations. As the sultan became more sequestered, the
_Nishanji’s_ personal relation to him was gradually cut off; for the
same reason the grand vizier came to be more heavily burdened, and left
more responsibility on the _Reis Effendi_. Beginning with Suleiman’s
reign, relations with the Western European nations became ever closer and
more complicated. Cared for in his time by the grand viziers Ibrahim,
Rustem, and Ali,[613] they were entrusted in later reigns to the _Reis
Effendi_. Presently, then, this official displaced the _Nishanji_ at the
head of the chancery, and the latter was gradually reduced almost to the
functions of a name-stamp. Aside from this important difference, and the
general fact that the business of the chancery was not so extensive in
Suleiman’s time as it became later, and that the functions of separate
officials had not come to be so rigidly defined, the inference may be
made that the description of the late eighteenth century holds good
generally of the Ottoman chancery of the sixteenth century.
Little evidence appears as to the status of the personnel of the treasury
and chancery departments. The upper officials were drawn from the
quieter and more studious members of the school of pages;[614] in the
time of Mohammed II the _Nishanji_ might be drawn from the ranks of the
_Ulema_.[615] Junis Bey refers to the employees of the bureaus sometimes
as slaves and sometimes as companions or scribes. They were paid not in
money but by fiefs. Near the close of Suleiman’s reign, it is said, the
chancery clerks were Turks, whereas they had been Christians and Greeks
not long before, and had written their documents in Greek.[616] Whether
or not this be true, the books of the treasury department had been kept
in Turkish from the first;[617] but it does not follow, of course, that
the clerks of this department had always been Ottomans, or that, if
they were, they had been regularly either Moslem-born or renegades. The
general reasons which led the sultan to build the Ruling Institution
out of slaves in its other aspects would tend to operate here also; on
the other hand, the nature of the work demanded persons of quiet tastes
and, for many positions, those of considerable learning in language and
law, and such persons were more easily to be found in the Moslem-born
population than among the Christian subjects or renegades. It would
seem that in Suleiman’s time, or shortly before, the personnel of the
chancery changed from Christian-born to Moslem-born. Naturally, then, the
personnel of the treasury would have been likely to undergo a similar
transformation at the same time.
It has been said that when Turks dismount from their horses, they
become bureaucrats and paper-scribblers.[618] Undoubtedly the Ottoman
government gave evidence of the truth of this statement. The twenty-five
bureaus of the treasury and the appended bureaus, the three bureaus of
the chancery, the treasuries and chanceries of _Beylerbeys_ and _Sanjak
Beys_, the offices of the generals of cavalry and infantry, and of the
_Umena_ and other household officials without and within, contained some
thousands of men whose whole time was occupied in writing, recording, and
transmitting laws, ordinances, diplomas, nominations, projects, deeds,
grants, orders for pay, receipts, reports, addresses, petitions, answers,
and the like. The existence of so many component institutions, connected
only at the top and paralleling each other’s activities both near and
far, together with the custom of verifying, authenticating, and recording
many papers in different bureaus and by different officials, created a
vast and growing amount of red tape that in time was greatly to hinder
all government business. Even in Suleiman’s day it seems to have been
the practice on the part of clerks and officials to demand a private fee
for each act of writing or signing or stamping or recording or approving
or inspecting.[619] In the time of prosperity, however, this practice
can hardly have been so vexatious and dilatory as it became later. The
bureaucratic tendency was no doubt based on a desire to keep everything
in order by checks and cross-recording; but in the end it defeated its
object by employing such a multiplicity of devices that order was lost in
confusion.
THE DIVAN OR COUNCIL[620]
In a land where the law was nearly fixed, and where whatever power of
legislation was allowed was definitely lodged in one man, the only
deliberation possible was on administrative and judicial subjects. The
oversight of these matters was given in charge to a council, the Divan,
which held long sessions four times each week throughout the year in
time of peace, unless perhaps in the month of fasting. This council was
composed of _ex officio_ members who represented (when those who came
only on special days are added to those who came each day) all the great
component parts of the Ruling Institution. The Moslem Institution also
was represented in the two _Kaziaskers_; for the grand vizier and the
Divan constituted not only the supreme council of administration but
the supreme court of the empire. It was thus not strictly a part of
the Ruling Institution, but rather the cap-stone of both institutions,
the body that gave final unity, immediately under the sultan, to the
organization of the empire.
In former times the sultan had presided at the Divan. Suleiman did not,
and he has been greatly blamed for discontinuing the custom.[621] It
is not impossible to sympathize with him, however, for he thus freed
himself from a great burden; to spend several hours in deliberation on
four days of each week during a lifetime is a prospect from which any
man would shrink. Nevertheless, it was a serious rift in both of the
great institutions of the empire at the most dangerous place, and its
effect was decidedly to hasten their disintegration. Suleiman kept the
Divan under control by means of a grated window in the wall of the room
where it met.[622] Not knowing when he might be listening there, his
councillors had always to speak as if he were present with them.
The arrival of the councillors at the hall of the Divan, their entry,
their places for sitting or standing, their rank at the simple meal of
which they partook while there, the order of their going in to audience
with the sultan afterward, and the manner of their departure, were all
according to _Kanun_ or equally rigid custom. At a later time the details
of these ceremonies were all minutely specified.[623] Probably they were
not so elaborate in the time of Suleiman, but contemporary writings show
them already considerably developed.
The sessions of the Divan have been described so often that it is not
necessary to go into detail here. Soon after sunrise on Saturday, Sunday,
Monday, and Tuesday the officials who were to participate came to the
palace, accompanied by their secretaries, ushers, body-guards, and other
attendants. They passed the second gate of the palace in the inverse
order of rank, and waited at their prescribed places in the hall of the
Divan until the grand vizier approached, accompanied by his retinue, when
all came out and took places according to rank in two lines, between
which the grand vizier entered. Those who had the right then followed him
in by pairs, and once more took their places.[624] Officials who might
be summoned waited in antechambers near; and attendants, guards, and
soldiers, stood at suitable distances.
The grand vizier sat Turkish fashion in the middle of a long sofa which
extended round three sides of the hall. On his right sat the other
viziers (unless one or more happened to be absent on a special mission),
and beyond them, on the sofa at the end of the room, the _Nishanji_. On
the grand vizier’s left were the two _Kaziaskers_, and beyond them the
_Defterdars_.[625] The _Beylerbeys_ of Anatolia and Greece, and, after
Barbarossa’s appointment, the _Kapudan Pasha_, sat beyond the viziers
on the right. The _Agha_ of the Janissaries also had a place, and the
chief interpreter was often needed. Other generals and high officials
might be summoned; heads, officials, and clerks of bureaus were at hand;
and _Chaushes_, _Kapuji-bashis_, and _Kapujis_ were in readiness to be
sent on errands and missions. Before the grand vizier, when judicial
business was being considered, stood the _Teskerejis_, or masters
of petitions. On the floor at his left sat the _Reis Effendi_. The
_Kapujilar-kiayasi_, or grand chamberlain of the household, was present;
and the _Chaush-bashi_, as grand marshal of the court, here bearing the
additional title of _Bey_ of the Divan, saw that all went according to
rule. After greetings and other formalities the business was taken up in
order of importance.[626] Great questions, like proposals of ambassadors,
the condition of the provinces, and the possibility or desirability of
war were discussed briefly by the viziers, the others present being
called upon to speak if their views were desired. The grand vizier either
declared the decision on such matters, subject to the sultan’s approval,
or reserved the decision for the master.[627] Lesser matters were decided
by the viziers individually, or were referred by them to the other great
officials present, or to an official in attendance outside. Much of the
time there was no general deliberation, but several affairs might be
considered by different members of the Divan simultaneously. Lawsuits
were presented to the grand vizier by the masters of petitions, and the
parties might appear to plead their own cases, bringing witnesses. The
grand vizier turned over many cases to the _Kaziaskers_. All business was
done with despatch, and a large amount was accomplished. Decisions were
briefly formulated, without discussion of the reasons for action. The
_Reis Effendi_ and lesser secretaries and clerks wrote down carefully all
that was decided upon. After the sultan had signified his approval at the
close of a Divan, the decisions were irrevocable.
During and also at the close of the session, which might last seven or
eight hours,[628] a simple meal of bread, meat, rice, fruit, and water
was served to all who were in attendance within and without the hall of
the Divan. To meet the expense of this, four days’ pay was reserved each
year from the salaries of all who were expected to attend.[629] Order
was kept most carefully among all who were present within and without
the hall of the Divan, and absolute silence was preserved, except for
such movements and conversation as were necessary to the transaction of
business. Any disturber of order and quiet was taken away and immediately
bastinadoed.
After the day’s work was done, which might be about noon in summer
time or toward sunset in the winter, those officials of the Divan
who had the right of audience went to the hall of audience to meet
the sultan. They were the viziers, _Kaziaskers_, and _Defterdars_
regularly, and the _Beylerbeys_ and the _Agha_ of the Janissaries when
they had business;[630] the _Defterdars_, however, received audience
on Sundays and Tuesdays only. The _Kaziaskers_ entered first, and
when their business had been approved they went to the gate and held
court. The _Beylerbeys_, the _Defterdars_, and the viziers entered the
audience chamber together. The _Beylerbeys_ transacted their business
and departed; the _Defterdars_ did likewise, and went to the door of
the treasury to give audience. The ordinary viziers, left behind in the
presence of the sultan, usually said nothing unless asked; the grand
vizier alone reported on the decisions of the day.[631] These the sultan
usually approved as made, sometimes mitigating a decision or himself
dictating a reply to an ambassador.[632] Suleiman was willing to give
a free hand to Ibrahim, Rustem, and Mohammed Sokolli during their long
periods of service.[633]
In time of war the Divan was held in the grand vizier’s tent, which was
usually pitched near the sultan’s. As all the high officials, and the
heads of bureaus with at least part of their clerks, were present with
the army, much the same ceremony could be gone through with as in the
capital. When the sultan was absent from the city on campaigns, the few
officials of government who were left behind held a secondary Divan on
Saturdays and Sundays. In case of emergency during war-time, or for some
other special reason, a Divan might be held on horseback.[634]
The Divan of Suleiman was a splendid ceremony, and it transacted a great
amount of administrative and judicial business. A large proportion of
the duties of the principal officials was attended to in its sessions
rather than in private offices; and on particular matters there was a
certain amount of deliberation, though the Ottomans were not a people of
many words. The Divan was by no means a legislative chamber. It was in a
sense a combination of a president’s cabinet and a supreme court;[635]
yet it was unlike both. Its presiding officer was appointed; all its
decisions required the approval of the sultan, who was not present at
its sessions; and all its members were responsible to him for good
behavior on penalty of their lives. It was the highest court in the
land, yet not so much a court of appeal as a court of first instance. It
had no power to judge the validity of laws; yet it was not restricted
in its jurisdiction, since it had cognizance of all civil and criminal
cases that might be presented to it from any part of the empire. In
its judicial aspect, again, its decisions had no validity without the
approval of the sultan. With all its limitations, however, it was of
great value to the Ottoman government. Below the sultan, but above all
institutions of the empire, it bound together at the top the Ruling
Institution and the Moslem Institution, and it united similarly all the
component divisions of each; it was the pivot from which were suspended
all the separate parts of the despotically constructed government.
In it met the ablest men of the empire, chosen by selection after
selection, each one charged with great responsibilities and possessing
power to execute without delay what might be agreed upon. The Divan was
excellently adapted to the general Ottoman system. It enabled the ruler,
with a minimum of care, to keep the closest control over every part of
the empire through extremely intelligent and capable agents, who were
bound to him by gratitude, self-interest, ambition, and fear. It was
a training-school of judges, administrators, and statesmen, since men
ordinarily rose from place to place among its offices as they gained
experience; here they imparted ideas and methods to each other, and
made their abilities known to the highest officials, the grand vizier
and the sultan, with whom lay the power of promotion. Nor was the Divan
wholly destitute of legislative influence. All _Kanuns_ were issued in
the sultan’s name and after his definite approval; yet the information
on which they were based must regularly have come through members
of the Divan, and members of the Divan with their subordinates must
certainly have drawn them up and revised them into shape. Controlling
administration and justice and influencing legislation, the Divan, under
the leadership of the grand vizier, governed the Ottoman Empire for the
sultan.
THE RULING INSTITUTION AS A WHOLE
That which for want of a better name has been called in this treatise
the Ottoman Ruling Institution has now been discussed in all its general
aspects. Space has been lacking for the presentation of many details,
though the attempt has been made to introduce all such as would give
necessary evidence or useful illustration. A few statements intended
to summarize and bind together what has been said will complete the
discussion of the institution.
The Ottoman Ruling Institution was in its most essential aspect a
government for the Ottoman Empire. In this respect its form was a
despotism, centered in one man, the sultan. Yet the despotism was greatly
circumscribed by a rigid constitutional law, which was firmly grounded
in strong religious belief and intense national conservatism. This law
held the sultan within limited functions, but at the same time it gave
him his right to rule. As a government under this law, the Ottoman Ruling
Institution maintained public order, defended the empire against its
enemies, and endeavored by conquest to enlarge its possessions and with
them the domain of the Sacred Law. A large proportion of its energies
was devoted to obtaining and distributing the means of its own support,
to keeping its own machinery in order, and to maintaining its authority
within the empire. The idea of labor for the public welfare or of
effort toward progress was not present. Change came, not by conscious
striving toward betterment, but by growth, development, and decay, the
effects of which were adjusted when it became necessary. But within such
limits, there was in the sixteenth century a distinct desire, founded on
consciousness of greatness, pride of power, and loyalty to Islam, to have
the government well-ordered and intelligently directed, and to cause it
to bear upon its subjects as evenly and lightly as possible. Suleiman
laid hold of many problems which had arisen, and through the agency of
his ablest servants strove to set his house in order. That he did not
succeed in accomplishing more permanent results was due to the fact that
the task was too great for any man. The institution was too artificial to
endure indefinitely.
The whole institution kept itself in power, and defended and enlarged the
empire, by being organized as an army. With exceptions, all its officers
of government were soldiers and all its army officers had governmental
duties. It constituted a standing army of cavalry and infantry, aided
by artillery, commissary, and transport services; and it controlled a
much larger feudal and irregular army. Through the feudal army it kept
the country in subjection. By garrisons it held the towns quiet. In case
of rebellion, it threw a great force upon the insurgents, and beat them
down with cruel and resistless energy. For foreign wars it gathered
an enormous but well-controlled host, which was victorious in battle
throughout the reign of Suleiman. It took by siege Belgrade and Rhodes,
but it failed at Vienna and Malta. The weakness of the Ruling Institution
as an army was its essential indivisibility. Only one great war could be
waged at a time, although there were great enemies in two directions;
hence an overwhelming defeat of the principal army would have been
irreparably disastrous. But the army was to suffice for a long period;
and for generations its worst foes were to be, not foreign armies, but
internal rivalries and departures from its constitutive principles.
To maintain the pomp and ceremony which are attached to the idea of an
empire, especially in the East, and to supply the sultan on a large
scale with all the enjoyments which were considered due to his state,
the Ottoman Ruling Institution was in another aspect a great court
and household. Nearly all its members shared in the display of grand
occasions, many went to the hunt with the sultan, and a large proportion
of them had constant duties of ceremonial and personal service. Suleiman
was known as the Legislator and the Conqueror, but beyond both these
titles as the Magnificent; he shone as head of the government and the
army, but still more as head of the court. Splendor and luxury, however,
are expensive, and in the end his example was to be ruinous.
All the members of the Ruling Institution were set off as a nobility by
exemption from taxation and by special jurisdiction; but, lest they might
prove a danger to the institution, they were not allowed to transmit
their nobility to their descendants. In the end, however, their special
privilege was to become so desirable that the walls of separation would
be invaded and the institution would be wrecked.
The Ottoman Ruling Institution, at once the government, the army, and the
nobility of a great nation, was at the same time a genuine slave-family.
Almost all its members were recruited as slaves and remained slaves
throughout their days; their lives and their property were at the
disposal of the sultan; they must obey without hesitation, as all slaves
must obey. Yet their condition was far from being miserable. Their
slavery conveyed no taint: one of them might be married to a protégée
or even a daughter of the great master; their children would never be
reproached because of the father’s status. It was an honor to be the
sultan’s _kul_. Vast wealth and almost royal power and rule might be
theirs; yet each member of the Ruling Institution was actually a slave.
The most characteristic feature of this institution lay in the fact
that its recruits were almost all drawn from children (born within or
without the empire) of Christian parents, and that before they were
advanced they were expected to become Mohammedans. A twofold motive lay
beneath this policy,—a desire to obtain single-hearted servants and to
increase the number of believers in the Mohammedan faith. Sons of these
converts were sometimes admitted to the Ruling Institution, but their
grandsons practically never. Thus a constant stream of the ablest and
fittest Christian children who were born in or near the Ottoman dominions
were brought into the Ruling Institution, the Ottoman nation, and the
Mohammedan fold.
The next most characteristic and the most abiding feature of the Ottoman
Ruling Institution was its educational quality. The Christian slaves were
all acquired while young, and were trained with the greatest care to
become useful members of the institution, each in the capacity for which
nature had best fitted him. They were provided with an education which,
if not so general or so advanced as the usual training of modern times,
was more nearly complete. Body and mind, social, moral, and religious
nature, all received attention. The immediate object of this education
was to fit the boys for the sultan’s service in war and government; but
they were also trained to adorn his ceremonies and his court, and to live
by the principles and in the faith of Mohammed. When they were first
admitted, their training was more or less like that in schools of an
industrial, military, and cultural character; but it did not stop with
the attainment of majority. Army, household, bureaus, local government,
and Divan, all were conducted much like schools. Strict discipline was
constantly maintained, slackness was severely punished, and industry and
ability were richly rewarded. The results were well-nigh incredible;
they constitute a wonderful demonstration of how little the human
spirit is limited by the ignorance or the restricted and humble life of
ancestors. With hardly an exception, the men who guided Suleiman’s empire
to a height of unexampled glory were sons of peasants and herdsmen, of
downtrodden and miserable subjects, of unlettered and half-civilized men
and women. It is not easy to decide which is more to be admired, the
ability by which such young men rose, or the confidence with which they
were chosen and expected to rise. If these men had not really risen, if
they had remained boorish, ignorant, and narrow, though elevated to high
position and authority, the facts would be less remarkable than they are.
The evidence is, however, that they really became educated, cultured,
and polished men: to this day their descendants have a manner and charm
that can rarely be found among Western peoples. It is much easier to
understand the whole process and its results in a modern democratic
age and land than it was in feudal Europe of the sixteenth century.
The Ottoman Ruling Institution was from start to finish ingeniously
contrived to develop its members, within the limits of its purposes, to
their utmost capacity. Great authority, great position, great financial
rewards, were offered. Great punishments were not far away from those who
might prove dangerous, treacherous, or even incompatible and inefficient.
As a result of its careful selection and training of men for society,
war, and government, the Ottoman Ruling Institution, allowing for all
imperfections of structure, was a very efficient and permanent entity.
It was later to endure terrible shocks and losses without destruction;
it was to suffer a partial separation of its component institutions
into hostile bodies, and to witness serious departures from its rules
and principles. But, despite attack from without and disintegration and
decay within, it long stood firm; and, together with its dissimilar
companion, the Moslem Institution of the Ottoman Empire, it has kept
the vital spark of that empire alive for more than two centuries after
extinction began to be thought imminent. Even today its abiding spirit
gives promise of lighting a new and very different torch, which, having
burned away the limitations and imperfections that caused the ruin of the
older institution, will yet be the brighter for preserving a democratic
faith in the capacity of the able individual, and a disposition to help
him forward by education and to trust him with all the responsibility
that he is able to bear. Most features of the Ottoman Ruling Institution
cannot live in the twentieth century. Despotism, military rule, personal
privilege, excessive imperial splendor, proselytism, and slavery have
been dethroned in favor of political and religious liberty, equality,
fraternity, separation of church and state, and government by the people.
But the idea of an education which will develop the individual to the
full extent of his capacities is thoroughly modern; and the disposition
to entrust high offices to those who, without regard to ancestry,
are the ablest, and who become by their own efforts and by carefully
supervised training the best equipped, is in advance of the ordinary
practice of Western democracies. Herein lies one of the strongest
elements of hope for the future of the new Turkey, which may thus
preserve continuity with the past.
The Ottoman Ruling Institution, still thus capable of imparting valuable
ideas, was in its halcyon days a thing of immense moment in the world.
Out of carefully selected but most heterogeneous materials it had built
itself up as a firm, strong, and simple structure, which had gathered a
chaotic mass of petty states and hostile peoples into a great and, by
comparison, a well-governed and durable empire. In the reign of the great
Suleiman no human structure existed which equalled this institution in
wealth, splendor, power, simplicity and rapidity of action, and respect
at home and abroad.
CHAPTER VII
THE MOSLEM INSTITUTION OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
In a survey of the institutional history of the Ottoman Empire, a study
of the complex organization which was based upon and inspired by the
Mohammedan religion would demand as large a space as that given to the
Ruling Institution. In a discussion of the government of the empire,
however, a much briefer treatment will suffice. The Moslem Institution as
a whole will be sketched rapidly; fuller consideration will be given to
its juristic and judicial features, which especially affected and entered
into the government of the nation.
The structure of the Moslem Institution of the Ottoman Empire, as of
the corresponding institutions in all Moslem lands, was and remains to
the present time wholly different from that of any of the Christian
ecclesiastical organizations. As a mere church it claimed far less place
and influence than they do, but in other aspects it reached out far more
widely. It included all those Mohammedans in the Ottoman Empire, outside
of the Ruling Institution, who were in any way lifted above the level
of the ordinary believer. Islam recognized no organized priesthood, no
aristocracy, and no monks; yet the Ottoman Moslem Institution possessed
groups that were much like each of the three. In addition it had a graded
educational system, with a graded corps of teachers, it contained a
hierarchy of jurist-theologians, and it supplied a classified body of
judges, whose combined jurisdictions covered the whole empire. That which
all persons who constituted this institution had in common was a special
relationship to the Mohammedan religion, sometimes based on birth or
piety, but usually established by intellectual training in connection
with the Book and the Law of Islam. In contrast with the Ottoman Ruling
Institution, the Moslem Institution cannot as a whole be regarded under
several aspects. Like the former, it included component institutions;
but these all grew up from the Mohammedan population and rested on
one broad base, instead of being extended downward from the top. At
the same time, the sultan was the head of this institution, whether
it be considered as a whole or in reference to each of its component
institutions. He and his government appointed its most influential
personages, maintained careful oversight of its financial support, and
kept record of the appointments of all its members who shared in this
support. The two great institutions of the Ottoman Empire were therefore
joined together at the top, and, as will appear, they touched at every
other level both in financial and in governmental relations.
The fundamental difference of the two institutions lay in the fact that
the members of the Ruling Institution were drawn almost exclusively
from Christian families, and the members of the Moslem Institution even
more exclusively from Mohammedan families. While it is likely that the
majority of the Mohammedan families had sprung from Christian ancestors
not many generations back, it is also true that Islam acts rapidly upon
the spirit of converts. Accordingly the two institutions were very
differently constituted. Between them arose a rivalry of tendency and
influence which was to become extremely harmful to the Ottoman state.
In this treatise the financial side of the Moslem Institution will be
considered, the four great groups of its membership will be discussed in
the proportion of their relation to the government, and some attention
will be given to the institution as a whole.
FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF THE MOSLEM INSTITUTION[636]
As already stated, a large proportion of the land of the Ottoman Empire,
perhaps one-third,[637] was set aside as _vakf_, or religious endowment.
Much of this had been so devoted by sultans, and in such cases the
imperial treasury could use for its own purposes none of the revenue or
income from these lands. Other parcels of land had been set apart by
private individuals, in these instances the treasury receiving for its
own use the same revenues as before the endowment, while the surplus
income from the land was devoted to the purposes specified by the giver.
Each tract of such land was by the original act of endowment assigned to
a particular object, and a _Muteveli_ or administrator and a _Nazir_ or
inspector were appointed to take care of it. In a large proportion of
cases a high official of the government or household, such as the grand
vizier, the _Mufti_, the _Kapu Agha_, or the _Kizlar Agha_, was put in
charge _ex officio_ in one or the other capacity, on the theory that,
being near the person of the sultan, he would be subject to constant
control. In course of time the _Kizlar Agha_, the grand vizier, and
the _Mufti_ found it necessary to organize the properties under their
charge by holding private Divans of the subordinate administrators and
inspectors, and by appointing _Mufettishes_, or special judges, each with
a staff of subordinates and travelling inspectors.[638]
Although every tract of land was assigned for a definite object and
placed under specified guardians, the _vakfs_ were a matter of public
record, and the accounts of all were kept by the treasury department in
the appropriate bureaus. The subjects who lived on _vakf_ lands seem to
have been better treated than those on lands of other sorts, just as in
the West in the Middle Ages the serfs of the church were often better off
than other serfs.[639] There were three classes of _vakfs_,—the regular
_vakfs_ of the mosques, the _vakfs_ for charitable purposes, and the
customary _vakfs_ of the mosques. The last were chiefly in the nature of
investments of the funds of the mosques, and were according to _Kanun_
rather than _Sheri_.[640] In the second class were included endowments of
schools, libraries, hospitals, bridges, fountains, caravanserais, public
baths, convents for dervishes, and the like. The narrow provision of the
Ruling Institution for public service was in this way supplemented.[641]
The first class deserves further attention.
The chief material unit in connection with the Moslem Institution was the
mosque. Each great mosque was a large house of worship, with a group of
smaller institutions clustered about it, such as colleges, law schools,
hospitals, insane asylums, and soup-kitchens. For the support of these
and of all persons who conducted them, the income from the _vakfs_ of
the mosque was applied. In many cases the lands which had belonged to
Christian churches before the Ottoman conquest were assigned as _vakfs_
for the support of the mosques into which the churches were converted.
For example, the grounds of the sultan’s principal palace had belonged
to the church, and were assigned as _vakf_ to the mosque of Aya Sofia.
When Mohammed II took them for his palace he pledged a revenue of one
thousand and one aspers a day to the great mosque.[642] This church was
one of eight in the city of Constantinople which were so treated.[643]
The revenue of Aya Sofia was estimated at two hundred thousand ducats a
year.[644] The income of the principal mosques being much larger than
the expenses, a considerable portion of the surplus was used by the
guardians for their own benefit, although they were supposed to receive
no compensation, but to labor for the love of God. The fact is that
many of the sultan’s _kullar_ provided an inheritance for their sons
and descendants by setting apart for specific purposes lands in _vakf_,
of which the desired persons should be administrators, it being clearly
understood that a portion of the income should be retained by them.[645]
The remainder of the surplus was held in a special treasury by the
appropriate bureaus, or was reinvested in customary _vakfs_, or was lent
to the government. The _vakfs_ as a whole supported all the official
members of the Moslem Institution, except that the judges derived much
of their income from fees and fines.[646] The treasury department
received and controlled all the revenues from _vakfs_, and paid from the
appropriate funds all who were duly certified as recipients of salaries
and pensions.
All the _Ulema_, in connection with their support from semi-public funds,
possessed the noble privilege of immunity from taxation. Since the
rendering of justice was in their hands, they had their own justice. In
addition, their property was not subject to confiscation; and, since they
were not _kullar_, it passed by inheritance to their relatives and never
to the sultan. All these privileges gave the learned class in the Ottoman
Empire the prestige of nobility, besides great financial advantage.[647]
THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM
Like the Ruling Institution, the Moslem Institution contained and
embodied an educational system which was of its essential structure.
Through it, from the time of Mohammed II, the great majority of the
members of the institution, including all who expected promotion,
were required to pass; accordingly, they bore as a body the name of
the _Ulema_, or learned men.[648] The schools, supported by _vakfs_
and attached to mosques, were in three grades: the _mektebs_ or
primary schools, known in the sixteenth century as _okumak-yerleri_ or
reading-places; the ordinary _medressehs_ or colleges; and the higher
_medressehs_ or law schools, of university grade. The _mektebs_ taught
Arabic reading and writing and the Koran; the _medressehs_ gave a course
of ten studies resembling the Seven Arts of the West;[649] the law
schools taught the group of sciences connected with the Koran and the
_Sheri_ and including both law and theology.[650]
There was no compulsory education; nor could the system, by reason of
the individual character of its foundations, be universal for Mohammedan
children. But it may be supposed that any Moslem parent, the inhabitant
of a town of some size, who desired his son to learn the rather difficult
art of reading and writing Turkish and Arabic, or even to enter upon a
learned career, was not devoid of an opportunity. Furthermore, where
primary schools existed the instruction was free, and some students were
even fed and lodged;[651] the students in the _medressehs_ were also
partially supported, and those in the law schools received a sufficiency.
This system, which dated back at least to the twelfth century in Moslem
lands, probably in the Ottoman Empire in the sixteenth century gave
better opportunity for education to Moslem boys than was afforded to
Christian children in any land until a much later date. The Ottomans
believed thoroughly in education; but, unfortunately, their conservatism
was in course of time to turn a beneficent institution into a harmful
one. No change of consequence, either in methods of teaching or in
subjects of study, was permitted from century to century; hence the
training that had once carried its earnest pupils to the forefront of
human knowledge was in time to hold them firmly at a stage which the rest
of the world had long passed through and left far behind.
The _medressehs_ were very numerous in the empire;[652] the mosque of
the Conqueror had eight, that of Suleiman five. It was Suleiman who
set the gradations of the system in their final form. All who aspired
to any official position in the Moslem Institution must pass through a
_medresseh_ of some degree. On first entering they were called _Softas_,
or more properly _Sukhtas_, as those who were _inflamed_ with the
desire for learning. The students were in different grades, but there
seems to have been no fixed number of years of study; the instruction
being largely individual, each could proceed as rapidly as he was
able. On finishing, they received a sort of master’s degree and were
called _Danishmend_, which appears in several of the early sources as
_Talisman_.[653] Such students as were content to teach primary schools,
or to attend to ecclesiastical duties, needed to study no longer.
Those who aspired to become jurists or judges had to pursue a long course
in law in the higher _medressehs_. At the end of this time they were
examined personally by the _Mufti_, or chief jurist, and if successful
they were dignified with the title of _Mulâzim_, or candidate. Those who
did not aspire to the higher judicial positions ended their preparation
at this point. The more ambitious sought appointment, for which they were
now qualified, as _Muderisler_, or professors, in _medressehs_ of low
grade. The _Muderisler_ received large salaries, which increased as they
rose. They were in three classes,—the _Muderisler_ of Constantinople,
of Adrianople and Brusa, and of the other cities of the empire. The
_Muderisler_ of Constantinople numbered about four hundred; they were in
ten grades, distinguished according to the subjects which they taught.
Those of other cities than the capital, and those at the capital who
did not pass through all the grades, became either jurists or judges
of lesser degrees. Those who wished to reach the higher judgeships
were obliged to pass through all ten grades. Since this was so long a
process as regularly to bring a man to gray hairs before he reached the
top, the rigid grading early began to be circumvented by the practice
of inscribing the sons of _Ulema_ as _Muderisler_ while they were very
young, substitutes being hired to teach in their places.[654] By the age
of thirty or forty they would thus be able to attain high position. A
continuance of this process, combined with the immunities and privileges
of the _Ulema_, was in time to lead to great accumulations of wealth in
the hands of a few families, who would be able to keep most of the high
judicial offices within their own numbers.
CLERGY, SEIDS, AND DERVISHES
The clergy of the Ottoman nation were, as has been shown, of no great
education, and they seem to have possessed less influence than the
priests of any other religion.[655] They were in five classes: the
_Sheiks_, or preachers; the _Khatibs_, or leaders of Friday services; the
_Imâms_, or leaders of daily services; the _Muezzins_, who intoned the
call to prayer; and the _Kaims_, or caretakers of the mosques.
The _Seids_, also known as _Emirs_ or _Sherifs_, were a class apart
among the Ottomans. They were not properly members of the _Ulema_,
unless, like others, they passed through the schools; they owed their
distinction rather to a real or assumed genealogy which carried their
ancestry back to the Prophet Mohammed. They alone were privileged to
wear a green turban. They were numerous; but the claims of many were
doubted, and some of them seem to have possessed reputations that were
far from savory.[656] They constituted the only hereditary nobility among
the Ottomans, but their privileges appear to have been personal rather
than financial: they were not to be struck, for example, on penalty
of severe punishment, and they had their own justice. Great honor was
shown to two members of this nobility, descendants of the Prophet:
to the _Mir-Alem_, the sultan’s standard-bearer, who was regularly a
_Seid_, and had precedence of all the officers of the army; and to the
_Nakib ol-Eshraf_, head of the _Seids_, who ranked second in the Moslem
Institution, and at the ceremonies of Bairam had precedence even of the
_Mufti_. The _Nakib ol-Eshraf_ was appointed by the sultan for life;
that member of the _Ulema_ who was a _Seid_ and who ranked highest when
the place fell vacant was ordinarily chosen. He had a staff of officers
and clerks in the capital and the provinces, and was head of the separate
jurisdiction of the _Seids_. Under the sultan he held despotic authority
over all _Seids_; and, when the sovereign ordered the punishment or death
of one of them, the _Nakib ol-Eshraf_ was commissioned to carry out the
execution.
Dervishes also were not members of the _Ulema_. They were of many orders,
though sixteenth-century observers seem to have been impressed with but
four.[657] They represented in Islam the monks, the hermits, and the
begging friars of Christianity. Through them heresies spread, uprisings
were concocted, mobs were gathered, and holy war was preached. On more
than one occasion they endangered the power of the government.[658] Many
were honest, God-fearing folk, while others were scarcely more than
tramps and wandering thieves.
Clergy, _Seids_, and dervishes represented the merely religious side
of the Moslem Institution. Islam was fundamentally a religion without
priests, monks, or nobles; and these persons never grew to possess
permanent influence and power in the Ottoman state.[659]
JURISTS AND THE MUFTI
A number of the _Ulema_ who had finished the law course, and who at some
previous time had chosen to become counsellors and jurists rather than
to take up the severer and more active judicial career, constituted a
distinct body, the _muftis_, who were held in high esteem. One of these
was assigned as associate to the judge of every important city, to the
number of about two hundred in all, while others were counsellors for
the _Beylerbeys_ and _Sanjak Beys_. Appointed for life, they lived in
retirement, having no initiative of action. When the judge, _Bey_, or any
private citizen, confronted by a case or other matter which involved a
learned knowledge of the Sacred Law, submitted to one of them a question
in writing, usually in the form of a hypothetical case, it was the duty
of the _mufti_, after careful consideration of the question in the light
of the law books of the school of Abu Hanifa, to give an answer that
applied the Sacred Law to the matter concerned. These answers, which
were called _fetvas_, were usually extremely concise and unaccompanied
by reasoning; they were prepared and sealed in solemn form.[660] When a
judge or a _Bey_ proposed to his _mufti_ a question touching a pending
law case, the _mufti’s_ response ordinarily settled the case. Private
citizens who obtained _fetvas_ ordinarily did so to help their causes
in pending law suits; here again a pertinent question and answer would
usually settle the case. Since there was no class of professional
lawyers, the _muftis_ were a necessary and very useful body.
In ordinary cities the _mufti_ ranked after the judge. This was not the
case in Constantinople, where the sultan and his officers of government
frequently had questions to present which touched matters of the highest
public importance. As a consequence the _mufti_ of Constantinople became
_par excellence_ the _Mufti_. Mohammed II assigned to him also the title
of _Sheik ul-Islam_, the Ancient of Islam, which in later times was to
become his ordinary title. The _Mufti_ was not regularly chosen from
among his fellows, but was usually advanced by the sultan from the active
judicial service.[661] He had the right to appoint and promote all the
other _muftis_ of the empire. A special bureau called the _Fetva-khaneh_
was created by Suleiman to assist the _Mufti_ in preparing decisions.
The _Mufti_ was definitely constituted by Suleiman the head of the
_Ulema_;[662] and as such he outranked all officials of government,
except that he yielded place to the grand vizier on ordinary occasions.
He was almost the equal of the sultan himself, since he was the expounder
and representative of the Sacred Law, which was above the sultan.
Bayezid II was accustomed to stand to receive the _Mufti_, and to give
him a seat above his own.[663] Early in Suleiman’s reign it was said,
“The Turk shows his [_Mufti_] the greatest reverence of any man in
his realm, because he represents justice and the image of God.”[664]
Sixteenth-century Westerners compared the _Mufti_ with a “very great
cardinal,”[665] but more often with the pope.[666] The _Mufti_ had,
however, no temporal authority and no active part in affairs; like
his brethren in lesser cities, he could give responses only when his
opinion was asked. He could, however, rightly be compared with the pope
in dignity and in the magnitude of the matters with which he dealt. His
alone was the right to proclaim that war should be begun, and to send
out preachers to declare that the war was holy and incumbent on all
Moslems. He was frequently consulted by the sultan as to the conformity
of proposed _Kanuns_ with the Sacred Law.[667] In his hands rested the
extreme responsibility of pronouncing that a sultan had transgressed
the Sacred Law and ought to be deposed. In short, though he could claim
no divinely delegated power to create new rules of faith or law, he was
the final earthly authority in the interpretation of the Sacred Law as
completed by Mohammed the Prophet. He exercised a function similar to
what in the United States of America is the highest office of the Supreme
Court,—the power of defending the Constitution. In this capacity the
_Mufti_ often withstood the sultan. _Urf_ was subordinate to _Sheri_,
and in case of conflict the former must yield; therefore the sultan, who
embodied the former, could not override the _Mufti_, who represented the
latter. A century after the time of Suleiman it was said:—
“The _Mufti_ is the principal head of the _Mahometan_ Religion or Oracle
of all doubtful questions in the Law, and is a person of great esteem
and reverence amongst the _Turks_; his Election is solely in the Grand
Signior, who chuses a man to that Office always famous for his Learning
in the Law, and eminent for his vertues and strictness of Life: his
Authority is so great amongst them, that when he passes Judgment or
Determination in any point, the Grand Signior himself will in no wise
contradict or oppose it....
“In matters of State the _Sultan_ demands his opinion, whether it be in
Condemnation of any great man to Death, or in making War or Peace, or
other important Affairs of the Empire; either to appear the more just
and religious, or to incline the People more willingly to Obedience. And
this practice is used in business of greatest moment; scarce a Visier
is proscribed, or a _Pashaw_ for pretence of crime displaced, or any
matter of great alteration or change designed, but the Grand Signior arms
himself with the _Mufti’s_ Sentence; for the nature of man reposes more
security in innocence and actions of Justice, than in the absolute and
uncontroulable power of the Sword. And the Grand Signior, tho he himself
is above the Law, and is the Oracle and Fountain of Justice, yet it is
seldom that he proceeds so irregularly to contemn that Authority wherein
their Religion hath placed an ultimate power of Decision in all their
Controversies.”[668]
The power of the _Mufti_ in the sixteenth century may be illustrated by
one or two instances. In the early years of the century, shortly before
the appearance of the Reformation movement in Western Europe, the Ottoman
Empire was threatened by the presence of large numbers of heretics in
Asia Minor, simultaneously with the rise of a strong Mohammedan heretical
power in Persia. Selim the Grim disposed of the heretics in his dominions
by wholesale execution,[669] and punished, though he failed to crush,
the Persians by the defeat of Khaldiran and the annexation of a large
part of their territory. After he had got rid of Mohammedan heresy in his
dominions, he was impressed with the absence of unity occasioned by the
presence of the Christian subjects.[670] Accordingly he decided to order
all these Christians to accept Islam on pain of death. To say that he
desired to execute the Christians of his dominions would be to put the
emphasis in the wrong place. He seems rather to have had in mind such a
process as was carried through in Spain in the course of the sixteenth
century, as a result of which none were left in that land who professed
another than the dominant religion.
But here the _Mufti_ Jemali intervened decisively. He had readily given
a _fetva_ authorizing the extermination of the heretics as in accordance
with the Sacred Law, and he was later to sanction the Persian and the
Egyptian wars. In this case, Selim, it is said, deceived him by a
hypothetical question into giving a response which might be interpreted
to authorize the forcible conversion of the Christians. After the order
was issued, however, Jemali, awakened to the situation, put the Greek
Patriarch in possession of a sufficient defence by showing him that the
Sacred Law provided that Christians who had accepted Mohammedan rule and
agreed to pay _kharâj_ and _jizyeh_ (land tribute and poll-tax) were,
aside from certain regulations, to be left unmolested in the exercise
of their religion. This provision the Patriarch, as instructed by the
_Mufti_, claimed to be an irrevocable and eternal compact; therefore,
he urged, since Selim’s intention was contrary to it, his purpose
was unlawful and must be abandoned. The argument prevailed, and the
Christians were not disturbed as to their faith.
It may be remarked that Selim’s idea was an excellent one from the
point of view of statesmanship, and would, in the end, have resulted
in a great advantage to the Moslem Institution. As pointed out in the
first chapter, the Christian churches in the Ottoman Empire constituted
a group of organizations that were parallel and rival to the Moslem
Institution; hence their removal would have left it a free field. Whether
its unopposed action would, in the long run, have been an advantage to
the empire and to the world is a matter for speculation which would be
out of place here; but as a state the Ottoman Empire would have been
notably unified by the clearing away of these institutions. They were
old, strong, and of a tenacious vitality; in them centered the hopes and
aspirations of the subject Christians; while they persisted, complete
amalgamation of the population was impossible; they were to keep alive a
sentiment of nationality and separatism that three centuries later was
to break off great sections from the empire. It seems clear, then, that,
had Selim been able to carry out his purpose, the history of the Levant
since his time would have been very different from what it has been. But
the _Mufti_, as guardian of the Sacred Law, was right. The position of
the Christian subjects rested on a firm constitutional foundation.[671]
The Prophet Mohammed himself, nine centuries before Selim, had made the
religious and social unity of the Ottoman Empire forever impossible.
He had also made political unity impossible at that time; for in the
sixteenth century political, apart from religious, unity was not
understood in either the East or the West. Only in the twentieth century
was Turkey to arrive at a new hope of political unity through an attempt
to remove religious differences from a position of great influence upon
the state.
Another instance of the _Mufti’s_ power occurred in the reign of
Suleiman, who, as a willing servant of the Sacred Law, freely recognized
the greatness of the _Mufti’s_ position. The _Mufti_ Ebu su’ud was one
of the most distinguished ornaments of the Legislator’s reign. He had
passed through all the stages of advancement among the _Ulema_, and had
been _Kaziasker_ eight years when he was constituted _Mufti_. He wrote a
great commentary on the Koran, and it was he who collected the best-known
_Kanun-nameh_ of Suleiman.[672] This man was closely connected with
one of those sorrowful events which made the reign of Suleiman, great
as it was in victory, splendor, and learning, equally great in tragic
ruin of hope. Suleiman must have passed through many hours of torturing
indecision before he determined upon the execution of his eldest son,
Mustapha; and in so great a matter he needed to consult the guardian of
the Sacred Law. The story of the part which the _Mufti_ played shall
be told by Busbecq, who appears for the last time in the pages of this
treatise:—
“Solyman had brought with him [to Amasia, where he joined the army] his
son’s death doom, which he had prepared before leaving home. With a view
to satisfying religious scruples, he had previously consulted his mufti.
This is the name given to the chief priest among the Turks, and answers
to our Pope of Rome. In order to get an impartial answer from the mufti,
he put the case before him as follows:—He told him that there was at
Constantinople a merchant of good position, who, when about to leave home
for some time, placed over his property and household a slave to whom he
had shown the greatest favour, and entrusted his wife and children to his
loyalty. No sooner was the master gone than this slave began to embezzle
his master’s property, and plot against the lives of his wife and
children; nay, more, had attempted to compass his master’s destruction.
The question which he (Solyman) wished the mufti to answer was this:
What sentence could be lawfully pronounced against this slave? The mufti
answered that in his judgment he deserved to be tortured to death. Now,
whether this was the mufti’s own opinion, or whether it was pronounced at
the instigation of Roostem or Roxolana, there is no doubt that it greatly
influenced Solyman, who was already minded to order the execution of his
son; for he considered that the latter’s offence against himself was
quite as great as that of the slave against his master, in the case he
had put before the mufti.”[673]
The _Mufti’s_ power in reality went beyond the field of interpretation
and entered upon that of legislation. It is well known how much the
Supreme Court of the United States of America has extended the powers of
the federal government by the interpretation of the Constitution. The
_Mufti_ acted similarly, though with less freedom, in interpreting the
Sacred Law. His power in this direction was recognized by some Ottoman
Mohammedans: “The _Mufti_ hath a spacious Field for his Interpretation;
for it is agreed that their Law is temporary, and admits of Expositions
according to times and state of things. And though they Preach to the
People the perfection of their _Alchoran_; yet the wiser men hold, that
the _Mufti_ hath an expository power of the Law to improve and better it,
according to the state of things, times and conveniencies of the Empire;
for that their Law was never designed to be a clog or confinement to the
propagation of Faith, but an advancement thereof, and therefore to be
interpreted in the largest and farthest fetched sense, when the strict
words will not reach the design intended.”[674]
The _fetvas_ of the _muftis_ amounted in practice to a body of
legislation which was intermediate between the _Sheri_ and the _Kanuns_:
they partook of the sacred character of the former, as being based
directly upon it; they were, like the latter, of a modern and practical
nature derived from recent application to actual cases. In the _fetvas_,
however, nothing radical or startling could ever be attempted; novel
features were obliged to be of a most inconspicuous character. The
_fetvas_ as a whole caused some development in the Sacred Law, but their
combined additions were altogether too slight to keep it abreast of the
march of events.
In reality, the _muftis_ occupied the most influential position in the
Moslem Institution and perhaps in the Ottoman state. Usually inferior
to judges and officers of government in income and display, and giving
no direct impulse to affairs, they nevertheless wielded the greatest
continuous power in the state,—the quiet, steady, almost changeless,
almost irresistible, force of Mohammedanism. They were “guardians of
the laws” in as full a sense as any Greek could wish. Their authority
rested, first, on the acceptance by the entire Moslem population of the
absolute supremacy of the Sacred Law, and, second, on the recognition by
the same population that they, who had acquired learning in the Law by
long years of arduous mental labor, and who had chosen to continue in
its study rather than take up its more active and lucrative application
in service on the bench, were the persons through whom its supremacy on
earth was rightly to be maintained. Thus by popular consent the _muftis_
constituted the conservative, regulative force in the Ottoman state. They
were destined to contribute very largely to the empire’s durability,
which, despite frightful shocks, disasters, and losses, was to continue
far beyond the expectation of the world.
The _muftis_ did their work only too well. The idea of the changelessness
of the Sacred Law was essentially hostile to progress. Although
considerable flexibility was possible under its provisions, the
flexibility lay in its application to particular cases, and hardly at all
in the law itself. When the Ottoman power began to rise, scholasticism
was at its height, both in Christianity and in Mohammedanism. From
this blighting theological and philosophical bondage, which tended to
extend its deadening sway over all the activities of the human spirit,
Christendom was delivered by the Renaissance and the Reformation. The
Ottoman mind, on the contrary, continued to be held under it till the
most recent years. That it remained so long in bondage, with scarcely a
struggle to escape, was due very largely to the authority of the _Ulema_.
They who accomplished much toward building the Ottoman state into a solid
structure, and toward maintaining it against foes without and within,
also held it nearly stationary while the rest of the world moved on.
THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM[675]
The judges who belonged to the corps of the _Ulema_ had jurisdictions
that were based upon territory, and that covered the whole empire to
an even wider extent than did the administration of the government.
The Crimea and North Africa, though under vassal governments, formed
part of the Ottoman judicial system.[676] The tribunals of the judges
seem to have been competent for all kinds of cases, whether civil or
criminal, and whether covered by the _Sheri_, the _Kanuns_, _Adet_,
or none of these.[677] But, as has been seen, they were not competent
to try all persons. The _kullar_, the _Seids_, and the members of the
foreign colonies had their separate systems of justice; even the subject
Christians, in matters between themselves, had their own ecclesiastical
tribunals to which they regularly resorted. Cases concerning the
administration of certain groups of _vakf_ lands were tried in special
courts, which were, however, presided over by members of the regular
judicial body. The fief-holders had seigniorial jurisdiction in certain
matters; and the officers of local government seem also to have had
independent right to decide cases outside the sphere of the Sacred Law,
whether covered by _Kanun_, _Adet_, or unprovided for.[678] The judges
of the Moslem Institution, therefore, tried all cases involving the
Sacred Law which arose within the empire, and which were between Moslem
and Moslem or between Moslem and Christian (except when the Moslem was a
_kul_ of the sultan or a _Seid_), as well as a large proportion of the
cases which were outside the sphere of the Sacred Law.
Nearly all judges were judges of cities, having jurisdiction also over
the surrounding territory;[679] exceptions were the _Mufettishes_ of
the _vakf_ lands, the judge who accompanied the _Kapudan Pasha_ on his
annual cruise to the Aegean Islands, the two _Kaziaskers_, and the
grand vizier. The judges were all carefully graded in five principal
classes, three of which were each again subdivided into several groups.
By another grouping, on a geographical basis, they were in two divisions
under the _Kaziaskers_ of Europe and Asia. The five classes were the
greater _Mollas_, the lesser _Mollas_, the _Mufettishes_, the _Kazis_,
and the _Naibs_. The general name for judge was _Kazi_, and the popular
title of respect for them all was _Molla_;[680] but the official titles
were as described above. In general, a _Danishmend_ who aspired to the
judicial career chose while in the law course, according to his ambition
or ability, which of the five classes he would strive to enter and after
entering one of them he could not pass to another. Each had its ladder of
promotion.
The greater _Mollas_ were in six groups: the _Kaziasker_ of Rumelia;
the _Kaziasker_ of Anatolia; the judge of Constantinople; the judges of
Mecca and Medina; the judges of Adrianople, Brusa, Cairo, and Damascus;
and the judges of the three suburbs of Constantinople,—Galata, Scutari,
and Eyub,—and of Jerusalem, Smyrna, Aleppo, Larissa, and Salonica. These
seventeen were in later times nominated by the _Mufti_ for approval by
the grand vizier and confirmation by the sultan; in Suleiman’s time
the members of the last four groups were nominated by the _Kaziaskers_
subject to the approval of the pashas.[681] Their positions were
originally held for life, or until promotion, or during good behavior;
and they rose by promotion from group to group. Each had a number of
assistants, clerks, book-keepers, treasurers, and the like. They seem
to have had superior jurisdiction over the inhabitants, and control
of the lesser judges, in the entire dominion of the officer of local
government—_Beylerbey_ or _Sanjak Bey_—who resided in their city.[682]
The _Kaziaskers_ had each a large corps of subordinate officials. They
controlled the appointment of the judges of all other classes, subject
to the confirmation of the sultan. The five _Ulema_ who held high office
near the person of the sultan—his _Hoja_ or teacher, the head physician,
the head astrologer, and the two imperial _Imâms_—were reckoned as
adjunct members among the _Mollas_ of the first class. They had no small
influence on the destiny of the empire, as being the most disinterested
and trusted persons who had the ear of the monarch.
The lesser _Mollas_ were the judges of the ten cities of second
rank,—Marash, Bagdad, Bosna-serai, Sofia, Belgrade, Aintab, Kutaia,
Konia, Philippopolis, and Diarbekr.
The _Mufettishes_ were five in number, three representing the _vakfs_ in
Constantinople that were under the _Mufti_, the grand vizier, and the
_Kizlar Agha_, and two representing all three of these exalted officials
in Adrianople and Brusa. Cases concerning _vakfs_ that might arise
elsewhere were taken before the nearest _Kazi_.
The _Kazis_ proper included the vast majority of the judges, to the
number, in D’Ohsson’s time, of about four hundred and fifty, who were
stationed in smaller cities. About two hundred in Europe, in nine groups,
and those in the Crimea and North Africa, were under the authority of the
_Kaziasker_ of Rumelia. About two hundred and twenty-five in Asia, in ten
groups, and thirty-six in Egypt, in six groups, were under the control of
the _Kaziasker_ of Anatolia.[683]
The _Naibs_ were in several groups, as judges of villages, lesser judges
of cities, temporary substitutes for higher judges, and the like. They
ordinarily had no salaries, but lived upon fees and irregular earnings.
A group of these were important in the sixteenth century as a kind of
inspectors of public morals. They purchased their places, and lived upon
fines—and sometimes, it is said, upon extortions—from persons who did not
wish their private lives exposed.[684]
Exercising many of the functions of police and market judges, but not
belonging to the _Ulema_, were the _Muhtesibs_, or lieutenants of police,
of the various cities. Accompanied by soldiers and attendants, they
patrolled the streets and inspected the markets, giving special heed to
weights and measures. If they found that the law had been infringed, they
inflicted punishment, whether financial or corporal, on the spot.[685]
By reason of the duty of applying sumptuary regulations, the office was
often lucrative.[686]
In every court a single judge sat, with his clerks and other
subordinates. Cases were presented by the parties concerned, and
decisions were usually rendered immediately and in very concise form.
The judge coöperated with the _Subashi_ of the city, who brought before
the judge persons that were summoned and who executed the sentences
of the judges,[687] an arrangement in which lay a certain likeness to
the ecclesiastical courts of the West, which might condemn, but left
the execution to the secular arm. Appeal went up to judges higher in
the scale, and finally to the grand vizier.[688] Costs and fines were
moderate, and were fixed by _Kanun_;[689] they constituted, however,
a large part of the income of the judges and their subordinates. The
judges were salaried, and some of them had in addition large amounts of
irregular earnings. The judges attended to all the notarial work of the
empire.
The _Subashis_, _Sanjak Beys_, and _Beylerbeys_ had complete jurisdiction
over all members of the Ruling Institution who resided in their
districts, as well as a more or less undefined authority in cases
controlled by _Kanun_, _Adet_, or otherwise outside the sphere of the
Sacred Law.[690] In capital cases they never proceeded to execution
without obtaining the approval of the judge of the city, in order to
have the sanction of the Sacred Law.[691] The decisions of the judges in
criminal cases were regularly submitted to without a murmur, since it was
felt that the judges represented Mohammed, “wore the robe of God,” and
had power of “sovereign sentence.”[692]
The highest courts were those of the _Kaziaskers_, the grand vizier, and
the Divan. The _Kaziaskers_, besides attending to the cases that were
brought before them in the Divan and at the palace gate after its close,
held court at all other times in their own houses.[693] Mohammed II had
provided that, when cases were brought primarily to them in the city of
Constantinople, those which concerned Moslems should come before the
_Kaziasker_ of Rumelia and those which concerned non-Moslems before the
_Kaziasker_ of Anatolia. The titles of these judges show their original
functions as judges of the armies of Rumelia and Anatolia, offices
which they continued to exercise in time of war. In this capacity,
also, appeals came up to them in time of peace from the _Subashis_ and
_Sanjak Beys_ in matters touching _kullar_. The power of the _Kaziaskers_
had been extended to include the headship of all the judges of their
respective regions, and the appointment of all judges, subject to the
approval of the pashas. In the Divan, and as “Pillars of the State,” they
ranked next to the viziers; they had the first right of audience with
the sultan at the close of each Divan; and until the reign of Suleiman
they had had all the authority over the _Ulema_ that later came to the
_Mufti_. They had immense incomes and were highly honored and esteemed.
The grand vizier was actual head of the Moslem Institution as substitute
for the sultan; accordingly his court was the highest court of appeal for
all ordinary civil cases. It was also, however, like all other courts
in the empire, a court of first instance. He decided great numbers of
cases, large and small, for rich and poor alike. Justice was refused to
no one; it was rendered either by the grand vizier’s own decision, or by
reference for prompt settlement to one of the _Kaziaskers_ or to some
other judge.[694]
The Divan’s principal deliberative business as a court was the trial
of capital cases of great officials. Although many such persons were
executed, it is strenuously denied that Suleiman ever ordered death
without a trial.[695] Nevertheless, the process was usually held in
the absence of the accused person and without his knowledge; he might
be at the end of the empire. In case of conviction a _Chaush_ was sent
to the condemned man’s place of residence, bearing secretly a written
commission, which was given to the nearest official who had power to
execute. The condemned man had at best a few hours in which to settle his
affairs and make his peace with God; then he was executed, and his head
was given to the _Chaush_ to be taken to the sultan as proof that the
mission had been faithfully accomplished. It is said that forty or fifty
heads sometimes reached the court of Suleiman in a single day.[696]
Early in his reign, when filled with pride by his victory over the rebel
Ghazali, and feeling warm friendship toward Doge Loredano of Venice,
he wished to send the rebel’s head to the Doge by a special embassy,
and was dissuaded only with great difficulty by the Bailo of Venice in
Constantinople.[697] After Mohacs two thousand heads were set on poles
about his tent.[698] To Western eyes it seems a blot upon the noble and
generous character of Suleiman, that he treated the heads of his enemies
and of condemned criminals after the fashion of his time and country.
Aside from the question of barbarity and cruelty, however, the policy
of summary and certain execution of offenders was essential to the
maintenance of the Ottoman Ruling Institution in power. It was a process
of pruning, by which every dangerous growth was cut away. Had it not been
done, the system would have seemed today more commendable, but it could
hardly have failed to perish quickly. A century after Suleiman the remark
was made that what preserved the Ottoman state was the quickness and
severity of justice for crimes which had relation to the government.[699]
What was the general character of Ottoman justice? It is to be feared
that it was often venal. A few years after Suleiman’s death a Western
writer expressed the opinion that the only incorruptible courts were
those of the grand vizier and the Divan.[700] Another charged that
Christian subjects had unfair treatment before the courts, in which they
were not allowed to testify, since some of the Moslems considered it
almost a meritorious religious act to turn a case against a Christian by
false testimony.[701] It is probable, however, that the Ottoman courts
in Suleiman’s time were reasonably just. The judges were well-paid,
highly honored, and carefully inspected by honest men who were sent out
annually by the _Kaziaskers_;[702] nevertheless, many of them no doubt
yielded to the same desire for money that afflicted the _kullar_. In at
least one respect the Ottoman courts were highly to be commended: there
was a minimum of trouble because of the “law’s delay.” Cases were always
decided promptly, and in clear and simple terms. An unjust decision
quickly given is often less expensive and less annoying in the long run
than tardy justice.[703]
Some Western observers were as strongly impressed with the superiority
of Ottoman justice over that in their own lands as they were with the
superiority of discipline in the Ottoman camp, or of promotion by merit
in the Ottoman government service.[704] One of them said: “To understand
at length their diligence in justice, it would be necessary to write more
than I have done; and further, since there is nothing here [that is, in
France] so near immorality as the processes and extortions which men do,
it gives me shame to recite so great diligence among people proclaimed
wicked; this it is, without any doubt, which makes them so to rule,
conquer, and keep.... Of Sultan Suleiman, who rules at present, I do not
wish to speak, for his deeds are not yet accomplished, and he cannot yet
be praised, except for his humanity, justice, and fidelity.”[705]
The law which the judges administered was primarily the Sacred Law,
as given in the Koran and the traditions of Mohammed, but especially
as codified by the great doctors of the school of Abu Hanifa, and as
interpreted in collections of the _fetvas_ of great jurists. Next
the judges applied the _Kanuns_ of the sultans, and the customs and
immunities of the regions in which they served.[706] Finally, they had a
considerable field in which to make use of equity: “The good sense and
prudence of judges trained in reasoning,” says Postel, “supplies and
decides many things that are not written.”[707] The only resemblance to
the Anglo-Saxon system of case law seems to have been the use of the
_fetvas_ of the _muftis_. Since the hearing of ordinary cases was summary
and decisions were rendered very briefly, no extended reports were
possible. The absence of printing, which was not introduced into Turkey
until the eighteenth century, aided further toward making a general use
of the decisions of judges as precedents practically impossible. In
those days judges relied upon their own knowledge of law and custom,
on the few books they might possess, on their sense of equity, and, in
matters of difficulty, on the opinions of the local _muftis_. Since
the judges were not each surrounded by a group of trained and keenly
watchful lawyers, but acted alone except for their own subordinates,
there was more opportunity for unjust decisions by a dishonest judge than
among English-speaking peoples. Or, to state the matter differently,
Ottoman justice depended more upon the integrity of judges than does
Anglo-Saxon justice. Although the Sacred Law was rigid, its application
to the individual case was adjustable, and adjustment was ordinarily
accomplished by the decision of one man. Judges therefore possessed great
power over the fortunes of individuals, a fact which in part explains the
great deference and honor that was shown them.
THE MOSLEM INSTITUTION AS A WHOLE
A few words of summary will sketch the outlines of the complete Moslem
Institution in the Ottoman Empire. It represented and maintained the
entire system that was based upon the life and work of the Prophet
Mohammed. This system claimed to be sufficient for all sides of the
temporal, as well as for the eternal, life of all individuals, and
for the life of the state which they constituted; it also provided a
place for subject peoples and resident foreigners of other religious
affiliations. The power of the institution extended over the whole
empire, even beyond the limits of political control.
The Moslem Institution was firmly grounded in the allegiance, the
fundamental beliefs, and the affections of the entire Moslem-born
population of the empire. It is true that not all Moslems believed
exactly alike, nor did they all practise the Sacred Law according to the
system of Abu Hanifa. But they were all fiercely and proudly Moslems,
and devoted to the supremacy of the Mohammedan system in this world, as
expressed in an institution which might not be what every one wished,
but which revealed and maintained the power of Islam. All the Moslems of
the empire were in a sense members of the institution. In the sixteenth
century any one of them might hope to see his son mount to a very high
place within the organization, since industrious study combined with
native ability was all that was demanded. Opportunities in the way of
schools were present nearly everywhere; and a student who once had shown
his aptitude would be carried forward, without expense to his relatives,
by funds which had been provided by sultans and pious individuals “for
the good of their souls.” The Moslem Institution was fundamentally
democratic. It was united in complete solidarity and perfect harmony with
all in the empire who were attached to the doctrines of the Prophet. All
believers were equal before God, and all were supposed to have equal
opportunity to rise to places of honor in the system.
Distinction and membership in the institution proper rested upon birth
in the case of the descendants of Mohammed, upon profession of piety and
special religious service in the case of the dervishes, but upon learned
knowledge of the Sacred Law in all positions of public influence and
importance. The three highly-honored classes of teachers, jurists, and
judges were trained in the same superbly-planned educational system, in
the same text-books and the same ideas. Whether in Constantinople or
Cairo, the Crimea or Algiers, Budapest or Bagdad, old, grave, wise, and
learned professors, jurists, and judges taught, interpreted, and enforced
the same wide-reaching and changeless Sacred Law. As teachers, the
_Ulema_ conveyed to children and youth, in impressible years, that which
they had themselves received. The same learned persons, after fixing
each part of the whole round of legal studies in their minds by periods
of teaching, were advanced to places where they dealt not with boys, but
with men, where their work affected not the fortunes of individuals,
but the destinies of the empire. Yet their influence was exerted
strenuously in the same direction throughout, to impress and perpetuate
the changeless body of ideas in the Sacred Law. Professors, jurists,
and judges alike were, in all that they did and throughout their lives,
fundamentally teachers. The _Ulema_ taught all the Moslems of the empire,
from the young child to the aged sultan. They maintained schools for the
young; places of worship, courts, and offices of consultation for adults.
Every important officer of administrative government had a judge and a
_mufti_ at his elbow. Not only was the sultan himself in close relations
with the _Kaziaskers_ and the _Mufti,_ but he had always a spiritual
adviser to whom he showed great deference, and who bore the significant
title of the sultan’s _Hoja_, or teacher. There was an aspect in which
the Moslem Institution, based upon the Moslem population of the empire,
fitted the government as hand fits glove. This figure, moreover, can be
pressed beyond the mere comparison of shape; the hand is of much the same
efficiency with or without the glove, while the glove is useless without
the hand; furthermore, the hand may live to wear a succession of gloves.
CHAPTER VIII
COMPARISON OF THE TWO GREAT INSTITUTIONS
The Ottoman Ruling Institution, and the Moslem Institution of the Ottoman
Empire might be compared, contrasted, and reflected upon at great length.
In this discussion, however, it must suffice to select and comment upon a
few of their salient likenesses, differences, and interactions, without
attempting to separate such features sharply.
LIKENESSES
Both institutions were constructed out of old and well-seasoned
materials. Many of the ideas in each can be followed back until their
origin is lost in prehistoric obscurity; hardly a feature in either but
had a clear derivation from, relationship to, or suggestion in, some
prototype of pre-Ottoman days. Only the final structure of each, the
proportion and composition of its parts, and the effect of the completed
whole was worked out in the Ottoman Empire. If an attempt be made, in a
very general way, to distinguish the main lines of influence which led
up to the two institutions, it may be said that the Ruling Institution
had its nucleus of ideas from the Turks of the steppe lands. Influenced
by old Persian neighbors and Chinese rulers, the original group of ideas
was brought into the Moslem Empire and Asia Minor by the predecessors of
the Seljuk Turks and by the Seljuk Turks themselves. Coming into contact
in Asia Minor with the ideas of the Byzantine Empire, and to some extent
with those of the crusaders from the West, the system took on a large
number of new features; and the Ottomans continued the process in Asia
Minor and Southeastern Europe until the time of Suleiman. The Moslem
Institution began with the ideas of the Arabs as combined by Mohammed
with Jewish, Middle Persian, and Christian influences. Political notions
were rapidly incorporated from those prevailing in Byzantine Syria and
Egypt, and perhaps to a greater extent from those in the Sassanian
Persian Empire. A compact system of ideas began early to be developed,
and in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries it reached final scholastic
shape. Together with its institutional embodiments, it began to pass to
the Ottomans in their earliest days; and, as the nation grew, it grew
into the Moslem Institution of the Ottoman Empire, fresh power being
given to it by Selim’s conquest of the old Moslem lands, and especially
by his acquisition of the over-lordship of the Holy Cities. The two lines
of tendency which led to the two great Ottoman institutions were first
brought into contact when, in the seventh century, the Arab conquest of
Persia advanced the Moslem frontier into Central Asia. From that time
to the reign of Suleiman reciprocal influence was exerted, although the
Moslem ideas affected the Turkish much more than the Turkish did the
Moslem.
Both of the great Ottoman institutions were founded upon groups of
ideas and not upon racial descent. This subject, discussed above in the
Introduction, has been shown to be true to an extreme in the Ruling
Institution, which drew its members from every direction except from the
existing stock of the nation. The Moslem Institution embodied a religion
of universal claim. Though originally given to the Arabs, the Moslem
faith was intrinsically independent of race, as its subsequent history
revealed. Belief, and not blood, became the sole test of membership. This
common hospitality of its two great institutions to all who might wish
to join them laid firmly the foundation of the Ottoman nation, and made
possible the greatness and the permanence of its dominion.
Both Ottoman institutions were self-perpetuating through education.
Each had a great educational system which was adapted to its special
character, and which was life-long in extent. The Ruling Institution
trained its pupils physically as well as mentally, whereas the Moslem
Institution neglected physical education in favor of a greater amount of
intellectual training. Otherwise their work was largely parallel. One
institution took its pupils from the children of Christian subjects and
neighbors, and trained them to conquer and to rule. The other took its
pupils from the children of Moslems and trained them to know, practise,
teach, and enforce the Moslem rules of law and life. The one system
raised the ablest Christian-born individuals to the highest positions,
and the other raised the ablest Moslem-born individuals similarly. Both
continually brought in new material at the bottom, and continually worked
upon all their material to increase its value. Each offered such rewards
and promotions as to induce its members to put forth their most strenuous
exertions, that they might develop their own powers and visibly help
their institution. Whatever faults of plan and structure the institutions
may have had, they were able to survive all dangers and disasters largely
through the trained ability of the individuals whom their educational
systems had brought to the front.
Both institutions rose to an apex, through the Divan and the grand
vizier, in the sultan, who was the head and center of each. Yet the ideas
by which the two institutions were joined to their head were in striking
contrast. The sultan was master and owner of the Ruling Institution; he
was the divinely-appointed chief of the Moslem Institution. The members
of the former obeyed him as slaves; the members of the latter obeyed
him as free Moslems commanded by the Sacred Law to render allegiance
to the chief interpreter and defender of that law. The former knew no
power greater than the sultan’s; the latter relied upon the Sacred Law
as above the sultan. The Ruling Institution was extended downward in
each of its parts from the sultan’s authority, and in organization and
membership depended for existence upon his will. The Moslem Institution
rose upward from the people, and was attached almost artificially to the
sultan’s authority. Suleiman regulated the grades of higher advancement
in it, but the sultans who came after him touched the organization of the
institution scarcely at all. Very seldom, moreover, by comparison, did
the sultans punish the members of this institution; for the most part its
work went on quite independently of them. But the sultan was the head of
both institutions: every member of each looked upward along converging
lines which met at the foot of his throne. The highest promotions in
each were made by him directly, the honored men being put into positions
near their sovereign.
DIFFERENCES
The fact that the Ruling Institution was recruited from Christian
slaves and the Moslem Institution from Moslem freemen led to a
profound difference of spirit. The Christian slaves, newly converted
to Mohammedanism, were not as a body so closely attached to the Sacred
Law as were the Moslem freemen. Their loyalty being rather to one man,
their master and benefactor, they felt a servile devotion which was very
different from the reasoned allegiance of those who had always been free.
A _Mufti_, fortified by the Sacred Law, would firmly oppose the will of
the sovereign in a case where a grand vizier would scarcely dare venture
a mildly contrary suggestion. The Sacred Law, despite the introduction of
all later influences, still breathed forth something of the freedom of
the Arabian desert: in one or two generations, as has been seen, it could
render its followers unfit to be slaves. Thus the spirit of the Ruling
Institution was far less independent of personal authority than that of
the Moslem Institution.
As to the authority of old ideas the contrary was true. The fundamental
distinction of parties in modern states seems to rest upon a greater
or less relative inclination to follow old paths or to enter upon new
ones. Both institutions of the Ottoman state would in modern times be
classed as strongly conservative, but of the two the Moslem Institution
was by far the more so. Conservatism, in fact, was of the very essence
of the Sacred Law. The early Turks had also loved their _Adet_, but not
so much as to be unwilling quickly to adopt the new if they saw in it
distinct advantage; the rise of the Ottoman power was, indeed, marked
by the constant incorporation of new ideas, devices, and methods.[708]
As the Moslem influence grew, however, changes became increasingly more
difficult to make; and when they were made it was by the activity of the
Ruling Institution, usually against the resistance or the inert passivity
of the Moslem Institution.
The fact that the Ruling Institution fought and governed while the Moslem
Institution thought and judged was, of course, highly significant: the
former embodied the active, the latter the contemplative, principle of
the nation. Here again is involved a difference of Turk and Saracen.
In the steppe lands the Turk fought, obeyed, and gave orders; after
the fever of conquest was abated, the Saracen, under Islam, thought,
preserved intellectual independence, and worshipped. With the two
characters placed side by side, it was in the nature of things that in
the long run muscle would be controlled by mind.
By comparison with the Moslem Institution, the Ruling Institution
possessed a great structural disadvantage, in that it was much more
artificial and therefore much less stable. It admitted its members as
slaves, but they were not hereditary slaves; most of them were free-born
subjects of the empire or of the neighboring Christian states. A class of
hereditary slaves would not have possessed the requisite mettle. Now, the
acquisition of a large number of free-born children who can be made into
slaves is hardly a process that can be continued indefinitely. Conquest
had its limits for the Ottoman Empire, for boundaries were reached beyond
which lay states whose powers of self-defense developed increasingly;
accordingly, recruiting by capture became increasingly difficult. But the
levying of children as tribute was strongly against human nature; and
in the long run it, too, must lead to decline, for under its operation
the best were taken and inferiors were left. Furthermore, not only
were children separated from their parents against the wishes of the
parents, but the recruits, when they grew up, were not encouraged to form
family ties. Even when they did so, they were unable to advance their
children as they had been advanced themselves, and they could not be
sure of conveying their property to their descendants. Thus in several
respects the Ruling Institution ran counter to the idea of the family.
On the other hand, the advantages given to the sultan’s _kullar_ became
too great not to be coveted; and it was not natural that the free-born
Moslems should continue to let outsiders be the only recipients of
so much wealth, power, and privilege. The Moslem population forced
its way in, and the plan of the Ruling Institution was upset. The
Moslem Institution, on the contrary, was recruited voluntarily from an
increasing population; hence, as its advantages became attractive, it was
benefited rather than harmed by pressure for admission. Its able men,
while they must labor if they would advance, were free, unhindered in
their family relationships, and under little fear of being deprived of
property or life.
INTERACTIONS
The two institutions, running everywhere parallel, with their members
in constant association one with the other, could not fail to act
reciprocally upon each other. It is not easy, however, to discriminate
likenesses that were due to mutual influence from those that were caused
by common circumstances; nor is it easy to distinguish pre-Ottoman
interactions from those which operated after the beginning of the
fourteenth century. A few probabilities may be expressed, however.
It is a matter of frequent remark that men, institutions, and peoples
are apt to impart to each other their faults and vices more readily
than their good qualities. Whether or not this be true, the two Ottoman
institutions certainly seem to have taught each other some evil
qualities. Luxury, venality, and unnatural vices were all strongly
discountenanced by the Sacred Law; but all were fostered in the members
of the Ruling Institution by the very conditions of the system, and by
the sixteenth century all had come to be charged against the members of
the Moslem Institution as well. On the other hand, the conservatism of
the Moslem Institution and its resistance to progress came more and more
to characterize the Ruling Institution. Members of the _Ulema_ taught
even the pages of the palace and the princes on the intellectual side
of their training, thereby exerting a constant influence which in the
course of time operated powerfully on the Ruling Institution from top to
bottom, till it, too, began to acquire a changelessness which resisted
improvement and progress. With such a character once established, the end
of the empire’s greatness was at hand. In a rapidly progressing world, a
stationary position means a relative decline.
The two institutions contributed strongly to each other’s power and
permanence. The Ruling Institution defended the Moslem Institution by
the sword, and carried out among the people the decisions of its wise
men. It also protected the latter’s sources of regular revenue, and thus
enabled the _Ulema_, secure of a living, to devote themselves to the
study and teaching of the Sacred Law. The Moslem Institution, on the
other hand, kept the Moslem population obedient and submissive to the
sultan’s authority as expressed in the Ruling Institution. It taught that
the Sultan was divinely appointed and therefore always to be obeyed, no
matter what his character was or how oppressive his rule might become,
so long as he did not transgress the Sacred Law; and that it was for
the _Ulema_ alone to decide when he had made such a transgression.
Accordingly the two institutions, so long as they acted in harmony, were
absolutely impregnable in their position among the Moslems of the empire.
THE RELATIVE POWER OF THE INSTITUTIONS
These two institutions constituted, as it were, the two great
parties in the Ottoman state.[709] The Moslem Institution was always
strongly Islamic, and extremely conservative in all respects. The
Ruling Institution was originally liberal both religiously and in its
receptivity of new ideas, but it departed from its liberal tendency in
much the same proportion that the Moslem Institution increased in power.
To trace the ups and downs of the influence of the two institutions from
the beginnings of Ottoman history would be an interesting problem. Much
depended of course, as must always be the case in a despotic state,
on the character of the sultan. With an active conquering sultan like
Mohammed II or Selim I, the Ruling Institution would gain upon its rival;
with a pious or mild sultan like Murad II or Bayezid II, the Moslem
Influence would increase in importance. Selim I’s vast conquests in
Moslem territories, and his acquisition of the protectorate of the Holy
Cities and of the title of caliph, prepared the way for a later advance
in the power of the Moslem Institution which was not in harmony with
his own personal influence. Suleiman had a fiery active period of youth
when the liberal policy was stronger in his mind, and a quieter old age
when the Moslem influence became predominant; it is not unlikely that
a consciousness of his position as caliph grew upon him with advancing
years. But in general, through all the reigns, the power of the Moslem
Institution grew; the only difference from reign to reign was in the rate
of speed. The Ruling Institution also grew in power before the world and
the Ottoman nation as long as the empire continued to expand rapidly; but
it did not grow relatively so fast as did the Moslem Institution.
The reasons for the more rapid growth of Moslem influence lay chiefly in
the fact that that influence was cumulative. As to its financial basis,
the Moslem Institution, like the Christian church in the West, gained
lands and wealth continually, and never lost any; for sultans took great
pride, and high officials vied with each other, in founding mosques,
schools, colleges, and other charitable and semi-public institutions
supported by _vakfs_.[710] In general moral and political influence,
also, the institution gained rapidly through its system of education;
for, like the medieval Christian church again, it held in its hands all
the means and methods of intellectual development. Every new primary
school, college, and law school,—and they were many in the days of
glory,—strengthened the influence of this institution. In this field,
indeed, its power acted constantly upon its rival. Old _Hojas_ taught
the pages in the palace, advised the sultan’s mother, and trained the
young princes and the sons of high officials. Thus within the nation the
external show of the Moslem Institution, and its sway over the minds of
men, grew without ceasing.
The Ruling Institution, on the other hand, lost relatively. In the early
days, when recent converts were exceedingly numerous and the religious
spirit of the young nation was weak, the Turkish-Aryan organization
was far stronger than the Semitic influence. Sultans, however, were
constantly giving away state lands as endowment for new mosques and
colleges; and, worse still, so much of the educational system of this
institution as was not controlled by its rival was directed only toward
its own membership and not toward the nation at large. Accordingly,
although the Ruling Institution grew in wealth and power, it did not keep
pace with the Moslem Institution, which, after two and a half centuries
of gain, was able to overtake it about the time of Suleiman’s reign. His
gifts of great mosques, numerous colleges, and vast endowment,[711] his
arrangement in final perfection of the _cursus honorum_ which led up from
the primary schools to the office of _Mufti_, and the personal leaning of
his later years toward the influence of the _Ulema_, settled permanently
the preponderance of the Moslem Institution.
At the same time, the Moslem Institution could never destroy its rival.
Theoretically it had no need of such a counterpart. Mohammed and the
early caliphs had no such institution. The Sacred Law developed with no
mention of a secular government, and with no hint of any deficiency in
its own provisions that would make it inadequate to guide a nation by its
own strength; but, within thirty years from the death of Mohammed, Muavia
had set up a secular government at Damascus, and since then every Moslem
state had had one. Many a Moslem state, also, had had a ruler who was not
of lawful blood; for the Sacred Law affirmed that the _Imâm_, or divinely
appointed ruler, must be of the tribe of the Koreish.[712] According to
that unenforced provision, Suleiman himself had no right to the throne.
The fact is that the Moslem Institution very early became too unworldly
to live unsupported by a secular power. It was a strong but tender
hand, which must always wear a glove. After it had acquired a permanent
ascendency in the state, therefore, the Moslem Institution was compelled
to keep its rival in place, and to allow it always strength enough to
defend and support the empire which nourished both.
Bound together closely in an alliance which neither enjoyed, but which
was necessary for the preservation of both, the Ruling Institution and
the Moslem Institution constituted the twofold inner framework of the
Ottoman Empire, to which it owed all its might and energy, its grandeur
and repute, its continuity and durability.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I
THE SECOND BOOK OF THE AFFAIRS OF THE TURKS
Written in 1534, supposedly by Benedetto Ramberti
Translated from the Italian
[From _Libri Tre delle Cose de Turchi_, as printed in _Viaggi ... alla
tana_, Venice, 1543, pp. 131-146.]
As from a laborious and very dangerous sea into a safe and very quiet
port, one enters the city of Constantinople, after the great trouble and
inconvenience of the ride which he has endured over the long road.[713]
This city (to continue until I have here made an end of particular
description) was anciently called Byzantium, and afterwards was called
New Rome, and then Constantinople from the first Constantine. Byzantium,
as it is reported, was in the region where Pera is now, and was so named
from the river Byzantium, which afterward, by reason of an earthquake
such as are frequent in that region, changed its course elsewhere. But I
do not believe this, nor does it seem to me to agree with the description
of Polybius and other writers, who call those here Chalcedonians;
these, when they might themselves in ancient times have built upon this
site, did not care for it, but built in Asia, not having discerned the
convenience and beauty they were leaving to others; who might deprive
them even of their own site, as indeed happened.
The city is 18 miles in circuit. It has seven little hills, not very
high. It is surrounded by wretched walls, and is full of houses, not many
of which are good, being made of clay and wood and only a few of stone.
It is full of groves, that is, of places wild and uninhabited, where
cypresses grow, and other such trees.[714] In Constantinople, then, is
the palace of the Turkish Signor, which is a singular structure and very
large, as will be told later.
There is the palace of the ladies of the Signor, the palace of the
Janissaries, the Patriarcate, the palace of the Emperor Constantine,
which is in part ruined, the church of St. Sophia, which is a structure
most beautiful and divine; this was built by the Emperor Justinian from
the oldest and finest columns and marbles, as one can see now; in part
of it the Turkish Signor has made stalls for his horses. There is the
mosque of Sultan Mohammed, which has an _Imaret_ attached to it that is
like a hostel; in which they lodge any one, of any nation or law, who may
wish to enter, and they give him food for three days,—honey, rice, meat,
bread, and water, and a room in which to sleep. They say that from day
to day there are more than a thousand guests from various nations. Near
this they have baths and some fountains, most beautiful and delightful to
behold. There are the mosques of Sultan Bayezid, Sultan Selim, and other
Signors, which are very beautiful and exceedingly well-built. This makes
it clear that, when they wish, they know also how to build houses and
palaces that are magnificent and sumptuous.
There is the Hippodrome, that is, the place where in ancient times horses
were made to run as in a theater and circus: in the center of this
Hippodrome there stands a needle, which is a column made in the form of
a needle, very beautiful and wrought very well and without mortar, made
of living rocks joined together in such a manner that they rise through
more than fifty cubits, tapering in the shape of a needle, which rests
on four marble balls.[715] There is a column of bronze in the shape of a
serpent with three heads.[716] There is a bronze Hercules brought from
Hungary,[717] and in the center there is a colossal structure made of
different beautiful marbles, in which is engraved the history of all
the above-mentioned objects, and of other things which used to stand in
the Theater and Hippodrome. There are throughout the city many vestiges
of antiquities, such as aqueducts, arches, porphyry columns, fountains
brought from the Danube and other near-by rivers.[718] Many gardens about
the houses of the great. Many mosques of private lords, and baths which
are attached to the mosques of private men and of public magistrates.
On the other side of the sea from the Seraglio Point are the hills of
Asia, and the journey is of a little more or less than two miles; this
Asia is today called by a single name Anatolia; and there are on the
shore there some fortresses called Scutari. Then Kadikeui, situated
on a bay of the Hellespont,[719] where one can see many vestiges of
antiquities; and I, when I went there, saw underground where men were
working, a well of the finest marble with an aqueduct which came to
the center of the well, and a canopy of fine marble supported by four
beautiful columns. And in other places there appear many vestiges of
old churches, both of Christians and of heathen, places indeed most
beautiful, most pleasant, most fruitful. The situation of Constantinople
is such that not only can it not be described adequately, but it can
hardly be grasped in thought because of its loveliness. Certainly it is
rather to be considered divine than otherwise. Nor is there any one who
has seen it who has not judged it worthy to be ranked above all other
situations in the world.
There are in the city besides the Turks, countless Jews, or Marrani
expelled from Spain;[720] these are they who have taught and who are
teaching every useful art to the Turks;[721] and the greater part of the
shops and arts are kept and exercised by these Marrani. There is a place
which is called _Bezestan_, where they sell and buy all sorts of cloth
and Turkish wares, silks, stuffs, linens, silver, wrought gold, bows,
slaves, and horses; and in short all the things that are to be found in
Constantinople are brought there to market: this, except for Friday, is
open every day.
Constantinople is in Thrace: this has as its boundaries on the east the
Propontis and the mouths of the greater sea, on the west part of Bulgaria
and part of Macedonia, on the north Bosnia, on the south the Aegean Sea
with part of Macedonia which lies toward the river Nishava, called in
ancient times the Nesus.[722]
This most noble city is inhabited by Turks: these as the more reliable
authors have written, and as many of the Turks themselves have confirmed
to me, had their origin in Scythia, which now is a part of Tartary, a
northern region divided into two parts by the river Don: one of these
parts is in Europe, and one in Asia.[723] The European part is bounded
on one side by Pontus, and on the other by the Riphean Mountains, and
at the back by Asia proper and the river Taspus. In Ptolemy these two
Scythias are called the one _intra Imaum montem_, and the other _extra
Imaum_. They departed then from Scythia (as is said above) and began to
make invasions and raids into their present confines: then proceeding
farther, in a short time they became lords of a good part of Asia, but
because they did not know how to keep only one chief among them, they
had no foundation or firmness. This circumstance having been considered
by one who was called Othman, a man of low rank among them, but of lofty
and valorous mind, he thought that, by having the arm and the favor of
some men of intelligence and authority, he could easily rule all this
people and the conquered territory, and increase it further upon good
opportunity: then having revealed this his thought to three persons, who
seemed more suitable than others for this business, he promised that
those by means of whom he might acquire the dominion to which he aspired,
he would always maintain, both themselves and their descendants, in
great state and dignity, and suitably to the great benefit which he had
received from them: besides this that he would never harm their blood nor
that of their posterity through laws that would lay hands upon them even
if they should transgress grievously.[724] They accepted the condition
and conspired together for the sovereignty; which they obtained by
astuteness, artfulness, threats, and the slaughter of many. These three
were called, the one Michael, a Greek who had turned Turk; from him the
Marcalogli[725] are descended; one of them is now Sanjak in Bosnia. The
second was Malco, a Greek renegade; from him have come the Malcozogli,
and there is now only one, who is Sanjak in Greece. The third was Aurami,
a native Turk; his descendants were called the Eurcasli; it is not now
known that any of these remain. In case the Ottoman family should fail,
these would pretend to the sovereignty, and therefore they are highly
respected.
This Othman came to power about the year 1300, and lived in lordship
twenty-eight years:[726] Orchan succeeded him and lived twenty-two years
in the kingship. Then Murad who reigned twenty-three years. Then Bayezid.
Then Chiris Celeby, or, as others wish, Calepino, who lived about six
years. Then Mohammed, who reigned fourteen years.[727] Then Murad II who
reigned 31 years. Then Mohammed II who reigned 32 years and was the first
Emperor of Constantinople. Then Bayezid II who reigned 31 years. Then
Selim eight years: to him succeeded Sultan Suleiman, his only son, who
reigns at present. Of this succession it is written otherwise in some
histories, where they treat of wars and peaces, which have been made by
our republic in times past with this family: but since I have recounted
these in other places, it now suffices to have noticed the common opinion
of those who have written of the affairs of the Turks up to this time.
And so I will go on to describe the court of this Signor: it is arranged
in the following manner.[728]
SULTAN SULEIMAN has a palace in the angle of Constantinople by the two
seas:[729] this is in circuit about three miles: and in it are his
residence and his court, which is called the PORTE. This palace, because
it was begun to be built by Sultan Mohammed, he willed when dying that
it should be rent-paying property of his mosque, and that it should pay
a thousand aspers a day, which are twenty ducats; and this has been
observed to the present.[730]
He has in the aforesaid palace countless highly ornamented chambers,
but one among the others is set apart for himself: in this he sleeps,
and he has there six youths who serve his person.[731] Of these six,
two are deputed for the service of the chamber and the Signor during
the day, and then in the night the same ones come to keep guard when he
sleeps: these stand ever vigilant, the one at his head and the other at
his feet, with two lighted torches in their hands: these two then in
the morning when they clothe the aforesaid Signor, put into one of the
pocket-purses of his caftan a thousand aspers, and into the other twenty
golden ducats; whatever of this money is not given away by the Signor
during the day, remains to those who undress him at night; they never
find much in the garments, according to report. And always when he goes
forth to enjoy the chase or for some other purpose, besides the aforesaid
money which he carries, he is accustomed always to have behind him the
_Khazinehdar-bashi_, or chief treasurer; this man carries with him a
great sum of money to be given away.
The duty of the aforesaid six youths, who are changed according to the
will of the Signor, is: of one to be _Papuji_,[732] or him who bears the
shoes, of another _Silihdar_, who bears the bow and arrows, of another
_Chokadar_, who bears the garments, of another _Sharabdar_, who bears the
pitcher of water, of another _Iskemleji_, who carries the stool, and then
of the sixth to be _Oda-bashi_, or chief of the Chamber. These have a
fixed salary of 15 to 20, and the _Oda-bashi_ of 30 aspers per day.
Next comes
The eunuch _Kapu Aghasi_,[734] or chief of the gate, who has 60
aspers per day.
The _Khazinehdar-bashi_, a eunuch, chief treasurer, 60
aspers.[733]
The _Kilerji-bashi_, chief of the butlers, 40 aspers.
The _Seraidar-bashi_,[734] a eunuch, chief of the palace when
the Signor is away; he has 50 aspers. Twelve eunuchs subject to
the aforesaid, with 10 to 15 aspers each.
There are next about five hundred youths aged from eight to twenty years,
who reside in the palace and are the delight of the Signor: they have
each from ten to twelve aspers per day; they are instructed in various
arts according to their genius, but especially in reading, writing,
and in the doctrine of their laws, and in riding. The masters are old
_Danishmends_,[735] called _Hojas_, or doctors of the laws. These boys
at the season of Bairam, which is like our Easter day, are clothed by
the Signor, some with silk and some with cloth, without any uniformity;
and each has a golden bonnet, a scimitar, and a bow: they never leave
the aforesaid palace until they have reached the age when the Signor
thinks them fit for offices: and then he makes them _Spahi-oghlans_, or
_Silihdars_, or of higher degrees according to their worth and the favor
which they have gained with the Signor. Each ten of them are guarded by
a eunuch called _Kapu-oghlan_, or chief of youths,[736] and each has a
slave’s frock, in which he sleeps rolled up in such a manner that he
does not touch another who may be near him. They reside in a large hall,
full of great lights and spacious, and their eunuchs sleep in the middle
of this hall. They have a garden in the palace, which extends more than
a mile, in which reside about thirty-five gardeners, called _Bostanjis_,
who are _Ajem-oghlans_:[737] these gardeners have from three to five
aspers each per day; they are clothed in blue cloth, and given a shirt.
Then when they leave the palace, they become Janissaries, or _Solaks_, or
_Kapujis_, or something else according to their quality.
The _Bostanji-bashi_, or chief gardener, has fifty aspers a day
and many perquisites.
The _Kiaya_,[738] who is, as it were, a lieutenant for the
gardeners, has 20 aspers per day; and each ten [gardeners] have
a chief called _Boluk-bashi_. From this garden, which is very
large and well-tended, full of excellent fruit-trees of every
sort, they obtain so much every year that from the product
of it alone they make the living expenses of the Signor, and
also get something more. Near the garden are always stationed
two small galleys; these are rowed by the gardeners when the
Signor goes on a pleasure-trip, and the _Boluk-bashi_ holds the
helm.[739]
The _Ashji-bashi_, chief cook, with fifty cooks under him. He
has 40 aspers per day, the cooks under him four, six, or eight
aspers each.
The _Helvaji-bashi_, or chief confectioner, with 40 aspers, and
he has thirty companions with five to six aspers per day each.
The _Chasnijir-bashi_,[740] chief of the cupboards, with eighty
aspers: morning and evening he brings with his own hand the
dish of the Signor, and he has under him a hundred _Chasnijirs_
with from three to seventy aspers each.[741]
The _Mutbakh-emini_,[742] or steward, with 40 aspers. He has a
secretary with 20 aspers a day.
A hundred _Ajem-oghlans_, who transport on carts the wood of
the palace. They have three to five aspers, and are provided
with clothing.
Ten _Sakkas_, who carry water on horseback in leathern sacks,
with three to five aspers each.
The expenses for the table of the Signor, and of the youths
with their eunuchs and others to about a thousand, amount to
five thousand aspers a day.
Three _Kapuji-bashis_, or captains of the gate, who have a
hundred aspers a day and are clothed every year: and they have
under them two hundred and fifty _Kapujis_, who have five to
six aspers each; and each _Kapuji-bashi_ with a third of the
_Kapujis_ is obliged to keep guard at the gate of the Signor,
changing from day to day. And when any ambassador or other
person goes to kiss the hand of the Grand Signor, all these are
given presents of clothes or of money according to the degree
of him who is introduced.
A _Kapuji-kiaya_, who is, as it were, a lieutenant of the
_Kapujis_, has forty aspers a day.
Four Vizier Pashas, or chief counsellors: the greatest has
ordinarily twenty-four thousand ducats a year and the others
sixteen to eighteen thousand; but they have also so much
feudal income that they receive three times as much as the
provision in money.[743] To this should be added the garments
which the Signor gives them, the presents of ambassadors and
of others, the perquisites of the office they hold, which
are unlimited. At present they are only three. The first
is Ibrahim, born a Christian at Parga. The second Aias of
Khimara. The third Kassim of Croatia, a kidnapped Christian.
To these there is added a fourth at present,[744] who is
Khaireddin Bey Barbarossa of the Albanian nation, formerly a
corsair and now king of Algiers in Barbary. These Pashas live
and dress very superbly. They have: Ibrahim six thousand and
more slaves, Aias two thousand, Kassim fifteen hundred, and
Barbarossa about four thousand. To all these slaves they give
pay, horses, garments, golden bonnets and silver chains,[745]
according to their offices and degrees. And these serve their
Pashas under the same arrangements by which the Signor is
served by his [slaves]. They have also twenty-five or thirty
chancery secretaries to the Signor, men of great repute, with
twenty-five to thirty aspers per day each: they keep more or
fewer slaves as they can. These Pashas have entry to the Signor
for affairs of state; and it is in fact they who govern the
whole after their own fashion.
There is next the _Mufti_, or the interpreter and chief of the
laws; they do not trouble him about anything except the affairs
of religion and their faith, and he has the position which our
Pope had in ancient times.[746]
Two _Kaziasker Danishmends_, or doctors of the laws for the
army, one for Greece, the other for Anatolia. Their position is
of great importance. They sit at the Porte and have precedence
of the Vizier Pashas: on this account they are much esteemed.
They are executors of the laws, and with the consent of the
Pashas they appoint and remove the _Kazis_, who are like
podestas for the whole country. They have feudal income of
about six thousand ducats a year each. They keep two hundred
to three hundred slaves each, and they are accompanied by ten
secretaries appointed by the Signor and two _Mochtur-bashis_,
who hold the office of ushers:[747] these live from
perquisites, of which they have a great many.
Two _Defterdars_, or treasurers, or rather, as we would say,
governors of the revenues. One of these has the receipt and the
care of those revenues which come from a third of Greece, or
from that part which is toward the Danube, and besides, from
Asia, from Syria, and from Egypt, with feudal income of ten
thousand ducats a year, although with the perquisites he gets
twice as much. The other has the care of the other two-thirds
of Greece: but when the Signor takes the field this man remains
in Constantinople as his vicar and lieutenant; and he has six
thousand ducats of feudal income, but gets three times as much;
and their position is of great dignity. They have under them
fifty clerks with many helpers: these keep the accounts of the
_Khazineh_, or treasury of the Signor; and these clerks are
appointed by the Signor with pay of fifteen to fifty aspers per
day each. The _Defterdars_ have, the first a thousand slaves
and the second five hundred, and the clerks from two to twenty
slaves each.[748]
Two _Rusnamehjis_, chief clerks, who receive the money and
disburse it as needed, with twenty-five companions besides
themselves.
The two have forty aspers each, and the twenty-five have eight
to ten aspers a day.
Two _Veznedars_, or weighers of aspers and ducats, with
twenty-five to thirty aspers each.
Six _Sarrafs_, or bankers, who know gold and silver [coins],
and they have ten to fifteen aspers each.
One _Nishanji-bashi_, who signs the ordinances and public
writings with the monogram of the Signor. His position is like
that of grand chancellor and is of great repute. He sits at the
Porte below the _Beylerbeys_. He has eight thousand ducats of
feudal income, and travels in great honor with more than three
hundred slaves.
An outside _Khazinehdar-bashi_, or household treasurer, with
ten _Khazinehdars_ under him. He has fifty aspers, and they ten
to fifteen per day.
A _Defter-emini_, who has charge of the feudal grants: he keeps
the register of those who receive feudal grants. He has forty
aspers a day, and under him are ten clerks with ten to fifteen
aspers per day each.
Eighty _Muteferrika_, or lancers of the body-guard[749] of the
Signor, these always carry lances when he takes the field; they
recognize no other head than the Signor himself. And when by
artifice or merit they acquire favor, they are made _Aghas_, or
generals. The least has ten, the greatest eighty, aspers per
day.
A _Chaush-bashi_, or chief sergeant of the army. He is of so
great credit with every one, that when he is sent by the Signor
to some Pasha, _Sanjak_, or _Kazi_, with the order to have
the head of such and such a one cut off, he is obeyed without
their requiring a letter from him, or a command in writing;
not otherwise than if the Signor himself were there, and gave
command. He has a hundred aspers a day, and under him he keeps
a hundred slaves,[750] with twenty-five to forty aspers each.
The _Mihter-bashi_, or chief of those who pitch the tents and
spread the rugs, who sweep the court-yards and attend to other
similar duties; he has forty aspers, a _Kiaya_ with twenty-five
aspers, sixty _Mihters_ with five to eight aspers each; and
they are clothed every year by the Signor.
An _Agha_, or general of the Janissaries. He has for pay a
thousand aspers and over per day, and six thousand ducats of
feudal grant per year. When this _Agha_ holds court, which
is two or three times per week, he is obliged to give the
Janissaries to eat, a meal of bread, rice, mutton, honey,
and water. He has under him a _Kiaya_ or Secretary of the
Janissaries, who is, as it were, a vicegerent; he has two
hundred aspers per day of pay in cash, and thirty thousand
of feudal grant per year.[751] And there is a clerk of these
Janissaries, called the _Yaziji_ of the Janissaries,[752] with
a hundred aspers a day.
A _Seymen-bashi_, chief of the harriers.[753] He has a hundred
aspers and has from the number of the Janissaries about two
thousand under him.
A _Zagarji-bashi_, head of the hounds.[754] He has fifty aspers
a day, and has under him about seven hundred of the Janissaries.
The Janissaries number about twelve thousand: they have each
from three to eight aspers of pay per day. Each ten has its
_Oda-bashi_, and each hundred has its _Boluk-bashi_. And
these heads of ten or of a hundred go on horseback. And the
_Oda-bashis_ have forty, and the _Boluk-bashis_ sixty aspers
a day. The remainder of the Janissaries go on foot. They are
clothed once a year by the Signor with coarse blue cloth.
They have their residence in two barracks in Constantinople
given by the Signor. Those who have no wives reside in these.
Those who are married reside at various places in the city.
For their living expenses each contributes so much a day, and
they have a steward and a cook, who provide their necessary
living: and those who have less pay than the others are obliged
to serve those who have more pay than they. Every hundred of
them when they take the field transport a tent. They go on
foot, and part of them are musketeers, and part halbardiers,
and part use the scimetar alone. Every three lead a horse
which carries their clothing. And when they come to old age,
or when for some other reason the service of one of them does
not please the Signor, they are stricken from the book of the
Janissaries, and are sent as _Hissarlis_[755] or castle guards;
and those of their officers who are deposed for such a reason,
are sent as castellans with a feudal grant equivalent to the
pay which they had previously, in such a way that none of
them suffers hardship. Such of them as succeed in war are made
_Voivodes_,[756] and raised to high positions. They come as
boys to this soldiery and are taught by the experienced ones.
They choose healthy ones, well-built, but nimble and dextrous,
lively above all, and more often cruel than compassionate.
In them rests the force and all the firmness of the army of
the Turk; they, because they are always exercising and living
together, all become as it were a single body, and of a truth
they are terrible.[757]
From the Janissaries are chosen a hundred and fifty _Solaks_,
who are footmen of the Signor, with fifteen to twenty aspers a
day each: they march surrounding the person of the Signor every
time he goes forth.
Two _Solak-bashis_, chief officers of the _Solaks_, who go
on horseback, with thirty aspers per day. And these and the
_Solaks_ are in obedience to the _Agha_ of the Janissaries.
An _Agha_ of the _Spahi-oghlans_, an office of great honor.
He has from feudal grant and pay ten ducats a day, and he
has a large number of slaves, with a _Kiaya_ under him, or
lieutenant: this man has from feudal grant and pay a hundred
aspers a day. And also a _Yaziji_, or secretary, with thirty
aspers, and with large perquisites.
The _Spahi-oghlans_, or youths on horseback, who may be
called _Spahi-oghlan_, are more than three thousand; and they
have twenty to forty aspers each; and every twenty have a
_Boluk-bashi_. These serve on horseback, each with five or six
slaves and a like number of horses. And they always journey,
and also encamp, at the right hand of the Signor. They are
great people. From them the Signor is wont to choose his chief
men. They are first put as boys into the palace, and when they
grow up they succeed well if they attain this grade: it is like
a ladder to mount to higher positions.
An _Agha_ of the _Silihdars_, who has thirty thousand aspers
a day,[758] and under him a lieutenant, a secretary, a
_Kiaya_,[759] with thirty aspers and more each.
There are three thousand _Silihdars_. They moreover ride and
encamp at the left hand of the Signor. They have twenty to
twenty-five aspers per day each, and they have four or five
slaves and a like number of horses, with feudal income for
their living. They are trained by the same education with
which the _Spahis_ are brought up: nor is there any difference
between them, except that the _Spahis_ go on the right, and
these on the left, of the Signor.
Two _Ulufaji-bashis_, or chief officers of soldiers, with
two thousand _Ulufajis_, who go on the right hand and the
left of the Signor. The chief officers have a hundred and
twenty aspers, and the others eight to sixteen aspers; then
under them[760] they have a _Kiaya_, a secretary, and a
lieutenant,[761] with slaves and with horses, some more and
some fewer.
Two _Aghas_, chief officers of the _Ghureba-oghlans_, or poor
youths[762] with eighty aspers each. _Kiayas_, thirty aspers.
Secretaries, twenty-five. And they have under them about two
thousand _Ghureba-oghlans_ with seven to fourteen aspers per
day: these have slaves and horses.
Two _Emir-al-Akhors_,[763] or masters of the stable, a greater
and a lesser. The greater has five hundred aspers, the lesser
two hundred, with lieutenant and _Kiaya_[764] and others, who
have thirty to forty aspers each.
Sixteen thousand altogether of _Serraj_, who have charge
of bridles[765] and saddles; _Ceyssi_, or stable servants;
_Carmandari_, who take care of the mules; _Deveji_, who take
care of the camels, and _Cavriliji_, who herd the cattle and
horses in various places. These have two to twenty aspers per
day each.
Thirty to forty _Peiks_, or runners on foot, men who when boys
have had their spleens removed:[766] and they run post on foot
with great speed. These when the Signor goes forth remain
continually near, so that he may employ them according to his
needs.
Select horses about four thousand for the person of the Signor;
on these the pages of the palace and the eunuchs ride for
exercise in their turns.
A _Chakirji-bashi_, chief Vulturer, and a _Shahinji-bashi_,
chief Falconer. The first has a hundred and fifty aspers, and
the other has eighty; with _Kiayas_, lieutenants,[767] and
others, with ten to twenty-five aspers each per day. Under
these are about two hundred _Zanijiler_,[768] only a hundred of
whom have ten aspers a day, and the others have feudal income,
or exemption from taxation. And they take the field when the
Signor has need.
A _Jebeji-bashi_, chief armorer. He has sixty aspers, a _Kiaya_
and a secretary with twenty aspers each. He has under him about
one thousand five hundred _jebejis_, with seven to twelve
aspers. These all go on foot when the Signor takes the field.
A _Topji-bashi_, chief of artillery. He has seventy aspers, a
_Kiaya_ [and] secretary with twenty aspers: and under him are
two thousand _Topjis_ with six to ten aspers, and they go on
foot.
An _Arabaji-bashi_, chief wagoner. He has forty aspers, a
_Kiaya_ [and] secretary with twenty aspers: and under him three
thousand _Arabajis_ with three to six aspers each.
A _Mihter-bashi_, or chief of trumpeters and drummers. He has
thirty [aspers] per day, and under him two hundred _Mihters_,
part of them on foot and part on horseback with three to five
aspers per day.
An _Emir-Alem Agha_, who carries the standard of the Signor.
He has two hundred aspers a day, and is captain of all the
musicians.
An _Arpa-emini_, who is Provider of the grain, with a
Lieutenant and a Chancellor.[769] He has sixty aspers, the
Lieutenant thirty and the Chancellor twenty: this _Arpa-emini_
has under him twenty persons who receive among them all about
eight hundred aspers.
A _Shehr-emini_,[770] or Commissioner of public works, who
takes care of the streets of Constantinople, and also of the
road when the Signor goes forth to war: and he has charge also
of public buildings, fountains, and aqueducts. He has fifty
aspers, and keeps under him four hundred men: among all of
these is given a thousand aspers. He has also a _Kiaya_ and
secretary with about thirty-eight aspers each.[771]
A _Berat-emini_, who is deputed to distribute the ordinances
of the Signor in writing and who receives the fees; and he has
forty aspers, with two secretaries, and two superintendents
with twenty aspers each.
A _Terjuman_,[772] or interpreter of all the languages. This
position is highly reputed in proportion to the worth and
intelligence of him who holds it. He has five hundred ducats
of fixed income each year, and has also a like sum from feudal
grant, and more than four times as much of extraordinary
income; and he is wont to be highly respected.
Proceeding now further as I have begun, I shall leave it for
another time and eye to reduce this Porte to better order and
put everything in its proper place. I find that to all the
above-mentioned things should be added a PALACE of the ladies
of the Signor.[773] This is very large, with a circuit of about
a mile and a half; and it is provided with different chambers
and other rooms, where the sons of the Signor reside separately
with their mothers, and with a great number of eunuchs for
their guard and service. There also reside the Sultanas, that
is the mothers and the wives of the Signors; and there are
three hundred damsels, placed there virgins, and given to the
government of many matrons. To all of these damsels the Signor
has it taught to embroider different designs, to each he gives
pay of ten to twenty aspers per day; and twice every year at
the two Bairams he has them clothed in stuffs of silk. And
when one of these pleases him he does what he wishes with her,
and when he has lain with her he gives her a golden bonnet
and ten thousand aspers, and has her placed in a separate
apartment from the others, increasing her ordinary pay.[774]
In the aforesaid Palace there is an _Agha_ of the Eunuchs:
to these are given a hundred and twenty aspers for all.
Three _Kapuji-bashis_, and with them a hundred _Kapujis_ and
Janissaries at the gate: among all these is given six hundred
aspers a day. Ten _Sakkas_, who carry water, forty aspers in
all. And the damsels are served and educated up to the age of
twenty-five years. The teachers are the matrons, the servants
are the youngest among them; and when they have arrived at
twenty-five years, if it does not please the Signor to keep
them for his own use, he marries them to _Spahi-oghlans_,
and to others of the slaves of the Porte according to the
degree and condition of both parties; and in their place he
substitutes others.
There is also a palace near Pera for about four hundred boys,
who have pay of six to ten aspers, and are clothed with silk
twice a year. These have an _Agha_ and eunuchs, as have
those in the great palace, [and] _Kapujis_, _Ajem-oghlans_
and a hundred teachers of various arts. Among all these is
distributed eight hundred aspers a day. They are not so
noble, or of so beautiful appearance or show of intelligence
as are those who reside with the Signor; but from these also
many become great, and some of them are taken into the great
palace. And similarly in Adrianople there is a palace of
three hundred boys under pay, an _Agha_, eunuchs, _Kapujis_,
Janissaries, and teachers, about two hundred in all, who have
all together two thousand eight hundred aspers a day. These are
of third grade, but they are carefully taught and well kept
like all the others, and from them according to the spirit
and worth which they show promotions are made. There is also
in that region another palace, recently built, with a large
and beautiful garden: this is located on the river Maritza,
and in it reside about three hundred _Ajem-oghlans_; on these
[palaces] they spend every year two hundred thousand aspers
for each, and they have an _Agha_ with forty aspers and a
lieutenant and secretaries with thirty aspers each per day. In
various other places in Adrianople there are gardens: in these
reside continually as on deposit one thousand five hundred
_Ajem-oghlans_ with _Agha_ and secretaries, and on these they
spend six thousand aspers a year[775] or a little more.
There is also an _Agha_ of the _Ajem-oghlans_, or Janissary
recruits, who resides in Constantinople; he has sixty aspers
per day, and under him are about five thousand _Ajem-oghlans_:
these they clothe twice a year, and on their teachers and
chiefs they spend ten thousand aspers[776] a year. They put
them on ships and buildings to carry wood and perform other
tasks. They become cooks or servants of the Janissaries, and
finally they become Janissaries.
And every four years the Turkish Signor sends into Greece and
into Anatolia to seize boys, sons of Christians, ten or twelve
thousand each time: these he sends into Anatolia in the region
of Brusa or Caramania to dig the earth, so that they will
become accustomed to hard labor, and so that there they may
learn the Turkish language. These boys remain in such a place
and occupation three or four years: then they are ordered to be
gathered again, and are given to the government and discipline
of the _Agha_ of the _Ajem-oghlans_. For these the Signor does
not have any expenses so long as they reside in Anatolia,
because they are clothed and have their living from those whom
they serve by plowing the ground and doing other work for them.
It seemed best to me to make mention in this place of all the palaces,
because they are as it were of the same body as that of the Signor, and
all the expenses of these are computed in the book of the expense of
the great palace, or that of the Signor. To these expenses are added
those, which are incurred in clothing twice each year the Pashas, the
_Kaziaskers_, the _Defterdars_, the _Beylerbeys_, and the _Nishanji_, and
the expenses which are incurred for the extraordinary presents of the
Signor. These in all amount to and go beyond a million aspers a year.
There is also an Arsenal in the region of Pera, small and of
short circuit: this has on the sea-front ninety-two vaults, and
so little area and ground within that not merely no galleys
but not even materials and timbers can be contained there. In
it usually work each day about two hundred men; although there
are under pay two hundred patrons with two thousand aspers per
day for all.[777] A thousand _Azabs_, who have among them four
thousand aspers. Foremen, or masters fifty in number, who have
in leisure, that is, when not working, six aspers, and when
working, twelve aspers each. An Intendant, forty aspers. A
Secretary, twenty-five aspers, with ten clerks under him, who
have a hundred aspers. All these fulfil their duties when there
is great need; but they understand ill the trade and art of
building galleys. For this reason they do not turn out good and
ready ones like ours; and what few there are are overseen by
Christians, who are well paid.
Over this Arsenal and all these persons, there is one who
is called the _Beylerbey_ of the sea; that is to say, Lord
of lords, an office created at the time when I was in
Constantinople; since in the past he who was _Sanjak_ of
Gallipoli was wont to be called Captain of the Sea. And
Khaireddin Bey called Barbarossa was the first who had this
title; he was then made fourth Pasha. To him is given the
government of all the fleets, and he has for income every year
a feudal grant of fourteen thousand ducats, besides that from
Rhodes, Euboea, and Mytilene; so that he receives twice as much
more.
I find nothing else that pertains to arrangements for the rule and watch
of the sea which are worthy of note: wherefore I will now come to those
of the land; these are in truth well and usefully ordered.
There is first one called the _Beylerbey_ of Greece: in this
are included all the lands which the Turkish Signor possesses
in Europe: this _Beylerbey_ is greater than all the others.
He has from feudal grant sixteen thousand ducats a year, and
gets more than double this. He sits at the Porte after the
Pashas,[778] and is of great repute with everybody. He has
under him besides his slaves, who number more than a thousand,
a _Defterdar_ with feudal income of three thousand ducats a
year; a hundred clerks who keep the books and accounts of the
feudal grants assigned to _Subashis_, _Kazis_, _Spahis_, and
others; among all of whom are distributed ten thousand ducats a
year.
Thirty-six _Sanjaks_: these are in obedience to him, and have
for feudal income from five to twelve thousand ducats a year
each. They are distributed through the provinces: in these they
reside only so long as pleases the Signor: he changes them, as
seems best to him, from one province to another. Their duty is
to rule the _Spahis_, and to have them trained in arms, and to
keep them in obedience.
Four hundred _Subashis_, who have among them all from feudal
income four hundred thousand ducats, and have about five
hundred slaves each.[779]
Thirty thousand _Spahis_: these are horse soldiery set apart
some to the service of the _Beylerbey_, and some to that of
all the _Sanjaks_ of Greece. They have from feudal grant two
hundred ducats each, and each of them, for every hundred ducats
of feudal income, is obliged to maintain an armed man, with
horse and lance. And then they have besides the armed man two
or four or five servants and horses. These _Spahis_ are all
slaves of the Signor, and sons of slaves, and of _Spahis_.
Twenty thousand _Timarjis_ who have ten to forty ducats of
feudal income each year, and because they do not reach a
hundred ducats, they are not called _Spahis_. These have each
a horse and two or three servants, and they serve distributed
through all the _Sanjaks_ of Greece. The feudal grants are by
assignment of land; the income of this assignment they get
partly from rent, but the greater part from the tithes of all
the income, which Turks as well as Christians pay, and from the
poll-tax, which is twenty-five aspers per head from Christians
alone, and from the imposts laid on animals, fruit-trees, and
other things. These imposts, moreover, are in addition to those
which they pay ordinarily to the Signor.
Sixty thousand _Akinji_, or mounted adventurers, inscribed for
the lands of Greece and obliged to go to war without payment.
But they are exempt from any burden, and cities and villages
are bound to give them, when they pass through, living expenses
only.
There are in all Greece, that is, in all the countries which
the Turkish Signor possesses in Europe, sixty-eight thousand
villages of Turkish and Christian people, subject to public
burdens.[780]
There follow next six _Beylerbeys_ of Asia, and a separate
one of Egypt. The first of these is called the _Beylerbey_ of
Anatolia which was anciently Asia Minor: he has from feudal
income fourteen thousand ducats, but gets a great deal more.
This man has under him and in his government Pontus, Bithynia,
Asia proper, Lydia, Caria, and Lycia: these provinces under a
single name are called at present Anatolia. This man’s place at
the Porte is after the _Beylerbey_ of Greece. And he has under
him, besides his own slaves, who are more than a thousand,
twelve _Sanjaks_ with feudal income of from four to six
thousand ducats each. Ten thousand _Spahis_, with five to ten
aspers a day, and also more or less feudal income according to
their degree. Next after these follows
The _Beylerbey_ of Caramania, which was anciently Cilicia and
Pamphylia, with feudal income of ten thousand ducats. This man
has under him seven _Sanjaks_ with four to six thousand ducats
of feudal income each, and five thousand _Spahis_, with five to
ten aspers a day each and feudal income besides.
The _Beylerbey_ of Amasia and Tokat, which was Cappadocia and
Galatia, with feudal income of eight thousand ducats. Four
_Sanjaks_ with four to six thousand ducats of feudal income
each. Four thousand _Spahis_ with five to ten aspers a day each
and feudal income.
The _Beylerbey_ of Anadole, which is a region between Syria,
Caramania, and Tokat, which was anciently Paphlagonia, and
is the half of Armenia Minor. He has ten thousand ducats of
feudal income, and under him seven _Sanjaks_ with four to five
thousand ducats of feudal income. Seven thousand _Spahis_, with
five to ten aspers per day and feudal income. In this province
of Anadole, they say that when the Signor is there, besides the
paid troops thirty thousand persons are obliged to ride without
any pay, but only with expenses from the villages.
The _Beylerbey_ of Mesopotamia, under whom is the remainder of
Armenia Minor and part of the Major, the other parts belonging
to the Persians and the Kurds. This borders with Bagdad, or
Baldach, which was anciently Babylonia. He has of feudal income
thirty thousand ducats: and besides his own slaves, who number
two thousand, he has under him twelve _Sanjaks_ with feudal
income of four to six thousand ducats a year, and ten[781]
_Spahis_ with ten to fifteen aspers per day each, and with
large feudal income because of being at the confines of the
Persians: with these they are continually in conflict.
A _Beylerbey_ of Damascus and Syria and Judea, with feudal
income of twenty-four thousand ducats; he has more than two
thousand slaves, and under him twelve _Sanjaks_ with feudal
income of five to seven thousand ducats, and twenty thousand
_Spahis_ with ten to fifteen aspers per day each and with good
feudal income.
A _Beylerbey_ of Cairo: he holds jurisdiction as far as Mecca,
or as far as into Arabia: this Arabia is possessed by the
Turkish Signor in the way in which he possesses Albania, where
he is not yielded such obedience as he is accustomed to receive
from all his other states and countries. But [Arabia] Felix
stands in somewhat greater obedience than the rest. He has for
feudal income thirty thousand ducats, with numerous slaves:
these amount to more than four thousand; sixteen _Sanjaks_ with
feudal income of six to eight thousand ducats each; and sixteen
thousand _Spahis_ with fifteen to twenty aspers each per day.
Near Mecca, and the countries of the Persians, are some Arabic
lords who do not obey any one. The rest[782] then borders
the Persians as far as Mesopotamia, in which is Bagdad.[783]
Passing Mesopotamia it borders the Persians again to the plain
of Naximan, then touches Erzinjan[784] and Erzerum, which are
the chief places of Armenia Major. This Armenia borders with
the Iberians and Georgians. In these Armenias, Major and Minor,
are many Kurds, people of the mountains and warlike, those of
[Armenia] Major obedient partly to the Turkish Signor, and
partly to the Persian; those of [Armenia] Minor to no one.
Next Trebizond borders with the Georgians and Mingrelians,
and with part of the Iberians, which people were anciently
called Colchians. And Ajemia,[785] which anciently was Assyria,
belongs to the Persian: he is absolute master of it.
There are in all Anatolia, or in all the countries which
the Turkish Signor possesses in Asia, villages of Turks and
Christians to the number of more than seventy-two thousand, not
counting those which are in Egypt, which are many.
The _Sanjaks_ truly [set forth]: these (as I said above)
have under government the provinces entrusted to the
_Beylerbeys_; they are men of much and very great reputation
and esteem, especially in the affairs of war; they are named
as below by the names of the places which are given to their
government. And first the _Beylerbey_ of Greece holds as his
sanjakate the places about Salonika. Then follow the others
of Kaffa, Silistria, Nicopolis, Vidin, Semendria, Servia and
Belgrade,[786] Zvornick, Bosnia, Hersek, which is the Servia
called the Duchy,[787] Scutari, Avlona, Yanina, Karli Ili,
Lepanto, Morea, Negropont, Trikkala, Gallipoli, Kirk-Kilisse or
Forty Churches, Viza, Chirmen, Kostendil, Vishidrina, Prisrend,
Okhrida, Alaja Hissar, Elbassan, Voinuch, Chiuchene, Zaiza.
These are usually counted thirty-five, but five are regions
united to neighboring places, namely Philippopolis, Sofia,
Durazzo, Albania, and Uskup.
ANATOLIA, or Asia Minor: Pontus, Bithynia, Lydia, Caria, and
Lycia. The sanjakate of the _Beylerbey_ is at Kutaia. And the
others are in Hoja-ili, Boli, Kastamuni, Angora, Kanghri,[788]
Tekke-ili, Menteshe-ili, Aidin-ili, Alayeh,[789] Bigha, and
Manissa,[790] which is that of Sultan Mustapha, the oldest son
of the Signor. This place is opposite the middle of Chios near
the sea.
AMASIA, and Tokat, which is Paphlagonia, Galatia, and
Cappadocia. The sanjakate of the _Beylerbey_ is in Amasia, of
the others in Chorum, Janik, Kara-hissar, Samsun, Trebizond.
CARAMANIA, which is Cilicia opposite Cyprus and Pamphylia.
The sanjakate of the _Beylerbey_ is in Konia. The others
have theirs in Naranda, Hissar, Eski-hissar, Versag-ili,
Sivri-hissar.
ANADOLE, or Armenia Minor. The sanjakate of the _Beylerbey_
is in Marash. Those of the others in Sarmussacli,
Albistan-ovassi,[791] Adana, Tarsus.
DIARBEKIR, or Mesopotamia, and part of Armenia Major, of which
the remainder belongs to the Persians and the Kurds. The
sanjakate of the _Beylerbey_ is in Diarbekir. And the others
have theirs in Kara Amid, Arghana, Toljik, Hassan-Kief, Mardin,
Kharput, Mosul, Erzerum, Baiburt, Bitlis, and Naximan-ovassi.
SYRIA, and Judea. The sanjakate of the _Beylerbey_ is in
Damascus. Of the others in Malatia, Divirigi, Aintab, Antioch,
Aleppo, Tripoli, Hama, Homs, Safita, Jerusalem, Gaza.
EGYPT, with part of Arabia Deserta as far as Jeddah;[792]
Mecca, with all of Arabia Felix, where are many Arab lordlings,
who are partly in devotion to the Turkish Signor, partly to no
one. The sanjakate of the _Beylerbey_ is in Cairo, and of the
others....[793]
All the aforesaid _Sanjaks_, _Beylerbeys_, Pashas, and other
officials have salary or feudal income, as I have said above,
by fixed arrangement, that is, regularly: but they obtain from
extraordinary sources about as much more. And they live with
very great expenses for slaves: these they are accustomed to
clothe and they give them also wages besides, so that they will
not steal.
How great the revenues of this Signor are, may be estimated from the
expenses. These revenues are obtained from the Kharâj, which is paid by
the non-Turkish subjects; this gives a million and a half ducats: from
the tax on animals, which gives eight hundred thousand ducats: from
mines, which give six hundred thousand ducats: from countless other
duties, salt-taxes, commendations, inheritances, gifts, the revenues of
Egypt over and above the expenses, rents, and tributes. And they are so
great that they not only meet the expenses, which amount besides the
feudal income in ready money drawn from the Treasury to more than twelve
thousand ducats a day;[794] but there remains over a great sum of money
from the surplus of each year. And it is believed that all the revenues
amount to fifteen millions in gold: five of which enter the Treasury, and
the other ten remain for the servants of war.[795]
APPENDIX II
PAMPHLET OF JUNIS BEY AND ALVISE GRITTI
Printed in 1537. Presented in the original Italian.
OPERA NOUA LA QUALE DECHIARA
tutto il gouerno del gran Turcho & tutta
la Spesa che il gran Turcho ha sotto
di lui cosi in pace como in guerra
& il numero de le Persone & nome
& gouerno de le sue Donne
& Garzoni che lui tene
nel Serraglio serrati &
de tutta la Entrata che
lui ha a lanno & nomina
tutti li Signori
de le sue
prouincie:
E il nome de tutte le sue terre chelha
sotto se: & la ordināza del suo Campo
quādo ua ala guerra como
ua in ordinanza tutte le
persone a sorte per
sorte & come
uanno e
che arme portano. Nouamente stampata
nel M D X X X V I I.
Il Signor grāde cioe il grā Turcho ha uno serraglio principale doue tene
la sua sedia, & ha una camera deputada per lui doue dorme, & al gouerno
dessa ha 8. gioueni ch’ lo uestano e suestano doi al giorno deputati ala
guardia, & seruitii suoi, & la notte li fanno la guardia uno da capo,
laltro da piede con due torce accese: & q̄lli doi che li hāno fatto la
guardia la notte lo uestano la mattina, & li mettano ne la Scarsella
del dulimano cioe de la casacha sua aspri Mille uno aspro ual soldi do
di Milano, & in laltra duchati 20 doro: questi dinari sel Signor nō li
dona uia quel giorno restano a colori ch’ lo spogliano la sera, & q̄sti
giouani hāno uno capo ch’ si domāda Oddabassi cioe capo de li camarieri
uno Papugi che li porta le scarpe, laltro Selictare che porta larco &
frezze, laltro Ciochadar ch’ li porta le ueste, laltro Seracter che li
porta il mastrapā zoe il ramī da lacq̄, laltro schēni ch’ porta la sedia
questi sono li nomi che hanno li otto gioueni, & il capo de questi cioe
Oddabassi ha aspri 30. al di di soldo, & li altri 8. gioueni hano chi 15.
chi 20. aspri per uno secondo il loro grado.
El Capagasi e monuco cioe castrato & e portinaro de la porta del gran
Turco ha aspri 60. di soldo.
El Capiagabasi cioe il capo del Serraglio doue sta il Turcho quādo il
Signor e fora de Cōstantinopoli ha aspri 50. & ha sotto lui 12 mōuchi
cioe castrati che hāno aspri 16. al di per uno di soldo & spesa.
El Casnādarbasi e monucho, cioe Tesorero de la Saluaroba del Signor ha
aspri 60. al di di soldo.
Ha in el serraglio il Signor gioueni de anni 8. fino in 20. numero 700.
che hāno di soldo al giorno chi 10. chi 14. secondo il suo grado &
sono uestiti dal Signor q̄sti hàno maestri che li insegnano a legere e
scriuere & la lege loro, & como escano del serraglio hanno nella porta
cioe ne la sua corte officii chi Spacoglài chi Selictari chi Solachi &
altri stipēdii secondo gratia e ualore loro.
Spacoglani sono gétilhomini che cortigiano il Signor quādo caualca: &
li Selictari sono q̄lli che uano alla mā sinistra del Signor q̄ndo ua
in campo: & li Solachi sono stafferi del Signor, & li suoi maestri sono
Talasimāi uecchi detti Cogia dotti nella lege loro, cioe sacerdoti &
questi putti sono ogni 10. in gouerno d’uno monucho detto Capogliano,
ognuno ha uno schiauinotto nel qual dormino détro la notte de sorte che
non si toccano insiemo & stanno in uno salotto & li Monuchi dormeno in
mezo desso salotto & stanno le lume accese tutta la notte.
Ha uno giardino nel serraglio che uolge circa doi miglia doue stanno
circa 400. putti giardineri detti Bustāgi sono Ianicerotti, & hanno uno
capo che si domanda Bustāgibassi che e sopra tutti li giardini del Signor
ch’ sono molti e lui ha aspri 40. il di di soldo & altre molte regalie & a
li giardineri chi 3. chi 5. aspri al di & sono ognuno uestiti del Signor
di pāno azuro turchesco & una gamisa e uno paro di braghe do uolte a
lanno & quādo escano del serraglio che sono grādi diuentano Ianizari cioe
guardiani del Signor, Solachi cioe staffieri & Capigi cioe Portinari: &
il ditto Bonstāgibassi e q̄llo ch’e timonero quādo il Signor ua in Fusta
hāno uno p̄toiro cioe loco tenente che ha aspri 20. al di & ogni 10 de
detti hāno uno capo ditto Balucasi che ha aspri 20. il di & questi putti
uāno per tutto dentro del Serraglio & mai escano fino che non sono homeni.
El Signor ha due Fuste che li nauegano li sopraditti giardineri, & lo
capo loro sta al timone con le quale il Signor ua a spasso assai per
canale & a li giardini lor.
El calualgibasi capo de le cōfettioni ha aspri 40. il di con 30. homini
sotto di lui & hanno chi 5. chi 6. aspri al di.
El Vechilargibasi capo deli despésieri ha aspri 40. il di cō uno scriuano
cō aspri 20 il di di soldo.
El Cessignirbassi capo de li cardēceri ha aspri 80. il di & questo porta
la sera & mattina il piato al Signore & ha sotto di lui homini 100. che
hanno chi 5. chi 6. aspri al di di soldo.
Vno Asgibassi capo de li coghi ha aspri 40. al di & ha da circa 80.
coghi sotto di lui che hāno chi 5. chi 6. chi 8. aspri il di, & ha da
80. Ianicerotti da 10. in 20. anni ditti baltagi cioe taglia legne che
tagliano le legne per la cucina del signore & per tutto il serraglio che
hanno da 3. in 5. aspri il di per uno & sono uestiti dal Signore.
Ha circa 20. garzoni Ianicerotti carretteri che portano con li carri
le legne nel serraglio & hanno aspri 3. in 5. al di & sono uestiti dal
Signore.
Sacha 10. cioe acquaroli che portano lacqua con li caualli nel serraglio
hanno 3. in 5. aspri il di & uestiti dal Signore.
Vna stalla con 200. caualli per la ꝑsona del Signore con 100. homini al
gouerno suo che hanno aspri 5. in 8. al di di soldo per uno. Vnaltra
stalla con 4000. caualli per li schiaui soi con 2000. homini al suo
gouerno che hāno da 3 in 5 aspri al di di soldo & spesa.
Il gran Turcho ha molti giardini & si uendano li frutti & del tratto di
essi si fa le spese a lui per essere entrate licite, & il suo serraglio
paga di liuello aspri 1000. al giorno a la moschea cioe a la gesia del
padre de suo padre Soltan memet.
Spesa nel piato del Signor aspri 5000. & per li garzoni soi aspri 2500.
ogni giorno.
Vno Capigilarchi caiasi idest gouernator & capo de tutti li capigi cioe
di portineri de la porta ha aspri 500. il di: & 3 capigibassi de la porta
del signore hanno aspri 100. il di & uestiti, sotto q̄sti sono Capigi
cioe Portinari numero 250. che hanno aspri 57. il di per uno, & questi
fanno la guardia a la porta del Signor di 24. in 24. hore, & quando
qualche Ambasciator ua a basciare la mano al Signor bisogna chel presenta
tutti costori. Vno Capigi la che chi si Protoiro idest locotenente di
Capigi ha aspri 40. il giorno.
El Ciausbasi capo de li ciausi cō 100. ciausi sotto lui q̄sti sono homini
grādi & quādo uāno ꝑ fare morire alcuno sia dassai quāto si uoglia sono
obediti senza altra cōmissione in scritto, & q̄ndo il Signor caualca uāno
semp’ ináci a lui faciādo fare largo, hāno di soldi da aspri 25. sino in
40. al di secūdo lor grado & il ciaubasi ha aspri 200.
El Mecterbasi capo de quelli che destendano li padiglioni & tapedi &
spazzan la porta & altre simile cose ha aspri 40. il di con il suo
Protoiro che ha aspri 20. il di con 60. homini sotto di lui che si
domandano Mecteri che hanno aspri 5. in 6. il di per uno & sono uestiti.
Sono ordinatamēte 4. Bascia soi cāzelleri e cōseieri el primo ha duchati
24000 di entrata a lanno: li altri tre hāno chi 16000. chi 18000. duchati
a lanno & li sono date entrate doue cauano il tutto, & hāno molte altre
regalie & p̄senti.
Abrain ch’era de la pargha albaneso e morto, hora li e Aiisbassa de la
sinita ch’e il prícipale Albāeso uno altro mostafa bascia ch’e mamalucho
di Alchayro & uno Casin bascia ch’e Crouato & Cayradibeii cioe Barbarossa
ch’era greco di metelí Isola & niuno puo essere bascia se non Christiani
renegati. Ayas ha numero 600. schiaui. Mostafa ne ha numero 200: Casin
crouato ne ha numero 150. Barbarossa ne ha da numero 100. A liquali danno
soldo caualli scufie doro & spade fornite dargento & di questi essi
Bascia fanno la corte loro & sono uestiti da essi Bascia.
Doi Cadilescher talasimani uno de la Grecia laltro de la natolia cioe
Asia, & ha di entrata ducati 6 in 7 milia a lanno per uno: q̄sti sono
executori de la lege loro & hano 10. homini executori per uno dati dal
Signor sono q̄lli che metteno li Cadi cioe podesta per tutto il paese del
Signor & quādo uanno dal Signor entrano auanti deli Bascia hanno per uno
mocturbasi cioe cursor, & como cauallieri de li executori & questi tutti
uiuano di regalie, hāno lo Cadilescheri 200. in 300. schiaui per uno che
se ne fanno la lor corte.
Doi Defterderi cioe thesoreri uno di Asia laltro di Europa che scodano
tutte le entrade del Signor & gouernano quasi il tutto hanno di entrada
ducati sie in sette milia a lanno per uno, & hanno 200. schiaui per uno &
ne fanno la lor corte.
Hanno q̄sti Defterderi 50. scriuani per uno con li cogitori quali tengano
conto del thesoro del Signor, questi scriuani sono posti dal Signor con
soldo di 15. in 50. aspri al di per uno secondo il grado loro & hāno 15.
in 20. schiaui per uno.
Secretarii 25. posti dal Signor che hanno 25. in 30. aspri il di & suoi
schiaui sono doi Rosanamagi idest capi de li scriuani che reuedano li
cōti & ch’ receuano dāno fora con 20. cōpagni sotto loro doi, hanno aspri
40. il di & li 25. compagni hāno aspri 8. in 10. al di per uno di soldo.
Cinque Seraferi idest Bancheri che uedano tutti li danari che si scodano
hanno aspri 10. in 15. al di di soldo.
Vno Tescheregibassi che segna tutti li commandamenti del Signor ha di
entrata ducati 7000. & 300. in 400. schiaui.
Vno Casmandarbassi di fora con 10. Casandari il capo ha aspri 50. il di &
ha aspri 10. in 15. al di di soldo sintéde sopra la saluaroba del Signore
di fuora del serraglio.
Vno Defterdaro emino cioe douanero sopra le intrade & tene il libro de li
timarati ha aspri 40. il di con lo scriuano che ha aspri 10. in 15. al di.
Vno Agha de Ianiceri cioe Capitano de tutti li Ianiceri che ha intrata
duch. 7000. lāno, & ha aspri 10000. per far pasto a li Ianizari quādo
el da audiétia in casa sua che 2. o 3. uolte la settimana la da & ha
400. schiaui sotto se questi Ianizari sono la guardia del Signor tutti
schiopetteri & uanno a piede.
Vno Gachaia de Ianizari cioe locotenéte ha 200 aspri al di & ducati 300. di
timaro cioe entrata a lanno con 25. schiaui suoi.
Vno Scriuan di Ianizari che tien conto de loro Ianizari ha aspri 100. al
di & circa a 200 schiaui.
Secmébassi capo di brachi da caza ha aspri 100. il di & ha del numero di
Iāizari 200 sotto di lui.
Il Zarcagibassi capo de li liureri da cazza ha aspri 50 il di & ha del
numero di Ianizari 700. sotto di se che menano li cani a spasso quādo
bisogna.
Sono li Ianizari numero 12000. li quali hanno da 3. sino in 8. aspri il
di di soldo & ogni 10. hanno il suo Odabassi cioe capo de numero dece &
ogni cento hanno il suo capo che si domanda Bolucbassi, & li capi loro
quando uanno in cāpo uāno a cauallo & hāno aspri 40. in 60. al[796] di
per vno secondo il grado loro.
De li Ianizari si caua da 150 solachi che sono staferi dil Signor & 2
solachibassi capi de q̄lli & tutti sono sotto lagha de Ianizeri, & sono
vestiti vna volta alanno dil Signor di pāno azuro, & hāno le stantie
loro in 2 lochi in Constantinopoli fatto fabricare dil Signor & li stano
q̄lli che non hāno moglie li maritati stano fora cō le dōne loro, & nel
vitto ogniuno mette tāto al di & hano dispēsieri choghi & q̄lli che hāno
pocho salario seruan al altri, & ogni 100 di loro quādo vano in cāpo
portano vno padiglione, & sono soldati apedi schopeteri & alabarderi e
simitarre. Quādo li ditti venghano in desgratia dil Signor o in veghieza
si mādan a sario zoe castelli che sono guardiani & si cassano del libro
de Ianizari & hāno entrate equalmente al suo primo soldo & li capi loro
similmente vano castellani con timaro vtsupra.
Vno agha di Spachoglani capo cioe di destri giouene gentilhomo che a tra
timaro e soldo ducat 10 il di con reghalie & 400 schiaui.
Vno Iaxagi scriuano de questi spachoglani ha aspri 30 il di con reghalie
& 30 schiaui.
Vno Cacaia de ditti zoe protoiro a tra timaro e soldo aspri 100 al di.
Sono li Spachoglani 3000 che hano aspri 20 in 40 il di secondo il grado
loro & ogni 20 hano vno capo domandato Bolucbassi & questi seruano a
cauallo con 5 o 6 schiaui & altri tanti caualli per vno questi vano sempre
ala man destra dil Signor, & alogiano appresso a lui in campo.
Vno Agha deto Selicterbassi capo de li sinistri che sono ala mā sinistra
dil Signor ha aspri 250 il di & vno Protoiro cioe loco tenēte & vno
scriuano cō aspri 30 il di per vno questo Aga e capo di 3000 Selictari a
cauallo che stano a la man sinistra dil Signore & hano aspri 20 in 25 al
di ꝑ vno & hano 4. o 5. schiaui & altri tanti caualli & lui capo a 200
schiaui soi.
Doi Holofagibassi da la man destra & sinistra uno per banda capi de li
soldati a aspri 120 al di & hano 200 Holofagi sotto se cō aspri 16 il di
pervno il suo logo tenente cō aspri 20 e vno scriuano cō aspri 20 & vano
a cauallo con 2. o 3. caualli & tanti schiaui.
Doi Aga capo de li carippoglani zoe poueri gioueni che hano aspri 30 il
di per vno cō il suo protoiro & scriuano con aspri 15 in 30 al di & sono
li Carippoglani numero 2000 che hano da 7 sino in 14 aspri al di per vno
li capi hano 25 schiaui per vno.
Doi Bracorbassi zoe maestri di stalla vno grande vno picolo il grāde
a aspri 500 il di, & il picolo ne a 200 al di di soldo con protoiro &
scriuano con 30 sino in 40 aspri il di per vno.
Sedici milia Sarachi zoe famigli che cōzano brene & selle Caysli zoe
fanti di stalla Carmādari zoe mulateri deuegi zoe gābeleri che vano dreto
a gambeli circirgli zoe mandreri che pascolano le mādre de li caualli
in varii lochi hano di soldo da 2 sino ī 20 aspri il di pervno secōdo il
grado loro chi piu chi meno.
Caualli da caualcare per il Signor & soi puti & monuchi zoe castrati
numero 4000.
Vno Zarchigibassi capo de li astori che a di soldo aspri 150 il di &
schiaui & vno Zarchigibassi capo di falconeri che a aspri 80 il di &
schiaui con il suo protoiro & scriuano con aspri 25 per vno al di.
Vintimilia zainogiler homini a cauallo di lāza & mili soli de questi hāno
soldo aspri 10 il di & resto hāno timari o vero exemption di angarie per
essere homeni dil Signor & vano in campo.
Vno hebegibassi capo de le armature a aspri 60 il di con il suo protoiro
& scriuan con aspri 20 per vno di soldo & à da 160 Ebegi zoe famigli
sotto se con 7 fino in 10 aspri il di per vno, & vano a pede.
Vno Topgibassi capo de li bombarderi che ha aspri 60 il di con protoiro &
scriuan con aspri 20 pervno & a 2000 Topgi sotto se zoe bombarderi cō 6
sino in 10 aspri il di di soldo per vno e vano a pede.
Vno Arabagibassi capo de li careteri a aspri 40 il di con protoiro &
scriuano con aspri 20 per vno & a 1000 Arabagi zoe careteri sotto se con
3 sino in 6 aspri il di per vno.
Vno Mecterbassi capo de li trombeteri & tamburini a aspri 30 il di con
protoiro & scriuan con aspri 12 ꝑ vno di soldo al di & a 12 millia
compagni sotto se che hano di soldo 3 sino in 5 aspri il di per vno parti
vano a piedi & parti a cauallo & altre regalie.
Imralem aga Capitanio che porta il stendardo dil Signor a di soldo
aspri 200 al di & e sopra tutti li mecteri zoe trombetti & tamburini &
banderali.
Vno Arpaemin prouiditore de le biaue per il campo con vno protoiro & vno
cursor lemin a aspri 60 il di di protoiro a aspri 30 il cursor aspri 20
al di di soldo & a 20 persone sotto di lui con aspri 800 al di fra tutti
quelli 20 persone.
Vno Saremin prouiditore de comun a cōzare le strade & fabricare in
Constantinopli a aspri 50 il di, & a sotto di lui 400 homeni cō aspri
1000 al di fra tutti cō protoiro & scriuano cō aspri 57 il di per vno.
Vno Baratemin che dispensa tutti li comandamēti & che scode li denari de
li ditti a aspri 40 il di & a 2 scriuani & doi soprastanti con aspri 60
il di per vno di soldo.
Vno Seraglio di donne in Constantinopli che circōda vno miglio e mezo cō
stantie & camere doue stano li figlioli separati luno da laltro cō loro
madre & monuchi, & soltane zoe molier dil Signor & li sono da 200 in
300 dōzelle sotto la custodia di molte matrone veghie alequa il Signor
fa insegnare a ricamar diuersi lauori & a cadauna li da di soldo asp
10 fino in 20 per vna secondo il grado loro & ogni anno doi volte a li
bairami zoe a le sue pasque li veste tutte di setta, & lequal donzelle
quādo piace alcuna desse al Signore lui sta con lei & fa il fatto suo, &
como la hauta li dona vna schufia doro che val duc. 200 & aspri 10 millia
di cōtadi & la fa stare in vna camera separata da le altre & li cresse il
soldo suo & q̄lla che fa prima fioli quella e la sua moglie prima.
In ditto seraglio & de tutti li altri monuchi zoe castrati che sono in
detto seraglio a aspri 60 il di di soldo & stano in questo seraglio 20
monuchi & hano aspri 120 il di tra capigibassi zoe portinari & Ianizari
nu. 100 a le porte ꝑ guardia hāno aspri 500 al di fra tutti & numero 10
Sacha che portano laqua dētro zoe aquaroli & hāno aspri 40 al di fra
tutti di soldo.
Quando le donzelle sono in eta de anni 25 il Signor le maritta a li
schiaui di la porta zoe di la sua corte & in loco loro ne mete de le
altre & le piu giouane seruano a le altre.
A vno seraglio appresso a pera a de garzoni nu. 400. in circa che hano
di soldo da 6 fin in 10 aspri il di ꝑ vno & li veste dói volte alanno
di panno di seda si como fa a le dōne & vno Agha zoe capo del seraglio
& 20 monuchi como nel altro seraglio & capigi & Ianizeri & maestri che
imparano voltegiare a cauallo & īparano a sonare in tutto numero 100
homeni che hāno aspri 600 al di di soldo tra tutti & laga a aspri 60 il
di di soldo & 10 sacha con aspri 40 il di di soldo fra tutti li aquaroli.
Vno Seraglio in Andranopoli nouo con vno bel giardino appresso a la
mariza fiumera nel qual stano Ianizerotti numero 300 & hāno aspri 12 al
di per vno Andranopoli e 5 zornate lōtan da Constantinopoli.
Vno capo de detti zardineri a aspri 40 il di con vno protoiro & vno
scriuano che tengono cōto de ditto zardino con aspri 30 per vno al di.
In diuersi lochi il Signor ha piu giardini in liquali son assai
Ianizerotti garzoni & soi capi hāno di soldo aspri 6000 al di fra tutti
questi giardini.
Vno aga de agiamoglani Capitanio zoe gioueni greci in Cōstātinopoli a
aspri 60 il di & a 4 in 5000 Ianizerotti sotto lui & li da di soldo tra
tutti alāno ne a di spesa aspri 100 millia & liveste due fiate alanno
& hano li loro capi como li altri & questi se metano sopra fabriche &
condutte legne cō nauigli in Constantinopoli per il Signor & altre
stente poi si fano coghi & famegli di Ianizeri & in fino si fano Ianizeri.
Ogni 4 anni il Signor manda a tore di gretia & di Natolia piu figlioli
de christiani per il paxe zoe ꝑ leville & doue vno padre ha 2 fioli li
piglian vno fiol ꝑ forza & lo fano turco & cosi a ognuno christiani ꝑ
il suo paese fano zoe soi subditi & ne piglia 10 ī 12000 a la volta
liquali puti li fano stare in la Natolia zoe in asia a zapare la terra
acio imparano la lingua turcha & cosi stentano 3. o vero 4. anni & poi
li manda a scriuere sotto laga di agiamoglani ditto vtsupra & di questi
il Signor non ne a spesa alcuna per che sono vestiti & fatto le spese da
quelli a che seruano per che li mete a stare cō altri sino chano imparato
la lingua & poi quando sono scritti li da soldo per la prima 2. in 3
aspri per vno & secōdo li mete in altri officii li cresce il salario.
Ha di spesa in li altri seragli di viuere aspri 5000 il di ditto di sopra.
Veste due fiate alanno li Bassa zoe confieri defterderi zoe texoreri
beglerbeii zoe Signor de Signori nesangibei zoe quello che sopra di
frutti dil Signor & presenti di spexa aspri 5000 per volte.
Vna Arsenale doue ten le sue galere che a volti 100 zoe 30 di galere
grosse che si domandano maone ꝑ portare caualli & il resto sono galere
futile.
Tene continuamenti numero 200 patroni de galere pagati che hāno soldo fra
tutti aspri 200000 alanno di spexa.
Tene continuo mille homeni axapi zoe marinero di galeri & ne a di spexa
alāno fra tutti aspri 400000.
Maistri ouero proti numero 50 che sono sopra a far lauorare le galere zoe
farle che in ocio hanno soldo aspri 6 il di & quando lauorano hāno aspri
12 il di.
Emino zoe capo de questi a aspri 40 il di vno scriuan che ten conto ha
aspri 28 al di con 10 scriuani sotto lui con aspri 80 al di fra tutti.
El Zustiniano zoe vno zentilomo Venetiano che serue il Turcho & e sopra a
far fare galere ancora lui spexe straordinaria ha di soldo aspri 50 il di.
Vno Beglerbei dil mar zoe Signor de Signori capo sopra le terre maritime
che a di entrata duc. 14000 & traze piu dil duplo sopra rodi metelino
negropōte & il tributo di sio isole in mar.
Il Beglerbei di la gretia zoe capo di tutto il paese di la gretia magior
de tutti li altri a di entrada ducati 260 millia a lanno & traze il duplo
& a schiaui 1000.
Vno protoiro zoe loco tenente di la gretia a ducati 4000 di entrada a
lanno & a schiaui 300.
Vno Deftero zoe texorero de le entrate di la gretia che loro domandano
timari a ducati 3000 de entrada a lanno & ha 900 schiaui soi seruitori.
Cento scriuani che tengono li libri & cōti dil Signor a di entrada fra
tutti a lanno ducati 10000.
Trentasette Sanzachibei zoe contadi Signori per il paese che han di
entrada di 5 in 12 millia ducati a lanno secondo il grado loro chi piu
chi meno & hāno vno per laltro in tutto duca. 260 millia a lanno & 300
schiaui per vno.
Quatrocento Subasi per il paxe dil Signor zoe Capitanio di Iustitia che
hāno duc. 100 alanno per vno di entrada & hāno 50 schiaui per vno soi
famigli.
Trenta millia Spachi che hanno di entrada luno per laltro ducati 200 per
vno alanno & ciaschaduno de ditti per ogni ducati 100 che hāno di entrada
deue tener vno homo armato di lanza a cauallo & oltra le lanze hanno tre
o 4 famigli per vno & altri tanti caualli zoe li Spachi.
Vintimillia Trimarati zoe q̄lli che scodano le entrate per il paese hano
duc. 40 di entrata alanno ꝑ vno & per che non ariuano a li 100 ducati
dintrada nō si chiamano spachi & sono homeni a cauallo & vano in campo.
Li Spacoglani li sopradetti timari cioe entrade de le decime de tutte
le entrade cosi de christiani como di turchi splenza aspri 25 per testa
da li christiani & da langaria de li animali & altra quanto pagano dil
Signor zoe piu o meno secondo diuersi paesi.
Sesantamillia Iaching zoe ventureri scritti per il paese obligadi andare
in campo quando piace al Signor senza soldo & quando vano a la guerra le
ville & cita li dano il modo dil viuere.
Tutti li spachi sono schiaui & figli de schiaui del Sig.
Sette Beglerbei zoe Signor de signori sopra bassavno che se chiama di
la natolia ilquale era antichamēte in assia minore il qual a di entrata
ducati 24000 & ne traze assai piu & a sotto se il ponte labitinia azia
ꝑpia Lidia carian, licia prouincie & a schiaui 1000 soi seruitori & a
sanzachi 12 sotto lui zoe Signoroti cō entrada da 4 in 6000 ducati alanno
per vno & schiaui 500 pervno & Spachi 1000 sotto se cō soldo da 5 in 10
aspri al di pervno secōdo la cōdition loro & q̄sto Beglerbei e di piu
authorita de li altri & e forte nominato per il paese questi Spachi nō
hano tanta entrata como vtsupra per essere piu abondantia la.
Beglerbei de caramania chera silicia & pamfilia prouincie ha di entrata
ducati 10 millia & a 7 sanzachi sotto se con soldo ditto & spachi numero
500 sotto cō soldo como laltro beglerbei & schiaui mille.
Beglerbei di anādoule che e tra la soria & Caramania & tocat ch’era gia
Pamphlagonia che e la mita di larmenia minore ha di entrada ducati 10
millia alanno & sette sanzachi che hano di entrada da 4 in 5000 ducati
alāno & a schiaui 100 & Spachi 700 sotto lui quando il Signor hera fora
si dice questo Beglerbei faceua persone da caualcare senza soldo numero
30 millia.
Beglerbei di la mexopotania sotto ilqual e il resto di larmenia minor &
parte di la magiore che laltra parte e dil Sophi & de cordi a di entrata
ducati trenta millia & schiaui due millia & sanzachi 12 con entrada vt
supra & spachi diece millia cō soldo vtsupra & confina con baldach zoe la
babilonia vera.
Beglerbei di Damascho & Soria & Giudea a di entrada ducati 24 millia &
schiaui due millia & sanzachi 12 con entrada vtsupra & a Spachi numero
vintimillia sotto di lui.
Beghlerbei di Alcario ha di entrada ducati trentamillia & schiaui quatro
millia Sāzachi 16 con entrada vt supra pervno & Spachi sedeci millia
sotto lui & Ianizeri tre millia & va fina alamecha cioe fina a la arabia
liquali ello possede como si fa deli albanesi per forza benche la arabia
felize stia in magior obedientia.
Tra lamecha & Sophi sono alcuni Signori arabi poi il resto confina con
il Sophi fina in la mexopotania in laqual e baldach zoe Babilonia poi
passato la mexopotania cōfina il Suphi ne la pianura di nassimō poi
exdrun & extum che sono in la armenia mazore laqual cōfina con Zorgiani
& hiberi & ne larmenia mazor & minor sono assai cordi obedienti quelli
de la mazor parte al Signor Turcho & parte al Sophi Re di persia &
trabixonda lucho de Imperio in mar magior cōfina con mengreli zoe
mengrelia doue non si spende danari & ancora confina cō giorgiani che
antichamente si dimandauano colchi azamia chera asiria e dil Sophi.
Armenia magior e minor sono christiani assai di quelli di san Thomaso
trabixonda sono greci & mengreli sono christiani & giorgiani sono
christiani.
Ottomā hebe in sua cōpagnia ad acꝗstare il dominio vno michali greco
fatto turco dal qual son dissexi li mazalogli zoe mamaluchi de laqual
stirpe n’e vno hora sanzaco in bosina zoe Conte devna prouincia.
Malco greco renegato alqual sono nasiuti li malcozogli, & di quella
stirpe n’e vno & e Sanzaco in gretia. Aurami che si chiamano Eurcassi de
laqual stirpe non si sa che ne sia alcun hora.
Tutti questi generatione promisse ottoman di nō mettere mai mane nel
sangue loro ne mancharli mai di magistrato & ancora si conserua la
promessa fatali & questi furono quelli che aiutorno la caxa ottomana.
Intrada dil gran Turcho de caragi zoe tributarii caua ducati 1300000
da la Natolia & grecia caua ducati 1600000 di Egipto caua duc. 700000
de Soria caua ducati 150000 de mexopotania ducati 250000 questi danari
caua si non di terra ferma senza le Isole che sotto lui & li douane di
Constantinopli e pera.
Le entrate che se dice disse il Signor Aluise Gritti che sono piu presto
piu che meno & la spexa di la porta zoe di la corte dil Signor penso che
cōsuma tutta la entrada o poco meno.
Li Beglerbei di egitto stano sotto il beglerbei di Alcairo per la magior
parte & li sono Sanzachi sino in lamecha doue sta larcha de macomet
Zingil Ghebur Iurcan & Tibris fiumi dil Paradiso Terestro.
Li Beglerbei & li Sanzachi a chi piu chi meno secōdo la autorità sua &
son pagati de li territori doue stano escetto quelli che pigliano soldo
dil gran Turcho la entrada de li ditti non si po sapere a ponto bisogna
per arbitrio pensarla zoe de quelli di egitto.
QVI SI DICHIARA TVTTI LI SANZACHI
zoe contadi che sono sotto li Beglerbei & si nomina li paexi doue sono &
Prouincie doue stano e prima.
Li Sanzachi zoe Contadi che sono sotto il Beglerbei di la Gretia prima.
1 Gretia.
2 Cafa.
3 Silistria.
4 Nicopoli.
5 Vidin.
6 Suornich.
7 Bossina.
8 Ersech del Ducato.
9 Samandria belgrado.
10 Seruia.
11 Belgrado.
12 Schutari.
13 Valona.
14 Carlali.
15 Negroponte.
16 Lepanto.
17 Morea.
18 Trighala.
19 Galipoli.
20 Quaranta Giexie.
21 Vissa.
22 Crimen.
23 Ochria.
24 Giostaudil.
25 Vlzitrin.
26 Pisdren.
27 Alzasar.
28 Albasan.
29 Voinuch.
30 Ciuchene.
31 Zaiza.
Filipopoli.
Sofia.
Durazo.
Albania.
Schopia.
Li Sanzachi che sono sotto il Beglerbei di la Natolia zoe Asia minor.
1 Giotachie.
2 Cogia olli.
3 Bolli.
4 Castamoni.
5 Anghori.
6 Caugri.
7 Tescheli.
8 Metesseli.
9 Haeid neli.
10 Allaye.
11 Buga.
12 Manguixa il statto.
Li Sanzachi che sono sotto il Beglerbei di Cappadocia.
1 Amassia.
2 Cioriun.
3 Giauich.
4 Caraister.
5 Sauisum.
6 Trapixonda.
Li Sanzachi che sono sotto il Beglerbei di Caramania.
1 Siogna.
2 Naranda.
3 Assar.
4 Eschi assar.
Li Sanzachi che sono sotto il Beglerbei di Auandoule.
1 Maras.
2 Sarmus Sachi.
3 Albistanouasi.
4 Adaria.
5 Tersis.
Li Sāzachi che sono sotto il beglerbei di mesopotāia.
1 Dierbech.
2 Carachmit.
3 Argni.
4 Solgich.
5 Casangieph.
6 Meridim.
7 Carput.
8 Mussul.
9 Exrun.
10 Haiburth.
Dittilis. Nassim nouasi.
Li Sanzachi che sono sotto il Beglerbei di Soria.
Damasco.
Malatia.
Dirmighi.
Antep.
Antiocha.
Aleppo.
Tripoli.
Cama ama.
Cams.
Sefetto.
Ieroxalem.
Gazara.
Questi sono i lochi che ha sotto il Turco.
Questa sia la ordenanza dil Cāpo dil Signore zoe dil gran
Turcho quādo va a la guerra primamente vna quātita di
spacoglani gētilomini con lanza & spada.
Inanze al primo bassa li va numero 15 caualli ornati ꝑ la sua
persona con vno Ianizero per banda.
E poi tre garzoni vestiti doro con schufie doro rosse vno li
porta larcho vno li porta le veste & vno li porta il ramin da
laqua.
E poi vno Aga con schufia doro zoe Capitanio.
E poi doi garzoni senza milza arente al bassa.
E poi mille Ianizeri schopeteri a piedi.
E poi da 60 Sanzachi zoe stendardi a cauallo.
E poi trombetti e tamburin insiema a cauallo.
E poi il campo a refuso de diuersi generationi e de diuersi
lanze tutti a cauallo.
E poi gambelli muli bagaie del campo.
E poi Gentilomeni Spachi a cauallo con spada & archo e frize
solle.
E poi li cari de lartelaria.
E poi caualli numero 30 con briglie doro per la persona dil
Signor.
E poi tutti li capi de li Ianizari zoe Boluchbassi Odabassi
a cauallo con barete doro aguze con vno penagio di garzette
bianche in zima con lanze & con le banderolle zalle.
E poi 12 milia Ianizeri con schiopetti alabarde apedi.
E poi li solachi apedi staferi dil Signor cō archi e frize.
E poi il gran Turcho sollo in mezo di Solachi.
E poi 3 garzoni con schufie doro vestiti di pāno doro che li
portano archo e frize e laqua & veste.
E poi 2 monuchi sēza coioni a cauallo dreto al signor.
E poi Imralemaga ch’ porta il stēdardo dil Signor tutto verde
sollo.
E poi 6 Sanzachi zoe bandere vna rossa vna biācha vna verde due
diuixa vna rossa e bianca & vna verde e rosso a cauallo.
E poi trombeteri & tamburi a cauallo.
E poi il campo a refuxo con li dulipante a cauallo cō lanze e
spada con le banderole rosse.
A la banda destra dil Signor Spacoglani a cauallo cō lanze con
banderole zalle.
A la banda sinistra dil Signor Selictari a cauallo con lanze
con banderolle rosse e bianche.
E poi gambelli & mulli e bagaie dil campo e pagi.
E poi Spachi con lanze a cauallo con dulipāti biāchi.
E poi vno bassa solo con soi Stafeti.
E poi 22 Sanzachi zoe stendardi a cauallo.
E poi trombeteri tamburi a cauallo.
E poi il campo a refuso de diuerse sorte con dulipant & barette
rosse de piu sorte generatione.
E poi gambelli e muli e bagaie dil campo insema.
E poi tutti li Iachingi zoe ventureri.
Questo libro e stato cauato da Ionus bei il qual era greco & hora e
turcho & e interpetro grande dil Signor & dal Signor Aluise gritti fiol
dil Duxo di Venetia & tutto e vero.
APPENDIX III
INCOMPLETE TABLE OF CONTENTS OF THE KANUN-NAMEH, OR COLLECTION OF EDICTS,
OF SULEIMAN THE MAGNIFICENT AS ARRANGED BY THE MUFTI EBU SU’UD
Translated from the Turkish
[From folios 69-70 of the Turkish MS. Fluegel No. 1816, Imperial
Library, Vienna: “Fundamental Laws of Sultan Suleiman, according to
the arrangement of the Mufti Ebu-Su’ud.” The table does not begin
till folio 27 of the manuscript. The page references are to Hammer’s
_Staatsverfassung_, where a translation of the paragraphs may be found.]
FOLIO
27. Law concerning mortgage and loan contracts. p. 396
28. Law concerning fallow fields. p. 397
29. Law concerning uncultivated lands. p. 398
29. Law concerning absent and missing [tenants]. p. 398
30. Law concerning the hereditary tenancy of land (_tapu_), and
regulations determining what sort of lands are given in
hereditary tenancy. p. 399
31. Regulations for the case when a _Spahi_ of either a large
or a small fief possesses his fief in common ownership. p. 401
32. Regulations for the case when a _Spahi_ dies or is
dispossessed before the delivery of the hereditary lease.
(In Hammer the heading is different and is not logically
placed.) p. 403
33. Regulations for the case when the tenant dies before the
expiration of the hereditary lease. p. 404
33. Law concerning the giving out of the winter and summer
pastures and concerning the legal relationships of
meadow lands. p. 199
34. Law concerning the ground tax, concerning the taxes upon
state-lands, sandy fields, peasants’ houses, etc. p. 406
35. Law concerning the tenth, the tax upon vineyards, leased
vineyards, the bushel, and the bushel-tax. p. 407
36. Law concerning the tenth, the fifth, and the fodder tenth
(_salariyeh_). p. 407
37. Regulations for the case of joint ownership when more than
the tenth of the crop, namely, the half or the fifth, is
demanded from the _Spahi_. (Not found in Hammer.)
38. Special regulations regarding the tenths of the _Spahis_.
(Not found in Hammer.)
39. Law concerning the taxes on mills and green produce. p. 408
39. Law concerning the landlord’s share, the tenths and the
fruits. p. 408
40. Law concerning the tenths [of honey, the tax on] bees,
other taxes, etc. p. 409
41. Law concerning the sheep-tax and the fold-tax. p. 410
42. Law concerning the obligations of subjects and the tax on
prisoners. (Hammer, the slave-tax.) p. 410
42. Law concerning the half-hide-tax. (Hammer, the bride-tax.) p. 411
43. Law concerning the hide-tax and the taxes on abandoned lands. p. 411
44. Law concerning fleeing the country. p. 412
45. Law concerning the wandering hordes. p. 413
46. Law concerning the wagoners. p. 413
47. Law concerning the irregular cavalry. (Hammer, fiefs for
public service.) p. 414
48. Law concerning the Yayas and Mosellems (free foot-soldiers). p. 415
49. Law concerning the imperial foundations and the _vakfs_. p. 416
49. Regulations concerning lawsuits over land. p. 417
51. Law concerning the time of the harvest. p. 418
52. Law concerning the harvest and the designation of those
persons who receive their income out of landed property
but not at the time of harvest. (Not a separate heading
in Hammer.) p. 419
53. Special regulations concerning fiefs in regard to dating,
registering, etc. (Not found in Hammer.)
54. Law concerning the intendants of the fiscus, the receivers
of taxes, and regulations concerning the revenues of the
court. p. 419
55. Law concerning the holders of great and small fiefs, and
concerning the freedom of some military persons from
certain occasional taxes. p. 421
56. Law concerning the _Beylerbeys_, the _Sanjak Beys_, and
the _Kapuji-bashis_. p. 422
57. Law concerning the fees of judges. p. 423
57. Law concerning the contents of the _berats_ of the judges
(their diplomas of appointment). (Omitted in Hammer.)
58. Regulations concerning lawsuits between _Spahis_ and
non-Mohammedans or between two _Spahis_. p. 424
60. Law concerning taxes which are demanded from leased land
when the tenth alone is insufficient. (Not found in Hammer.)
APPENDIX IV
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE MOGUL EMPIRE IN INDIA[797]
“The uncommon abilities of most of the princes, with the
mild and humane character of all, rendered Hindostan the
most flourishing empire in the world during two complete
centuries.”—DOW.
GENERAL COMPARISON OF OTTOMAN AND INDIAN CONDITIONS
When Baber first rode down through the grim gates of India’s northwest
mountain-wall, the accession of Suleiman lay but a year in the future;
the Mogul won the battle of Panipat but four months before the Turk
was victorious at Mohacs. Thus the founding of the Mogul Empire nearly
coincided with the meridian splendor of the Ottoman power, and its
decisive battle of establishment with the victory which led to the last
great extension of Ottoman authority into Europe. Not Baber or even
Akbar, Suleiman’s contemporaries, but Aurangzeb, whose reign began a
century after Suleiman’s death, affords the closest comparison with
the Turkish monarch; yet the third battle of Panipat in 1761 marked
the virtual destruction of the Mogul Empire, whereas the second battle
of Mohacs in 1687 meant but the first noteworthy step of the Ottoman
retreat. The house of Timur has disappeared from history, while the house
of Osman still reigns over wide territories; less than two and a half
centuries of genuine sovereign rule were enjoyed by the Moguls, while six
centuries have not sufficed to measure the independent existence of the
Ottomans.
The Mogul emperors perhaps never ruled so large a territory as the
Ottoman sultans, but their lands were far more productive; moreover,
having from five to ten times as many subjects as their Western cousins
and an income in proportion, they could surpass even the Magnificent
Suleiman in display and largesse. The inferior persistence of their
dominion, therefore, suggests inferior strength and stability in their
institutions, a suggestion to which even a limited investigation lends
much support.
The Moguls shared with the Ottomans their relation to the ideas of the
Mongol and Turkish Tatars of the steppe lands, and to those of the
Persians and the Arabs. They were more directly and vitally influenced
by the Tatars and Persians, and less directly by the Arabs. Farther
than this their relations were not to the comparatively organized and
energetic civilization of the Mediterranean but to the more speculative
and passive culture of India. Over the lands into which they entered as
conquerors lay the shadow not of sternly practical Roman legalism, but of
Hindu and Buddhist contempt for things mundane.
They founded a despotism, but one that was never, even under Aurangzeb,
so closely related to the Sacred Law of Mohammed as was the government of
Suleiman. They ruled a variety of lands in a variety of relationships,
but never with the stern control exercised by the _Kaisar-i-Rûm_
(Roman emperor), the name which they gave to the Turkish ruler at
Constantinople. They enforced the obedience of many peoples, who spoke
many languages and practised many forms of religion; yet they never held
these peoples under any such iron system of subjection as that which
dominated the Christian subjects of the sultan, even to the seizure of
their children for tribute.
Since the passing of those prehistoric times when all human ideas were
solidified together into a single “crust of custom,” every nation
has probably had two leading institutions, more or less closely
connected,—the one of religion and the other of government. The foregoing
pages have shown how powerful and pervasive were the Ottoman Ruling
Institution and the Moslem Institution in the Ottoman Empire. In the
parallel organizations of the empire of the Moguls, however, it is
not possible to discern comparable unique individuality, systematic
structure, and ordered efficiency. Some allowance must be made for a
comparative lack of information, since not many Western observers have
described the more distant empire; but this fact can hardly alter the
conclusion materially. The institutional structure of the Mogul Empire
was decidedly inferior to that of the Ottoman Empire in solidity, system,
and persistent energy.
THE PERSONNEL OF THE MOGUL GOVERNMENT
Baber’s following consisted of the comrades of his many years of
fighting, an army of cavalry, artillery, and musketry composed in
ancient Turkish fashion of high-spirited men attached to their chief by
impressive leadership and open-handed generosity. Courage, military
prowess, and the nominal profession of Islam were the necessary
qualifications; differences of race, education, and Moslem doctrine
were disregarded. Warriors of Turki stock, Persians of Shiite leanings,
hardy Afghans, “Roman” artillery engineers from Stambul, were equals in
the rough brotherhood of Baber’s camp. The principle of subordination,
at least among persons of consequence, was not that of slaves to their
master, but of tribesmen to their chief, of vassals to their honored
suzerain.
When Turks had first invaded India, five centuries before, slavery as
a means of recruiting and training soldiers and governors was in full
swing. Mahmûd of Ghazni was the son of a father who had risen through
slavery. The thirteenth century saw enthroned at Delhi a dynasty of slave
kings which antedated by several decades the Mamelukes of Egypt. Late in
the fourteenth century Firoz III owned 180,000 slaves, of whom 40,000
constituted his household. The Mameluke government endured for more
than two and a half centuries, until overthrown by the more centralized
and efficient slave system of the Ottomans; but in Central Asia and
ultimately in India a new force speedily rendered the slave method, save
for some survivals, antiquated and impossible.
The dominance of the Mongols was based on the discipline of an army
of freemen who were intelligent enough willingly to render absolute
obedience to their officers as the well-tested condition of certain
success. With the break-up of the vast Mongol Empire, the lands now in
Russian Central Asia, Afghanistan, and Persia lapsed toward the horde
organization of nomad Tatars, but became more and more modified by Moslem
feudalism. Under such conditions, Timur, high-born and adventurous,
chivalrous and literary, fanatical and cruel, achieved an empire that
was large and splendid, but personal to himself, and destined to vanish
almost with its founder. Yet he presaged a time when in Asia and Europe
alike there should come, after the disintegrating individualism of the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, a period of the gathering together of
lands and peoples into large units under strong personal governments.
Baber, descendant of Timur in the sixth generation, descendant also of
Genghis Khan, came at the beginning of the new era. Less ruthless than
either of his great ancestors, less legal than the “Inflexible One,”
less Moslem than the “Scourge of Asia,” but possessed of much of the
leadership and military genius of both, he stands forth, by reason of
his memoirs, as one of the best known conquerors of history. His love
of carousing, his family affection, his literary bent, his toleration of
heretics and infidels, his bold leadership, his liberality in dividing
spoil, presented qualities and suggested modes of activity which were to
characterize all his descendants down to the puritanical Aurangzeb.
Thus the family life of the house of Baber was far more normal than
that of the house of Osman. In contrast with an almost unbroken line
of Ottoman slave mothers and wives, whose names with those of their
daughters have hardly survived, many of the Mogul imperial ladies are
well known. Witness the princess Gul-Badan, daughter of Baber, who like
her father wrote memoirs; the empress Nur-Jehan, who ruled India for a
time; and the empress Mumtaz-Mahal, for whom her devoted husband built
the fairest of all mausoleums. Turki princesses, ladies of high Persian
descent, and daughters of Hindu _Rajahs_, were taken into the imperial
harem, where, though women and eunuchs were present “from Russia,
Circassia, Mingrelia, Georgia, and Ethiopia,” no emperors sprang from
slave mothers during the period of greatness. With such a policy in
the family which constituted a chief element in the unity of the Mogul
Empire, it was but natural that officers and soldiers, statesmen and
public servants, should be accepted with a like catholicity. The best
fighters, of course, continued to be those who came down newly from the
high country beyond the northwest passes; and since such of these as met
success were apt to send for relatives and friends, there was continual
recruiting from among Tatars, Persians, Afghans, and Arabs,—all Moslems,
but of various sects. “Rûmis” from the Ottoman Empire were especially
useful in the artillery service. Some of them were doubtless European
renegades, but “Firinjis” or Franks were likely to come more directly
from Portugal and other European countries. Yet by no means all the brave
were from foreign lands. Many Rajputs under their own _Rajahs_ served the
Mogul emperors most acceptably, and when treated without prejudice they
were faithful. The high officers of government were usually Persians; but
Akbar was nobly served by the great Todar Mal, and appointed _Rajahs_
to govern the Punjab and Bengal. About one in eight of his paid cavalry
chiefs was a Hindu; and of the lesser civil-service positions the mere
necessity for numbers, apart from superior skill and training, required
that many should be held by Hindus.
It is not that slavery had disappeared from the Mogul system. Traces of
the old method can be discerned as late as the eighteenth century. In
fact, Muhammad Khan, a Bangash _Nawab_ of Farrukhabad, maintained what
was practically a replica in miniature of the Ottoman system. Hindu boys
between the ages of seven and thirteen, some of them sons of Rajputs
and Brahmins, were seized, bought, or accepted as _chelas_ or slaves to
the number of one or two hundred a year. They were taught to read and
write, and were specially rewarded when the task was completed. Five
hundred _chelas_ from eighteen to twenty years of age were trained as a
regiment of musketeers. From among the older _chelas_ were chosen the
officers of the household, generals of the army, and deputy governors
of provinces. The _Nawab_ arranged marriages between _chelas_ and the
daughters of _chelas_. He encouraged them to acquire personal property,
which he could claim in time of need; but he forbade them to found towns
or build masonry structures, lest occupying these they might tend toward
independence. Muhammad Khan did not, however, depend exclusively on his
Hindu slaves; he sent money to his own Bangash tribe, and thus obtained
a colony of Afghans to whom he gave high military positions and upon
some of whom he bestowed his daughters in marriage. Other vassals of
the emperor made use of a similar slave system; and it is not unlikely
that the emperor himself recruited his permanent infantry with the help
of slavery, and that he promoted some slaves to high positions. But the
absence of definite information in this direction is in most striking
contrast to its abundant presence in the records which deal with the
Ottoman Empire in the sixteenth century.
In theory the officers of government were so far the servants of the
emperor that their accumulated personal property belonged to him at their
death; but in practice the opulence and the generosity of the sovereign
led him often to leave such wealth in the hands of the officers’
children. When this was not done, employment in the public service was
assigned to sons and pensions were granted to widows.
Titles of nobility were awarded for life to distinguished officials; the
chief officers of the central government and governors of great provinces
were called _Emirs_ (_Omrahs_ in many Western writings, probably a
plural of majesty), generals of the army were _Khans_, and distinguished
soldiers of lesser rank were _Bahadurs_ or knights. Khondamir says that
Humayun organized a system of twelve orders or arrows, according to which
the entire imperial household was graded. “The twelfth arrow, which
was made of the purest gold, was put in the auspicious quiver of this
powerful king, and nobody could dare to touch it. The eleventh arrow
belonged to His Majesty’s relations and brethren, and all the sultans
who were in the government employ. Tenth, to the great _mushaikhs_,
_saiyids_, and the learned and religious men. Ninth, to the great nobles.
Eighth, to the courtiers and some of the king’s personal attendants.
Seventh, to the attendants in general. Sixth, to the _harems_ and to the
well-behaved female attendants. Fifth, to young maid-servants. Fourth,
to the treasurers and stewards. Third, to the soldiers. Second, to the
menial servants. First, to the palace guards, camel-drivers, and the
like. Each of these arrows or orders had three grades; the highest,
the middle, and the lowest.” Appointments and promotions were, as at
Constantinople, based upon valor and manifest ability. Through all the
period of greatness the ladder of advancement was kept so clear that
vigor, courage, and prowess could mount from the lowest ranks to the
steps of the throne.
RELATION OF GOVERNMENT TO RELIGIOUS PROPAGATION
When the Ottoman Turks conquered their European territories, as well as
parts of their Asiatic dominions, they for the first time introduced
the Moslem religion. This was not the case with the Mogul advance into
India. Beginning with Mohammed ben Kasim’s invasion of Sind in 712 A.D.,
and starting afresh with Mahmûd of Ghazni in 1000 A.D., the Moslem
political control, accompanied by the conversion of a portion of the
native population, had spread step by step until, when Baber came after
eight centuries, there remained little of India that was not actually or
had not at some time been under Moslem rule. No data appear to exist for
determining the actual proportion of the total population that was Moslem
during the Mogul period. Guesses have been made ranging from a possible
one in four to Bernier’s estimate of one in hundreds. The only basis of
any value would perhaps be that obtained by working backward from the
British censuses. In 1911 the Mohammedans constituted about twenty-one
per cent of the population of India, and their number was increasing at
a slightly more rapid rate than the average. It may be supposed that the
increase of the Moslem proportion was greater during the days of the
Mogul Empire, when it was especially profitable to change, and when there
was a strong inward flow at the northwest; but since the Mogul decline
the rate of relative progress has probably always been slow. Perhaps the
proportion about 1761 was somewhat less than one in five, and in 1526 it
may have been not more than one in from ten to twenty. Bernier’s guess
would certainly seem to have been wild, for it is inconceivable that so
small progress would have been made in a thousand years and so great in
the next two hundred. No doubt the Moslem contingent was then, as it is
now, unevenly distributed, being in high proportion in the northwest and
diminishing gradually with the distance from the mountain passes. At
points on the seacoast where trade had been active, the Moslem influence
had come early by way of the sea; hence there also the percentage was
greater. In Suleiman’s empire, comprising as it did a large amount of old
Moslem territory and including even the Holy Cities, the proportion of
Moslems was, of course, much higher; but it diminished rapidly from south
to north, until in Hungary it must have been extremely attenuated.
In the absence of an elaborate slave system in India, there was not the
steady public machinery of conversion which operated powerfully in the
Ottoman Empire. Furthermore, it would seem that before the reign of
Aurangzeb no emperor cared to promote conversion to Islam by financial
or political rewards. Akbar, in fact, removed the jizyeh, or poll-tax,
which had previously, as in all other truly Moslem lands until recent
times, laid special burdens upon unbelievers, and the tax was not
reimposed until the time of Aurangzeb. Akbar also forbade the enslavement
of captives and of their wives and children. For a century, therefore,
the government lent little encouragement to change of faith. Down to the
accession of Aurangzeb there was a clear contrast between Ottoman and
Mogul policy in the attitude toward the Moslem religion: the Moguls held
far less than the Ottomans to the idea of the conquest of the world for
Islam, or to the conversion of unbelievers, as an object of governmental
endeavor. Aurangzeb alone had such zeal as characterizes the average
descendant of Osman; he desired no infidels in his service, and regarded
the Deccan as the _Dar-ul-harb_ which he wished to make part of the
_Dar-ul-Islam_. There can be no doubt, however, that under all the Mogul
emperors the social pressure usual in Moslem lands continued to encourage
conversion privately, while the slavery which Islam normally sanctions
was also contributing to the increase of the faithful. Moreover, it is
not likely that all the officers of the liberal emperors were as tolerant
and as indifferent to Moslem progress as were their superiors.
THE ARMY
At Delhi, as at Constantinople, no sharp line could be drawn separating
government and army. The Mogul conquest was achieved by an army, and
the army became a government. Amalgamation with older systems of course
introduced groups of under-officials who had no military duties; but
those who would be great had to be capable of military command, men who
might be familiar with the pen but who must know how to wield the sword.
The Mogul army organization seems, in the midst of confused testimonies,
to have borne a considerable resemblance to that of the Ottomans. The
emperor was commander-in-chief, and as late as Aurangzeb regularly
commanded in person in great campaigns. He had a personal army of
12,000 to 15,000 paid infantry and 12,000 to 40,000 paid cavalry.
These corresponded in number and function, but not at all in political
importance, to the Janissaries and _Spahis_ of the Porte among the
Ottomans. In great campaigns the standing army was supported by the
feudal cavalry, estimated at from 200,000 to 400,000, and by indefinite
numbers of irregular infantry, drawn from a mass estimated at four
millions. The army was strong in artillery, and possessed in trained
elephants a force of which the Ottomans could not make use.
The emperor’s infantry were, at least from Akbar’s time, matchlockmen;
they seem to have been the only trustworthy and efficient foot-soldiers.
It would appear that their clumsy weapons, improved by Akbar himself,
were not changed up to the time of Aurangzeb; for Bernier reports that in
his day the muskets were rested on forks and fired by men who squatted
on the ground, and who feared that the flash might damage their eyebrows
and beards. On account of the method of payment it is not possible to
estimate closely the number of the emperor’s cavalry, or _Mansabdars_.
Men who agreed to furnish from five to five thousand troopers were taken
into his service, and pay (_mansab_) was assigned for the stipulated
number; but even in Akbar’s time, according to Badauni, it was possible
to present followers hired only for the occasion, and yet to draw
life-long pay for their services. In later years there ceased to be even
approximate correspondence between the amount of pay and the number of
troops furnished. The _mansab_ was then regarded as a salary, or even as
a pension.
The more numerous feudal cavalry consisted of the holders (with their
followers) of _jagirs_, or grants, of the revenue of districts of larger
or smaller size, in return for which they served without other pay,
except in case of unduly prolonged campaigns. Holders of large areas
were accustomed to administer them in person, whereas those who held
smaller sections would often leave the administration to the governors
of provinces, who in time tended to appropriate the revenues. Aurangzeb,
however, pursued the policy of assigning service in regions remote from
the appointee’s _jagir_, and of retaining wives and children at the
court as pledges of fidelity. Hindu _Rajahs_ were easily brought into
the system by being invested with analogous rights in their hereditary
territories. Apart from these cases, the appointments, as in Turkey,
were not regarded as hereditary, but were apt to be given to fresh
recruits of ability from beyond the mountains. It was customary to make
small assignments to sons of dead _Jagirdars_, and to increase their
allowances upon proof of merit. _Jagirdars_ and _Rajahs_, like Timariotes
and _Zaims_, had jurisdiction and other governmental duties in the areas
assigned to them, and thus carried a large part of the task of local
government. Ultimately many of the higher positions became hereditary in
families which worked toward independence in the days of decline.
The artillery seems to have been surprisingly strong under Baber and
Humayun, and to have declined later. Baber is said to have had seven
hundred guns at Panipat, which he chained together after the method
employed by Selim I at Kaldiran. Humayun is reported to have had at
Kanauj seven hundred guns discharging stone balls of five pounds
weight, and twenty-one guns discharging brass balls ten times as heavy.
Aurangzeb, it is said, transported seventy pieces of heavy artillery
and two or three hundred swivel guns, mounted on the backs of camels.
For fortress defence and siege operations the Moguls had a few enormous
guns, some of which are said to have required for transport two hundred
and fifty and even five hundred oxen! In addition to these resources, it
appears, if testimonies can be trusted, that Akbar kept five thousand
war elephants, each of which was accounted equal in time of battle to
five hundred horsemen; and Hawkins says that Jehangir had twelve thousand
elephants of all descriptions. Aurangzeb is reported to have maintained
in the palace stables the more modest number of eight hundred elephants.
The early Mogul armies were efficient and successful. Aurangzeb, however,
conducted about the Deccan in his twenty-four years’ war of conquest a
horde that resembled a migration rather than an army. For each fighting
man there were at least two camp-followers; the march was without
discipline and order, like the movement of a herd of animals; and the
camp was a city five miles long, or, as others say, seven and a half
miles, or twenty miles in circumference. One European observer even
reported that the encampment was thirty miles about, and contained five
million souls! Among these he counted seven hundred thousand soldiers,
of whom three hundred thousand were cavalry. With all due allowance
for exaggeration, the Mogul army clearly tended to become exceedingly
numerous, but of increasing weakness and inefficiency. A battle in 1526
between Baber and Suleiman would have been a worthy contest, but the army
of Aurangzeb would probably have been defeated easily by the Ottoman
troops which bit the dust before Prince Eugene.
THE COURT
Splendid as was the display of Suleiman’s _entourage_, it lacked the
financial basis which the Moguls possessed from Akbar to Aurangzeb.
Gold and silver, gems, silks and muslins, were far more abundant in the
eastern land. A more highly developed architecture, showing far greater
richness of detailed ornamentation, served in India to construct not only
temples of religion and tombs of great personages, but also marvellous
palaces and pleasure-houses for the emperors. Many thousands of
attendants supplied every possible luxury and rendered every conceivable
service.
No systematic description of the organization of the imperial household
has come to hand. Scattered allusions reveal the presence of very
numerous groups of officials, agents, and servants of all grades.
Teachers, physicians, scholars, valets, chamberlains, butlers, cooks,
kitchen servants, musicians, poets, generals, captains, guards,
equerries, hostlers, herdsmen, elephant-drivers, and stablemen, ministers
of state, judges, treasurers, secretaries, swarmed about the great halls
and myriad chambers of the palaces at Agra, Delhi, and Fatehpur-Sikri.
These, with the tradespeople who made their living by supplying the
household but who were less directly attached to the emperor, constituted
a migratory city of large size, which followed the emperor from residence
to residence and in time of campaign swelled almost unbelievably the
following of his enormous army.
As for the court life which went on at the center of this vast and
multi-colored setting, this was necessarily twofold, by that custom of
all Moslem lands according to which the sexes must be segregated. Daily
assemblages, gatherings at the mosques on Fridays, great ceremonies
for special occasions, and the imperial hunts contained none but men as
participants. If women saw any part of such festivities, it was from a
distance and through thick veils or close-wrought lattices. Khondamir
says that Humayun divided his attendants into three great classes,
concerned respectively with government and war, with learning and
literature, and with music and personal grace and beauty. The latter
were called “people of pleasure ... because most people take great
delight in the company of such young-looking men, of rosy cheeks and
sweet voices, and are pleased by hearing their songs, and the pleasing
sound of the musical instruments, such as the harp, the sackbut, and the
lute.” Humayun devoted Sundays and Tuesdays to dealings with the first
class, holding audience and attending to government duties on those
days. Saturdays and Thursdays were days when “the tree of the hope” of
literary and religious persons “produced the fruit of prosperity by
their obtaining audience in the paradise-resembling court.” Mondays and
Wednesdays were devoted to pleasure parties, when old companions and
chosen friends were entertained by musicians and singers. On Fridays were
convened “all the assemblies,” whatever this may mean; and the emperor
sat with them as long as he could.
The splendor of the court may be illustrated by two or three extracts.
Nizam-uddin Ahmad relates that Akbar, journeying in the fifteenth year
of his reign, accepted an invitation to rest at Dipalpur. “For some days
feasting went on, and upon the last day splendid offerings were presented
to him. Arab and Persian horses, with saddles of silver; huge elephants,
with chains of gold and silver, and housings of velvet and brocade; and
gold and silver, and pearls and jewels, and rubies and garnets of great
price; chairs of gold, and silver vases, and vessels of gold and silver;
stuffs of Europe, Turkey, and China, and other precious things beyond
all conception. Presents of similar kind also were presented for the
young princes and the emperor’s wives. All the ministers and attendants
and dignitaries received presents, and every soldier of the army also
participated in the bounty.”
Sir Thomas Roe describes a curious annual ceremony of the Mogul emperors
as carried through by Jehangir. “The first of September was the King’s
Birth-day, and the solemnitie of his weighing, to which I went, and was
carryed into a very large and beautiful Garden, the square within all
water, on the sides flowers and trees, in the midst a Pinacle, where was
prepared the scales, being hung in large tressels, and a crosse beame
plated on with Gold thinne: the scales of massie Gold, the borders set
with small stones, Rubies and Turkeys, the Chaines of Gold large and
massie, but strengthened with silke Cords. Here attended the Nobilitie,
all sitting about it on Carpets until the King came; who at last appeared
clothed or rather loden with Diamonds, Rubies, Pearles, and other
precious vanities, so great, so glorious; his Sword, Target, Throne to
rest on, correspondent; his head, necke, breast, armes, above the elbows,
at the wrists, his fingers every one, with at least two or three Rings;
fettered with chaines, or dyalled Diamonds; Rubies as great as Wal-nuts,
some greater; and Pearles such as mine eyes were amazed at. Suddenly he
entered into the scales, sate like a woman on his legges, and there was
put in against him many bagges to fit his weight, which were changed
six times, and they say was silver, and that I understood his weight to
be nine thousand rupias, which are almost one thousand pounds sterling:
after with Gold and Jewels, and precious stones, but I saw none, it being
in bagges might be Pibles; then against Cloth of Gold, Silk, Stuffes,
Linen, Spices, and all sorts of goods, but I must believe for they were
in sardles. Lastly against Meale, Butter, Corne, which is said to be
given to the Banian.” The extract neglects to state that the ceremony was
followed by the distribution as largesse of all the valuables weighed
against the royal person with its heavy adornments.
Bernier describes an audience of Aurangzeb. “The king appeared seated
upon his throne at the end of the great hall in the most magnificent
attire. His vest was of white and delicately flowered satin, with a silk
and gold embroidery of the finest texture. The turban of gold cloth had
an aigrette whose base was composed of diamonds of an extraordinary
size and value, besides an oriental topaz which may be pronounced
unparalleled, exhibiting a lustre like the sun. A necklace of immense
pearls suspended from his neck reached to the stomach. The throne was
supported by six massy feet, said to be of solid gold, sprinkled over
with rubies, emeralds, and diamonds. It was constructed by Shah-Jehan
for the purpose of displaying the immense quantity of precious stones
accumulated successively in the Treasury from the spoils of ancient
_Rajahs_ and _Pathans_, and the annual presents to the monarch which
every Omrah is bound to make on certain festivals. At the foot of the
throne were assembled all the Omrahs, in splendid apparel, upon a
platform surrounded by a silver railing and covered by a spacious canopy
of brocade with deep fringes of gold. The pillars of the hall were hung
with brocades of a gold ground, and flowered satin canopies were raised
over the whole expanse of the extensive apartment, fastened with red
silken cords from which were suspended large tassels of silk and gold.
The floor was covered entirely with carpets of the richest silk, of
immense length and breadth.”
As regards the female side of the court, although this had almost
a separate organization and was, in keeping with Moslem and Indian
tradition, to a large extent secluded, yet the imperial ladies possessed
a measure of freedom through two centuries which allowed several of them
to stand forth as distinct individuals, and a few to influence affairs
profoundly. Jehangir assigned to the women of the household the sixth
and fifth orders, or arrows, of rank. Akbar is said to have kept five
thousand women in his harem. As usual, however, only a few of these were
wives or votaries of the imperial pleasure; most of them constituted an
elaborate organization for the housekeeping and entertainment of the few
great ladies, the mother, aunts, sisters, wives, and favorites of the
emperor. As already indicated, these women were of all kinds,—free-born
and slave, Moslem, Christian, and pagan, Turki, Afghan, Persian,
Hindu, Armenian, Slavic, Circassian, Georgian, and Ethiopian. Their
communication with the outside world was kept up through their relatives
and through eunuchs.
A few of the imperial ladies may be mentioned. The princess Gul-Badan,
third daughter of Baber and Dil-Dar, wrote a history of the deeds of her
half-brother, Humayun. In her later life she went with other great ladies
on pilgrimage to Mecca, taking seven years for the journey; one-half
of this time she spent in Arabia, where she performed the rites of the
pilgrimage four times. After twenty more years filled with works of piety
and charity she died at the age of eighty. Her nephew, Akbar, with his
own hand helped bear her to the tomb.
Most powerful of all the Mogul imperial ladies was the Persian Nur-Jehan,
or Nur-Mahal, wife of Jehangir. Born in poverty and actually cast away
by her parents, she rose to the throne of command. Mohammad Hadi says
that “by degrees she became, in all but name, undisputed sovereign of the
empire, and the king himself became a tool in her hands. He used to say
that Nur-Jehan Begam has been selected, and is wise enough, to conduct
the matters of state, and that he wanted only a bottle of wine and a
piece of meat to keep himself merry. Nur-Jehan won golden opinions from
all people. She was liberal and just to all who begged her support. She
was an asylum for all sufferers, and helpless girls were married at the
expense of her private purse. She must have portioned above five hundred
girls in her lifetime, and thousands were grateful for her generosity.”
Not only could she rule the empire effectively, if not always wisely and
impartially, but she could lead armies. Defeated at last by Shah-Jehan,
she put on perpetual robes of mourning for her dead husband and spent her
last eighteen years in devoted seclusion.
Mumtaz-Mahal, niece of Nur-Jehan and wife of Shah-Jehan, did not aspire
to political control. She held fast the heart of her imperial husband and
became the mother of his fourteen children. The incomparable Taj Mahal,
built by the emperor after her untimely death, bears eternal witness to
great love followed by great grief.
Last may be mentioned two of the daughters of Mumtaz-Mahal, Jehan-Ara and
Raushan-Ara. These ladies, like Charlemagne’s daughters too great for
matrimony, stirred up much trouble in the imperial household. Jehan-Ara
was her father’s favorite in his decadent old age, and an active partisan
of her brother Dara. Of vast influence for many years, she was at
length overshadowed by Raushan-Ara, who supported Aurangzeb and rose to
greatness with his advancing fortunes. Bernier was well-nigh overcome
by a distant view of this lady’s majesty. “I cannot avoid dwelling on
this pompous procession of the Seraglio. Stretch imagination to its
utmost limits, and you can imagine no exhibition more grand and imposing
than when Raushan-Ara Begam, mounted on a stupendous Pegu elephant, and
seated in a _meghdambhar_ blazing with gold and azure, is followed by
five or six elephants with _meghdambhars_ nearly as resplendent as her
own, and filled with ladies attached to her household (and succeeded by
the most distinguished ladies of the court) until fifteen or sixteen
females of quality pass with a grandeur of appearance, equipage, and
retinue, more or less proportionate to their rank, pay, and office. There
is something very impressive of state and royalty in the march of these
sixty or more elephants; in their solemn and as it were measured steps,
in the splendour of the _meghdambhars_, and the brilliant and innumerable
followers in attendance; and if I had not regarded this display of
magnificence with a sort of philosophical indifference, I should have
been apt to be carried away by such flights of imagination as inspire
most of the Indian poets, when they represent the elephants as conveying
so many goddesses concealed from the vulgar gaze.”
THE GOVERNMENT PROPER
“The authority of the Great Mogul was despotic by all its origins: by
the fact of the conquest, by the Turkish tradition, by the tradition of
the old royalties of the country”;[798] and also, it may be added, by
the practice of Islamic governments since the abandonment of Medina as
the seat of the caliphs. The conquering chief owned all the conquered
land, and the wealth and labor and lives of its inhabitants were at his
disposal. As for the restriction of despotism by the Sacred Law, the
house of Baber did not feel this strongly until late. On the other hand,
even a drunkard like Jehangir had a keen sense of the responsibility
of his high position. The emperor considered it his duty to maintain
order, reward faithful service, and sit daily on the bench of justice
to redress the wrongs of his people. Aurangzeb is reported by Bernier
to have expressed his feeling of responsibility by saying: “Being born
the son of a king and placed on the throne, I was sent into the world
by Providence to live and labour, not for myself, but for others; ...
it is my duty not to think of my own happiness, except so far as it is
inseparably connected with the happiness of my people. It is the repose
and prosperity of my subjects that it behoves me to consult; nor are
these to be sacrificed to anything besides the demands of justice, the
maintenance of the royal authority, and the security of the State.” One
of his letters to his imprisoned father contains these words: “Almighty
God bestows his trusts upon him who discharges the duty of cherishing his
subjects and protecting the people. It is manifest and clear to the wise
that a wolf is no fit shepherd, neither can a faint-hearted man carry
out the great duty of government. Sovereignty is the guardianship of the
people, not self-indulgence and profligacy. The Almighty will deliver
your humble servant from all feeling of remorse as regards your Majesty.”
The sole fountain of legislation, the emperor observed economy in the
issuance of it, making use, so far as possible, of established Islamic
practice and immemorial custom. Yet from time to time, by administrative
regulations, ordinances, and decrees, he sought to improve the methods of
government. Aurangzeb, so much like Suleiman in many other respects, like
him also ordered and financed the compilation of a code of the Sacred
Law. It does not appear, however, that any such quantity of personal
legislation was issued by him or by any other Mogul emperor as by the
great Ottoman.
The succession to the Mogul throne never became regular, since neither by
Mongol nor by Moslem custom was any one method prescribed. Nor did the
more kindly disposition of the house of Baber ever permit the publication
of such a decree as that of Mohammed II for the execution of brothers
upon the accession of a sovereign. Accordingly the resources of the
empire were apt to be wasted in civil wars between father and son, and
between older and younger brothers. Even the sons of Baber engaged in
civil war: Kamran, aided by Askari and Hindal, fought against Humayun.
Akbar’s brothers were so young that he had no rival at the time of his
accession. His two elder sons drank themselves to death; but this did not
prevent Selim, who became the emperor Jehangir, from rebelling against
his father and hastening the latter’s death. Jehangir’s two sons rebelled
against him in turn. Shah-Jehan’s four sons, Dara, Shuja, Murad, and
Aurangzeb, fought together until the last encompassed the death of the
others, besides keeping his father a prisoner during the last seven years
of life. The mournful story need not be carried beyond the fierce civil
war which followed the death of Aurangzeb, in which two of his sons were
slain. Clearly, the Ottoman method was more practical if less humane. So
unstable was the personal situation of the emperor that, if he failed to
show his face in public daily, the empire fell into commotion and civil
war became imminent. From the uncertainty of the succession the state, at
least, derived this benefit, that the fittest of the candidates for power
was likely to obtain the throne. Nevertheless, as Dow says, “to be born
a prince” of the Mogul Empire was “a misfortune of the worst and most
embarrassing kind. He must die by clemency, or wade through the blood of
his family to safety and empire.”
As the army was the defence and prop of the Mogul government, so finance
was its sustenance. Here again the regulations of the Sacred Law were
but scantily observed. Akbar, aided by Todar Mal and extending the
methods of the Afghan Sher Shah, reduced to order and regularity the
existing revenue system, which in the course of centuries of varying
rule had become much confused. By ancient custom of India, the sovereign
as primary owner of the land was entitled to one-third of the crops in
kind. It was Akbar’s task to change the system to a more modern money
régime, a step in progress which the Ottomans have not been able to
take even to the present day. In classical times as in late years,
India, importing less of other commodities than she exported, steadily
absorbed gold and silver. It is likely that a large share of the wealth
of the newly-discovered Americas had already by Akbar’s day made its way
to India through the increasing Portuguese trade, and that Columbus,
Cortes, and Pizarro thus unwittingly gave him the means of modernizing
his land revenue. Several great tasks were involved in the change. All
the cultivated land of India had to be measured, its quality judged,
its average annual produce for the first nineteen years of Akbar’s
reign calculated, and the amount of the government’s share for each
tract reduced to current money. At first, it was attempted to renew
the settlement annually; but, since this proved very difficult in a
large and conservative land, a ten-year basis was eventually adopted.
When the British came to power they found the revenue in a state of
confusion which indicated that at some time during the Mogul period the
evaluation had ceased to be made regularly, modifications of the last
assessment having then been introduced successively, until all system had
disappeared.
The imperial revenue was collected by a separate hierarchy of officials.
The great provinces were divided into districts, or _sirkars_, in each
of which a _Diwan_ was chief financial agent. His office was the _Defter
ali_, and his clerks were _Mutasidis_. In lesser districts the collectors
were _Amils_ or _Karoris_, the treasurers _Fotadars_. _Karkums_ were
appointed to settle disputes and audit accounts. The crown revenue
might be farmed out, in areas of a size comparable to the _jagirs_,
to officials known as _Zamindars_ or _Talukdars_, who in the days of
decline strove to make their position hereditary. In the local unit, or
_pargana_, the government was represented by a _Kanungo_, who kept the
records of assessments and payments. Akbar took measures also to bring
under cultivation waste and abandoned lands, and appointed for this
purpose _Karoris_, whose efforts were attended with much success. In
the best days the imperial financial officers acted as a check upon the
civil and military officials, upholding alike the interests of emperor
and common people. Evidence exists, however, that even in the time of
Akbar there was financial corruption, and that revenue officials were not
lacking who plundered the people and defrauded the emperor.
The granting of _jagirs_ to officers and _Rajahs_, of pensions to learned
men and others, and of land in full title, free from revenue, for
religious foundations seems to have diverted from the royal treasury
about two-thirds of the possible land revenue. On the other hand, it
has been estimated that the emperor received from customs, tolls,
miscellaneous taxes, and presents an amount equal to what he got from the
land. Careful calculations have resulted in ascribing to Akbar a revenue
of over two hundred million dollars annually, and to Aurangzeb as much
as four hundred and fifty million dollars. Suleiman’s revenue would then
have been not the tenth part of Akbar’s and Louis XIV’s not the tenth
part of Aurangzeb’s.
This revenue was expended upon the standing army, the court, the support
of learned and religious persons, a series of building operations which
were perhaps costly beyond parallel, bountiful gifts at certain seasons,
and regular charities. It would appear, farther, that the expenses of the
provincial governments were deducted from the imperial land revenue after
it had been estimated but before it was paid into the treasury. In spite
of the lavish outflow, however, an enormous treasure seems to have been
accumulated. By Mandelslo it was estimated in 1638 at the incredible sum
of one and a half billion crowns, equivalent to about the same number of
dollars!
It was probably because of the greatly increased revenue which Akbar
obtained by his new method that he found it possible to remit the
_jizyeh_ or capitation tax on non-Moslems, and also the tax on pilgrims,
which had made the earlier Moslem rule obnoxious to the Hindu population.
On the other hand, it may have been not merely religious zeal, but also
financial stress caused by the civil wars preceding his accession, by
the Rajput revolt, by the long struggle in the Deccan, and by the pious
remission of many taxes not authorized by the Sacred Law, including the
tax on Hindu temple lands, that influenced Aurangzeb to reimpose the
capitation tax, and thus open wide the rifts in his disintegrating empire.
In the days of its greatness, the budget of the Mogul Empire, alike in
income and expenditure, reached a height which had rarely if ever been
attained before. That of the East Roman Empire under the Macedonian
dynasty, and of the Saracen Empire in the days of Harun Al-Rashid, may
have rivalled it; but it is probable that only the great Western powers,
enriched by the industrial revolution in the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries, have ever reached a financial magnitude beyond that
of the empire of Aurangzeb.
Humayun divided the responsibilities of government among four ministers,
and a fourfold division persisted at least as late as Aurangzeb. By a
curious form of logic the classification of duties and the names of the
four departments were based, not on convenience, but on relation to the
four elements: earth, air, fire, and water. The _Khaki_ department had
the care of agriculture, buildings, and domain lands; the _Hawai_, of the
wardrobe, the kitchen, the stables, and the like; the _Ateshi_, of the
artillery and the making of war material and other things in which fire
was employed; and the _Abi_, of the emperor’s drinks, and canals, rivers,
and water-works. When Khondamir wrote, about 1534, one man had oversight
of all four departments; but the development of a regular supreme
official of great power, like the grand vizier of the Ottoman Empire,
seems never to have taken place, no doubt because the imperial house did
not abandon the tradition of personal government.
Humayun set aside two days of the week for business of state. Drums were
beaten to summon officials and give notice that the hall of audience
was open. Any subject might appear and ask for justice. Suits of fine
apparel and purses of money were at hand to reward the worthy, and
executioners stood by with drawn swords to punish the guilty. Guns were
fired at the close of the audience to notify officials that they might
retire. Aurangzeb held general court in the great hall of audience for
two hours on regular days. Persons who had petitions to present held
them up, and these were taken by the emperor, read by him, and often
granted on the spot. On at least one day in the week he sat with the two
_Kazis_ of the city, and on another day he heard privately ten cases of
persons of low rank. In the evening the chief officers were commanded
to be present in a smaller hall, where Aurangzeb sat to “grant private
audiences to his officers, receive their reports, and deliberate on
important matters of state.” This gathering resembled the Divan of
Suleiman, but it lacked most of the latter’s judicial work; in India such
work was done by the chief judges sitting separately, or by the emperor
in the great audiences. Furthermore, it was the sovereign and not a grand
vizier who presided in this council. The assembly was deliberative in
matters of policy and general administration, and judicial in that it had
jurisdiction of cases which involved officers of high rank.
For purposes of local government the empire was divided into _subahs_,
or provinces, each under a _Nawab_ (a plural of majesty, from _naib_,
often called “nabob” by Westerners), or governor. Under Akbar the number
of _subahs_ varied from fifteen to eighteen. Like the _Beylerbeys_ of
the Ottoman Empire, the _Nawabs_ tended to increase in number, the size
of their provinces diminishing accordingly. The _Nawab_ was almost a
little emperor in his province. He held audiences, commanded the army,
conferred lesser titles, appointed and dismissed most officials, and
was the highest judicial authority. His power was limited, however, by
the emperor’s right to recall him, by the right of appeal in judicial
cases from him to the emperor, and by the fact that the financial and
judicial officers were separately appointed and were responsible only to
the throne. The _Nawab_ and his court were supported by lands granted
in _jagir_. He might suspend the _jagirs_ of officers pending imperial
decision. He was responsible for the security and order of his province,
and had _Faujdars_ under him in the several districts, who exercised
military command and the powers of chief of police and police judge,
their position resembling somewhat that of the _Sanjak Beys_ of the
Ottoman system. The chief financial officers in each province were the
_Diwans_, who, as explained above, collected the imperial revenue and
had oversight of all lesser revenue officers. They and their deputies
possessed judicial powers in cases concerning finance and land titles.
The chief judge of the province, subject however to appeals to the
governor, was the _Nizam_. He heard the serious criminal cases, and his
deputy, the _Daroga Adaulat al Aulea_, attended to most of the important
civil ones. Local _Kazis_, aided by _Muftis_, _Mohtesibs_, and _Kutwals_
or mayors, kept order in the smaller cities and districts. _Rajahs_ who
had made terms with the emperor exercised powers very similar to those
of the _Nawabs_. Their positions were secured by heredity, however, and
in their provinces the imperial financial and judicial officers had no
jurisdiction. They simply owed military service and a certain amount
of tribute, failing in which they might be reduced by force of arms.
The Ottoman system contained no subjects who were at once so secure of
their positions, so nearly independent, and so powerful as the _Rajahs_.
Kurdish, Albanian, and Arabian chieftains were perhaps as secure and as
independent, but they were of very small wealth and might; while the
Voivodes of Wallachia and Moldavia were not so secure or so independent.
The condition of the common people under this government is to be known
mainly by inference. Various documents and acts show the benevolent
intentions of emperors and high officials toward the masses. Whether from
wise prevision or from genuine charitable feeling, there appears to have
been much solicitude lest the cultivators of the soil should be reduced
to utter penury or driven from their lands. Akbar, for instance, issued
strict orders that on military expeditions nothing should be taken
from the people without careful assessment and immediate or subsequent
payment. Nevertheless, at the best the result of the general policy
was to leave the cultivator little more than a bare living. The whole
system drained away wealth to a few great cities and a comparatively
few persons. If but few complaints rose from the masses, it was because
their lot was no worse than that of their forefathers had been for many
generations. Aside from the periods of civil war, the Moguls gave peace
and order. Akbar removed internal tolls two centuries before such a thing
was accomplished in France, and thus made of the land a single economic
unit, with the result that in his reign India as a whole enjoyed such
prosperity as she has known at very few other periods in her history.
Before the time of Aurangzeb special care was taken to conciliate the
Hindus. Akbar adopted definitely the policy of equal treatment for all,
a degree of toleration not to be found in the contemporary Europe of
William the Silent and Henry of Navarre. The government strove to abolish
or mitigate such Hindu practices as were abhorrent to Mohammedanism, and
at least one Moslem practice which offended the Hindus. Child-marriage,
the ordeal, and animal sacrifice were forbidden. Widows were to be
burned on the funeral pyres of their husbands only with their own full
consent, and those who preferred to live might marry again. In the Rajput
tributary states Hindu law of course prevailed. Probably in the regions
under direct Mogul rule Hindus were judged by their own law when Moslems
were not concerned and perhaps even by their own judges. It is true that
the Hindus had to wait until Akbar came to be released from the personal
disabilities imposed by earlier Moslem conquerors, that their temple
lands were taxed until the time of Aurangzeb, and that Brahmans, pundits,
and fakirs were perhaps only in Akbar’s presence treated with respect
equal to that accorded _Sheiks_, _Seids_, and _Ulema_. But the emperors
and their officers gave like justice to all; they permitted every man
to worship according to the rites of his forefathers, and apparently
never had a thought, as had Selim the Cruel, of giving to all non-Moslem
subjects the choice between Islam and death. There was little ground for
discontent until Aurangzeb began to apply a harsher policy.
THE MOSLEMS AND THE MOSLEM CHURCH
In comparison with conditions in the Ottoman Empire, Moslems and
non-Moslems in the India of the early Moguls were far more nearly on
a level. This was due not merely to the toleration and indifference
of the emperors, but even more to the circumstances of the conquest,
under which both groups were treated alike, since Baber at Panipat in
1526 subdued the Moslem Lodi Sultans of Delhi, and at Kanwaha in 1527
the Hindu Rajput confederacy. Indian-born worshippers of Allah and of
Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva were mingled in the same vast mass of conquered
subjects, equally separated from the victorious invaders. There was also,
in all probability, a much greater difference of race between Baber’s
highlanders and the Moslems that he found in India than between the
latter and the Hindus; for many inter-marriages had taken place, and
many natives of India had joined the followers of the Prophet. Time, of
course, diminished this distinction.
Suleiman was distinctly the head of the Moslems of his empire. Through
his appointee the _Sheik-ul-Islam_, through his _Hoja_, the _Kaziaskers_,
the _Nakib-ol-Eshraf_, and other learned and saintly personages, he kept
in close touch with the religious chiefs of the Mohammedan population.
All who prayed toward Mecca, at least from the older portions of the
Ottoman Empire, were attached by many ancient ties to the house of Osman.
Their ancestors had perhaps been converts through its activities, had
certainly fought for it, and had seen its gradual and vigorous rise to
greatness. No such vital bonds joined to the Moguls the great mass of
their Moslem subjects. These remembered the glories and favors of lost
dynasties, and were indebted to the new sovereigns only for defeats
and humiliations which depressed them toward the level of the Hindus,
whom they had for centuries held to be far inferior to themselves. They
had no _Sheik-ul-Islam_, honored by the sovereign with a seat above
his own, whose decisions might determine the fate of the ruler or of
the empire. Almost as much to them as to the Hindus the emperor was a
stranger and a foreigner, to whom should be rendered, because of his
power, full submission and instant obedience, but not loyal affection and
whole-hearted devotion. There was ever an absence of solidarity between
the house of Timur and those Moslem subjects who had not come into India
in the service of that house, and this was not least among the elements
of weakness that shortened the life of the empire. When Rajputs had
been stirred to revolt, when Mahrattas had grown great, when bronzed and
capable Moguls had been supplanted by “pale persons in petticoats,” who
were left to rally about the tottering throne? More than two and a half
centuries have elapsed since the Ottomans ceased to draw systematically
from the strength of the Christian population, and yet the fighting stock
of their Moslem subjects has never failed or grown weak or faltered in
its loyalty; but Aurangzeb’s successors found few upon whom to rely,
and of this few a very small proportion who would sacrifice their own
fortunes freely, who would be faithful unto death.
The Moguls found in India _Sheiks_, _Dervishes_, _Seids_, and _Ulema_,
mosques, schools, and pious foundations in abundance. In fact, the
developed system of Mohammedanism had extended itself over India with
visible results very much like those in all other Moslem lands, among
them the Ottoman Empire. From the ranks of those educated in Moslem lore
were taken teachers, judges, and counselors-at-law.
There must have existed for the children of the Moslem population
_mektebs_, ordinary _medressehs_, and law schools, in which the Arabic
language and the sciences built upon the Koran, as well as the Persian
language and literature were taught. No doubt, also, the imperial
household contained systems of education, arranged for the two sexes
separately and prepared to train imperial and noble children and young
attendants, servants, and slaves in the knowledge which was thought best
adapted to fit them for life. It is interesting to notice what impression
the teaching regularly given to a young prince made (if Bernier can be
trusted) upon the keen intellect of Aurangzeb. When the latter became
emperor, his old teacher, it appears, confidently presented himself at
Delhi for reward. What, then, must have been his surprise to receive such
a deliverance as this from the lips of majesty!
“Was it not incumbent upon my preceptor to make me acquainted with the
distinguishing features of every nation of the earth; its resources and
strength; its mode of warfare, its manners, religion, form of government,
and wherein its interests principally consist, and, by a regular course
of historical reading, to render me familiar with the origin of States;
their progress and decline; the events, accidents, or errors, owing to
which such great changes and mighty revolutions have been effected?... A
familiarity with the language of surrounding nations may be indispensable
in a king; but you would teach me to read and write Arabic; doubtless
conceiving that you placed me under an everlasting obligation for
sacrificing so large a portion of time to the study of a language wherein
no one can hope to become proficient without ten or twelve years of close
application. Forgetting how many important subjects ought to be embraced
in the education of a prince, you acted as if it were chiefly necessary
that he should possess great skill in grammar, and such knowledge as
belongs to a Doctor of Law; and thus did you waste the precious hours
of my youth in the dry, unprofitable, and never-ending task of learning
words!... Ought you not to have instructed me on one point at least, so
essential to be known by a king, namely, on the reciprocal duties between
the sovereign and his subjects? Ought you not also to have foreseen that
I might at some future period be compelled to contend with my brothers,
sword in hand, for the crown, and for my very existence? Such, as you
must well know, has been the fate of the children of almost every king of
Hindustan. Did you ever instruct me in the art of war, how to besiege a
town, or draw up an army in battle array? Happy for me that I consulted
wiser heads than thine on these subjects! Go! withdraw to thy village.
Henceforth let no person know either who thou art or what is become of
thee.”
In this rebuke, whether it comes chiefly from Bernier or from Aurangzeb,
is excellent criticism upon the stereotyped Moslem education, and
material enough to cheer the hearts of modern advocates of a closer
relation between subjects of instruction and the business of life.
The lack of solidarity between the mass of the Moslems of India and
the Mogul government, together with the religious indifference of
several emperors, prevented the Moslem church there from reaching the
full measure of the dignity, influence, and authority of the Moslem
Institution in the Ottoman Empire. Humayun’s division of the household
into three classes shows that he gave highest rank not to the clergy
but to princes of the blood, with nobles and ministers of state and
military men. “The holy persons, the great _Musheiks_ (religious men),
the respectable _Seids_, the literati, the law officers, the scientific
persons, poets, besides other great and respectable men formed the second
class.” The orders, or arrows, of nobility show a little more definitely
the place of the Moslem learned men, since they are assigned to the tenth
order, after the monarch and the princes of the blood and the _Rajahs_.
In the palace-city of Fatehpur-Sikri, Akbar built a great hall, the
Ibadat-Khana, to which he repaired on holy nights with _Sheiks_, _Seids_,
_Ulema_, and nobles. Finding that his followers could not keep the peace
when mingled indiscriminately, he assigned one of the four sides of the
hall to each group. Here he was accustomed to listen to theological
discussions; and it appears that what he heard tended to destroy his
respect for the faith of the Prophet, and to predispose his mind toward
the eclectic religion which he instituted later. Says Badauni: “The
learned doctors used to exercise the sword of their tongues upon each
other, and showed great pugnacity and animosity, till the various sects
took to calling each other infidels and perverts.” In course of time
Akbar obtained a document signed by the principal _Ulema_, to the effect
that a just ruler is higher in the eyes of God than a doctor of the law
(_Mujtahid_), that Akbar was a just ruler, and that therefore his decrees
in matters of religion were binding upon the world. This declaration
placed Akbar distinctly above the Moslem church and at least on a level
with the prophet Mohammed; and he seems even to have played with the
idea that he was himself God. Certainly he hoped to unify all creeds
by his “divine faith.” His son and grandson were not much interested
in religion, and not at all inclined to assume actively the religious
headship of the empire; under them, the Moslem church had to take care of
itself. Religious interest appeared again in Aurangzeb, not in any spirit
of free inquiry, but in a rigid conformity to the rules of the Sacred
Law. From those youthful days when he preferred the meagre life of a
saint to the splendors of princely state, down to the long-deferred close
of his troubled career, Islam knew no more faithful observer of its rites
and prescriptions. In Aurangzeb’s reign and in his alone did the Moslem
religion take such a place in India as in the Turkey of Suleiman’s time.
The learned Moslems of the Mogul Empire never had as the head of their
hierarchy a personage of such dignity and power as the _Sheik-ul-Islam_
of Constantinople. The _Sadr Jehan_ appears to have been concerned
chiefly with the granting of land from the treasury to learned and
religious persons in lieu of pensions. The hierarchy of judges seems to
have been complete, at least in territory that was directly administered,
with two officials at court who corresponded to the _Kaziaskers_ of
Suleiman, and with _Kazis_ of high rank in the chief city of each
province and of lesser rank in other cities; but the functions of these
officers appear to have been more closely restricted than in the Ottoman
Empire, by reason of the superior jurisdictions of the emperor and
the governors, and of the criminal and financial jurisdictions of the
_Nizams_ and _Diwans_ and their deputies. As there is little mention of
the _muftis_, it would seem that their rôle was not very important.
The Moslem church in India was not of the very fabric of empire. The
imperial family and most of their associates in government adhered to it;
but it had no thorough control of education and justice, and no power
to sanction war or pronounce the deposition of an emperor. It did not
curb the spirit of the nation or lay a heavy hand upon progress; but, as
it was relatively unable to hinder by its weaknesses, so it could not
contribute its abiding strength. The Mogul Empire is but a memory. The
Moslem church of India thrives and grows under the rule of aliens of
another faith.
BOOKS CONSULTED IN THE PREPARATION OF APPENDIX IV
BADEN-POWELL, B. H. A short account of the land revenue and its
administration in British India. 2d edition. Oxford, 1907.
BAYLEY, SIR E. C. The local Muhammadan dynasties. Gujarát. London,
1886.—A sequel to Elliot’s History of India.
BERNIER, FRANÇOIS. Travels in the Mogul empire, A.D. 1656-1663.
Westminster, 1891.—[As quoted by Lane-Poole and others.]
CRICHTON, A. S. The Mohammedans as rulers of India. In _The Moslem
World_, i. 99-116. London, 1911.
DOW, ALEXANDER. The history of Hindostan. 3 vols. London, 1770-1772.
ELLIOT, SIR H. M., and DOWSON, JOHN. The history of India, as told by
its own historians. 8 vols. London, 1867-1877.—Vol. v (1873) contains
extracts from Khondamir, Badáúní, Nizam uddin Ahmad, etc.
GUL-BADAN BEGAM. The history of Humāyūn (Humāyūn-nāma). Translated by
Annette S. Beveridge. London, 1902.
HOLDEN, E. S. The Mogul emperors of Hindustan. New York, 1895.
HUNTER, SIR W. W. A brief history of the Indian peoples. 23d edition.
[Oxford, 1903.]
IRVINE, WILLIAM. The army of the Indian Moghuls; its organization and
administration. London, 1903.
—— The Bangash Nawabs of Farrukhabad. J. R. A. S., Bengal, 1878, 340 ff.
KEENE, H. G. The fall of the Moghul empire of Hindustan. New edition.
London, 1887.
—— The Turks in India. London, 1879.
LANE-POOLE, STANLEY. Aurangzíb. (Rulers of India series.) Oxford, 1893.
LANE-POOLE, STANLEY. Bábar. (Rulers of India series.) Oxford, 1899.
—— Mediæval India under Mohammedan rule (A.D. 712-1764). New York, 1903.
LYALL, SIR A. C. The Moghul empire. In _Cambridge Modern History_, vi.
506-529. New York, 1909.
MALLESON, G. B. Akbar. (Rulers of India series.) Oxford, 1908.
RAMBAUD, ALFRED. Organisation de l’empire mongol. In Lavisse and
Rambaud’s _Histoire Générale_, vi. 878-883. Paris, 1895.
RITCHIE, LEITCH. A history of the oriental nations. 2 vols. London, 1848.
ROE, SIR THOMAS. Journal of his embassy to the court of the Great Mogul.
1615-1619. In Hakluyt Society’s publications, 2d series, vols. i-ii.
London, 1899.—[As quoted by Lane-Poole and others.]
APPENDIX V
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
I. SOURCES OF OTTOMAN GOVERNMENTAL IDEAS
Three traceable lines of influence can be followed from the earliest
times until their appearance in the Ottoman government of the sixteenth
century. The oldest began in Egypt, and continued down through various
dynasties until the Roman conquest, after which it began to enter the
Roman imperial government. From this it passed to the Byzantine and
thence to the Ottoman system. Locally again it followed a more direct
course through the Fatimides and Mamelukes until the time of Selim I’s
conquest of Egypt. The slave government of the Mamelukes offers an
interesting subject for comparison with the Ottoman Ruling Institution.
It would be superfluous to give references for this line of development,
except perhaps to mention Sir William Muir’s book, _The Mameluke or Slave
Dynasty of Egypt_ (London, 1896), and Stanley Lane-Poole’s _Egypt in the
Middle Ages_ (London, 1901).
The second line, which seems to have contributed a greater number of
elements, came down in the Bagdad-Euphrates valley through various
governments to the Saracen and Seljuk empires, from which it passed to
the Ottomans. Here again no general references need be given. Perhaps
the most useful book in connection with the subject is D. B. McDonald’s
_Moslem Theology, Jurisprudence, and Constitutional Theory_ (New York,
1903).
The third and most direct line of influence is through the Tatars
of the steppe lands. In A. H. Keane’s _Man, Past and Present_
(Cambridge, England, 1899) there is a full and clear discussion of the
anthropological relationships of the Turks. E. H. Parker’s _A Thousand
Years of the Tartars_ (London, 1895) gives an account which is based
closely upon the Chinese sources, but which would be helped by the
addition of as many of the two or three thousand notes which he did not
print as would show the sources of his information. The Chinese story
of the great Tatar empire of the sixth century A.D. may be found in
Stanislas Julien’s _Documents Historiques sur les Tou-Kioue_ (Paris,
1877). W. Radloff’s _Alttürkischen Inschriften der Mongolei_ (Leipsic,
1894-95) discusses the earliest known Turkish monuments, which date
from the eighth century. Emil Bretschneider’s _Medieval Researches from
Eastern Asiatic Sources_ (2 vols., London, 1888, new edition, 1910) gives
an account of the Uigurs, whose greatness came in the eighth and ninth
centuries and whose name persisted until at least the twelfth century, as
is shown by the oldest known Turkish book, which is in their dialect.
This old book has been printed, with original Syriac text,
transliteration into Roman characters, and German translation, by
Arminius (Hermann) Vambéry, under the title _Uigurische Sprachmonumente
und das Kudatku Bilik_ (Innsbruck, 1870). The _Kudatku Bilik_, the
“Wisdom that Blesses,” written at Kashgar in 1068 by Yusuf Khass Hajil,
is really an “Art of Government,” composed for the instruction of a
Turkish prince. It contains in rhymed couplets, arranged in chapters,
a large amount of advice on governmental matters, much of it being in
the form of proverbs. The book throws a great deal of light on the
fundamental Ottoman character. Vambéry has also made a study, on a
philological basis, of the civilization of the Tatars, entitled _Die
Primitive Cultur des Türko-tatarischen Volkes_ (Leipsic, 1879).
A book equally remarkable with the _Kudatku Bilik_ is the _Siasset
Namèh_, written in 1092 for the Seljuk sultan Melek Shah by the great
vizier Abu ’Ali al Hasan b. Ishaq (known better by his title, the Nizam
al-Mulk), and printed in the original Persian, with a French translation,
by Charles Schéfer, Paris, 1893. This “Book of Government” reveals to
some extent three things,—the methods of government of Sassanian times,
the actual government under Melek Shah, and the Seljuk government as
the Nizam al-Mulk would have it. It also sheds much light upon Ottoman
institutions.
The best general book on the Turks in Central Asia and their activities
down to the occupation of Asia Minor is undoubtedly Léon Cahun’s
_Introduction à l’Histoire de l’Asie: Turcs et Mongols_ (Paris,
1896). The same ground is covered briefly by Cahun in Lavisse and
Rambaud’s _Histoire Générale_, vol. ii. ch. xvi. There is a great
deal of information about the Persians and the Seljuk Turks in E. G.
Browne’s _Literary History of Persia_ (2 vols., London, 1902-1906).
Maximilian Bittner has made a valuable study of the Turkish language,
entitled _Der Einfluss des Arabischen und Persischen auf das Türkische_
(Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, _Sitzungsberichte der
Philosophisch-Historischen Classe_, vol. cxlii. pt. iii. Vienna, 1900).
Sir W. M. Ramsay’s books are valuable for a study of the settlement
of the Turks in Asia Minor, particularly his _Historical Geography of
Asia Minor_ (London, 1890), _The Geographical Conditions determining
History and Religion in Asia Minor_ (with comments by D. G. Hogarth, H.
H. Howorth, and others, _Geographical Journal_, September, 1902, xx.
257-282), and _Studies in the History and Art of the Eastern Provinces
of the Roman Empire_ (Aberdeen, 1906). Volume V of H. F. Helmolt’s
_Weltgeschichte_ (Leipsic, etc., 1905) is useful for its attempt to trace
the elements of Ottoman culture which were derived from Byzantine and
other sources. William Miller’s _The Latins in the Levant_ (New York,
1908) gives a clear picture of the confused and divided state of affairs
to which the Ottomans put an end in their rough way.
II. THE OTTOMAN GOVERNMENT IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY
Abundant material for a study of the sixteenth-century Ottoman government
has been provided and preserved; for the great place which the expanding
empire held in the world developed an immense interest in its affairs
on the part of the West, and made it worth the while of many of its
Western residents to prepare descriptions of its outstanding features,
among which its peculiar government was treated with special fulness.
The writings of these men of various Western nationalities are in a way
more helpful than a similar number of books from native writers would
be, because the foreigners could usually take nothing for granted,
but were compelled to draw a complete picture. They could not, on the
other hand, get at the inner springs of the Ottoman activity as well
as natives could; nor do any of them, with the exception of Menavino,
seem actually to have read and known the Ottoman laws. Fortunately,
Ottoman historians began to write abundantly shortly before the reign of
Suleiman. For Suleiman’s own time, the collections of his _Kanuns_ (since
he was noted as a legislator) contain much material which helps toward
an understanding of his government; moreover, writers of a later date
have been drawn with special interest toward his reign, as the climax of
Ottoman greatness. At the same time, no one but Zinkeisen has attempted
to give an extended account of the Ottoman government as it was in the
sixteenth century.
No reasonably complete bibliography of books relating to Turkey has been
made. The following lists are worthy of mention as giving information in
regard to the material for a study of Turkish history and institutions
before the year 1600:—
Richard Knolles gives a bare list of his authorities, to the number of
about twenty-five, at the beginning of his _Generall Historie of the
Turkes_, London, 1603.
J. H. Boecler published at Bautzen in 1717 a _Commentarius
Historico-Politicus de Rebus Turcicis_, in which he gives, at pp. 14-41,
a list of 317 works on Turkish history and affairs, including 45 folio
volumes, 128 quartos, 98 octavos, and 45 duodecimos.
Joseph von Hammer discusses his authorities in the preface to volume i
of his _Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches_ (Pest, 1827); and in volume
x, pp. 57-336 (1835), he prints a list containing 3,025 titles of works
relating to Ottoman history which were to be found in Europe outside of
Constantinople.
Amat di San Filippo, in his _Biografia dei Viaggiatori Italiani_, etc. (2
vols., Rome, 1882), gives accounts of many of the early Italian writers
on Turkish affairs.
Henri Hauser, in his edition of Du Fresne-Canaye, described below (p.
319), prints as Appendix II an _Essai d’une Bibliographie des Ouvrages
du XVIe Siècle relatifs au Levant_. The list, which does not pretend to
completeness, contains about 60 different titles.
The catalogue of the library of Count Paul Riant, published in two parts
at Paris in 1899, also contains the titles of a great number of books
and pamphlets which relate to the subject under discussion. Most of this
material has been transferred to the Ottoman collection of the Library of
Harvard University, through the generosity of Messrs. J. R. Coolidge and
A. C. Coolidge,—a gift, it may be added, that has made the preparation
of the present treatise possible. There are also many titles on early
Ottoman history in the catalogue of Charles Schéfer’s Oriental library
(published at Paris in 1899), from which the same donors have contributed
445 volumes to the Harvard Ottoman collection.
The list given in the _Cambridge Modern History_, i. 700-705, in
connection with Professor J. B. Bury’s chapter on “The Ottoman Conquest,”
is fuller than most of those just mentioned. It omits some valuable
authorities, however, such as Schiltberger, Menavino, Ramberti, and
Busbecq.
It is possible to get contemporaneous views of the Ottoman Empire at a
date earlier than the beginning of the sixteenth century, though they are
all incomplete. The first accounts go back to the battle of Nicopolis
in 1396. Froissart (_Chroniques_, ed. Lettenhove, xv. 319 ff., Brussels,
1871), in a description of the battle and succeeding events which was
based on accounts given by Jacques du Fay and Jacques de Helly, gives
some idea of the Turkish army and the sultan. A better account for the
present purpose is that by Johann Schiltberger (translated into English
by J. B. Telfer, and published by the Hakluyt Society as _The Bondage
and Travels of Johann Schiltberger_, London, 1879). Schiltberger, then
a youth of sixteen, was taken prisoner at Nicopolis, and after serving
as slave to Bayezid I for six years, was captured by Timur at the battle
of Angora, 1402. He was retained as captive, not without important
responsibilities and wide journeys, for twenty-five years longer, when
he succeeded in escaping. It is a matter for regret that he says very
little of his life at the sultan’s court, since he held a position which
corresponded to that of page in later times.
Another general account of the Turkish polity comes from the pen of
Bertrandon de la Broquière, first gentleman-carver (_écuyer tranchant_),
councillor, and chamberlain of Duke Philip the Good of Burgundy. In the
course of a trip through the Levant he met Murad II in Rumelia in 1433.
His observations show that many features of the Turkish system were then
already in operation,—as the four pashas, the slave system, the pages,
the imperial harem, the Janissaries (_Jehanicéres_), the feudal army, the
Divan, etc. La Broquière’s memoirs are edited by Charles Schéfer, under
the title _Le Voyage d’Outremer_, as volume xii of _Recueil de Voyages et
de Documents pour servir à l’Histoire de la Géographie depuis le XIIIe
jusqu’à la fin du XVIe Siècle_ (Paris, 1892). The same volume contains an
opinion in regard to the military power of the Turks by Jehan Torzelo,
dating from the year 1439.
Still another report was written by a Transylvanian whose name remains
unknown, but who was a slave in Ottoman private families from 1436 to
1453. Evidently he had before his capture been a theological student
who held some of the ideas that preceded the Reformation movement. His
book had a great vogue after the year 1509, under various titles, such
as: Ricoldus, _De Vita et Moribus Turcarum_, Paris, 1509 (the attachment
to the name of Ricoldus is purely accidental); _Libellus de Ritu et
Moribus Turcarum_, Wittenberg, 1530 (with a preface by Martin Luther);
S. Frank, _Cronica-Abconterfayung_, etc., Augsburg, 1531; _Tractatus de
Moribus_, etc. The Wittenberg edition has been used in this treatise,
and is referred to as _Tractatus_. Although most of the book is
theological and argumentative, it affords a great deal of information.
Among other things, it contains what is probably the earliest mention of
the tribute children as the regular means of recruiting the Janissaries
(_Ginnitscheri_).
The next good contemporary account of the Ottoman system is given in the
history of Chal(co)condyles (written in Greek), of which there are many
editions and translations. The one used here is the French translation,
_Histoire de la Décadence de l’Empire Grec et Établissement de celui des
Turcs_, Rouen, 1670. This writer, whose story comes down to 1465, speaks
out of his own observation in describing the Ottoman camp and government.
The oldest authentic _Kanuns_ are in the _Kanun-nameh_ of Mohammed II,
which is translated by Hammer in his _Staatsverfassung_ (Vienna, 1815),
87-101.
The earliest book that was devoted to a description of Ottoman manners,
religion, and government is by Teodoro Spandugino Cantacusino. Born of
an Italian father and a Greek mother, he spent his life alternately in
the East and the West. His book describes the empire as it was under
Bayezid II, who died in 1512, his information about the government being
obtained from two very high renegade officials, probably Messih Pasha and
Hersek-Zadeh Ahmed Pasha. The earliest edition was printed in French at
Paris in 1519 under the title _Petit Traicté de l’Origine des Turcqz_;
later editions, with and without his name, or under the name of B.
Gycaud, bear the title _La Généalogie du Grant Turc à Présent Regnant_,
etc. The edition used here is a reprint of the first French issue, edited
with notes by C. Schéfer, Paris, 1896. This writer is sometimes quoted as
Spandugino, and sometimes as Cantacusino. The first form is used in the
present treatise.
A book that is even more valuable in some ways is Giovanni Antonio
Menavino’s _Trattato de Costumi et Vita de Turchi_. The edition used
here was printed in Florence in 1548. Menavino came of a wealthy Genoese
family. About the year 1505, when he was twelve years of age, handsome,
bright, and well educated for his years, he was captured near Corsica
by corsairs, and set aside as a gift suitable for the sultan. Taken to
Bayezid II, he pleased the old sultan greatly, and was placed at once
in the school of pages, where, as his book shows throughout, he must
have profited greatly by the teaching that he received. He describes the
religion, customs, and government of the Ottomans in much detail. In 1514
he was taken by Selim I on the expedition against Persia; but he managed
to escape to Trebizond, whence he made his way to Adrianople, Salonika,
and thence home to Genoa.
A group of excellent sources for studies of both the government and the
history of the Ottoman Empire in the sixteenth century is found in the
reports which the Venetian _Bailos_ and orators extraordinary presented
to their Senate.
Venice, says Ranke, “frequently sent her most experienced and able
citizens to foreign courts. Not content with the despatches on current
affairs regularly sent home every fourteen days, she further required
of her ambassadors, when they returned after an absence of two or three
years, that they should give a circumstantial account of the court and
the country they had been visiting.”[799] Since Constantinople was in
the sixteenth century the station of first importance in the Venetian
diplomatic service, it is safe to assume that the sons whom she sent
there were her most intelligent.
A number of these Venetian reports, which do not, however, reach far
into Suleiman’s reign, are summarized by Marini Sanuto the Younger in
his voluminous _Diarii_, 1496-1533 (58 vols. in 59, Venice, 1879-1903).
The reports of Alvise Sagudino in 1496, and of Andrea Gritti in 1503,
are quoted by Schéfer in the introduction to his edition of Spandugino’s
work, noticed above. Rinaldo Fulin, in his _Diarii e Diaristi Veneziani_
(Venice, 1881) reprints Sanuto’s abstract of the Itinerary of Pietro
Zeno, orator at Constantinople in 1523.
The Venetian reports for the reign of Suleiman are all, so far as
preserved and known, collected in the invaluable work of Eugenio Alberi,
_Relazione degli Ambasciatori Veneti al Senato_ (15 vols., Florence,
1839-1863). The three volumes of the third series (published 1840, 1844,
1855, respectively), as well as a portion of the fifteenth volume or
Appendix, are devoted to Turkish reports. Volume i of this series is
also separately printed as _Documenti di Storia Ottomana del Secolo XVI_
(Florence, 1842). A few writings are included in these volumes which were
not reports to the Venetian senate.
In all, thirty-nine documents are thus presented, of which sixteen fall
within the reign of Suleiman. Unfortunately there is a gap between the
years 1534 and 1553, a period for which there should be eight or ten
documents of great value bearing on the Ottoman dealings with France,
Austria, Spain, and Persia.
These volumes contain much helpful apparatus, such as a glossary of
Turkish words (vol. i); notes on the Venetian embassies to the Porte in
the sixteenth century, with a list of the Venetian representatives (vol.
ii); biographical notes concerning the writers (all three volumes);
chronological tables, genealogies, etc. (Appendix). The Venetians were
particularly interested in the financial side of the Ottoman government,
its mechanism, its army, and its fleet. Many character descriptions
of great personages enliven the pages. The last pages of the Appendix
contain a chronological index of the _Relazione_ and the other writings
included; also an alphabetical list of them by authors, and chronological
lists by countries. The subjoined list of reports from Constantinople
is taken from page 435, and will serve as a means of locating many
references in the foregoing pages. The more valuable reports are
distinguished by asterisks.
VENETIAN REPORTS FROM CONSTANTINOPLE
as given in Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series, 3 vols. and Appendix
(Florence, 1840-1863)
Writer Date Volume Page
Gritti, Andrea 1503 iii 1
Giustiniani, Antonio 1514 ” 45
Mocenigo, Alvise 1518 ” 53
Contarini, Bartolomeo 1519 ” 56
Minio, Marco 1522 ” 69
Zen, Pietro 1524 ” 93
Bragadino, Pietro 1526 ” 99
Minio, Marco 1527 ” 113
Zen, Pietro 1530 ” 119
*Ludovisi, Daniello 1534 i 1
*Navagero, Bernardo 1553 ” 33
_Anonimo_ ” ” 193
*Trevisano, Domenico 1554 ” 111
*Erizzo, Antonio 1557 iii 123
*Barbarigo, Antonio 1558 ” 145
Cavalli, Marino 1560 i 271
Dandolo, Andrea 1562 iii 161
Donini, Marcantonio ” ” 173
*Barbarigo, Daniele 1564 ii 1
Bonrizzo, Luigi 1565 ” 61
Ragazzoni, Jacopo 1571 ” 77
*Barbaro, Marcantonio 1573 i 299
Barbaro, Marcantonio ” Append. 387
Badoaro, Andrea ” i 347
*Garzoni, Costantino ” ” 369
Alessandri, Vincenzo 1574 ii 103
_Anonimo_ 1575 ” 309
*Tiepolo, Antonio 1576 ” 129
*Soranzo, Giacomo ” ” 193
Venier, Maffeo 1579 i 437
_Anonimo_ 1582 ii 209[800]
_Anonimo_ ” ” 427
Contarini, Paolo 1583 iii 209
*Morosini, Gianfrancesco 1585 ” 251
Michiel, Giovanni 1587 ii 255
Venier, Maffeo ” ” 295
*Moro, Giovanni 1590 iii 323
*Bernardo, Lorenzo 1592 ii 321
*Zane, Matteo 1594 iii 381
An interesting small pamphlet is the _Auszug eines Briefes ... das
Türckich Regiment unn Wesen sey_, which was printed in a South-German
dialect in 1526. It purports to be a letter from a German settled at
Adrianople to his cousin in Germany, telling of his life as subject
Christian under the sultan. The literary arrangement is so good, and the
statements diverge so uniformly toward the dark side, that this would
seem to be a pamphlet written in Germany for the purpose of arousing
alarm and activity after the battle of Mohacs.
Hieronymus Balbus, bishop of Gurk, published at Rome in 1526 a little
book of two essays addressed to Clement VII. The second part, “continens
Turcarum Originem, Mores, Imperium,” etc., was also commended to the
Archduke Ferdinand. The work makes up for a conspicuous lack of definite
and accurate information by means of abundant scriptural and classical
quotations and allusions, vituperation of the Turks, and assertion of
their military ineffectiveness. It is chiefly valuable as an evidence of
the “Turkish fear.”
A book that had a wide influence is _Turcicarum Rerum Commentarius_
addressed by Paolo Giovio, or Paulus Jovius, bishop of Nocera, to Emperor
Charles the Fifth, and dedicated at Rome in 1531. It was published in
several languages; the edition used here is the Latin one, Paris, 1539.
The book is historical except for the last ten pages, which contain a
description of the Ottoman government with particular reference to its
military resources. Giovio published also in two volumes at Florence, in
1550-1552, _Historiarum sui Temporis Tomus Primus_ [_et Secundus_].
V. D. Tanco, or Clavedan del Estanco, a Spanish gentleman, wrote in his
native tongue a book that was translated into Italian and published
at Venice in 1558 under the title _Libro dell’ Origine et Successione
dell’ Imperio de’ Turchi_. The basis of the work is the _Commentarius_
of Jovius, just noticed; but this has been intelligently combined with
information from Froissart, Aeneas Sylvius, and others. The latest date
mentioned is 1537, and the death of Ibrahim in 1536 is not known.
A very valuable and interesting work is the _Libri Tre delle Cose de
Turchi_, etc., published by Aldus in Venice in 1539, and reprinted often
thereafter. It appears also as one of the component parts of the work
published by Aldus in 1543, _Viaggi fatti da Vinetia, alla tana ...
in Costantinopoli_, known sometimes simply as _Viaggi alla tana_, or
“Travels to the Don.” The book appeared anonymously, but it has been
attributed with much confidence to Benedetto Ramberti (see Alberi,
_Relazione_, 3d series, iii. 8; _Archiv für Oesterreichische Geschichte_,
1897, lxxxiii. 9; _Revue Critique_, 1896, i. 20-21). Ramberti accompanied
Ludovisi to and from Constantinople during the first six months of 1534.
The book was written in the same year; for it shows that Barbarossa was
made pasha while it was in process of composition (see above, Appendix
I, p. 246, and, for the fact that Barbarossa was back in Algiers, May 9,
1534, see Ursu, _La Politique Orientale de François I_, Paris, 1908, p.
79), and in a long characterization at the close of the third book it
represents Luigi (Alvise) Gritti, who was assassinated in Hungary late in
1534, as still living.
The first book of the three describes the journey overland from Ragusa to
Constantinople; the third book contains observations of no great value
on the power and policies of the Turks. The second book is the _pièce de
résistance_. It opens with a brief description of Constantinople and a
rapid sketch of the origin and history of the Ottoman Turks. An account
of the Turkish government follows, beginning with the inside service
of the household of the sultan, proceeding to the outside service,
then taking up the chief officers of government, the Janissaries, the
_Spahis_ of the Porte and the auxiliary branches of the army. The harem,
the palaces of the pages, the _Ajem-oghlans_, and the arsenal are next
described; then the feudal army is explained as it was constituted in
Europe and in Asia; and, finally, a list of the sanjakates of the empire
is given. The Italian used is fairly good, and the style is very simple,
often degenerating to the mere cataloguing of officers. Throughout the
book the financial aspect of the government is emphasized strongly, the
incomes of all persons mentioned being carefully stated. This second book
of Ramberti is of so great importance to the present treatise that it is
given in translation as Appendix I. The text used is that of the _Viaggi
... alla tana_ (Venice, 1543).
Standing in exceedingly close relationship to the second book of Ramberti
is a twenty-two page pamphlet bearing the name of Junis Bey (Ionus Bei).
Written in broad Venetian dialect and printed on coarse paper in type of
a poor quality, not kept clean, it is in two portions, respectively of
eight and fourteen pages, which are distinguished by the use of larger
and smaller type. The title-page bears the inscription “reprinted in
1537.” The sixth page begins the list of pashas with the statement that
“Ibrahim of Parga is dead,” and then gives the name of his successor in
the office of grand vizier. On the seventeenth page it is said that the
territories of the _Beylerbey_ of Mesopotamia “border” those of Bagdad
which belong to Persia (Bagdad was taken by Suleiman in the winter of
1535 and 1536); on the eighteenth occurs the remark that Alvise Gritti
“says” such and such a thing; and at the close the book is attributed
to “Ionus bei” and “Signor Aluise gritti.” Now, Junis Bey was in Venice
from December 6, 1532, to January 9, 1533 (thesis of Theodore F. Jones,
p. 168, Harvard College Library); Gritti was assassinated in 1534; Junis
Bey was again in Venice from January 15 to February 17, 1537 (Jones,
209). It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that the first edition
of the pamphlet was printed at Venice in 1533 at the time of Junis Bey’s
first visit, and that at the time of his second visit in 1537 the first
eight pages were recast with a few changes, and in certain unsold copies
substituted for the older pages, the remainder being left as it stood
originally, despite the erroneous reference to Gritti.
It is very clear that Ramberti had before him while preparing his “second
book” a document almost identical with this pamphlet. Beginning with his
description of the sultan’s household service, the order of treatment
is practically the same, and even the words and phrases are often the
same, except for differences of dialect. His language frequently suggests
that he is expanding on some material before him. It is worthy of note,
however, that not only Ramberti’s use of Italian, but also his use of
Turkish, is frequently better than that of Junis Bey. Moreover, in
his list of officials he includes the _Mufti_ and the chief dragoman
(_Terjuman_), whom Junis Bey leaves out, the latter omission being the
more remarkable in that Junis Bey held that office himself. On the
other hand, where there are differences in numbers, Junis Bey is more
apt to be correct than Ramberti. It seems not unlikely that both works
were derived from a manuscript, more nearly complete and correct than
either, in the possession of Alvise Gritti, which the latter allowed the
two writers to use, Junis Bey probably in 1532 and Ramberti in 1534.
Alvise Gritti was well known to both. Natural son of the doge Andrea
Gritti, he had won high favor with Ibrahim, who entrusted him with great
responsibilities. In fact, it may not be too bold a conjecture to suggest
that some of the information contained in his manuscript came from the
celebrated Grand Vizier himself. Aside from this possibility, a minute
survey of the Ottoman government, prepared by Gritti himself or with
his collaboration, either for his own use or for the information of his
kinsfolk the Venetians, possesses a presumption in favor of its accuracy
and truthfulness. Accordingly the closing words, “all is true,” may be
accepted with little reserve.
These two works, by Ramberti and Junis Bey, were much used by other
writers on Turkish affairs. Postel shows a close acquaintance with them,
and Geuffroy frequently does little more than present a translation.
Ramberti was incorporated into a number of the collected works in regard
to the Turks which appeared in various languages after the middle of the
sixteenth century and thus entered into systematic histories. Since the
pamphlet of Junis Bey is very rare, its text is presented in Appendix II,
above. Besides matter very similar to that of Ramberti, it contains near
the end an account of the order of march of the sultan’s army when he
went to war.
Guillaume Postel is perhaps the broadest-minded of the sixteenth-century
observers. He gives evidence of having had a legal training, and of
having reflected along political and constitutional lines. Nicolay, in
his preface, informs us that Postel knew Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Chaldean,
Syriac, and Arabic, as well as the principal Western languages. He
was sent by Francis I with the momentous embassy of La Forêt, and was
therefore in Constantinople about the year 1535. He seems to have made a
later visit for the purpose of acquiring manuscripts; but the substance
of his book, as appears from numerous references, dates from the first
visit. The volume was printed at Poitiers in 1560, but was not published
till 1570. It contains three parts, separately paged:—
I. _De la République des Turcs_; II. _Histoire et Considération de
l’Origine, Loy, et Coustume des Tartares ... Turcs_, etc.; III. _La
Tierce Partie des Orientales Histoires, où est exposée la Condition,
Puissance, & Revenue de l’Empire Turquesque_, etc. The first part gives,
among other things, an excellent account of the page system and of
Ottoman law and justice. The third part is built upon the information in
Ramberti and Junis Bey; it describes the page system further, and adds a
good account of the _Ajem-oghlans_ and the Janissaries. By a reference it
shows acquaintance with Giovio.
Antoine Geuffroy, knight of St. John, issued in 1542 his _Briefve
Description de la Court du Grand Turc_. Four years later this was
published in English by R. Grafton under the title _The Order of the
Great Turcks Court of Hye Menne of War_; and from thirty to fifty years
later it appeared, combined with other material, in large volumes in the
Latin and German tongues under the name of N. Honigerus or Haeniger,
with a Latin translation by G. Godelevæus, entitled _Aulae Turcicae,
Othomannicique Imperii Descriptio_, etc. The work of Geuffroy thus had
a great vogue. It was a sound, intelligent description of the empire,
built upon the information in Ramberti and Junis Bey. By references and
allusions it shows acquaintance with Froissart, Spandugino, and Giovio.
The references to Geuffroy in the foregoing pages are to the reprint in
Schéfer’s edition of Jean Chesneau, described below.
Bartholomew Georgevitz, pilgrim to Jerusalem, issued a small book, _De
Turcarum Moribus Epitome_, which passed through many editions in two or
three languages, the first dating not later than 1544, and the latest not
earlier than 1629. The chapters are on various topics and from various
sources. The first, on the rites and ceremonies of the Turks, is abridged
from Spandugino. The second, on the Turkish soldiery, is by Georgevitz
himself; it is perhaps the most valuable, and shows by the age assigned
to Prince Mustapha that it was written about 1537. The fourth chapter
gives useful Turkish phrases, and is interesting as showing how Turkish
words were pronounced in the sixteenth century. The fifth chapter gives
a full account of the treatment of slaves of private citizens, written
by one who had been a slave, apparently Georgevitz himself. The edition
referred to in this treatise was printed at Paris in 1566.
Jérome Maurand accompanied Captain Pinon on his mission to Constantinople
in 1544. A few years later he wrote, in Italian, an account of his
journey, which was translated by Léon Dorez as _Itinéraire de Jérome
Maurand d’Antibes à Constantinople_, and published at Paris in 1901 as
vol. xvii of _Recueil de Voyages_, etc.
Before 1549, Ibrahim Halebi, the jurist, prepared by command of Suleiman
the codification of the Sacred Law which bears the name of _Multeka
ol-ebhar_, and which formed the foundation of D’Ohsson’s great work.
Jean Chesneau went to Constantinople with D’Aramont, ambassador of Henry
II of France, and accompanied him on Suleiman’s campaign against Persia
in 1549. His narrative, which is not very illuminating or accurate, was
edited by Charles Schéfer and published at Paris in 1887, under the
title, _Le Voyage de Monsieur d’Aramon_, as vol. viii of _Recueil de
Voyages_, etc. Bound in the same volume are five letters in the Italian
language, written from Constantinople in 1547 by the ambassador Veltwyck
to Archduke Ferdinand of Austria; there is also (at pp. 227-248) a
reprint in French of the first edition of Geuffroy.
Nicolas de Nicolay of Dauphiné, royal geographer and extensive
traveler, who wrote a book called _Discours et l’Histoire Véritable des
Navigations, Pérégrinations et Voyages faicts en la Turquie_, is not
the least interesting of sixteenth-century authorities on Turkey. His
account of his voyage from Marseilles to Constantinople in the year 1551
in the train of the Seigneur d’Aramont, ambassador of Henry II, and the
drawings from life with which he embellishes his book, show his capacity
for exact observation. In his descriptions of the customs and government
of the Ottoman Empire, however, he does not reveal the possession of
much first-hand information. Menavino is here his principal source of
knowledge. The first edition of his book appeared at Lyons in 1567; it
was translated into several languages and reproduced often. An enlarged
edition, published at Antwerp in 1586, is the one referred to in the
foregoing pages. The plates in the book, about sixty in number, have been
said to be the work of Titian; but this is apparently incorrect, for
the preface merely states that Nicolay drew from life on the spot and
afterwards had the drawings reproduced “_avec fraiz & labeur incroyable_.”
From a literary point of view, Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq is by all odds
the most interesting of sixteenth-century sources for the study of
Ottoman history and government. The charm of his style should not obscure
the facts that he was a keen and exact observer possessed of a true
scientific spirit, and that he reflected carefully on what he saw. He
wrote on Turkey during his period of service as ambassador from Charles
V to Suleiman between 1555 and 1562. One of his four Turkish letters was
printed in Antwerp in 1581, and since that time at least twenty-seven
editions and reprints have appeared in seven languages. The edition of
his _Life and Letters_, in two volumes, translated from the original
Latin by C. T. Forster and F. H. B. Daniell (London, 1881), has been
used in this treatise, as has also his _De Re Militari contra Turcam
instituenda Consilium_, as printed in a complete edition of his writings
published at Pest in 1758, pp. 234-277.
Philippe Du Fresne-Canaye, a young Huguenot gentleman, was sent by his
family to Venice for safety in the troubled days after the massacre of
St. Bartholomew; and he took advantage of his nearness to the Levant
to visit Constantinople in 1573. He had prepared himself for his visit
by reading Ramberti, Postel, Nicolay, and others, but he does not seem
to have learned much that was not in those authorities. His _Voyage du
Levant_ was edited for publication in Paris in 1897 by Henri Hauser, as
vol. xvi of _Recueil de Voyages_, etc. Hauser’s Appendix II contains the
bibliography of sixteenth-century works relating to the Levant which is
mentioned above (p. 308).
The _Kanun-nameh_ of Suleiman, collected by the _Mufti_ Ebu su’ud, who
died in 1574, contained a number of the Sultan’s _Kanuns_ relating
mainly to financial and feudal matters. A translation of the incomplete
table of contents of the Turkish manuscript copy of this _Kanun-nameh_
(which is in the Imperial Library at Vienna, Fluegel No. 1816) is given
above as Appendix III. Many of the _Kanuns_ are translated in Hammer’s
_Staatsverfassung_, pp. 396-424, where they are erroneously attributed to
Achmet I.
A little anonymous book, _The Policy of the Turkish Empire_, published
at London in 1597, contains an interesting preface. The remainder of
the book deals only with the Turkish religion, and is drawn mainly from
Menavino, with some incorporation from Spandugino and Georgevitz.
At the conclusion of Richard Knolles’s _Generall Historie of the Turkes_
(London, 1603), is to be found “A Briefe Discourse of the Greatnesse of
the Turkish Empire,” written probably in the year of publication, since
the story comes down to the accession of Achmet I in 1603. The lands
of the empire, “of all others now upon earth farre the greatest,” are
described, its revenues are set forth, the Timariotes, the Janissaries,
the chief officers of state, and the fleet receive notice, and the
Turkish power is compared with that of all states which touch its
frontiers. It is to this part of Knolles’s work (as printed in the 6th
edition of his History, with Ricaut’s continuation, London, 1687, ii.
981-990) that most of the references in the foregoing pages are made.
Pietro Della Valle, known as Il Pellegrino, or The Pilgrim, wrote _Viaggi
... in la Turchia, la Persia, e l’India_, which was published in two
volumes (four parts) at Rome in 1658-1663. He was in Constantinople
in 1614 and 1615, and took advantage of every opportunity to witness
a ceremony. Observant of costumes and jewels, he could not esteem the
Turkish officials highly, because they were all slaves. The references in
this treatise are to the second edition of the first part, published in
1662.
Many collections based on the above-mentioned writings and on others were
issued after the middle of the sixteenth century, and many surveys of the
Ottoman Empire were prepared as time went on. Of the latter, three stand
forth as of sufficient importance to throw light on sixteenth-century
conditions:—
Sir Paul Ricaut, a resident of Turkey for many years, issued late in the
seventeenth century _The History of the Present State of the Ottoman
Empire_. He explains that he obtained his information from Turkish
records from high officials, from members of the Ulema, and from a Pole
who had passed through the school of pages and had spent nineteen years
in all at the Ottoman court. Ricaut was evidently a student of political
philosophy; he seems to have relied especially upon Tacitus, the civil
law, Machiavelli, and Lord Bacon. His book was printed in several
languages, has been much quoted since, and deserves the fame it received.
The sixth English edition, published in London in 1686, is used here. The
book is also printed at the end of the second volume of his edition of
Knolles’s _Turkish History_, London, 1687.
Ignatius Mouradgea D’Ohsson, born in Turkey and long a resident there,
prepared between 1788 and 1818 his great _Tableau Général de l’Empire
Othoman_. He based his work on the _Multeka ol-ebhar_ (see above, p. 318)
which with its comments he rearranged and translated, adding to it a
great many observations of his own. The book appeared in two forms, the
huge folio edition being a magnificent example of the bookmaker’s art.
The smaller edition of the book (7 vols., Paris, 1788-1824) has been used
here. The last three volumes were published under the supervision of his
son after his death. Six of the seven volumes are based on the _Multeka_;
the seventh contains a full description of the government, including the
court, the ministers, the bureaus, the army, etc.
Joseph von Hammer published at Vienna, in 1815, _Des Osmanischen Reichs
Staatsverfassung und Staatsverwaltung_, in two volumes. The former is
very largely a collection of documents, such as _Kanuns_, _fetvas_, and
extracts from the _Multeka_. A large amount of valuable material is
presented; but it is only partly digested, and the author often does not
indicate clearly whence he drew his extracts. The second volume goes
over much the same ground as D’Ohsson’s seventh volume. Another work
of Hammer’s, his _Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches_ (10 vols., Pest,
1827-1835), has furnished the historical background for this treatise.
This work is extremely valuable from the fact that it is based upon
numerous inaccessible Turkish sources; but it is largely uncritical, and
it does not make sufficient use of Western authorities.
Leopold Ranke published at Hamburg in 1827 the first volume of his
excellent work, _Fürsten und Völker von Sud-Europa_. He was the first to
discern the value of the Venetian reports, and by their aid he reached
far greater accuracy than had yet been attained in attempts to describe
these great South-European empires when at the height of their power. The
English translation by W. K. Kelly, entitled _The Ottoman and the Spanish
Empires in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries_ (London, 1843), has
been used in the present treatise.
The third volume of J. W. Zinkeisen’s _Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches
in Europa_ (Gotha, 1855) has been used for its discussion of the Ottoman
government in the sixteenth century. It is based too exclusively on
the Venetian reports, which Zinkeisen seems to have regarded as always
trustworthy, and it makes little or no use of Turkish sources.
Stanley Lane-Poole, in his _Story of Turkey_, London, 1886, chapters
xiv and xvi, gives a very good summary of the structure of the Ottoman
household and administration, condensed from D’Ohsson’s seventh volume.
In Lavisse and Rambaud’s _Histoire Générale_, iv. 747 ff., there is a
brief account, by Rambaud, of the organization of the Ottoman Empire in
general. Though not accurate in every respect, it gives, on the whole, an
excellent picture.
A. Heidborn published at Vienna and Leipsic in 1909 a careful,
well-planned, and extremely valuable work entitled _Manuel de Droit
Public et Administratif de l’Empire Ottoman_. Although the principal
purpose of the book is to explain present-day conditions, the historical
background is outlined at many points. Unfortunately there is neither
table of contents nor index; but perhaps these will be supplied when the
work is extended farther. The chapters of the present volume deal with
the territory of the state, the sources and fundamental principles of
the legislation in force in the Ottoman Empire, the head of the state,
nationality, the administrative organization, and justice. The chapter on
justice occupies more than half the book, and treats fully the judicial
organization, civil and criminal law, and procedure.
In addition to the works described above, the appended alphabetical list
contains the names of a few authors whose works, though occasionally
quoted in this treatise, call for no special comment; and also the names
of a number of writers who have dealt with the government of Turkey, but
who have not been quoted because their information either is of secondary
importance or derivation, or deals with a later time, when conditions had
been changed.
III. Alphabetical List of Works Cited
ACHMET I. See KANUN-NAMEH of Achmet I.
ALBERI, EUGENIO. Relazione degli ambasciatori Veneti al senato. 15 vols.
(in 3 series). Florence, 1839-1863.—See pp. 311-313.
ALESSANDRI, VINCENZO. Relazione, 1574. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d
series, ii. 103-127. Florence, 1844.
ANGIOLELLO. Mss. in Bibliothèque Nationale, Fonds Italien, No. 1238.
AUSZUG eines briefes ... das türckich Regiment und Wesen sey. n. p.
1526.—See p. 313.
[AVENTINUS, JOHANNES.] Türckische Historien, oder Warhaftige
Beschreibunge aller Türcken Ankunfft, Regierung, u. s. w. Translated from
the Italian by Heinrich Müller. Frankfort, 1570.—Earlier edition, with
slightly different title, 1563-[1565].
BADOARO, ANDREA. Relazione, 1573. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series, i.
347-368. Florence, 1840.
BALBUS, HIERONYMUS. H ... B ... ad Clementem VII ... de civili & bellica
fortitudine liber ... cui additus est alter continens Turcarum originem,
mores, imperium, etc. Rome, 1526.—See p. 313.
BARBARIGO, ANTONIO. Sommario della relazione, 1558. In Alberi’s
_Relazione_, 3d series, iii. 145-160. Florence, 1855.
BARBARIGO, DANIELE. Relazione, 1564. _Ibid._ ii. 1-59. Florence, 1844.
BARBARO, MARCANTONIO. Relazione, 1573. _Ibid._ i. 299-346. Florence, 1840.
—— Relazione, 1573. _Ibid._ Appendix vol., 387-415. Florence, 1863.
BASSANO, LUIGI. See DU ZARE.
BAUDIER, MICHEL. Histoire généralle du serrail, et de la cour du grand
seigneur empereur des turcs. Paris, 1626.
BELIN, A[LPHONSE]. Du régime des fiefs militaires dans l’Islamisme, et
principalement en Turquie. _Journal Asiatique._ 6th series, xv. 187-301.
Paris, 1870.
—— Étude sur la propriété foncière en pays musulman, et spécialement en
Turquie. Paris, 1862.
BÉRARD, VICTOR. La révolution turque. Paris, 1909.
BERNARDO, LORENZO. Relazione, 1592. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series,
ii. 321-426. Florence, 1844.
BITTNER, MAXIMILIAN. Der Einfluss des Arabischen und Persischen auf das
Türkische. Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. _Sitzungsberichte
der Philosophisch-Historischen Classe_, vol. cxlii. pt. iii. Vienna,
1900.—See p. 306.
BOECLER, J. H. Commentarius historico-politicus de rebus Turcicis.
Bautzen, 1717.—See p. 308.
BON, OTTAVIANO. Il serraglio del gransignore (1608). [Edited by Guglielmo
Berchet.] Venice, 1865.
BONRIZZO, LUIGI. Relazione, 1565. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series, ii.
61-76. Florence, 1844.
BRAGADINO, PIETRO. Sommario della relazione, 1526. In Alberi’s
_Relazione_, 3d series, iii. 99-112. Florence, 1855.
BRETSCHNEIDER, E[MIL]. Medieval researches from Eastern Asiatic sources.
2 vols. London, 1888; another edition, 1910.—See p. 306.
BROSCH, MORITZ. The height of the Ottoman power. _Cambridge Modern
History._ Vol. iii. ch. iv. London, 1904.
BROWNE, E. G. A literary history of Persia. [2 vols.] London,
1902-1906.—See p. 306.
BURY, J. B. The Ottoman conquest. _Cambridge Modern History_, vol. i. ch.
iii. London, 1902.
BUSBECQ, OGIER GHISELIN DE. Exclamatio: sive De re militari contra Turcam
instituenda consilium, etc. In _Augerii Gislenii Busbequii Omnia quae
extant_, 234-277. Pest, [1758].—See p. 319.
—— Life and Letters. Translated by C. T. Forster and F. H. B. Daniell. 2
vols. London, 1881.—See p. 318.
CAHUN, LÉON. Introduction à l’histoire de l’Asie: Turcs et Mongols.
Paris, 1896.—See p. 306.
—— Les révolutions de l’Asie. In Lavisse and Rambaud’s _Histoire
Générale_, vol. ii. ch. xvi. Paris, 1893.—Formation territoriale de
l’Asie. _Ibid._, vol. iii. ch. xix. Paris, 1894.
CAMBRIDGE medieval history (The). Planned by J. B. Bury; edited by H. M.
Gwatkin and J. P. Whitney. Vol. i. Cambridge, England, 1911.—See PEISKER.
CAMBRIDGE modern history (The). Edited by A. W. Ward, G. W. Prothero, and
Stanley Leathes. 12 vols. and Index. London, 1902-1911.—See BROSCH, BURY.
CANTACUSINO. See SPANDUGINO.
CAVALLI, MARINO. Relazione, 1560. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series, i.
271-298. Florence, 1840.
CHAL(CO)CONDYLES, L[AONICUS]. Histoire de la décadence de l’empire grec
et éstablissement de celui des Turcs. Translated from the Greek by
B[laise] de Vigenere. Rouen, 1670.—See p. 310.
CHARDIN, SIR JOHN. Travels into Persia and the East-Indies. London, 1686.
CHARRIÈRE, E[RNEST]. Négociations de la France dans le Levant. 4 vols.
Paris, 1848-1860.
CHESNEAU, JEAN. Le voyage de Monsieur d’Aramon (1549). Edited by Charles
Schéfer, in _Recueil de Voyages_, etc., vol. viii. Paris, 1887.—See p.
318.
CONTARINI, BARTOLOMEO. Sommario della relazione, 1519. In Alberi’s
_Relazione_, 3d series, iii. 56-68. Florence, 1855.
CONTARINI, PAOLO. Relazione, 1583. _Ibid._ 209-250. Florence, 1855.
CRONICA—ABCONTERFAYUNG, etc. Augsburg, 1531.—The same as TRACTATUS, _q.
v._
DANDOLO, ANDREA. Relazione, 1562. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series,
iii. 161-172. Florence, 1855.
DAY, CLIVE. A history of commerce. New York, 1907.
DELLA VALLE, PIETRO (IL PELLEGRINO). Viaggi ... in ... la Turchia, la
Persia, e l’India. 4 pts. in 2 vols. Rome, 1658-1663 (pt. i, La Turchia,
1662, is 2d edition). — See p. 320.
DJEVAD BEY, AHMED. État militaire ottoman. Vol. i. bk. i. Le corps des
Janissaires. Translated from the Turkish by Georges Macridès. Paris,
etc., 1882.
DOCUMENTI di storia ottomana del secolo XVI. Vol. i. Florence, 1842.—The
same as Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series, i (1840). See p. 311.
D’OHSSON, IGNATIUS MOURADGEA. Tableau général de l’empire othoman. 7
vols. Paris, 1788-1824.—See p. 320.
DONINI, MARCANTONIO. Relazione, 1562. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series,
iii. 173-208. Florence, 1855.
DOREZ, LÉON. See MAURAND.
DU FRESNE-CANAYE, PHILIPPE. Le voyage du Levant (1573). Edited by Henri
Hauser in _Recueil de Voyages_, etc., vol. xvi. Paris, 1897.—See p. 319.
DU ZARE, LUIGI BASSANO. Consuetudines & ratio vitae Turcorum. Rome, 1545.
EBU SU’UD. See KANUN-NAMEH of Suleiman.
ELIOT, SIR CHARLES. Turks. _Encyclopedia Britannica_, 11th edition,
xxvii. 468-473. Cambridge, 1911.
ERIZZO, ANTONIO. Relazione, 1557. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series,
iii. 123-144. Florence, 1855.
ESTANCO. See TANCO.
FEBURE, MICHELE. L’état présent de la Turquie. Paris, 1675.
FROISSART, SIR JOHN. Œuvres (chroniques). Edited by Kervyn de Lettenhove.
25 vols. (in 26). Brussels, 1867-1877. — See p. 309.
FULIN, RINALDO. Diarii e diaristi veneziani. Venice, 1881.—See p. 311.
GARZONI, COSTANTINO. Relazione, 1573. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series,
i. 369-436. Florence, 1840.
GEORGEVITZ, BARTHOLOMEW. De Turcarum moribus Epitome. Paris, 1566.—See p.
317.
GERLACH, STEPHAN. Tage-buch (1674). Quoted in Zinkeisen’s _Geschichte des
Osmanischen Reiches_, iii. 222 ff. Gotha, 1855.
GEUFFROY, ANTOINE. Briefve description de la court du grand Turc (1542).
Edited by Charles Schéfer in _Recueil de Voyages_, etc., viii. 227-248.
Paris, 1887.—See p. 317.
GIBBON, EDWARD. The history of the decline and fall of the Roman empire.
Edited by J. B. Bury. 7 vols. London, 1906.
GIOVIO, PAOLO (JOVIUS, PAULUS). Historiarum sui temporis tomus primus [et
secundus]. 2 vols. Florence, 1550-1552.—See p. 314.
—— Turcicarum rerum commentarius. Paris, 1539.—See p. 313.
GIUSTINIANI, ANTONIO. Sommario della relazione, 1514. In Alberi’s
_Relazione_, 3d series, iii. 45-50. Florence, 1855.
GODELEVÆUS, G. [translator of GEUFFROY, _q. v._]. Aulæ Turcicæ,
Othomannicique imperii descriptio. Basel, 1569.—See p. 317.
GOLDZIHER, IGN[ATIUS]. Muhammedanisches Recht in Theorie und
Wirklichkeit. _Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft_, viii.
406-423. Stuttgart, 1889.
—— The progress of Islamic science in the last three decades. _Congress
of Arts and Science, St. Louis, 1904_ (ed. H. J. Rogers), ii. 497-517.
Boston, etc., 1906.
GRAFTON, R. [translator of GEUFFROY, _q. v._]. The order of the great
Turcks court of hye menne of war. London, 1546.—See p. 317.
GRASSI, ALFIO. Charte turque, ou organisation religieuse, civil et
militaire, de l’empire ottoman. 2 vols. Paris, 1825.
GRITTI, ALVISE (or LUIGI). See JUNIS BEY.
GRITTI, ANDREA. Relazione, 1503. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series, iii.
1-43. Florence, 1855.
GYCAUD, B. La généalogie du grant Turc á present regnant.—The same as
SPANDUGINO, _q. v._
HALIL GANEM. Les sultans ottomans. (Études d’Histoire Orientale.) 2 vols.
Paris, 1901-1902.
HAMMER, JOSEPH VON. Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches. 10 vols. Pest,
1827-1835.—See p. 321.
—— Des osmanischen Reichs Staatsverfassung und Staatsverwaltung. 2 vols.
(vol. i, Staatsverfassung; vol. ii, Staatsverwaltung). Vienna, 1815.—See
p. 321.
HAUSER, HENRI. Essai d’une bibliographic des ouvrages de XVIe siècle
relatifs au Levant. In _Recueil de Voyages_, etc., xvi. 316-320. Paris,
1897.—See p. 308. See also DU FRESNE-CANAYE.
HEIDBORN, A. Manuel de droit public et administratif de l’empire ottoman.
Vienna, etc., 1909.—See pp. 321, 322.
HELMOLT, H. F. Weltgeschichte. 9 vols. Leipsic, etc., 1899-1907.—See p.
307.
HOLDICH, T. H. Asia. _Encyclopaedia Britannica_, 11th edition, ii.
748-749. Cambridge, 1910.
HONIGERUS (or HAENIGER), NICOLAUS [German translator of GEUFFROY, _q.
v._].
HUNTINGTON, ELLSWORTH. The fringe of verdure around Asia Minor. _National
Geographic Magazine_, xxi. 761-775. Washington, 1910.
IBRAHIM HALEBI. Multeka ol-ebhar. See MULTEKA.
IDRIS, Turkish poet-historian. Quoted in Hammer’s _Geschichte_, i. 91.
Pest, 1827.
IONUS BEI. See JUNIS BEY.
JOHNSON, MRS. [SUSANNAH WILLARD]. Narrative of ... captivity.
Springfield, 1907.—Reprinted from the 3d edition, Windsor, Vt., 1814; 1st
edition, Walpole, N. H., 1796.
JONES, THEODORE F. Venice and the Porte, 1520-1542. Thesis in the Library
of Harvard University.
JORGA, N[ICOLAE]. Geschichte der Türkei. Vols. i-iv. Gotha, 1908-1912.
JOVIUS, PAULUS. See GIOVIO.
JULIEN, STANISLAS. Documents historiques sur les Tou-Kioue (Turcs),
traduite du chinois. Paris, 1877.—See p. 305.
JUNIS BEY (IONUS BEI), and ALVISE GRITTI. Opera noua la quale dechiara,
etc. Venice, 1537.—See pp. 315, 316, and Appendix II.
JUYNBOLL, T. W. Handleiding tot de Kennis van de mohammedanasche Wet.
Leyden, 1903.
KANUN-NAMEH, of Achmet I. In Hammer’s _Staatsverfassung_, pp. xvii-xix.
Vienna, 1815.
—— of Mohammed II. Translated _ibid._ 87-101. Vienna, 1815.—See p. 310.
—— of Suleiman. Collected by the Mufti Ebu su’ud, 1574; translated in
part, _ibid._ 384-427. Vienna, 1815.—See p. 319 and Appendix III.
KEANE, A. H. Man, past and present. Cambridge, England, 1899.—See p. 305.
KEENE, H. G. The Turks in India. London, 1879.
KNOLLES, RICHARD. Generall historie of the Turkes. London, 1603.—See p.
319.
—— The same, entitled “Turkish History,” with continuation by Paul
Ricaut. 3 vols. London, 1687-1700.—Knolles’s work runs, with continuous
pagination, a little way into vol. ii (pp. 837-990).—See p. 320.
KOCHI BEY. Turkish historian. Quoted in Hammer’s _Geschichte_, iii. 490,
etc. Pest, 1835.
KOHLER, J. Die Wirklichkeit und Unwirklichkeit des islamitischen Rechts.
_Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft_, viii. 424-432.
Stuttgart, 1889.
KUDATKU BILIK (Art of Government). By Yusuf Khass Hajil, 1068. See
VAMBÉRY, Uigurische Sprachmonumente, etc.
LA BROQUIÈRE, BERTRANDON DE. Le voyage d’outremer (1433). Edited by
Charles Schéfer, in _Recueil de Voyages_, etc., vol. xii. Paris,
1892.—See p. 309.
LANE-POOLE, STANLEY. A history of Egypt in the Middle Ages. London, 1901.
See p. 305.
—— The story of Turkey. London, 1886.—See p. 321.
LAVISSE, ERNEST, and RAMBAUD, ALFRED. Histoire générale du IVe siècle à
nos jours. 12 vols. Paris, 1893-1901.—See CAHUN, RAMBAUD.
LEFÈVRE, M. See FEBURE.
LIBELLUS de ritu et moribus Turcarum. Wittenberg, 1530.—The same as
TRACTATUS, etc., _q. v._
LODGE, RICHARD. The Close of the Middle Ages, 1273-1494. London, 1906.
LONICERUS, Philippus. Chronicorum Turcicorum. 2 vols. (in one).
Frankfort, 1584.
LUDOVISI, DANIELLO. Relazione, 1534. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series,
i. 1-32. Florence, 1840.
MACDONALD, D. B. Moslem theology, jurisprudence, and constitutional
theory. New York, 1903.—See p. 305.
MARSH, H. A new survey of the Turkish empire. London, 1664.
MAURAND, JÉROME. Itinéraire d’Antibes à Constantinople (1544). Edited
and translated by Léon Dorez, in _Recueil de Voyages_, etc., vol. xvii.
Paris, 1901.—See p. 317.
MAURER, CASPAR. Türckishe chronica, oder historische Beschreibung von der
Türcken Ursprung. Nuremberg, 1660.
MENAVINO, GIOVANNI ANTONIO. Trattato de costumi et vita de Turchi.
Florence, 1548.—See p. 310.
MERRIMAN, R. B. Gomara’s annals of Charles V. Oxford, 1912.
MEYER, EDUARD. Geschichte des Altertums. 2d edition. Vol. i (in 2 pts.).
Stuttgart, etc., 1907-1909.
—— Persia. _Encyclopedia Britannica._ 11th edition, xxi. 202-224.
Cambridge, 1911.
MICHELI, GIOVANNI. Relazione, 1587. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series,
ii. 255-294. Florence, 1844.
MILLER, WILLIAM. The Latins in the Levant. New York, 1908. See p. 307.
MINIO, MARCO. Relazione, 1522, 1527. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series,
iii. 69-91, 113-118. Florence, 1855.
MOCENIGO, ALVISE. Sommario delle relazioni, 1518. _Ibid._ 51-55.
Florence, 1855.
MOHAMMED II. See KANUN-NAMEH of Mohammed II.
MONTESQUIEU, BARON DE. Esprit des lois.
MORO, GIOVANNI. Relazione, 1590. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series, iii.
323-380. Florence, 1855.
MOROSINI, GIANFRANCESCO. Relazione, 1585. _Ibid._ 251-322. Florence, 1855.
MUIR, SIR WILLIAM. The Mameluke or slave dynasty of Egypt, 1260-1517.
London, 1896.—See p. 305.
MÜLLER, HEINRICH. See AVENTINUS.
MULTEKA OL-EBHAR. By Ibrahim Halebi, 1459.—See p. 318.
MYERS, P. V. N. Medieval and modern history. Revised edition. Boston,
[1905].
NAVAGERO, BERNARDO. Relazione, 1553. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series,
i. 33-110. Florence, 1855.
NICOLAY, NICOLAS DE. Discours et histoire véritable des navigations,
pérégrinations, et voyages faicts en la Turquie. Antwerp, 1586.—See p.
318.
NIZAM AL-MULK. See SIASSET NAMÈH.
PARKER, E. H. A thousand years of the Tartars. London, 1895.—See p. 305.
PEISKER, T. The Asiatic background. _Cambridge Medieval History_, i.
323-359. Cambridge, 1911.
PÉLISSIÉ DU RAUSAS, G. Le régime des capitulations dans l’empire ottoman.
2 vols. Paris, 1902-1905.
PESCHEL, OSCAR. The races of man and their geographical distribution. New
York, 1882.
POLICY (The) of the Turkish empire. [Anonymous.] London, 1597.—See p. 319.
POSTEL, GUILLAUME. [Pt. i] De la république des Turcs; [pt. ii] Histoire
et considération de l’origine, loy, et coustume des Tartares ... Turcs,
etc.; [pt. iii] La tierce partie des orientales histoires, etc. 3 pts. in
1 vol. Poitiers, 1560.—See pp. 316, 317.
RADLOFF, WILHELM. Die alttürkischen Inschriften der Mongolei. Leipsic,
1894-1895.—See p. 305.
RAGAZZONI, JACOPO. Relazione, 1571. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series,
ii. 77-102. Florence, 1844.
RAMBAUD, ALFRED. L’empire ottoman (1481-1566). In Lavisse and Rambaud’s
_Histoire Générale_, vol. iv. ch. xix. Paris, 1894.—See p. 321.
[RAMBERTI, BENEDETTO.] Libri tre delle cose de Turchi. Venice, 1539.—See
pp. 314-316, and Appendix I.
RAMSAY, SIR W. M. Geographical conditions determining history and
religion in Asia Minor. _Geographical Journal_, xx. 257-282. London,
1902. See p. 307.
—— Historical geography of Asia Minor. London, 1890.
—— Studies in the history and art of the eastern provinces of the Roman
empire. Aberdeen, 1906.
RANKE, LEOPOLD. The Ottoman and the Spanish empires in the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries. Translated by W. K. Kelly. London, 1843.—See p.
321.
RAWLINSON, GEORGE. The story of Parthia. New York, 1893.
—— The seventh great oriental monarchy. 2 vols. New York, 1882.
—— The sixth great oriental monarchy. London, 1873.
RECUEIL de voyages et de documents pour servir à l’histoire de la
géographie depuis le xiiie jusqu’à la fin du xvie siècle. Edited by
Charles Schéfer and Henri Cordier. 21 vols. Paris, 1882-1907.—See
CHESNEAU, DU FRESNE-CANAYE, GEUFFROY, HAUSER, LA BROQUIÈRE, MAURAND,
TORZELO.
REDHOUSE, SIR J. W. A Turkish and English lexicon. Constantinople, 1890.
REVUE Africaine: journal des travaux de la société historique algérienne.
55 vols. Alger, [1856]-1911.
RIANT, COUNT PAUL. Catalogue de la bibliothèque. Prepared by L. de Germon
and L. Polain. 2 pts. Paris, 1899.—See p. 308.
RICAUT, SIR PAUL. The history of the present state of the Ottoman empire.
6th edition. London, 1686.—See p. 320.
RICOLDUS. De vita et moribus Turcarum. Paris, 1509.—The same as
TRACTATUS, etc., _q. v._
ROBERTSON, WILLIAM. The emperor Charles V. 4 vols. London, 1811.
SAN FILIPPO, AMAT DI. Biografia dei viaggiatori italiani. 2 vols. Rome,
1882.—See p. 308.
SANUTO, MARINO (the younger). Diarii [1496-1533]. 58 vols., with an
additional volume of _Prefazione_. Venice, 1879-1903.
SCHÉFER, CHARLES. Catalogue de la bibliothèque orientale. Paris,
1899.—See p. 308. See also CHESNEAU, LA BROQUIÈRE, SIASSET NAMÈH,
SPANDUGINO, TORZELO.
SCHILTBERGER, JOHANN. Bondage and Travels. Translated by J. B. Telfer.
Hakluyt Society. London, 1879.—See p. 309.
SIASSET NAMÈH, traité de gouvernement composé pour le sultan Melik-Châh
par le vizir Nizam oul-Moulk [1092]. Translated by Charles Schéfer.
Paris, 1893.—See p. 306.
SNOUCK HURGRONJE, G. Le droit Musulman. _Revue de l’Histoire des
Religions_, xxxvii. 1 ff., and 174 ff. Paris, 1898.
SORANZO, GIACOMO. Relazione, 1576. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series,
ii. 193-207. Florence, 1844.
[SORANZO, JACOPO.] Relazione e diario, 1581. _Ibid._ 209-253. Florence,
1844.—See p. 313, note 1.
SPANDUGINO CANTACUSINO, TEODORO. Petit traicté de l’origine des Turcqz
[Paris, 1519]. Edited by Charles Schéfer. Paris, 1896.—See p. 310.
STEEN DE JEHAY, LE COMTE F. VAN DEN. De la situation légale des sujets
ottomans non-musulmans. Brussels, 1906.
SULEIMAN. See KANUN-NAMEH of Suleiman.
TANCO, V. D. (ESTANCO, CLAVEDAN DEL). Libro dell’ origine et successione
dell’ imperio de’ Turchi. Venice, 1558.—See p. 314.
TAVERNIER, J. B. Nova ed esatta descrizione del seraglio del gran Turco.
Milan, 1687.
TIEPOLO, ANTONIO, Relazione, 1576. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series,
ii. 129-191. Florence, 1844.
TISCHENDORF, P. A. VON. Das Lehnswesen in den moslemischen Staaten,
insbesondere im osmanischen Reiche. Leipsic, 1872.
TORZELO, JEHAN. [Opinion on the military power of the Turks, c. 1439.]
Edited by Charles Schéfer, in _Recueil de Voyages_, etc., xii. 263 ff.
Paris, 1892.
[TRACTATUS.] Libellus de ritu et moribus Turcorum ante LXX annos aeditus
[1460]. Wittenberg, 1530.—See pp. 309, 310.
TREVISANO, DOMENICO. Relazione, 1554. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series,
i. 111-192. Florence, 1840.
TÜRCKEN, BERNARDIN. Getrewe und wolmeynende kurtze Erinnerung von der
Türcken Ordnung, in iren Kriegen vñ Veldtschlachten. Burgel, 1542.
UBICINI, A[BDOLONYME]. État présent de l’empire ottoman. Paris, 1876.
URBINUS, THEOPHILUS. Türckisches Städt-Büchlein. Nuremberg, 1664.
URSU, J[ON]. La politique orientale de François I (1515-1547). Paris,
1908.
VAMBÉRY, HERMANN (ARMINIUS). Die primitive Cultur des turko-tatarischen
Volkes auf grund sprachlicher Forschungen. Leipsic, 1879.—See p. 306.
—— Uigurische Sprachmonumente und das Kudatku Bilik. Innsbruck, 1870.—See
p. 306.
VENIER, MAFFEO. Relazione, 1579, 1587. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d
series, i. 437-468, ii. 295-307. Florence, 1840-1844.
VIAGGI fatti da Vinetia, alla tana ... in Costantinopoli. Venice,
1543.—Contains Libri Tre, etc., of RAMBERTI, _q. v._
YOUSSOUF FEHMI. Histoire de la Turquie. Paris, 1909.
YUSEF KHASS HAJIL. Kudatku Bilik (Art of Government). See VAMBÉRY,
Uigurische Sprachmonumente, etc.
ZANE, MATTEO. Relazione, 1594. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series, iii.
381-444. Florence, 1855.
ZEN (or ZENO), PIETRO. Itinerario, 1523. In Fulin’s _Diarii_, 104-136.
Venice, 1881.
—— Relazione, 1524, 1530. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series, iii. 93-97,
119-122. Florence, 1855.
ZINKEISEN, J. W. Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches in Europa. 7 vols.
and Index, Hamburg and Gotha, 1840-1863.—See p. 321.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Cahun, _Introduction à l’Histoire de l’Asie_, 90.
[2] The West was much concerned in the sixteenth century with the
problem of ascertaining the origin of the Turks. Balbus gives an idea
how difficult it was to reach a definite opinion: “Some count the Turks
among the Asiatic Sarmatians, and say that they were expelled by their
neighbors from the Caspian mountains into Persia, and descended into
Asia Minor. Others, following the name, perhaps, think that this people
had its beginning in Turce, a great and opulent city of the Persians.
Others consider them the progeny of the Parthians. Some think the Turks
had their origin in Arabia, and some in Syria. But it is more likely that
they were Scythians by origin, and (as we said above) from the foot of
Mount Caucasus, and that they formerly inhabited vast deserts.” See also
Knolles, 1-2.
[3] Keane, _Man, Past and Present_, 268, 314-315. Holdich (in
_Encyclopaedia Britannica_, 11th ed., ii. 749 b) says, “As ethnographical
inquiry advances the Turk appears to recede from his Mongolian affinities
and to approach the Caucasian.” Keene (_Turks in India_, 1 ff.) is
inclined to consider the Turks a mere mixture of Mongols with Caucasians.
So bald a theory does not account for the group of Turkish languages.
[4] Keane, 267.
[5] _Ibid._ 317.
[6] _Ibid._ 322; Hammer, _Geschichte_, i. 3.
[7] Keane, 322; Hammer, _Geschichte_, i. 2; etc.
[8] Hammer, _Geschichte_, i. 1. This fact, known to Knolles (p. 2),
seems to have escaped the attention of Sir Charles Eliot (_Encyclopaedia
Britannica_, 11th ed., xxvii. 470 d).
[9] The older view, that Iran represented peoples of Indo-European stock,
and Turan peoples of Ural-Altaic stock, though once so generally adopted
as to sanction the bestowal of the names Iranian and Turanian upon these
groups of peoples, has been abandoned as regards the original legends,
in which Turan seems to have represented ruder tribes of Indo-European
lineage (Meyer, _Geschichte_, i. pt. ii. 814-815). But the Greeks
from their first acquaintance with the name identified Turan with the
Scythians, and at about the same time the Persians began to apply it to
the Northern peoples of alien stock. The conditions of frontier contact
between Turks and Persians during many centuries were undoubtedly as
described in the legends.
[10] Rawlinson, _Parthia_, 33-35; Keane, 319. Meyer (in _Encyclopaedia
Britannica_, 11th ed., xxi. 214 c) regards the Parni or Aparni, who
became the conquering tribe in Parthia, as Iranian nomads; but Peisker
(in _Cambridge Medieval History_, i. 332) asserts that the nomads of the
Asiatic background all belong to the Altaian branch of the Ural-Altaian
race. The fact that the Parthian army was a slave army (see Meyer,
as above, 217 a) is perhaps the strongest piece of evidence that the
original Parthians were Turks.
[11] Keane, 327. Asia Minor is here used in the larger sense, as denoting
in general the Asian territory which lies west of a line drawn from the
eastern end of the Black Sea to the head of the Gulf of Alexandretta.
[12] Quoted in Keane, 328, from Gibbon (ed. Bury), vi. 250.
[13] Vambéry, _Die Primitive Cultur_, 47; Keane, 328; Cahun,
_Introduction_, 169 ff.; Ramsay, _Studies in Eastern Roman Provinces_,
295.
[14] Ramsay, _Studies in Eastern Roman Provinces_, 297. This statement
has been confirmed by conversation with other persons well acquainted
with conditions in Asia Minor. See also E. Huntington, in _National
Geographic Magazine_, September, 1910, p. 767.
[15] Vambéry (_Die Primitive Cultur_, 47) expresses the opinion that the
Ottomans never received, all told, more than 25,000 men of Turkish blood.
[16] _Ottoman_ is an attempt to pronounce _Othman_ by those who pronounce
_th_ like _t_; _Osman_ a similar attempt by those who pronounce _th_ (as
in “thin”) like _s_.
[17] Hammer, _Geschichte_, i. 42-43.
[18] Keane, 268, 316. Peschel, 380, says, “The Turks of the west have
so much Aryan and Semitic blood in them that the last vestiges of their
original physical characters have been lost, and their language alone
indicates their previous descent.” On the other hand, E. Huntington (in
_National Geographic Magazine_, September, 1910, p. 767) expresses the
opinion that the inhabitants of the central part of the plateau of Asia
Minor are “almost purely Turkish in race.” He does not say, however, that
this opinion is based on observation of physical appearances.
[19] Hammer, _Geschichte_, i. 59.
[20] Keene, 2, makes the interesting suggestion that this custom,
followed _mutatis mutandis_ by the Moguls of India, was a survival of
exogamous conditions among the ancestors of the Turks.
[21] The twentieth power of 1/2 is 1/1,148,576. The description
given of Orchan, furthermore, shows scarcely a discernible trace of
Mongolian ancestry. Compare Hammer, _Geschichte_, i. 158: “Mit demselben
[Osman] waren ihm zwar die Bocksnase und die schön gewölbten schwarzen
Augenbrauen gemein; aber er hatte blonde Haare und lichte Augen, die
Statur und die Stirne hoch, die Brust breit, die Faust kräftig wie die
Klaue des Löwen, das Gesicht rund und die Farbe desselben weiss und roth;
der Körperbau stark, der Bart und Knebelbart dicht und wohlgenährt.”
Murad II showed a little more evidence of Tatar descent. He “is,” says
La Broquière, 181, “a man of stout build and short body, and he has
something of the broad face of a Tatar’s physiognomy, and he has a rather
large hooked nose and rather small eyes, and he is very brown in the
face, and he has plump cheeks and a round beard.”
[22] Keane, 266.
[23] Compare the election of Sebuktegin, in Schéfer’s edition of the
_Siasset Namèh_, 158.
[24] Cahun, _Introduction_, 79.
[25] Vambéry, _Uigurische Sprachmonumente und das Kudatku Bilik_, 118.
This passage closely resembles the words attributed to Artaxerxes
I, first king of the Sassanian Persian line: “There can be no power
without an army, no army without money, no money without agriculture,
and no agriculture without justice” (Rawlinson, _Seventh Great Oriental
Monarchy_, i. 61).
[26] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 36-45.
[27] _Ibid._ 36.
[28] Quoted by Cahun, in Lavisse and Rambaud, iii. 964.
[29] Schéfer, _Siasset Namèh_, 139.
[30] Bérard, 4 ff.
[31] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 30; D’Ohsson, v. 7; Heidborn, 111.
[32] D’Ohsson, i. 291; Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 32.
[33] D’Ohsson, vi. 253.
[34] _Ibid._ v. 53.
[35] _Ibid._ 109.
[36] _Ibid_. iv. 280; Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 331; Erizzo, 137.
[37] This was based upon a passage of the Koran, “Sedition is worse
than execution” (Sura 2: 187): Hammer, _Geschichte_, i. 216. Professor
G. F. Moore points out that in this passage (and in Sura 2: 214, which
is substantially identical) the text refers to Mohammed’s war with the
Meccans, or to fighting in the sacred months. The word _fitnah_, here
translated “sedition,” has various meanings: first of all, “trial,” as
gold and silver, for example, are tried by smelting; then, “successful
temptation, leading or turning a man astray, error, discord, dissension,
sedition, etc.” The context indicates clearly that Mohammed had in mind
the leading or turning of people from the true religion as that which
is “worse than killing.” The other meanings would, however, allow some
accommodating jurist or theologian to make this a plausible proof-text
for authorizing the killing of the sultan’s brothers, who might become
seditious or furnish cause for dissension.
[38] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 31.
[39] _Ibid._ 32; D’Ohsson, vii. 150.
[40] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 478, and _Staatsverfassung_, 340.
[41] For the Tartar method of raiding in the seventeenth century, see
Ricaut, book i. ch. xiii. This may be compared with Turkish methods in
the fifteenth century, as described by the author of the _Tractatus_, ch.
v.
[42] D’Ohsson, v. 50. Orthodoxy in the Moslem religion was by no means an
insuperable obstacle to attempts at conquest. The Mamelukes whom Selim I
overthrew were Sunnites, and Malekite Morocco was long a land coveted by
the Ottomans. A desire for the unification of orthodox Islam came into
play here.
[43] D’Ohsson, v. 86.
[44] The Turks laid claim also to Morocco, but they never exercised
abiding authority there: Knolles (ed. 1687), 987.
[45] Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 520-521.
[46] These are given in detail in Hammer’s _Staatsverfassung_, 219-327.
[47] _Ibid._ 251 (_Kanun-nameh_ of the _sanjak_ of Kurdistan).
[48] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 478, and _Staatsverfassung_, 343 ff.;
Heidborn, 320 ff.
[49] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 344.
[50] D’Ohsson, vii. 372 ff.; Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 475 ff., and
_Staatsverfassung_, 337 ff.
[51] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 345.
[52] _Ibid._ 347.
[53] _Ibid._ 344.
[54] D’Ohsson, v. 96.
[55] _Ibid._
[56] Belin, _La Propriété Foncière_, 88 ff.
[57] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 476; D’Ohsson, vii. 374.
[58] D’Ohsson, ii. 523 ff., especially 552-557.
[59] Belin, _La Propriété Foncière_, 104 ff.
[60] Ricaut, 112.
[61] Bernardo, 387 (“like a mine of slaves for the service of the
Turks”); Ricaut, 123; Chardin, 85, 90 (“sometimes they will sell their
own children”), 94, 114, 192. It is said that the practice of raising
Circassian girls for sale is still carried on in Asia Minor (Heidborn,
81).
[62] Ricaut, 138; Postel, iii. 71; Nicolay, 10 (“The most of those who
are called Turks in Algiers, whether in the king’s household, or on
the galleys, are Christians of all nations who have denied their faith
and turned Mohammedan—sont Chrestiens reniez et Mahumetizez de toutes
nations”); Lavisse and Rambaud, iv. 816, 820.
[63] Nicolay, 83. Jorga, iii. 167-189, has taken note of the ancestry of
many of the high Turkish officials of the sixteenth century; he finds no
Roumanian among them.
[64] In regard to the Armenians, see Schiltberger, 73; Chalcocondyles,
53. As to both Armenians and Jews, see Navagero, 42; Postel, i. 34.
Morosini, 294, makes mention of an Armenian who was in 1585 the
_Beylerbey_ of Greece by special favor of the Sultan.
[65] Pélissié du Rausas, i. 21-22.
[66] D’Ohsson, v. 104. Visiting foreigners (_muste emin_) who might
remain more than one year became tributary subjects (_zimmi_): Belin, _La
Propriété Foncière_, 57.
[67] For the times when these different “communities” were formed within
the Ottoman state, see Steen de Jehay, _passim_. In brief, the Greek
community was organized in 1453 and the Armenian in 1461. The latter was
at first supposed to include all subjects who were not Moslem or Greek
Orthodox; those who were not Gregorian Armenians were gradually separated
off by a process of differentiation which may be said to be active still.
With the growth of the spirit of nationalism in the nineteenth century,
the Greek Orthodox community has also been divided.
[68] Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 237.
[69] See Jorga, iii. 167 ff., especially 174, 188.
[70] Gritti, 24-25.
[71] A. Barbarigo, 149-150 (from a summary of his _Relazione_).
[72] Barbaro, 315-329, _passim_.
[73] Morosini, 263-267, _passim_.
[74] Bernardo, 358-364, _passim_.
[75] Zane, 389.
[76] _Ibid._, 414.
[77] Knolles (ed. 1687), 982.
[78] Ricaut, 14-15.
[79] These _Spahis_ of the Porte are to be distinguished from the body of
feudal _Spahis_. See below, pp. 98-105.
[80] This is illustrated by the quotations in the last section of Chapter
i, above. See also Menavino, 138 (referring to the pages, he says “Tutti
sono suoi schiaui & figlioli Christiani”); Ricaut, 14 (all who receive
pay or office from the sultan are called _kul_); D’Ohsson, vii. 203 (“Les
employés civils de même que les militaires, suivant l’antique usage de
l’Orient, sont assimilés aux esclaves du Souverain, et qualifiés de ce
nom—coul—dans toutes les pièces publiques”). In D’Ohsson’s time the term
had acquired such a general usage as in the English phrase “your obedient
servant.” Della Valle, i. 44, speaking of the entry to the Divan, says,
“Tutti sono schiavi;” and Ranke, 9, says, “All were slaves.”
[81] D’Ohsson, vii. 149, 207.
[82] For example, Lodge, _The Close of the Middle Ages_ (1906), 500;
Myers, _Medieval and Modern History_ (1905), 165.
[83] The _Tractatus_, ch. viii, says simply 20 years and under; Zeno,
128, says above 10 years. Ramberti and Junis Bey (below, pp. 244, 263)
mention pages from 8 to 20 years old; Navagero, 49, says between 12 and
15 years, Trevisano, 229, says that they were taken not at the age of
6 or 7 years as formerly, but at 10 or 12 years. Postel, iii. 23, sets
between 12 and 14 as the lower limit, and 18 and 20 as the upper limit.
Nicolay, 62, says that the pages were from 8 to 20 years of age; Garzoni,
396, says that they ranged from the tenth to the thirteenth year;
Ricaut, 74, fixes the age at 10 or 12 years. Too much reliance should
not be placed on Trevisano’s statement as to former times, since hearsay
evidence as to Turkish affairs is unreliable. Considering the rougher
life in earlier times, it is likely that levies would then have been made
of older, rather than younger, boys. The presence of young boys among the
pages was due to the selection of unusually promising captives.
[84] Myers (as above) mentions the two methods of capture and tribute as
successive.
[85] Djevad Bey, i. 26: “Ces prisonniers ou esclaves étaient d’ailleurs
incorporés dans l’armée des Janissaires, et alors l’effectif qui manquait
était complété par la voie de la levée de troupes parmi les sujets
chrétiens.”
[86] Ramberti and Junis Bey (below, pp. 254, 270) say that 10,000, or
12,000 were taken every 4 years. Geuffroy, 242, and Postel, iii. 23,
give the same estimate. Ricaut, 74, says he is “given to understand”
that about 2000 were collected yearly in the middle of the seventeenth
century. The exigencies of war probably increased the number greatly at
times. Bérard, 12, naming no authority, says that in some years Suleiman
took 40,000 boys.
[87] 20,000 _Ajem-oghlans_, 12,000 to 14,000 Janissaries, 10,000 of the
auxiliary corps, grooms, etc., 40,000 _Spahis_ of the Porte (including
the 12,000 members of the four corps and the followers they were obliged
to bring), 2000 pages and high officials. Suleiman took with him on his
last campaign 48,316 men under pay (Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 181).
Morosini, 259, says that in 1585 the sultan had under pay 80,000 men.
This is exclusive of about one-half of the _Ajem-oghlans_.
[88] Postel, i. 20.
[89] See below, p. 69, note 3.
[90] Postel, iii. 36.
[91] See below, p. 99, note 1.
[92] For example, Piri Mohammed, a descendant of the thirteenth-century
poet, Jelal ad-din Rumi. Cf. Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 18.
[93] Notably Junis Bey, who says (below, p. 265), “None can be a
pasha except a Christian renegade.” This custom is said to have been
established by Bayezid II (Angiolello, 74, quoted by Jorga, ii. 306, note
2). For further instances, see the last section of Chapter i, above.
[94] See above, p. 33.
[95] D’Ohsson, v. 91.
[96] Schiltberger, 5, gives an early example. See also _Tractatus_, ch.
viii.
[97] Hammer, _Geschichte_, i. 167.
[98] Zeno, 127.
[99] Zeno is strongly impressed by these two sources.
[100] Postel, iii. 17-18. It was in this way that Menavino entered the
system (see his _Trattato_, 10).
[101] Cf. Postel, iii. 23.
[102] A study of the nationality of the high officials of the
sixteenth century gives evidence of this. For example, Ibrahim was an
Albanian (Junis Bey, below, p. 265); Rustem Pasha was a Croat (Hammer,
_Geschichte_, iii. 268); Ferhad was a Hungarian (_ibid._ 365); the grand
vizier Ali, whom Busbecq (_Life and Letters_, i. 157) calls “a thorough
gentleman,” was a Dalmatian; Ayas was an Albanian, and Kassim a Croat
(Junis Bey, p. 265); etc. For many other examples, see Jorga, iii.
167-189.
[103] The _Tractatus_, ch. viii, says every 5 years; Spandugino, 102,
says once in 5 years or oftener; Zeno, 128, says each year; Ramberti and
Junis Bey (below, pp. 254, 270) say every 4 years; Postel, iii. 22, says
every 3 or 4 years.
[104] _Tractatus_, ch. vi.
[105] Giovio, _Commentarius_, 75; Zeno, 128; Nicolay, 83. Jorga,
iii. 188, finds no Roumanian among the high Turkish officials of the
sixteenth century. Roumania, being a vassal state, was not exposed to
the _devshurmeh_. Knolles (ed. 1687, pp. 984-985) says that the tribute
boys from Asia were not advanced to become Janissaries, because they were
not of sufficiently high quality. They are not found in positions of
prominence.
[106] Navagero, 48.
[107] Menavino’s translator says _quasi decimatione_ (Lonicerus, i.
140). Postel, iii. 22-23, says expressly that the children were not
tithed; Nicolay, 83, however, states that one in three were taken, as
does J. Soranzo, 245. Morosini, 264, speaks of a tithe (_decima_).
Gibbon (ed. Bury), vii. 79, says that a fifth of the boys were taken;
see also Lavisse and Rambaud, iv. 758. The latter statements seem to be
based theoretically on the fifth of the captives to which the sultan was
entitled. The differences among those who profess to fix a proportion are
evidence that there was none.
[108] Spandugino, 103.
[109] Postel, iii. 22. Navagero, 49, says that the officers summoned the
heads of families and commanded them to present their sons.
[110] Navagero, 49.
[111] Postel, iii. 23.
[112] Navagero, 49.
[113] Postel, iii. 23.
[114] Geuffroy, 240. Bragadin (1526), 103, says: “Ibrahim has his mother
and two brothers in the palace. He does much good to Christians. His
father is _Sanjak_ in Parga.” And again, 104: “Ayas has three brothers.
His mother at Avlona is a Christian, and he sends her 100 ducats
annually.” Nicolay, 86, says, on the contrary, that the tribute boys are
never afterwards willing to recognize father, mother, or relatives. He
cites the case of an uncle and nephews of Rustem Pasha, who begged in
Adrianople, but received no aid from him. Cf. Zane, 438.
[115] Spandugino, 144, 145.
[116] Trevisano, 130.
[117] _Ibid._
[118] Bernardo, 332, says in 1592, after the system had been dislocated,
that the greater part of the recruits were then sons of Turks.
[119] Erizzo, 131; Morosini, 267; Ricaut, 14.
[120] Spandugino, 180.
[121] _Ibid._ 183; J. Soranzo, 250.
[122] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 144, 156, 162.
[123] Postel, iii. 68.
[124] _Ibid._ G. Soranzo (1576), 197, says that the Grand Signor is heir
of all the pashas.
[125] D’Ohsson, vii. 147. In the seventeenth century the sultan allowed
the children of pashas only what pleased him (Ricaut, 131). Morosini,
274, refers to a similar practice in the latter part of the sixteenth
century.
[126] Ricaut, 16, calls the Turkish court “a prison of slaves.”
[127] Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 379.
[128] Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 159.
[129] D’Ohsson, vii. 61 ff.
[130] Spandugino, 77; Ramberti, below, p. 253; Junis Bey below, p. 268;
Nicolay, 64.
[131] Spandugino, 78, is probably wrong in his statement that the girls
of the harem were recruited from gifts, _tithes_, and _tribute_. The
small number of women in the harem would make the elaborate process of
tribute-taking unnecessary.
[132] Postel, i. 34.
[133] Navagero, 75; Jovius, _Historiarum_, ii. 371. But Bragadin, 101,
calls her a Montenegrin, and Ludovisi, 29, an Albanian; while Busbecq
(_Life and Letters_, i. 178) says that she came from the Crimea. Gomara
indicates that her Turkish name was Gul-behar, the Rose of Spring
(Merriman, _Gomara’s Annals of Charles V_, 141). This confusion of
knowledge in regard to so important a personage gives evidence of the
secrecy which surrounded the sultan’s harem.
[134] See below, p. 79, note 2.
[135] Hammer, _Geschichte_, i. 232. Spandugino, 69, says that many were
made such. Menavino, who was himself a page, says that very few were so
treated, and only for punishment (_Trattato_, 138).
[136] Spandugino, 69; Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 237.
[137] Menavino, 143; “Schaiui chiamati Bascia [pasha].”
[138] Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 112. Selim I, married a princess,
daughter of the Khan of the Crimean Tartars. This appears to have been
the last of such alliances, of which there were a number in earlier times.
[139] D’Ohsson, vi. 9.
[140] _Ibid._ vii. 177. In 1537, Junis Bey (below, p. 265) says that
Ayas had 600 slaves, Mustapha 200, Kassim 150, Barbarossa 100. But this
account must contain misprints or errors; for Ramberti (below, p. 246)
says that in 1534, Ibrahim had more than 6000 slaves, Ayas 2000, Kassim
1500, and Barbarossa about 4000. Bragadin, 103, said in 1526, that
Ibrahim had 1500 slaves, Mustapha 700, Ayas 600. Junis Bey (256-258) says
further that the _Beylerbeys_ of Rumelia and Anatolia and Caramania had
1000 slaves each, the _Beylerbey_ of Syria 2000, the _Beylerbey_ of Cairo
4000, etc. Iskender Chelebi had 6000 slaves (Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii.
144). Geuffroy, 240, says of the viziers: “Tous ont saray de femmes et
d’enfans comme ledict grant Turc.” See also Menavino, 143; and Ramberti’s
description of Alvise Gritti’s household at the close of his third book.
[141] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 157. Seven of his slaves became viziers
and grand viziers, among them Mohammed Sokolli.
[142] Iskender Chelebi was followed to war by 1200 horsemen (Hammer,
_Geschichte_, iii. 144). Rustem trained 200 carbineers as part of his
household (Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 242).
[143] Garzoni, 413, says that 1000 _Spahis_ were assigned to the retinue
of the grand vizier, and 500 to those of each of the other pashas.
[144] _Tractatus_, ch. vii.
[145] D’Ohsson, i. 49.
[146] In the early days non-Arab converts held a position of clientage,
but they had never been slaves. In the Ottoman Empire new converts were
particularly honored, so that this distinction was lost. A partial
enfranchisement was possible, and might sometimes resemble the condition
of a Roman freedman. Cf. D’Ohsson, vi. 28 ff.
[147] According to D’Ohsson, v. 86, no free-born Moslem could ever
lawfully become a slave.
[148] D’Ohsson, vi. 24.
[149] _Ibid._
[150] _Ibid._ iv. 300 ff.
[151] Spandugino, 180. It may be observed that Ottoman slavery bore no
slight resemblance to the method of bondage which brought from Europe
many ancestors of present-day Americans. “In the year 1730,” says Mrs.
Susannah Willard Johnson (in her _Narrative of Captivity_ reprinted
Springfield, 1907, pp. 5-6) “my great-uncle, Colonel Josiah Willard,
while at Boston, was invited to take a walk on the long-wharf, to view
some transports who had just landed from Ireland; a number of gentlemen
present were viewing the exercise of some lads who were placed on shore
to exhibit their activity to those who wished to purchase. My uncle spied
a boy of some vivacity, of about ten years of age, and who was the only
one in the crew who spoke English: he bargained for him. I have never
been able to learn the price; but as he was afterwards my husband, I
am willing to suppose it a considerable sum.... He lived with Colonel
Willard until he was twenty years of age, and then bought the other year
of his time.” In this account a number of the characteristics of the
Ottoman system can be observed. Young boys of Caucasian blood are taken
from their native land; they are bought and sold; they are judged like
young animals by appearance and physical activity; no taint attaches
to their bondage; they may marry into the master’s family. The one
noteworthy difference is that the bondage terminates at a definite age.
[152] _Tractatus_, “Orario Testimonialis”: “Denique domino meo ita carus
eram, ut saepius in collocutione plurium, plusquam filium suum, quem
unicum habebat, me diligere assereret,” etc.
[153] Postel, iii. 20, says that all the pages were considered children
of the sultan, and were truly his adopted sons.
[154] Ricaut, 14.
[155] Postel, iii. 21.
[156] Ricaut, 16.
[157] Postel, iii. 21.
[158] _Ibid._ 71-72; Ramberti, below, p. 255.
[159] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 12.
[160] According to Sale’s translation, the Koran says (Sura 2: 257),
“Let there be no violence in religion.” Palmer translates, “There is no
compulsion in religion.” See D’Ohsson, vi. 59; Schiltberger, 73.
[161] Idris, fol. 107, quoted in Hammer’s _Geschichte_, i. 91.
[162] Quoted _ibid._ ii. 117.
[163] Ricaut, 147-148: “No people in the World have ever been more open
to receive all sorts of Nations to them, than they, nor have used more
arts to encrease the number of those that are called _Turks_.”
[164] _Tractatus_, ch. viii.
[165] Ricaut, 46.
[166] Bernardo, 369-370, and see also 359.
[167] Postel, iii. 21.
[168] _Ibid._ 20.
[169] Ricaut, 128 ff.
[170] The general Ottoman attitude on this point is shown by
Schiltberger, 73: Mohammed “has also ordered, that when they overcome
Christians, they should not kill them; but they should pervert them, and
should thus spread and strengthen their own faith.” _Tractatus_, ch.
xi, says, “Turci neminem cogunt Fidem suam negare, nec multum instant
de hoc alicui persuadendo, nec magnam aestimationem faciunt de his qui
negant.” The last clause of this testimony, however, is contrary to
practically all other sources. Conversion seems sometimes to have been
forced as an alternative to death when a Christian had offended greatly
against the Mohammedan faith (Lonicerus, i. 123; see also D’Ohsson,
vii. 327). Some writers, however, assert that circumcision, the outward
mark of acceptance of Islam, was regularly enforced upon the tribute
boys (Chesneau, 41; J. Soranzo, 245; Morosini, as quoted above, p. 41).
Heidborn, 128, says that conversion was not anciently enforced on a large
scale, _except_ for the recruiting of Janissaries.
[171] Ricaut, 46 ff.
[172] Schiltberger, 74; La Broquière, 219; Spandugino, 249. Ricaut,
152, says that great inducement was offered the common people to become
Turks; they obtained honor and the privilege to domineer and injure with
impunity, and they became in the fashion.
[173] _Tractatus_, ch. xi, quoted above.
[174] D’Ohsson, vi. 59; Ricaut, 148.
[175] _Tractatus_, ch. v; Nicolay, 86.
[176] Ricaut, 284.
[177] Bernardo, 367; Zane, as quoted above, p. 42. See also Jorga, iii.
188.
[178] Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 235.
[179] Nicolay, 160-161.
[180] Menavino, 244.
[181] _Tractatus_, ch. xxi.
[182] Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 351.
[183] Georgevitz (before 1552), 40, “De Ordine Peditum”; Ranke, 19-20;
Barbaro (1573), 305. 317. Selim II, on his accession granted to the
Janissaries the formal privilege of entering their sons in the corps;
for the Persian war of 1594 the corps was opened to other Turks and all
Moslems. By 1592, the majority of the Janissaries were said to be sons of
Turks; Bernardo, 332. See also Knolles (ed. 1687), 985.
[184] Postel, iii. 20.
[185] _Kanun-namch_ of Mohammed II, printed in Hammer’s
_Staatsverfassung_, 94.
[186] Hammer’s _Geschichte_, i. 94.
[187] See p. 49.
[188] Spandugino (1517), 108, says that the Janissaries are not allowed
to marry. He was probably wrong. Certainly some were married soon after
his time: Ramberti (1534), below, p. 249; Junis Bey (1537), below, p.
267; Nicolay (1551), 92.
[189] Ricaut, 366.
[190] The resemblance of the Janissaries to monks is noticed by Busbecq,
_Life and Letters_, i. 88, and Tavernier, 12.
[191] Ricaut, 151.
[192] One careful observer thought that this might be true of the whole
Ottoman nation. _Ibid._, but in the middle of the fifteenth century
contrary testimony was given (_Tractatus_, ch. xi).
[193] See the calculation above, p. 49.
[194] Navagero, 50; Barbaro, 316; Nicolay, 84. J. Soranzo, 245, states
that the tribute boys were all brought to Constantinople, circumcised,
and brought before the _Agha_ of the Janissaries. Record was made of the
name of each, of his father’s name, and of his native place. Soranzo’s
accuracy is questionable, as when he says that the greater part were put
into palaces in Constantinople.
[195] Postel, iii. 17; Ricaut, 46.
[196] Ricaut, 74: “In whom appearing more strength of body than of mind,
they are set apart for labor and menial services.”
[197] Busbecq, _De Re Militari_, 260.
[198] Spandugino, 104: the emperor chooses a few and sends the rest to
the towns of the Turks of Anatolia to live with the lords and gentlemen.
[199] Spandugino speaks of 900; Junis Bey and Ramberti, 1400; Geuffroy,
1200; Postel, 1300 to 1500.
[200] Junis Bey and Ramberti, 300; Geuffroy, 300.
[201] Junis Bey and Ramberti, 400; Geuffroy, 400; Postel (iii. 20), 600
or 700.
[202] Junis Bey and Ramberti, 700; Geuffroy, 500; Postel (iii. 3), 700 or
800.
[203] Navagero, 42. See also Tanco, 205.
[204] Menavino, 13. Postel, iii. 17, says that, when presented, they were
clothed in silk and cloth of gold or silver; but Ricaut, 49, says that
their clothing and diet were simple.
[205] Menavino, 11 ff.
[206] Busbecq, _De Re Militari_, 262-263.
[207] Postel, iii. 2.
[208] Menavino, 126.
[209] Ricaut, chs. v-vi.
[210] Spandugino, 63. See also Nicolay, 84; and the quotations in the
last section of Chapter i, above.
[211] D’Ohsson, vii. 34.
[212] Hammer (_Geschichte_, i. 232), by a singular perversion of the
truth, asserts that the page system had its origin and primary purpose in
the satisfaction of the unnatural lusts of Bayezid I and his successors.
Not only does the whole structure and organization of the system disprove
this, but the absence of reference to such a purpose in all contemporary
writers is sufficient to settle the matter. The vice which takes its name
from Sodom was very prevalent among the Ottomans, especially among those
in high position (Spandugino, 186; Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 232;
Ricaut, 151, 211; D’Ohsson, iv. 473). The pages were apt to be afflicted
by it, and were carefully watched to prevent it, and terribly punished
if discovered (Ricaut, 60). Occasionally a sultan became enamored of a
page (Ricaut, 61); but Suleiman seems to have been free from this vice
(Busbecq, i. 159; Marini Sanuto, _Diarii_, December 6, 1523).
[213] Menavino, 126-128. He was a page from about 1505 to 1514 (_ibid._
243-245).
[214] Ricaut, “To the Reader,” 45-62. This describes the system as it was
about 1650.
[215] Postel, iii. 11.
[216] _Ibid._ 19; Ricaut, 50.
[217] Postel, iii. 10; Ricaut, 50.
[218] Ricaut, 51. The same custom was observed in the education of the
princes and of all children of great officials (Spandugino, 179). Tanco,
197-198, says he has heard that Suleiman himself labored daily at a
trade, so that even the Prince should earn his bread by the sweat of his
brow; see also Jorga, ii. 343.
[219] Menavino, 126, 127.
[220] Postel, iii. 10.
[221] Ricaut, 59.
[222] Navagero, 43.
[223] Ricaut, 48, says that in the three colleges of education the
eunuchs exercised very severe discipline beyond that of monks.
[224] Menavino, 127.
[225] Ramberti, below, pp. 244, 245; Junis Bey, below, p. 263; Ricaut, 49.
[226] Ricaut, 49: “Their first Lessons are silence, reverence, humble and
modest behaviour, holding their heads downwards, and their hands across
before them.”
[227] _Ibid._ 48.
[228] D’Ohsson, vii. 47.
[229] Ricaut, 51; D’Ohsson, vii. 34 ff. These chambers were the
_Kiler-odassi_, or Pantry; the _Khazineh-odassi_, or Treasure Chamber;
the _Khas-odassi_, or Inner Chamber. See below, pp. 126-128.
[230] Ricaut, 52.
[231] Postel, iii. 11.
[232] Spandugino, 62.
[233] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 32.
[234] _Ibid_. 490.
[235] Ramberti (below, p. 244) says that they became _Spahi-oghlans_,
_Silihdars_, and officials of higher degree according to their worth and
to the favor which they had gained with the sultan; Junis Bey, below, p.
263.
[236] Menavino, 138.
[237] Ricaut, 71; Postel, i. 33; Nicolay, 64; D’Ohsson, vii. 64.
[238] Ramberti, below, p. 254 (“he marries them to Spahi-oghlans, or to
others of the slaves of the Porte according to the degree and condition
of both parties”); Junis Bey, below, p. 269; Geuffroy, 244; Chesneau, 40;
Nicolay, 64.
[239] Trevisano, 130, speaks of 16,400; but this number does not seem
sufficient to account for all.
[240] Chalcocondyles, 97; Spandugino, 103; Ramberti, 255; Junis Bey,
270; (they are sent “to dig earth in order to learn Turkish”); Zeno,
127; Geuffroy, 243; Navagero, 50. Chesneau, 44, states that those
_Ajem-oghlans_ who were levied in Anatolia were sent to gentlemen in
Rumelia.
[241] Ramberti, below, p. 255; Junis Bey, below, p. 270; Nicolay, 86.
[242] Giovio, _Commentarius_, 78; Junis Bey, as above.
[243] Ramberti and Junis Bey, as above, say after three or four years;
Geuffroy, 243, after four years. Navagero, 50, says that every two or
three years, as the service demands, an officer takes those who are
ready; some have served two or three, some four or five years. Trevisano,
130, says that they are left six or seven years.
[244] Ricaut, 77.
[245] Chalcocondyles, 97; Spandugino, 104; Navagero, 52.
[246] Navagero, 52; Postel, iii. 22, 25.
[247] Spandugino, 76.
[248] Ramberti, 254, says 5000; Junis Bey, 269, says 4000 or 5000;
Geuffroy, 242, says 5000 or 6000; Trevisano, 129, says 6800; Garzoni,
415, says 6000; Postel, iii. 25, says 5000 to 7000; D. Barbarigo, 33,
says 7600.
[249] Junis Bey, 269; Navagero, 51; Trevisano, 129; Postel, iii. 25.
[250] Trevisano, 129.
[251] Giovio, _Commentarius_, 77.
[252] Ramberti, below, p. 254; Junis Bey, below, p. 269; D’Ohsson, vii.
28.
[253] Postel, iii. 25.
[254] Postel, iii. 22, says that only those who had special privilege
from the sultan were allowed to learn letters. Ricaut, 76, says that
some of those in the palace service were taught to read and write. In
D’Ohsson’s time (vii. 327), each _oda_ had a _hoja_ to teach reading and
writing to those who wished.
[255] Junis Bey, 269, 270, says that they had 2 or 3 aspers per day
at first, and more as they advanced, and that their chief was allowed
100,000 aspers a year for their food and clothing. Postel, iii. 23, says
that their chief was allowed 10,000 aspers a day to keep them and pay
them, and other money for their clothing.
[256] Ramberti, 254; Junis Bey, 270; Postel, iii. 25.
[257] Spandugino, 104. Trevisano, 130, says that they became such at from
20 to 25 years old, according to their mind, value, or favor.
[258] Ricaut, 76. But those of the principal palace in Constantinople
had greater opportunities; they might become Janissaries, _Solaks_,
_Kapujis_, etc. (Ramberti, below, p. 245.)
[259] Chalcocondyles, 97.
[260] Trevisano, 130; Barbaro, 316; Garzoni, 397.
[261] Zinkeisen, iii. 228.
[262] Ricaut, 53; D’Ohsson, vii. 34-39.
[263] Ramberti, below, p. 244; Junis Bey, below, p. 263; Ricaut, 53.
[264] Junis Bey, as quoted above, p. 81, note 4.
[265] Chalcocondyles, 171; Barbaro, 305; Nicolay, 89 (“the wages of each
are increased, according to the merit of their military valor”).
[266] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 160.
[267] _Tractatus_, ch. viii.
[268] Postel, i. 121.
[269] _Ibid._ iii. 19.
[270] Tanco, 197, 206.
[271] Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 105.
[272] Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 154-155.
[273] Ricaut, 77.
[274] Spandugino, 185; Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 108.
[275] Spandugino, 132.
[276] The grand vizier Rustem’s wealth is summed up in detail in Hammer’s
_Geschichte_, iii. 386: “He himself left at his death an immense fortune;
no grand vizier before him had amassed so much wealth. His estate
consisted of 815 farms in Rumelia and Anatolia, 476 water mills, 1700
slaves, 2900 war horses, 1106 camels, 5000 richly embroidered coats and
robes of honor, 8000 turbans, 1100 caps of cloth of gold, 2900 coats of
mail, 2000 cuirasses, 600 saddles finished in silver, 500 others adorned
with gold and precious stones, 1500 helmets plated with silver, 130 pairs
of golden stirrups, 760 sabres adorned with precious stones, 1000 lances
trimmed with silver, 800 Korans, 130 of which were set with diamonds,
5000 volumes of various works, 78,000 ducats, 32 precious stones
representing a value of 112 donkey-loads (that is to say, 11,200,000
aspers); the ready money which was found in his house was estimated at
1000 loads (100,000,000 aspers, or 2,000,000 ducats.)”
[277] D. Barbarigo, 30-33.
[278] Menavino, 128.
[279] The cause of the execution of Junis Pasha by Selim I. Cf. Hammer,
_Geschichte_, ii. 524.
[280] Halil Ganem, i. 169.
[281] Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 322.
[282] Cahun, _Introduction_, p. vii: “Les Turcs et les Mongols ... nées
de la guerre et organisées pour la conquête.”
[283] This was true even in D’Ohsson’s time (vii. 399).
[284] Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 181.
[285] Curiously enough, the oldest sense in which the Turkish word _kul_
was used as a term denoting relation to a prince, was in reference to
soldiers (Vambéry, _Uigurische Sprachmonumente und das Kudalku Bilik_,
113, stanza 12b). At that time the word was applied to the foot-soldiers
as distinguished from the cavalry, who were then volunteer knights. This
usage survived in the Ottoman system to the extent that the regular
infantry, including the Janissaries, artillerymen, and other lesser
permanent corps, were regarded as in a particular and special sense the
sultan’s _kullar_ (D’Ohsson, vii. 328; Djevad Bey, i. 15-18).
[286] The _Bostanjis_, or gardeners, and other _Ajem-oghlans_ of the
palace service were not left behind: D’Ohsson, vii. 326; Djevad Bey, i. 7.
[287] Extended accounts of the Janissaries may be found in D’Ohsson, vii.
310 ff.; Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 192 ff.; Zinkeisen, iii. 201 ff.;
Djevad Bey, vol. i, book i.
[288] For an example of the persistence of this idea, see Bérard (1909),
12-13: “La Turquie désormais subsiste par le janissaire et doit vivre
pour le janissaire d’abord ... depuis la prise de Rhodes (1522) jusqu’à
l’apparition de la flotte russe aux Dardanelles (1770), tant vaut le
janissaire et tant vaut l’empire.” Professor A. C. Coolidge suggests that
the hold which this remarkable organization had upon the imagination of
fellow-countrymen as well as of foreigners was in part “due to the fact
that in almost all Oriental history good infantrymen have been extremely
rare, and the Janissaries were the only good infantrymen in the Ottoman
Empire.” It is also true that the Janissaries were that group within the
Moslem fold which came least under the taming and subordinating influence
of the system; they were a frontier province of Islamic society. When
in the seventeenth century they ceased to be drawn directly from the
Christian population and became a variety of military aristocracy, not
only did they remain in part a fighting infantry, but their original
freedom of spirit and action was by no means abandoned.
[289] D’Ohsson, vii. 359-360; Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 251, 361, iii.
45; Nicolay, 89.
[290] Rhodes was pillaged after capitulation (1521), and so were Ofen
(1529), and Wychegrad (1544): Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 28, 83, 263.
[291] _Ibid._ ii. 252. Hence the death of a sultan was kept concealed
until his successor had assumed power (_ibid._ 535; iii. 449).
[292] Mohammed II gave them ten purses of gold (1451), _ibid._ i. 504;
Bayezid II gave them 2000 aspers each (1481), _ibid._ ii. 252; Selim I
gave them 3000 aspers each (1512), _ibid._ 382; from Suleiman they asked
5000 aspers each, which he compounded by giving them one-third in cash
and increased pay (1520), _ibid._ iii. 6.
[293] Before Vienna (1529), _ibid._ 88; on march toward Persia (1534),
_ibid._ 148; at Tabriz (1535), _ibid._ 158.
[294] This usage dates from Suleiman; D’Ohsson, vii. 354.
[295] Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 86: the Janissaries “are scattered
through every part of the empire, either to garrison the forts against
the enemy, or to protect the Christians and Jews from the violence of the
mob. There is no district with any considerable amount of population, no
borough or city, which has not a detachment of Janissaries to protect
the Christians, Jews, and other helpless people from outrage and wrong.”
Janissaries might be detailed to attend on foreign ambassadors, or to
escort foreign travelers within the empire (Knolles, ed. 1687, p. 985).
[296] Nicolay, 89, was perhaps the first to point out the likeness of
the Janissaries to the Roman Pretorian Guard, and to see in them a great
danger to the Ottoman Empire.
[297] Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 420, 520.
[298] _Ibid._ iii. 88.
[299] Trevisano, 129, says that they had sufficient authority on the
death of a sultan to give the empire to which of his sons they pleased.
Cf. J. Soranzo, 248; Morosini, 255; Garzoni, 432; Knolles (ed. 1687), 985
(“neither can any of the Turks Sultans account themselves fully invested
in the Imperial Dignity, or assured of their Estate, until they be by
them approved and proclaimed”).
[300] D’Ohsson, i. 278-284; Heidborn, 120.
[301] D’Ohsson, i. 284. This rule is sometimes stated erroneously as an
old Turkish custom, a provision of Mohammedan law, or an old Ottoman law
or custom.
[302] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 98: “_Kanun_ of the Security of the
Throne: The majority of Legists (_Ulema_) have declared it allowable,
that whoever among my illustrious children and grandchildren may come
to the throne, should, for securing the peace of the world, order his
brothers to be executed. Let them hereafter act accordingly.”
[303] Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 352 ff.
[304] Menavino, 219; Trevisano, 129; Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 365.
[305] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 314.
[306] Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 185-189.
[307] Postel, iii. 87, says, about 1537: Suleiman “has among others a
son named Mustapha, marvelously well educated and prudent and of the age
to reign; for he is 23 or 24 years old; and God grant that so great an
atrocity may not come so near us (_Dieu ne permette qu’une Barbarie si
grande vienne si pres de nous_).”
[308] 10,000 is the number according to Bragadino, 106. 12,000 is given
by almost all contemporaries: Ramberti, below, p. 249; Junis Bey,
below, p. 266; Giovio, _Commentarius_, 76; Geuffroy, 234; Navagero,
53; Trevisano, 128; Barbaro, 305; Postel, iii. 30; Busbecq, _Life and
Letters_, i. 86; Nicolay, 88; Erizzo, 127. Navagero, 56, says some think
that 15,500 or 16,000 were inscribed; and Garzoni, 416, says that there
were 13,000 or 14,000. Djevad Bey, i. 90, gives 12,000 in 1523, and
13,599 in 1574. In 1564 D. Barbarigo, 33, gives a precise number, 13,502.
D’Ohsson, vii. 330, says, without stating any authority and against the
above contemporary evidence, that Suleiman raised the number to 40,000.
Hammer (_Geschichte_, i. 95, and iii. 473) says, referring to D’Ohsson,
that Suleiman had 20,000; but in his _Staatsverwaltung_, 195, he states
that Suleiman had only 12,000 before Szigets. Knolles (ed. 1687, p. 990)
says, about 1603, that the Janissaries numbered not over 12,000 to 14,000.
[309] Junis Bey, 272, and Ludovisi, 17, give the number of this garrison
as 3000. Postel, 38, gives the number as 30,000; this must include the
Mamelukes.
[310] Giovio, _Commentarius_, 77: about 6000 of the older of them stay
about the Prince. Navagero, 55: 8000 to 10,000 are always ready.
[311] Ramberti, 249; Junis Bey, 267.
[312] Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 194; Ricaut, 365 (mentions 162
_odalar_); Djevad Bey, i. 28. In Chalcocondyles’s time (1465), 97, the
strength of each _oda_ seems to have been of 50 men. In Suleiman’s time
it was less than 100. Later it became much larger.
[313] Nicolay, 96-97; D’Ohsson, vii. 313-320; Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_,
201 ff.; Djevad Bey, i. 35, 45.
[314] D’Ohsson, vii. 314; Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 428. This was the
case only from 1515 to 1582.
[315] _Kiaya_ is a word which offered infinite difficulties of
pronunciation and spelling; for example, gachaia, cacaia, checaya,
quaia, queaya, caia, cahaia, chiccaia, chechessi. Some authors employ a
different spelling each time they use the word. Trevisano, 118, gives
chietcudasci. _Kiaya_ represents the popular pronunciation. The more
nearly correct form of the word, following the Turkish spelling, is
_ketkhuda_.
[316] D’Ohsson, vii. 353.
[317] Djevad Bey, i. 35.
[318] Ramberti, below, p. 250; Junis Bey, below, p. 266.
[319] Ludovisi (1534), 9, gives a pessimistic account of them; according
to him, they had not the order or the discipline or the astuteness which
was found in the Christian infantry. Postel, iii. 30, praises them
greatly for order, frugality, and temperance. Djevad Bey, i. 56-64,
gives a favorable description; he says (p. 56) that the first of their
fundamental laws enjoined absolute obedience.
[320] Postel, iii. 31; D’Ohsson, vii. 353; Djevad Bey, i. 66, 69.
[321] Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 296.
[322] D’Ohsson, vii. 351; Djevad Bey, i. 56-59.
[323] Ramberti, below, p. 249; Junis Bey, below, p. 267; D’Ohsson, vii.
352.
[324] Djevad Bey, i. 289.
[325] This name for the sultan’s paid cavalry is that regularly employed
by the Venetian writers of the sixteenth century: for example, Moro, 337;
Bernardo, 330.
[326] Hammer, _Geschichte_, i. 95.
[327] D’Ohsson, vii. 353.
[328] For the great disturbance which they raised in 1593, see Zinkeisen,
iii. 79.
[329] All of these names are spelled with an ingenious variety in
contemporary writings:—
_Spahi_: spai, spachi, sipahi, sipah, spacoillain (spahi-oghlan).
_Silihdar_: selicter, sillictar, sulastrus, suluphtar.
_Ulufagi_: holofagi, allophase.
_Ghureba_: caripy, caripicus, ciarcagi, caripp (oglan), gharib (oglan),
capi (oglan)
The word _Spahi_ is of identical derivation with _Sepoy_.
[330] Ramberti, below, p. 250; Junis Bey, below, p. 267; Postel, iii. 34.
Giovio (_Commentarius_, 75) says that some _Spahis_ brought as many as
ten horsemen.
[331] Giovio, 75; Postel, iii. 35.
[332] They were called “poor youth” by Menavino, 152; Junis Bey, 267;
Ramberti, 251; Trevisano, 126; Postel, iii. 36. Spandugino, 97, says
that they were strangers from Asia, Egypt, and Africa. Giovio, 76, says
that they were all Moslems from Persia, Turcomania, Syria, Africa,
Arabia, Scythia, and even India; but he is wrong in confining them to
Moslems in the sixteenth century. Trevisano, 126, asserts that they were
renegades from every nation; and on this authority Zinkeisen falls into
the opposite error of confining them to Christian renegades. Postel, iii.
36, says that they were chosen from the _Akinji_, Kurds, and _Azabs_.
Menavino, 152, declares that they were not slaves of the great Turk, but
that part were Turks, part Christian renegades, and part Arabs (_Mori_).
[333] The _Spahis_ of the Porte are discussed at length in D’Ohsson, vii.
364 ff.; Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 237 ff.; Zinkeisen, iii. 168 ff.
[334] Giovio (_Commentarius_, 75) mentions 2000 in each of the first two
corps, and 1000 in each of the second two. Junis Bey (below, p. 267)
puts 3000 in each of the first two corps, 2000 in each of the second
two. Ramberti (below, p. 250) gives more than 3000 _Spahi-oghlans_, 3000
_Silihdars_, and 2000 in each of the other corps. Ludovisi, 15, puts 3000
in each of the first two, 2500 in the third, and 2000 in the fourth.
Trevisano, 125, puts 2000 in each but the fourth, which contained 1500.
D. Barbarigo, 33, mentions 7095 _Spahis_. Barbaro, 304, says that there
were 15,000 _Spahis_ of the Porte. There were under pay in 1660, after
serious changes, 7203 _Spahis_, 6254 _Silihdars_, 976 _Ulufajis_, and 722
_Ghurebas_: Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 175.
[335] A calculation based on Junis Bey’s statements gives a total of
between 41,000 and 49,000. Garzoni, 413, says distinctly that there were
40,000 _Spahis_ of the Porte paid out of the sultan’s treasury; that
among these were 3000 _Spahi-oghlans_, 3000 _Silihdars_, 3000 _Ulufajis_,
and 2000 _Ghurebas_ (_ciarcagi_); and that the grand vizier had 1000
_Spahis_ assigned to his retinue, and the other viziers each 500.
D’Ohsson, vii. 364-365, states that the _Spahis_ proper in the time of
Mohammed II, numbered 10,000, and that Achmet III, raised their strength
to 12,000; like figures for the _Silihdars_ were 8000 and 12,000. This
estimate must include the additional horsemen.
[336] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 57; Menavano, 148, 151.
[337] See above, pp. 47 (note 1), 91. The Ottoman feudal system is
discussed at length in Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 337 ff.; D’Ohsson,
vii. 372 ff.; Zinkeisen, iii. 145 ff.; Belin, _Du Régime des Fiefs
Militaires en Turquie_; Tischendorf, _Moslemisches Lehnswesen_.
[338] Junis Bey (below, p. 271) says, shortly after describing the feudal
_Spahis_ of Europe, that “all the _Spahis_ are slaves and sons of slaves
of the Seigneur (_Tutti li spachi sono schiaui & figli de schiaui del
Sig[nor]_);” but this statement is incomplete. Ramberti (below, p. 256)
adds, “and sons of _Spahis_.” The latter group undoubtedly contained the
great majority of the feudal _Spahis_. Geuffroy 246, enlarges on the
statement by saying that the 30,000 feudal _Spahis_ of Europe were all
_Ajem-oghlans_ and slaves of the great Turk. No other writer terms them
_kullar_. Garzoni, 412, calls them Turkish soldiers. The whole theory
of the Ottoman feudal system made them such; the smaller fiefs were
hereditary from of old, and gaps were filled from volunteers with the
army, who must have been Moslems, since Christians were not allowed to
bear arms: Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 349 ff. (“_Kanun-nameh_ of the
granting of _Timars_ and _Ziamets_”).
[339] Junis Bey, p. 271 (they collect the income from the Christians,
etc.); Moro, 339 (they are appointed by the king to administer justice);
Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 478; D’Ohsson, vii. 373. Heidborn, 157,
discusses their duties in some detail.
[340] Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 275; Heidborn, 145.
[341] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 476.
[342] Spandugino, 146, states that under Mohammed II, each fief-holder
who had 5000 aspers of income was obliged to bring another with him to
war; but in his time (under Bayezid II) this obligation was imposed upon
those who had 3000 aspers, unless retired on account of age. Ramberti and
Junis Bey (below, pp. 256-271) say that for each 100 ducats a _Spahi_
must keep an armed horseman, and three or four servants, and a like
number of horses; see also D’Ohsson, vii. 373. Heidborn, 145, states that
holders of _timars_ brought an additional warrior for each 3000 aspers of
income, and holders of _ziamets_ an additional one for each 5000 aspers;
but in any case the first 3000 aspers was exempt.
[343] D’Ohsson, vii. 374.
[344] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 352.
[345] _Ibid._ 94.
[346] Hammer (_ibid._ 143 ff.) describes Suleiman’s legislation, giving
translations of much of it.
[347] Ricaut, 343.
[348] D’Ohsson, vii. 374; Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 352 ff.
[349] The limit differed according to region. In Rumelia a _teskereh_ was
required for all _timars_ of 6000 aspers and over, and for all _ziamets_:
Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 275.
[350] Ramberti (below, p. 256) gives this limit as 100 ducats, or 5000
aspers.
[351] Garzoni, 413; Tanco, 209.
[352] Bernardo, 329; Knolles (ed. 1687), 983.
[353] Spandugino, 211; Zinkeisen, iii. 129. The feudal _Spahis_ had
lower officers who were not sent out from the capital, such as the
_Cheribashis_.
[354] The name means “ensign bey,” and was translated _flambole_: for
example, Geuffroy, 246.
[355] Postel, iii. 44; Tiepolo, 138.
[356] Heidborn, 140, says that the _Subashis_ had _ziamets_, the _Alai
Beys_ had small _khasses_, the _Sanjak Beys_ had _khasses_ of a million
aspers or more, and the _Beylerbeys_ much more. The amount which he
assigns to the _Sanjak Beys_ is too large for Suleiman’s time. Ramberti
(below, pp. 256-258) gives their income at from 4000 to 12,000 ducats,
which would amount to from 200,000 to 600,000 aspers.
[357] Ramberti, below, p. 256; Junis Bey, below, p. 271.
[358] Menavino, 186, 190, says that in his time the _Beylerbey_ of
Anatolia resided at Kutaia (Custage). Ramberti, 259, mentions the same
place (Chiothachie) as the seat of his sanjakate. Knolles (ed. 1687, p.
986) says that all the _Beylerbeys_ except the _Beylerbey_ of Rumelia
were supposed to reside within their dominions.
[359] _Tractatus_, ch. xi.
[360] Trevisano, 132.
[361] In Europe 30,000 _Spahis_ and 20,000 _Timarjis_; in Anatolia 12,000
_Spahis_; in Karamania 7000, Amasia 4000, and Avandole 7000. This is the
estimate of Junis Bey and Ramberti, which Geuffroy, 247, follows, and
which Postel, iii. 37 ff., changes a little (Karamania 5000 instead of
7000, Amasia omitted). Ludovisi, 16, gives practically the same figures.
Navagero, 41, gives 40,000 in Europe and 80,000 to 100,000 in Asia, the
latter figure probably including the troops of Syria and Mesopotamia, and
of Egypt, which was not provided with fiefs in the same way. Barbaro,
304, and Garzoni, 412, mention 80,000 in Europe and 50,000 in Asia. D.
Barbarigo (1558), 33, speaks of a sum total of 160,000 feudal _Spahis_.
Tiepolo (1576), 140, speaks of 60,000 _timars_ in Europe which sent
80,000 _Spahis_, and 50,000 _Spahis_ from Asia. The number may have
increased about one-half during Suleiman’s reign, but it is more likely
that all the groups of figures are only estimates. Ricaut, 341, after
careful inquiry, gives the number of _Zaims_ in his time as 10,948, and
of _Timarjis_ as 72,436, for the whole empire except Egypt. He thinks
that this estimate should be increased to 100,000. The total feudal
contingent in the time of Achmet I, was by Turkish authority about the
same (Tischendorf, 57 ff.). D’Ohsson, vii. 375, estimates the feudal
troops at 200,000 in Suleiman’s time; on p. 381, however, he speaks of
more than 150,000 men. See below, p. 107, n. 1.
[362] Postel, iii. 38 (“triple pour le moins”).
[363] Chesneau, 46; D’Ohsson, vii. 381. Knolles (ed. 1687, p. 990) says
that not over one-third could safely be called to arms.
[364] After the year 1541: Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 232.
[365] After the year 1552: Trevisano, 124. The number of the _Beylerbeys_
was greatly increased in the last third of the sixteenth century.
Knolles, 986-988, mentions five in Europe, 30 in Asia, and 4 in Africa,
besides the _Beylerbey_ of the Sea, whose office was created by Suleiman,
but who is not mentioned above as having no part in the army.
[366] Spandugino, 153; Nicolay, 160.
[367] The name _akinji_ is variously spelled: yachinji, alcanzi,
alcangi, aconiziae, alengi, aquangi, achiar, aghiar. Spandugino, 150,
says that the sultan can collect 200,000 of these for the war; Ramberti
and Junis Bey (below, pp. 257, 271) mention 60,000 as inscribed; Giovio
(_Commentarius_, 81) names 30,000; Garzoni, 414, says 25,000 or 30,000;
Postel, iii. 26, says 50,000 or 60,000. Ramberti, 271, tells us that when
in arms they were entitled to living expenses from the villages near
which they passed.
[368] Zinkeisen, iii. 203.
[369] Spandugino, 152. Junis Bey, 270, mentions 1000 with the fleet, and
Postel, iii. 71, mentions 10,000.
[370] Postel, iii. 26.
[371] Chalcocondyles, 135; Giovio, _Commentarius_, 81, etc.
[372] Spandugino, 151.
[373] See above, p. 98.
[374] Junis Bey, below, p. 268. In addition were several thousand
saddlers, etc., who were not reckoned as regular troops: the _Bostanjis_,
older pages, body-guards, etc.
[375] Knolles (ed. 1687), 984.
[376] Several contemporary estimates of the complete army may be
compared: Marini Sanuto, under date of October 26, 1529, gives an
estimate of the Turkish army then before Vienna as containing 305,200
men. The same writer (_Diarii_, lvi) gives three or four estimates from
the year 1532, when Suleiman went forth on the Güns campaign: on p.
768, Suleiman’s army is said to contain 500,000 men; on p. 870 is found
an account of Suleiman’s entry into Belgrade, in which 170,300 men are
mentioned, besides “adventurers” and “many others”; on the same page
is estimated the number with which the Sultan was to leave Belgrade,
which sums up 284,500, and does not seem to account fully for the
territorial armies; on p. 894 he summarizes a despatch from Ratisbon,
dated August 23, 1532, which relates the testimony of three Turkish
prisoners to the effect that the Turkish army numbers over 300,000
persons, but that not over 80,000 are good fighting men. Postel, iii.
38, estimates the enrolled army at 218,000, and the whole at 500,000.
He states elsewhere that Suleiman took 500,000 men with him on the
Persian expedition of 1534-35. Chesneau’s impression (pp. 106-108) of
Suleiman’s army, when he saw it near Aleppo in the spring of 1549, was
that it occupied 80,000 to 100,000 tents, on a plain eight to ten miles
long; that it contained 300,000 to 400,000 fighting men, of whom all
but 10,000 or 12,000 Janissaries were on horseback; and that the total
number of persons assembled was about a million. Chesneau’s chief, the
ambassador D’Aramont, writing concerning the same expedition from Esdron
(Erzerum?) a few weeks later, speaks of “the mass of his (Suleiman’s)
army, which is by common estimate of 300,000 men, as may be judged from
the extent of the camp, which extends ten or twelve miles in length, and
contains at least 60,000 tents or more, with such order and obedience
that, considering the great multitude, it is almost unbelievable”
(Charrière, ii. 68). In the year 1558, A. Barbarigo, 150-151, estimated
the cavalry alone at more than 300,000. Twenty-six years after Suleiman’s
death Bernardo, 331, says that the paid troops, in which he includes
the sultan’s household and the feudal army, amounted to 250,000 men.
Zinkeisen, iii. 199, estimates the extreme total of the sultan’s cavalry
alone at 565,000. Knolles (ed. 1687, p. 984), writing about 1603, says
that the sultan could always gather 150,000 Timariotes for a great
expedition. He says that the Timariotes numbered in all 719,000 fighting
men, of whom 257,000 were in Europe and 426,000 in Asia. The last two
estimates are incredibly large.
[377] _Tractatus_, ch. xi, marginal summary.
[378] La Broquière, 273.
[379] Chalcocondyles, 135.
[380] Giovio, _Commentarius_, 83 (condensed).
[381] Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 293; on p. 221 he compares Turkish
and Western soldiers most unfavorably for the latter.
[382] Postel, i. 126; see also Dandolo, 166. Georgevitz, 45, says that he
accompanied the Turkish army on an expedition against Persia (probably
1533 to 1536): “I saw a _Spahi_ decapitated together with his horse and
servant, because the horse, having been left loose, entered some one’s
field.”
[383] Postel, iii. 31, speaking particularly of the Janissaries.
[384] Morosini, 261.
[385] _The Policy of the Turkish Empire_, “To the Reader.”
[386] Junis Bey (below, pp. 274, 275) gives the order of march; Postel,
29 ff., describes the encampment.
[387] Chalcocondyles, 135, says that the Turks lodged more grandly in the
field than in peace at home.
[388] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 79.
[389] _Ibid._ 160.
[390] Other reasons have been advanced to account for the fall of Ibrahim
(cf. Postel, iii. 48 ff.). The fact that he had became a danger to the
throne is sufficient.
[391] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 438.
[392] Halil Ganem, i. 206.
[393] Ranke, 11.
[394] The _Spahis_ of the Porte, and the Janissaries were not as a body
put under a _Seraskier’s_ command until the time of Murad III: D’Ohsson,
vii. 368; Djevad Bey, i. 16.
[395] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 141.
[396] Final audience was given to the Austrian ambassadors on June 23
(_ibid._ 138), and Ibrahim marched about September 21 (_ibid._ 143).
[397] _Ibid._ 277.
[398] Postel, iii. 54, speaking of Charles V in 1535-36, says:
“The Emperor had and lost during the war against the Sofi the
fairest opportunity that ever Prince had in this world, to recover
Constantinople: for at every shaking of a leaf, all the people trembled,
and there was no guard in the city except the inhabitants and ten
thousand _Ajem-oghlans_” [these from the time of Mohammed II had been
commissioned to guard the capital during the army’s absence: D’Ohsson,
vii. 348]. Erizzo, 131, also discusses this danger, emphasizing the valor
of the Persians and the readiness of Asia Minor to revolt. The Turks
in Constantinople in 1535 feared that the expedition which Charles V
was preparing against Tunis was intended for an attack upon their city
(_Revue Africaine_, xix. 352).
[399] Suleiman in his letter to Ferdinand, November 27, 1562, says, “I,
Lord of the Orient from the land of Tsin to the extremity of Africa”:
Busbecq, _De Re Militari_, 272.
[400] Ibrahim said, “I, if I now wished it, could place Luther on one
side and the Pope on the other, and compel them to hold a council; what
Charles ought to have done, the Sultan and I will now do”: Hammer,
_Geschichte_, iii. 134.
[401] Gerlach, 257, quoted in Zinkeisen, iii. 222.
[402] Postel, iii. 19.
[403] Spandugino, 218; Postel, i. 126.
[404] D’Ohsson, vii. 202.
[405] Suleiman permitted this because of the increase it produced in his
income: Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 114; Halil Ganem, i. 197.
[406] D’Ohsson, vii. 182, 202.
[407] Ricaut, 140; D’Ohsson, vii. 287.
[408] Montesquieu, livre v, ch. xix.
[409] Postel, i. 126: “les gents de la court, qui ont leurs chefs _Aga_ &
_Bassi_ pour Iuges,” etc.
[410] Spandugino, 214 ff., relates how this came about, and says (p.
218), “No _Cadi_ can have power and authority over the slaves who receive
pay from the Seigneur.”
[411] Zane, 407; Robertson, i. 249.
[412] Hammer, _Geschichte_, i. 176, 684; ii. 674.
[413] _Ibid._ i. 96. The descendants of Michael have been among the very
few families who were constituted landed nobles in the Ottoman Empire.
Seven “endowments of the Conquerors” still exist, one of which benefits
his line: Heidborn, 314.
[414] Hammer, _Geschichte_, i. 96.
[415] _Ibid._ iii. 18.
[416] Spandugino, 13; Ramberti, below, p. 242; Junis Bey, below, p. 273.
D. Barbarigo, 19, names eight great families among whom the succession
might fall (he says that some thought it should pass through the female
line): in Rumelia four,—Micali, Ersecli, Eurenesli, Egiachiali; in
Anatolia, four,—Cheselamath, Diercauli, Durcadurli, Ramadanli, formerly
called Spendial. Ricaut, 107, says that in his time there existed an
“ancient compact” by which, in default of heirs male in the Ottoman line,
the empire was to descend to the Crimean Tartars.
[417] Ricaut, 211.
[418] _Ibid._ 129: “A Turk is never reverenced but for his Office, that
is made the sole measure and rule of his greatness and honour, without
other considerations of Vertue or Nobility.”
[419] Below, ch. vii.
[420] Above, ch. iii, under heads “Other Motives for Incorporating
Christians,” “Advancement Based on Merit.”
[421] Ricaut, 129.
[422] About the year 1800, when the two institutions, and particularly
the Ruling Institution, had reached an extreme state of decay, and
before new institutions after Western models had yet been introduced,
the Ottoman Empire was to come very near to such a breaking-up. It seems
actually to have been saved by the lingering of the tradition against
heredity in office; for, though life-tenure of purchased governorships
had become regular, no Pasha except the North African corsairs of the
seventeenth century, and Ibrahim in Egypt in the early nineteenth
century, succeeded in founding a dynasty upon Ottoman soil. For the
disorders about 1800, see Heidborn, 144.
[423] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 490-491, quoting Kochi Bey.
[424] See above, p. 69, note 3.
[425] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 278.
[426] Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 6.
[427] Postel, i. 31, says that Suleiman occasionally sent for one of his
women to visit him in the principal palace. Nicolay, 62, reports that
about 1551 Roxelana was residing within the palace grounds. By 1585 the
principal ladies of the harem had been transferred to the new palace,
leaving the old palace to the function of a training-school for recruits.
These steps illustrate the rapid increase of the importance of the harem
in the Ottoman scheme.
[428] Exceptions were made in case of the old _Hojas_, or teachers of
the young princes, the religious advisers of the queen mother, and
physicians. See Postel, i. 35; Ricaut, 68; D’Ohsson, vii. 11; Hammer,
_Staatsverwaltung_, 73.
[429] _Siasset Namèh_, 121, 123, 163.
[430] “_Kanun_ of the Imperial Table,” printed in Hammer’s
_Staatsverfassung_, 98: “It is not my _Kanun_ that any one should dine
with my Imperial Majesty; it might be some one not of Imperial blood.”
Suleiman did not always observe this _Kanun_ (cf. Hammer, _Geschichte_,
iii. 99).
[431] Erizzo, 138; Morosini, 281.
[432] Extended descriptions of the household are found in D’Ohsson, vii
and Hammer’s _Staatsverwaltung_. Lane-Poole, in his _Story of Turkey_,
ch. xiv, gives a good, clear summary of D’Ohsson. References to these
authorities are here omitted except in a few instances of special
interest.
[433] Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 71; Menavino, 179. The _Eski Serai_ of
the sixteenth century stood where the _Seraskierat_, or War Office, now
stands.
[434] D’Ohsson, v. 52.
[435] Postel, i. 32.
[436] See above, pp. 56, 57, 78, 79.
[437] Junis Bey (below, p. 269) says twenty, a number scarcely
sufficient. Twenty years earlier Menavino, 180, speaks of about forty.
[438] Ricaut, 67-68, mentions several of these.
[439] Postel, i. 35.
[440] Ricaut, 73.
[441] Hammer (_Geschichte_, ii. 222) says that the custom of
accomplishing the death of sons of daughters of sultans (by neglecting to
tie the navel cord) dates from Mohammed II; but no contemporary authority
appears to mention such a custom. D’Ohsson, vii. 93, says that it was
instituted in the time of Achmet I. The son of a sister of Selim I was
_Beylerbey_ of Aleppo about 1550 (Alberi, _Anonimo_ of 1553, 228).
[442] Ludovisi, 29; Postel, i. 31. See p. 141, note 2.
[443] Postel, i. 31.
[444] Spandugino, 64.
[445] Menavino, 137.
[446] D’Ohsson, vii. 34. Whether this number was fixed in Suleiman’s
time does not appear from the records. Mohammed II had 32 officers of
the _Khas Oda_ (Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 96). Menavino, 121-123,
names three special officers, 15 of second grade, and 35 of third grade,
before mentioning the treasury. Ramberti and Junis Bey (below, pp. 243,
263) name 6 principal officers, but do not distinguish the _odalar_
further. Chesneau, 39, says that 25 of the pages were Suleiman’s personal
servants, and that 5 served him specially. Navagero, 45, speaks of 25 or
30 in the _Khas Oda_. Ricaut, 52, speaks of 40.
[447] Ramberti and Junis Bey, as above; Postel, iii. 4; Navagero, 45.
[448] Navagero, 44.
[449] The number of pages in the _Kiler Odassi_ is given by Menavino,
125, as 25, all between 20 and 22 years of age. Navagero, 44, says that
they numbered 300 or 400; but this is incredible. He gives no numbers for
the purely educational _odalar_, and evidently has counted them all in
the _Kiler Odassi_.
[450] Hammer (_Staatsverwaltung_, 30) erroneously says that the pages
of these _odalar_ attended to the lowest duties of the palace, and were
recruited from three palace schools outside. Navagero, 44, disproves this.
[451] An additional chamber, the _Seferli Odassi_, or Chamber of
Campaign, was instituted by Murad IV to attend to his laundry work and
other special duties in time of war. The membership was chosen out of the
educational _odalar_, and it ranked next after the _Kiler Odassi_. See
Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 28.
[452] Ricaut, 47.
[453] Ramberti, below, p. 255.
[454] Ramberti and Junis Bey, below, pp. 245, 264.
[455] Menavino, 160 ff.
[456] Zinkeisen, iii. 181, states erroneously on the authority of
Trevisano, 125 (meaning p. 128), that these were all Turks and of noble
blood. The fact that Menavino, 146, calls them “schiaui” is sufficient
disproof. Zinkeisen also quotes Spandugino, 114, to the effect that
the _Muteferrika_ were all lords, or sons of princes or of lords; but
Spandugino, 62, says that pages pass to the office of _Muteferrika_ from
the highest four offices at least. Trevisano, 127, says, “Li quali sono
giovani nati Turchi, _e figliuoli d’uomini di autorità_” (italics not in
original); but “men of authority” were practically all renegades. Moro,
341, calls them, in 1590, sons of the principal Turks. The fact seems to
be that most of the _Muteferrika_ were Ottomans of the second generation
(_i. e._, sons of renegades) and that the rest were regarded as ennobled
by passage through the high offices of the _Khas Oda_.
[457] Menavino, 155 (he says they were Persians); Nicolay, 98; Ramberti,
below, p. 251.
[458] Spandugino, 116, gives the number 300, and says that they became
Janissaries. Menavino, 140, mentions 500. Ramberti (pp. 246, 253)
mentions 250 at the principal palace and 100 at the palace of the harem;
the latter he calls Janissaries.
[459] Junis Bey, below, p. 265.
[460] Spandugino, 125.
[461] Postel, iii. 9.
[462] Ricaut, 373. In his time they numbered 500 or 600.
[463] Junis Bey, 263. Ramberti, 245, speaks of 35, which is clearly too
few.
[464] Postel, iii. 11.
[465] Menavino, 129. In D’Ohsson’s time (vii. 15) this official was also
the jailer and presiding executioner of the palace, inspector of the
water supply and forests near the capital, and overseer of hunting and
fishing and of the trade in wine and lime. How many of these functions he
exercised under Suleiman seems not to have been recorded. In Spandugino’s
time (p. 118) the chief _Kapuji_ was presiding executioner.
[466] Ramberti, 251; Junis Bey, 268.
[467] Menavino, 150. They were not _kullar_. Cf. the _Zainogiler_, below,
pp. 252, 268.
[468] Shortened in use to _Miri-akhor_, _Imrakhor_, _Imbrahor_,
_Imbroor_, _Imror_, etc.
[469] D’Ohsson, vii. 17; Menavino, 148-150.
[470] A short form of _Emir-Alem_.
[471] Menavino, 145.
[472] D’Ohsson, vii. 21. In his time these were under the “Chief of the
Black Eunuchs.” It does not appear who controlled them under Suleiman.
[473] Postel, iii. 12; Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 44.
[474] Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 37.
[475] Spandugino, 127-128, describes the hunting organization under
Bayezid II. Ramberti and Junis Bey (below, pp. 249, 266) state that 2700
or 900 Janissaries served under the _Segban-bashi_ and _Zagarji-bashi_ in
the care of the dogs.
[476] D’Ohsson, iv. 98 ff.
[477] _Siasset Namèh_, 161.
[478] _Tractatus_, ch. ix.
[479] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 88 ff.
[480] _Ibid._, 434 ff.
[481] The statements of this paragraph are based upon the _Kanuni
Teshrifat_ as given in Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 434 ff. See Della
Valle, i. 45: “Tutti gli uffici, e tutti gli ordini, tanto della militia,
quanto della Corte, e d’ogni altra sorte di persone, hanno qui il loro
habito proprio, and in particolare al portamento della testa, si cognosce
ciascuno che cosa è.”
[482] Postel, iii. 13; Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 18.
[483] Ricaut, 156.
[484] The festival of the Birth of the Prophet was not instituted until
the reign of Murad III (Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 469). The sultan’s
annual visit to the relics of the Prophet also became a great ceremony.
[485] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 96-101. Only less splendid was the
marriage of Ibrahim to Suleiman’s sister in 1524 (_ibid._ 38).
[486] Compare Gritti, 27: the Janissaries at the reception of ambassadors
“stand in such quiet and order as for war that it is a marvellous thing
and not to be believed by those who have not seen it with their own eyes.”
[487] Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 152 ff.
[488] A name for Cairo, used much from the time of the crusades onward.
[489] Nicolay, 88-89, explains that the wearing of ostrich plumes,
attached in a tube of jeweled gold to the front of the turban, and
curving over the head and down the back, was a highly-valued privilege
accorded only to such Janissaries as had distinguished themselves in
action.
[490] The _Solaks_.
[491] The _Sharabdar_, the _Chokadar_, and the _Silihdar_.
[492] Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 283 ff.
[493] _Ibid._, 302 ff. These quotations may profitably be compared with
those from the _Tractatus_ in regard to the simplicity of Murad II
(above, p. 134). Not a few descriptions of court and camp ceremonies in
the century following the accession of Suleiman have been handed down.
For example: Suleiman’s entry into Belgrade in 1532 (Marini Sanuto, lvi.
870); Suleiman’s entry into Aleppo, 1548 (anonymous report, in Alberi,
3d series, i. 224 ff.); Suleiman’s reception of Captain Pinon in 1544
(Maurand, 207-225); Selim II’s reception of De Noailles in 1573 (Du
Fresne-Canaye, 59-72); Ahmed I’s going to mosque, 1614 (Della Valle,
68-71); Ahmed I’s reception of the Venetian _Bailo_, 1615 (_ibid._ 98
ff.).
[494] Postel, i. 31, speaks of the mother of Mustapha as having superior
authority about 1537, though residing much at Magnesia; and he does not
speak of Roxelana. But Ludovisi, 29, shows that Roxelana was in 1534 the
wife of Suleiman, and that the mother of Mustapha then resided with her
son at Magnesia. For the decisive quarrel between Roxelana and the mother
of Mustapha, see Navagero, 75.
[495] Navagero, 79.
[496] Described above, pp. 93-95.
[497] Navagero, 76-77.
[498] The unfortunate Jehangir also was thought to have come to his
death from shock at the death of Mustapha and fear of a similar fate for
himself. See Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 178; Navagero, 77. But see
Alberi, _Anonimo_ of 1553, 216, for another and more credible account.
[499] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 425.
[500] See above, pp. 78, 120.
[501] Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 331; Halil Ganem, i. 199.
[502] Spandugino, 185. A generation earlier still La Broquière, 186,
said: “No one speaks to them [the pashas] unless he brings them a
present, as well as one for each of the slaves who guard their gate.”
[503] Spandugino, 145, relates how in his time the peasants were eaten,
as it were, all the year by tithes, compulsory presents, land-tax,
and extortion. The earlier sixteenth-century writers seem not to
have observed that the sultan’s subjects were especially miserable.
Morosini (1585), 272, remarks vigorously upon the tyranny and oppression
which were causing depopulation and destroying the incentive of the
farm-dwellers to produce more than a bare sustenance. Zane (1595), 395,
415, writes in a similar vein. Gerlach, 52 (quoted in Zinkeisen, iii.
361), found those who lived at a distance from Constantinople in a
wretched state of oppression. Knolles (ed. 1687, p. 982), writing about
1603, speaks of the desolate condition of the empire, especially in
those regions through which the army was accustomed to pass. In Ricaut’s
time (pp. 124, 145, 323) agricultural decline, accompanied by misery and
depopulation, was apparent.
[504] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 438.
[505] D’Ohsson, i. 268; Heidborn, 112, note 11. Heidborn, 106-121, treats
fully the constitutional position of the sultan.
[506] Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 226.
[507] D’Ohsson, iv. 482 ff.
[508] Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 1-3.
[509] _Ibid._ i. 557, iii. 159, etc.
[510] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 29. This use of the word _Urf_ in
Turkish is not the same as that of its Arabic original (see Redhouse,
1294; Youssouf Fehmi, 237). Heidborn, 37 ff., discusses the sources of
Ottoman law, giving an especially thorough and excellent treatment to the
Sacred Law.
[511] Macdonald, 71; D’Ohsson, i. 5 ff.
[512] Macdonald, 94, 115; Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 4; D’Ohsson, i. 11
ff.
[513] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 9.
[514] D’Ohsson, 21.
[515] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 10; D’Ohsson, i. 22-24. The
_Multeka_ is the basis of D’Ohsson’s excellent work, which consists
of a translation of the code with its comments, to which he has added
observations of great value based on historical studies and on his own
investigations during many years’ residence in Turkey. Heidborn, 44-69,
gives a detailed account of the development of the Sacred Law. He also
(pp. 85-89) describes the _Multeka_ and gives a table of its contents.
[516] Heidborn, 40-41. This writer uses the form _fykyh_.
[517] Snouck Hurgronje, in _Revue de l’Histoire des Religions_, xxvii. 1
ff., 74 ff.
[518] Goldziher, in _Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft_,
viii. 406 ff.; Kohler, _ibid._ 424 ff.; Juynboll, 8, 310.
[519] In Turkey at the present day the courts of the Sacred Law
(_Sheriyeh_) have sole cognizance of the following classes of cases: “in
civil law, questions concerning marriage, alimony, education of children,
liberty, slavery, inheritance, wills, absence, and disappearance; in
criminal law, suits concerning retaliation, the price of blood, the
price of laming a limb, the price of causing an abortion, damages for
disfigurements, the division of the price of blood” (Heidborn, 255).
The _Nizamiyeh_, or secular courts, have sole cognizance of commercial
and penal cases, and a few other groups. All other causes are taken
before the _Sheriyeh_ courts if the parties agree; otherwise before the
_Nizamiyeh_ courts. Thus the courts of the Sacred Law still retain a
great deal of importance in Turkey.
[520] See, in particular, above, pp. 40, 41, 42. See also Postel, i. 116
ff., 124 ff.; Ricaut, 200 ff. Heidborn, 43, comments on this state of
affairs, and explains the comparatively recent further legal developments
in Turkey as follows:—
“Durant de longs siècles le fykyh, tout pétrifié qu’il était, put suffire
aux besoins de la société islamique et son manque de souplesse fut
d’autant moins ressenti, que l’évolution de cette société elle-mème a été
à peu près nulle. Assoupie dans une léthargie profonde, elle semble se
recueillir de son immense effort de jeunesse et contempler en spectatrice
indifférente ou dédaigneuse les progrès réalisés, depuis, par l’Occident.
En Turquie seulement, à mesure que se resserraient ses liens avec
l’Europe, fut comprise l’impérieuse nécessité de sortir de cet isolement
et d’emprunter à la culture occidentale certaines méthodes susceptibles
de rajeunir le corps vielli de l’empire. Par suite de cette orientation
récente, le fykyh a subi, en Turquie, d’importantes abrogations de fait
sinon de droit, qui atteignent cependant plutôt le domaine du droit
public que celui du droit privé. Celui-ci subsiste, dans une large
mesure, malgré ses imperfections et son absence de plan et de clarté. On
s’est contenté de combler ses lacunes les plus apparentes par des lois
empruntées à la législation occidentale, sans se soucier de la complète
disparate créée par la réunion d’éléments aussi hétérogènes.”
[521] D’Ohsson, i. 261, v. 11.
[522] Macdonald, 66; Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 12.
[523] Heidborn, 69.
[524] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 14; Heidborn, 71.
[525] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 32; D’Ohsson, i. 291.
[526] Ricaut, 202; Steen de Jehay, 13 ff.
[527] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 31.
[528] In the course of time the development of civil courts in the
Ottoman Empire has relegated the former judicial system to the position
of ecclesiastical courts with jurisdiction similar to that of Christian
church courts of the Middle Ages. See Macdonald, 113; and above, p. 154,
note 2.
[529] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 30.
[530] _Ibid._ 31.
[531] For an example of this practice, see _ibid._ 343.
[532] _Ibid._ 2.
[533] _Ibid._ 29.
[534] Heidborn, 90.
[535] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 31; in pages 219-327 are found the
_Kanun-namehs_ of all the _sanjaks_.
[536] _Ibid._ 87-101.
[537] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 480.
[538] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_: 101-143, the _Kanun-nameh Misr_;
143-162, police and market laws of Suleiman; 187-211, _Kanuni Rayah_;
337-434, _Kanuni Timar_. Hammer does not make it clear where he found
particular _Kanuns_, or how completely he has presented the originals;
nor has he attempted to distinguish _Kanuns_ of Suleiman from those of
earlier and later sultans. The _Kanuni Rayah_ was not made into a formal
_Kanun-nameh_ till 1614 (_ibid._ 211). See Heidborn, 91-92.
[539] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 142.
[540] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 39.
[541] A translation of a portion of the table of contents of this
collection, as found in the manuscript Fluegel No. 1816, in the Imperial
Library at Vienna, is given in Appendix III, below. This shows by
comparison with the headings in Hammer’s _Staatsverfassung_, 396-424,
that Hammer has there translated at least one-half of the manuscript,
though he appears to attribute these sections to the _Kanun-nameh_ of
Achmet I (_ibid._ 384). The table of contents of the latter collection of
laws is very different (see next note).
[542] The _Kanun-nameh_ of Achmet I, issued in 1619, contained
collections of (1) feudal laws; (2) laws of the army, the navy, the
outer and the inner service; (3) laws of police, finance, and fiefs. See
Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, pp. xviii, xix.
[543] This statement is based on information obtained from a gentleman
long resident in Turkey.
[544] Zinkeisen, iii. 161 ff.
[545] Macdonald, 10.
[546] Hammer, _Geschichte_, i. 96.
[547] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 32.
[548] D’Ohsson, i. 258 ff.
[549] “The dignity of the Imâmate does not absolutely demand that the
Imâm be just, virtuous, or irreproachable, or that he be the most
eminent and the most excellent of the human beings of his time” (from
the _Multeka_, quoted by D’Ohsson, i. 271); “Vices or tyranny in an
Imâm do not demand his deposition” (_ibid._ 288). This is the doctrine
of orthodox Islam, as the outcome of the early Kharijite schisms. The
Shiites are more critical as regards their sovereigns, who are not
regarded as _Imâms_.
[550] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 32; D’Ohsson, i. 291.
[551] Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 331-333; D’Ohsson, iv. 50 ff.
[552] Busbecq, i. 331; D’Ohsson, iv. 103, 280.
[553] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 71, 486.
[554] _Ibid._ ii. 216-217, 223.
[555] _Ibid._ i. 565, ii. 223.
[556] See above, pp. 58, 59.
[557] A. Barbarigo, 155; D. Barbarigo, 26; Bernardo, 326; Erizzo, 136.
See also Chesneau, 41.
[558] Barbaro, 319.
[559] Postel, iii. _passim_, gives various glimpses of his life.
[560] _Siasset Namèh_, 163.
[561] The position and duties of the grand vizier at a later date are
described at length by Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 79-101, and by
D’Ohsson, vii. 177-189.
[562] Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 226; taken from the Turkish historian
Aali and referring to the time of Mohammed II.
[563] Postel, i. 123.
[564] Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 5.
[565] _Ibid._ iii. 793.
[566] The position of the _Defterdars_ about the year 1800 is discussed
in D’Ohsson, vii. 261 ff., and in Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 137 ff.
Contemporary accounts are found in Menavino, 168; Ramberti, below, p.
247; Junis Bey, below, p. 265; Postel, iii. 66-70.
[567] The word means primarily “book-keeper.” It is derived either
from the Greek word διφθέρα or from a similar Persian word (Hammer,
_Geschichte_, ii. 228). Ramberti (below, p. 247) mentions but two
_Defterdars_, one who took care of the revenue from all the Asiatic
provinces, Egypt, and the Danubian countries, and received ten thousand
ducats a year, and perquisites, the other who took care of the revenue
from the rest of the European dominions, received six thousand ducats and
perquisites, and was governor of Constantinople in the sultan’s absence.
[568] Spandugino, 98.
[569] Junis Bey (below, p. 265) says that the _Defterdars_ had 200 slaves
each for their courts. Then he speaks of 50 scribes, each with 15 or
20 slaves, and of 25 secretaries who must have been the heads of the
bureaus, and who had slaves. Next he mentions the two _Rusnamehjis_, who
had 20 or 25 companions under them. Ramberti, 247, says that the first
_Defterdar_ had 1000 slaves in his household, and the second 500. Postel,
iii. 69, mentions only one _Rusnamehji_, but clearly states that he is
over the chiefs of the twenty-five bureaus.
[570] D’Ohsson, vii. 264-273; Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 145-170.
[571] It certainly was in 1660. Cf. Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 170.
[572] D’Ohsson, vii. 265, omits the intendants of buildings and forage.
[573] D’Ohsson, vii. 236.
[574] Charges for the right to plant and transport tobacco were later
assigned to the care of this bureau. See Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 156.
[575] At a later date, when the expenses of the harem became greater, the
customs duties of certain regions, the tobacco revenue from Syria and
Arabia, and the tax on wool and yarn were also assigned to this bureau
(_ibid._ 158).
[576] Junis Bey (below, p. 266) and Postel, iii. 70, call this official
_Defterdar-emini_. His department, in three bureaus, became a record
office of land titles (D’Ohsson, vii. 193). It may have had this wider
function in the sixteenth century.
[577] Spandugino, 65, 119; Ramberti, below, pp. 244, 248.
[578] Menavino, 182; Postel, iii. 70.
[579] Ricaut, 103, Ramberti and Junis Bey (below, pp. 256, 271) say that
the _Beylerbey_ of Rumelia had 100 scribes.
[580] Spandugino, 148; Postel, iii. 63.
[581] This subject is treated in Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 478-483, and
_Staatsverfassung_, 180-337; D’Ohsson, v. 15-37; and, as concerns the
legal taxes, in Belin, _La Propriété Foncière_.
[582] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 37 ff.
[583] Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 523, iii. 65.
[584] _Ibid._ iii. 266. According to Heidborn, 339, the registering of
the lands of the different regions of the Ottoman Empire, begun in 1548
by Suleiman’s order and completed after some 55 years, remains to the
present time the basis of land titles in Turkey.
[585] D’Ohsson, vii. 242.
[586] Spandugino, 144. Postel, iii. 65, says that the tithes (apparently
those revenues not sold in the lump or left for individual collection)
were collected by Christian receivers (_tous Chrestiens_), who delivered
them to the _Kadis_, and these to the _Sanjak_, he to the _Beylerbey_,
and the _Beylerbey_ to the _Defterdars_.
[587] D’Ohsson, vii. 258.
[588] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 471. It was a poll-tax of 15 aspers on
each male inhabitant.
[589] Spandugino, 57.
[590] Hammer, _Geschichte_, i. 167, 592.
[591] By _Kanun_ of Mohammed II: Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 99.
[592] Postel, iii. 68.
[593] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 472.
[594] Postel, iii. 70.
[595] Hammer, _Geschichte_, i. 234.
[596] _Ibid._ iii. 471.
[597] La Broquière, 182; Ricaut, 404.
[598] Ricaut, 404.
[599] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 472.
[600] See above, pp. 115, 116.
[601] Postel, iii. 49.
[602] Below, p. 273.
[603] La Broquière, 182, estimated the sultan’s revenue in 1433 at
2,500,000 ducats. Chalcocondyles, 171, overestimated it at 8,000,000
ducats about the year 1465. Alvise Sagudino (quoted in Schéfer’s edition
of Spandugino, p. lv) reckoned it in 1496 at 3,300,000 ducats; Andrea
Gritti, father of Alvise, made it 5,000,000 in 1503 (_ibid._ lviii);
Spandugino’s estimate, under Bayezid, was 3,600,000 (_ibid._ 132).
Mocenigo, 54, set Selim I’s income at 3,130,000, besides 800,000 from
the Persian conquests, all spent in Persia. Minio (1522), 71, estimated
the revenue as 3,000,000. Zeno (1524), 95, called it 4,500,000, and the
expenses 3,000,000. Bragadin (1526), 106, says that the treasury had an
income of 12,000,000, of which the sultan took 4,500,000 (the larger
amount would no doubt include the feudal income). Minio (1527), 115,
states the income as 7,000,000. Zeno (1530), 121, gives 6,000,000 or
more for the income, 4,000,000 for the expenses. Giovio (_Commentaries_,
73) sets the revenue at 6,000,000, and the expenses at 4,000,000 or
5,000,000. Postel, iii. 68, gives 4,000,000 on Alvise Gritti’s authority,
though he apportions it differently from Junis Bey. D’Ohsson, vii. 258,
says that Suleiman’s revenues rose to 26,000,000 piasters. At 40 aspers
to the piaster and 50 aspers to the ducat, this gives about 20,000,000
ducats, which is far too much.
[604] Navagero (1553), 37-39, estimates 7,166,000 ducats; Trevisano
(1554), 149-150, says 8,196,000 ducats. Navagero seems to overestimate
the mines (1,500,000 ducats) and the duties (1,200,000); Trevisano’s
estimate of 2,000,000 from the animal tax seems unwarranted. Erizzo
(1557), 130, claims to give an authentic statement of the sultan’s income
and expenditure; the former he sets at 4,600,000 ducats and the latter
at 3,600,000. A. Barbarigo (1558), 150, gives 7,740,000 ducats as income
and 4,100,000 as expenditure. Donini, 190, says that after great efforts
he knows most certainly that the income of the treasury for 1561 was
216,519,826 aspers, or 4,330,396 ducats and 26 soldi, and the expenditure
206,581,957 aspers, or 4,131,639 ducats and 7 soldi. He states that this
income is less by 400,000 ducats than usual, because of the prohibition
of wine. Erizzo does not include the tax on mines and salt works, and
the income from Mesopotamia and the domain lands, in his list of sources
of revenue; and Donini does not specify the sources. Bernardo, 347, says
that the income in his time of service (1584-87) was 9,000,000 ducats,
and that by 1592 it was 10,000,000. Knolles (ed. 1687, p. 982) estimates
the sultan’s ordinary revenues about 1603 as 8,000,000. This does not,
however, include confiscations, fines, tribute, customs, booty, etc.,
which Knolles (p. 983) believed to exceed the ordinary revenue. Hammer,
_Staatsverwaltung_, 170, gives official figures for a hundred years
later (1660): the income of the treasury then was 600,000,000 aspers,
or 11,000,000 to 12,000,000 ducats at sixteenth-century valuations;
capitation was nearly 2,000,000, land tax about as much, mines 1,000,000,
etc.
[605] The extensive notes given above show clearly that from 1433 to 1660
there was a progressive increase in the sultan’s income, as measured
in aspers or ducats. Brosch (in _Cambridge Modern History_, iii. 130)
accuses Suleiman of raising by taxation double the amount exacted by
Mohammed II, and thus bringing undue pressure to bear. This statement
fails to take account of the fact that Suleiman’s empire was about double
that of Mohammed II’s in area, population, and wealth. Also it seems to
have been the case that the value of gold and silver fell greatly after
the discovery of the American mines (Day, 135). If these effects were
felt promptly in the Levant, Suleiman’s income in the last years of
his life may have had little more purchasing power than Mohammed II’s.
Distributed over a wider area, the pressure of taxation in his time may
easily have been lighter than it was three generations before.
[606] Postel, iii. 67, says that it does not include the _timars_. He
says (iii. 168) that some call the total revenue 12,000,000 ducats, in
which they must include the income of the fief-holders. Bragadin, 106,
says that the income is 12,000,000. Ramberti (below, p. 261) estimates it
at 15,000,000, of which 5,000,000 goes into the treasury and 10,000,000
remains for the “servants of war.”
[607] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 472; and see above, p. 144 and note 2.
[608] Accounts are given in D’Ohsson, vii. 159-172, and in Hammer,
_Staatsverwaltung_, 101-137. References to the _Nishanji_ are found in
Spandugino, 99; Menavino, 168; Ramberti, below, p. 248; Ludovisi, 14;
Navagero, 94; Trevisano, 118; Garzoni, 430; Junis Bey (below, p. 266) and
Postel, iii. 63, speak of a _Teskereji-bashi_, giving a description which
applies exactly to the _Nishanji_ as represented by contemporaries. Since
the word means merely “chief of document-writers,” it refers without
doubt to the _Nishanji_.
[609] Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 133.
[610] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 54.
[611] Postel, iii. 63. See also Ramberti, below, p. 248.
[612] Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 229, iii. 796. The first _Reis Effendi_
whose name is known was Haider Effendi, executed in 1525 on the charge of
promoting an uprising of the Janissaries. The office is mentioned in the
_Kanun-nameh_ of Mohammed II (Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 90).
[613] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 126 ff.; Busbecq, _Life and Letters_,
_passim_.
[614] Ricaut, 57.
[615] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 90.
[616] Trevisano (1554), 118. Morosini (1585), 266, says that the
employees of the chancery were then native Turks.
[617] Hammer, _Geschichte_, i. 35.
[618] Cahun, _Introduction_, 82, speaking of Turks of the steppe lands:
“Dès qu’ils descendaient de cheval, c’étaient des barbares bureaucrates
et paperassiers.”
[619] Spandugino, 185.
[620] The Divan, as it was about 1800, is described in D’Ohsson, vii.
211-232; and in Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 412-436. Contemporary
references are Menavino, 169; Postel, i. 122; Navagero, 93; Trevisano,
117; Garzoni, 430. Zinkeisen, iii. 117-125, has pictured the Divan in the
sixteenth century.
[621] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 489. This is the first of the reasons
given by Kochi Bey for the decline of the empire after Suleiman.
[622] Postel, i. 123; Trevisano, 119; Garzoni, 431. D. Barbarigo,
32, gives an instance in which Suleiman made use of this means of
information, and in consequence ordered the execution of the grand vizier
Achmet.
[623] Hammer (_Staatsverwaltung_, 412-436) gives them with great
exactness.
[624] In the time of Mohammed II a procession was formed by the members
of the Divan, the men of the lowest rank in front, and the grand vizier
last. On reaching the door of the hall, the lesser officials stopped and
separated into two lines, between which the grand vizier advanced. The
greater officials followed, so that the hall was entered in the order of
rank. See Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 225.
[625] From the _Kanun_ of Mohammed II: Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_,
89. Aali (used by Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 225) gives a different
arrangement, which can hardly have been correct.
[626] Postel, i. 123.
[627] Garzoni, 431.
[628] Postel, i. 123.
[629] Garzoni, 431.
[630] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 89; Trevisano, 118-119.
[631] Navagero, 98; D. Barbarigo, 26. See also above, p. 164 and note 3.
[632] Postel, i. 123.
[633] Trevisano, 120. See above, p. 164.
[634] Zinkeisen, iii. 125; Tiepolo, 164.
[635] Heidborn, 141: “Le divan était à la fois une sorte de Conseil
d’État, où se discutaient les affaires politiques importantes, et une
Cour suprême autorisée à évoquer tout litige devant elle et à connaître
notamment des procès entre Ottomans et étrangers qui dépassaient la
valeur de 3000 aspres.”
[636] Although this and other features of the Moslem Institution will
be spoken of throughout this chapter in the past tense, much that is
mentioned remains in existence in Turkey at the present time. The _vakfs_
are discussed at length in D’Ohsson, ii. 437-567; and more briefly in
Belin, _La Propriété Foncière_, 74-104. Heidborn, 306 ff., gives a
well-analyzed account; and on p. 306, note 245, he mentions additional
authorities.
[637] Ricaut, 213.
[638] D’Ohsson, ii. 540.
[639] Ricaut, 217. D’Ohsson, ii. 532, expresses a different opinion.
[640] Interest was allowable on the funds belonging to mosques, though
otherwise forbidden: Ricaut, 218; D’Ohsson, ii. 550.
[641] See below, p. 234, note 1.
[642] Ramberti, below, p. 243; Ricaut, 215.
[643] Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 237.
[644] Ricaut, 215. In D’Ohsson’s time (ii. 538) it was estimated at
1,000,000 aspers. Nicolay, 68, says that it had been 300,000 ducats
before the conquest.
[645] Morosini, 267; Zane, 406; Heidborn, 309.
[646] Mohammed II fixed these fees: for example, 7 aspers for sealing a
document, 12 for a signature, 32 for the marriage contract of a virgin,
15 for that of a widow, etc. See Hammer, _Staatsverfassung,_ 100.
[647] D’Ohsson, iv. 599.
[648] The _Ulema_ and other members of the Moslem Institution are
described in D’Ohsson, iv. 482-686. Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 372-412,
gives a summary of D’Ohsson’s treatment. Heidborn, 208-210, describes the
educational system summarily.
[649] The ten studies were grammar, syntax, logic, metaphysics,
philology, tropics, stylistics, rhetoric, geometry, and astronomy:
Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 238.
[650] Among these studies were advanced rhetoric and metaphysics,
dogmatics, civil law, exegesis, jurisprudence, oral tradition, and
written documents (Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 239). All schools above the
_mektebs_ came under the name _medresseh_. Heidborn distinguishes eight
classes to which Suleiman added four colleges of yet higher degree. His
implication (p. 210, note 5) that the student who aimed at the highest
judgeships must study through eight or more _medressehs_, and then teach
through a like series, can hardly be correct, since the ordinary human
life would be too short for such a double round. Probably the steps of
progress were not so precisely regulated or so numerous.
[651] D’Ohsson, ii. 464.
[652] Hammer (_Geschichte_, ix. 145-163) found 275 in Constantinople
alone, of which 50 had been founded before the death of Suleiman.
[653] Chalcocondyles, 53; Ramberti, below, p. 244; Junis Bey, below, p.
265; etc.
[654] D’Ohsson, ii. 477; Heidborn, 213.
[655] Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 236: “The priesthood proper ... is
perhaps in no other state of less influence, but the teaching body is
in no other kingdom (except China) of greater weight and political
importance.”
[656] Ricaut, 211.
[657] Spandugino, 219; Menavino, 72 ff.; Nicolay, 121. Ricaut, 261 ff.,
knew eight or ten orders, which he describes at some length.
[658] Hammer, _Geschichte_, i. 154, ii. 357, iii. 67; Postel, i. 112.
[659] Heidborn, 269-274.
[660] Ricaut, 201.
[661] In Ricaut’s time (p. 204) one of the _Kaziaskers_ was regularly
chosen for this position.
[662] D’Ohsson, iv. 500. Heidborn, 215, says that the title _Sheik
ul-Islam_ was first bestowed by Murad II upon the _mufti_ of Adrianople,
who was removed to Constantinople by Mohammed II after the capture; that
Mohammed assigned the title _Reis ul-ulema_, or chief of the _Ulema_, to
this officer, but that he reached great dignity only under Suleiman.
[663] Spandugino, 113.
[664] Postel, i. 118.
[665] Spandugino, 112.
[666] La Broquière, 181; Ramberti, below, p. 247; Geuffroy, 241;
Trevisano, 122; Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 116; Bernardo, 364.
[667] Heidborn, 216.
[668] Ricaut, 200-202.
[669] Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 401.
[670] _Ibid._ 536 ff.; Heidborn, 215, note 16.
[671] D’Ohsson, v. 104 ff.
[672] See Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 278 ff.; and Appendix III below.
Heidborn, 215, contributes further details as to the great _Mufti’s_
advance in the _cursus honorum_ of the Moslem Institution. He shows that
he began his legal studies at 27 years of age, continued them until his
45th year, was made _Kazi_ of Brusa, then of Constantinople, and in his
50th year (944 A.H.) _Mufti_. The last statement seems to be erroneous;
for Hammer (as above) says that he became _Mufti_ in 952 (1545 A. D.),
after eight years’ service as _Kaziasker_. Probably, then, he was made
_Kaziasker_ in 944 and _Mufti_ in 952. After thirty years in that eminent
position, he died in 982 (1574).
[673] Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 116-117.
[674] Ricaut, 202.
[675] This description, based on D’Ohsson’s account, may represent
at some points a development later than the time of Suleiman. No
sixteenth-century writer seems to have gone into the organization of the
system in detail. Heidborn, 220 ff., treats with fulness the past and
present judicial system of the Ottoman Empire.
[676] Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 380.
[677] Postel, i. 117.
[678] The _Subashis_ in particular were closely connected with the
administration of justice. Postel, i. 120, says loosely that _Pasha_,
_Kazi_, and _Subashi_ all mean the same thing. Chesneau, 47, says that
the sultan had two judges in every city, a _Kazi_ for civil cases and
a _Subashi_ for criminal cases. This is certainly incorrect, for the
Sacred Law provided for many criminal cases, while _Kanuns_ dealt with
many civil cases. The _Sanjak Beys_ and _Beylerbeys_ held Divans, or
councils, resembling on a lesser scale the sultan’s Divan (Heidborn,
143, note 17); following the analogy of the _Kaziaskers_, the _Kazi_ of
the city in which each such officer resided would sit in his Divan and
decide the cases that came up touching the Sacred Law, and would also
hold independent court at other times. In cities of lesser importance,
the _Kazis_ appear to have been the heads of the restricted municipal
governments (_ibid._, note 16).
[679] A scheme of the higher offices in the judicial system in the early
nineteenth century is given in Hammer’s _Geschichte_, ix. 1-10.
[680] _Kazi_ is the Turkish pronunciation of the Arabic word _kadi_,
judge; _Molla_ is the Turkish form of the Arabic word _maulā_, lord.
[681] Junis Bey (below, p. 265) and Postel, i. 119, state that the
_Kaziaskers_ nominated all _Kazis_. Junis Bey says: “Two _Cadilescher_
talismans, one of Greece and the other of Natolia or Asia, and they each
have revenues of 6 or 7 thousand ducats a year: who are executors of
their law ... it is they who appoint the Kadis or podestas of all the
lands of the Seigneur.” Ramberti (below, p. 247) and Nicolay, 119, say
that the consent of the pashas was necessary also.
[682] Ricaut, 205.
[683] Hammer (as above, p. 216, note 4) gives a list of 39 judges of rank
above the _Kazis_ proper, and 243 _Kazis_ of Rumelia, 280 of Anatolia,
and 34 of Egypt. The total is thus 557 _Kazis_ proper, and 596 judges in
all. In the subsequent list of 247 positions in Rumelia as rearranged
under Mahmûd II, five places in the Crimea are mentioned as seats of
_Kazis in partibus_, but neither list appears to mention any in North
Africa.
[684] Spandugino, 188; Postel, i. 127.
[685] Spandugino, 213; D’Ohsson, vi. 333.
[686] Postel, i. 126. This officer is called by Postel _Mortasi_.
[687] Menavino, 66; Spandugino, 211.
[688] Postel, i. 120, 124; Nicolay, 119. There was no regular
organization of the procedure of appeal; nevertheless it was allowed
(Heidborn, 389).
[689] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 100. See above, p. 203, note 1.
[690] See above, p. 116.
[691] Spandugino, 211.
[692] _Ibid._
[693] The Arabic words _kadi al asker_ signify judge of the army. In the
sixteenth century the pronunciation seems to have been _kadi l’esker_;
nowadays it is _kazi asker_. The burdensome duty of holding court
continually is mentioned in Spandugino, 96; D’Ohsson, iv. 581.
[694] Postel, i. 123. Heidborn, 141-143, note 15, quotes from Ypsilanti
an interesting description of a session of the grand vizier’s court.
[695] Postel, i. 127, iii. 8.
[696] _Ibid._ iii. 9.
[697] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 11.
[698] _Ibid._ 61.
[699] Ricaut, 3.
[700] Garzoni, 430. See also Morosini, 273.
[701] Postel, i. 124. Matters were distinctly worse in Ricaut’s time (pp.
140-141).
[702] Spandugino, 114.
[703] It has been suggested (Morosini, 273) that the promptness of
justice had a connection with the early military character of the Moslems.
[704] Spandugino, 211, 255.
[705] Postel, i. 127, iii. 87.
[706] _Ibid._ i. 117.
[707] _Ibid._
[708] The use of cannon is perhaps the most conspicuous example.
[709] Halil Ganem, i. 201.
[710] Spandugino, 207: “And the Turkish lords generally, as well great as
small, study only to build churches and hospitals and to enrich and make
hostelries for lodging travelers, to improve the roads, to build bridges,
to construct baths, and several other charitable works which they do in
such a way that I suppose the Turkish lords are beyond comparison greater
alms-givers than our Christian lords; and in proportion as they have good
zeal, they use great hospitality. They voluntarily lodge Christian, Turk,
and Jew alike.” See also Morosini, 270.
[711] He built seven mosques (Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 456), four
colleges at Mecca (_ibid._ 459), four colleges around the Suleimanieh
Mosque (_ibid._ 470), and endowed them all, etc.
[712] See above, p. 150.
[713] Ramberti came overland from Ragusa on his journey from Venice to
Constantinople.
[714] The writer seems not to have observed that these groves were
cemeteries.
[715] The writer evidently did not know that this Egyptian obelisk
consists of a single stone. It actually rests on four bronze cubes.
[716] This was the support of the tripod of the priestess at Delphi.
The heads have been broken off, and are now in the treasury of the Old
Seraglio at Constantinople.
[717] This was overthrown at the downfall of Ibrahim in 1536.
[718] This remarkable statement is probably the source of Nicolay’s
similar idea (p. 77). The Danube is more than two hundred miles distant
from Constantinople.
[719] Rather, of the Sea of Marmora.
[720] _Marrani_: Jews and Moors of Spain, baptized, but remaining true to
their own religion.
[721] This statement and the following one are certainly exaggerations.
[722] Either the writer’s geographical knowledge or the text is in
confusion. The description here, as well as that which follows, cannot be
made to fit the map.
[723] The boundary between Europe and Asia is now, of course, placed far
to the east of the Don.
[724] Compare Junis Bey, below, pp. 272, 273.
[725] Michaloghli.
[726] More accurately, Othman, beginning in 1299, ruled 27 years; Orchan,
33 years; Murad I, 30 years; Bayezid I, 13 years; Mohammed I (_Chelebi_)
in undisputed rule 8 years, after 11 years of civil war; Murad II, 30
years; Mohammed II, 30 years; Bayezid II, 31 years; Selim, 8 years, until
his death in 1520, when Suleiman came to the throne.
[727] Celeby and Calepino are forms of _Chelebi_, the Gentleman, which
was an appellation of Mohammed I; these three names, therefore, refer to
the same person.
[728] At this point the writer begins to follow the pamphlet of Junis Bey.
[729] Seraglio Point is thrust out into the Bosphorus just before it
meets the Sea of Marmora.
[730] The land on which Mohammed’s palace was built had belonged to the
church of St. Sophia under the Byzantine Empire. See above, p. 202.
[731] Junis Bey speaks of eight youths, but names six, as below.
[732] After Junis Bey. The word here is “_Chiuchter_.”
[733] There were two treasurers of the household, bearing the same name.
One labored within the palace, and one without. See above, p. 127.
[734] There is confusion here. The _Kapu Aghasi_ and the _Seraidar-bashi_
were the same person. The chief of the gate is rightly called the
_Kapuji-bashi_. Junis Bey shows similar confusion (below, p. 263). See
above, p. 126; and Redhouse, 1435.
[735] “_Talismani._” See above, p. 205.
[736] “_Capoglano._” The derivation is faulty; the literal meaning is
“gate-youth.”
[737] “_Gianizzerotti._” Junis Bey, below, p. 263, speaks of 400
gardeners, which is probably more nearly correct.
[738] “_Protogero._” _Kiaya_, or by transliteration _Ketkhuda_, is the
Turkish word. See above, p. 96, note 4.
[739] This should read “the _Bostanji-bashi_”: Junis Bey, 263.
[740] The chief taster.
[741] Junis Bey, 264, says five to six aspers each.
[742] Intendant or steward of the kitchen.
[743] The word translated “feudal income,” or “feudal grant,” is
“_timar_.” See above, p. 100 ff.
[744] This sentence was evidently inserted after the previous part of the
paragraph had been written. See below, p. 255.
[745] “_Centola._”
[746] This remark seems to contain a comparison between the relation of
the pope to the Roman emperor and that of the _Mufti_ to the sultan. Such
a comparison would, however, be inexact. See above, p. 209.
[747] “_Cavalleria._” Junis Bey, below, p. 265, calls them _cursori_.
[748] Junis Bey, 266, says 15 to 20 slaves each.
[749] “_Spezzate._”
[750] That the other _Chaushes_ were slaves not of the _Chaush-bashi_,
but of the sultan, is shown by the amount of their pay. See Junis Bey’s
testimony below, p. 265.
[751] Junis Bey, below, p. 266, says that the _Kiaya_ of the Janissaries
has 300 ducats of feudal grant per year, which would equal about 15,000
aspers.
[752] “_Giannizzeriasis._”
[753] “_Livreri._”
[754] “_Bracchi._”
[755] “_Assareri._”
[756] This Slavonic word seems to be used here simply in the sense of
“army officers.”
[757] “_Immensi._”
[758] This is an error. Probably the number intended is three hundred.
Junis Bey, below, p. 267, gives two hundred and fifty.
[759] Only two officers should be named here. The lieutenant
(_Protogero_) and the _Kiaya_ were the same. Junis Bey gives this
correctly.
[760] Under each _Agha_, or chief officer.
[761] The _Kiaya_ and the lieutenant are the same.
[762] This derivation is from a secondary meaning; the primary meaning is
“foreign youth.” See above, pp. 98, 99, note 1.
[763] “_Bracor-bashi._”
[764] This should read “_Kiaya_ and secretary.”
[765] “_Brene._”
[766] This is the common report in Western writers as regards the
_Peiks_. See Menavino, 155; Nicolay, 100.
[767] _Kiayas_ and secretaries.
[768] This refers to those whom Junis Bey, below, p. 268, calls
_Zainogiler_, a body of lancers, who are here erroneously classed with
the falconers. Junis Bey’s figures are 20,000 in all, 1000 receiving pay
in money. Are they the Voinaks (above, p. 131)?
[769] Junis Bey, “_cursor_,” a messenger or porter.
[770] Literally, “intendant of the town.”
[771] Junis Bey says 57.
[772] Usually called by Western writers “Dragoman.”
[773] This was the “Old Palace” of Mohammed the Conqueror, and stood
where the _Seraskierat_, or War Office now stands.
[774] Suleiman is said to have been faithful to Roxelana after he had
made her his wife. See above, p. 56.
[775] This should read “per day.” Junis Bey, below, p. 269.
[776] This should read 100,000: _ibid._
[777] Junis Bey, below, p. 270, says 200,000 per year.
[778] At the meetings of the Divan.
[779] This should read fifty each: Junis Bey, below, p. 271.
[780] “_Che fanno fattione._”
[781] This should read “ten thousand”: Junis Bey, below, p. 272.
[782] Of the Turkish possessions in Asia.
[783] “_Maldac._”
[784] “_Esdum._” Junis Bey, below, p. 272, has “_exdrun_.”
[785] More correctly, _Irak Ajam_, north-central Persia.
[786] Junis Bey, 273, counts these as two, and the whole number as
thirty-six.
[787] Herzegovina.
[788] “_Cangri._”
[789] “_Hallayce_” or “_Allaye_.”
[790] The ancient Magnesia.
[791] The plain of Albistan.
[792] “_Alziden._”
[793] Evidently the writer intended to fill these in, but failed to
secure the names.
[794] This amounts to about four million ducats a year.
[795] The reference is, of course, to the feudal _Spahis_ and their
officers, who then received according to this estimate two-thirds of the
revenues of the empire.
[796] At this point the smaller type begins. See below, p. 315.
[797] The object of this appendix is to set forth in outline the features
of the Mogul government, in order to suggest comparison with that of the
Ottoman Empire. Completeness neither of research nor of exposition has
been attempted. A list of the authorities consulted, most of which are
secondary, will be found at the end of the appendix.
[798] Lavisse and Rambaud, _Histoire Générale_, vi. 879.
[799] Leopold Ranke, _The Ottoman and the Spanish Empires_, Preface, 1.
[800] The report at this page, though ascribed to Jacopo Soranzo, 1581,
and so referred to in the foregoing footnotes, was really written in 1582
by some one in his suite.
GLOSSARY OF TURKISH WORDS
The pronunciation of the words defined should be approximately phonetic,
the vowels by the continental system, the consonants as usually in
English. Forms not defined are variant Western spellings. Gh is silent
except at the beginning of a word. Plurals of nouns originally Turkish
are formed by affixing -ler or -lar. The plurals in -s used in the
foregoing pages are Anglicized.
Achiar, or Aconiziae, _see_ Akinji.
Adet, established custom, 152, 161.
Agha, a general officer.
Aghiar, _see_ Akinji.
Agiamoglani, _see_ Ajem-oghlan.
Ajem-oghlan (untrained youth), a cadet or apprentice Janissary, 79 ff.
Akinji, the irregular cavalry, 105.
Alai Bey, a colonel of the feudal cavalry, 103.
Alcangi, Akanzi, or Alengi, _see_ Akinji.
Allophase, _see_ Ulufagi.
Ameji, a receiver of petitions, etc., 183.
Aquangi, _see_ Akinji.
Arpa-emini, intendant of forage, 132.
Ashji-bashi, a chief cook, 245.
Azab, the irregular infantry, 105.
Bailo (Italian), a Venetian minister resident at Constantinople.
Bairam, the name of two great Moslem festivals, 136.
Balucasi, _see_ Boluk-bashi.
Bascia, _see_ Pasha.
Bash, a head, a chief.
Bassa, _see_ Pasha.
Berat, an ordinance, or document conferring a dignity or privilege.
Berat-emini, a distributor of ordinances, 253.
Beylerbey (lord of lords), a general of feudal cavalry and governor
of a province or group of provinces, 103.
Beylikji, a director of the three chancery bureaus, 183.
Beylik Kalemi, a bureau of the Chancery, 183.
Bezestan, a market house in Constantinople, built by Mohammed II.
Bin(m)bashi (chief of a thousand), a colonel.
Boluk-bashi, a captain of the Janissaries, 249.
Bostanji, a gardener.
Bostanji-bashi, the head gardener of the Sultan’s palace—a high
official, 130.
Cacaia, _see_ Kiaya.
Cadilescher, _see_ Kaziasker.
Cahaia, or Caia, _see_ Kiaya.
Calvalgibassi, _see_ Helvaji-bashi.
Capagasi, _see_ Kapu-aghasi.
Capiagabasi, _see_ Kapuji-bashi.
Capi (oglan), _see_ Ghureba (oghlan).
Caragi, _see_ Kharâji.
Caripicus, _see_ Ghureba.
Caripp (oglan), _see_ Ghureba (oghlan).
Caripy, _see_ Ghureba.
Carmandari (Italianized), muleteers, 251.
Carzeri, _see_ Kharâji.
Casnandarbasi, _see_ Khazinehdar-bashi.
Cavriliji (Italianized), a herdsman, 251.
Ceyssi, _see_ Seis.
Chakirji, a vulturer, 252.
Chasnejir, a taster, 245.
Chasnejir-bashi, a chief taster, 245.
Chaush, an usher, 130.
Chaush-bashi, chief of the Chaushes—a high official, 183.
Checaya, or Chechessi, _see_ Kiaya.
Chelebi, a gentleman.
Cheri-bashi (chief of soldiery), a petty officer of feudal cavalry.
Chiccaia, or Chietcudasci, _see_ Kiaya.
Chokadar, a page of high rank, 127.
Ciarcagi, _see_ Ghureba.
Ciaus, _see_ Chaush.
Cogia, _see_ Hoja.
Coureyschs, _see_ Koreish.
Danishmend, a master of arts, 205.
Dar ul-harb, home or land of war, 29.
Dar ul-Islam, home or land of Islam, 64.
Defterdar, a treasurer, 167 ff., 174.
Defter-emini (intendant of account-books), a recorder of fiefs, 172.
Deli, crazy (appellation of a scout or a captain of the Akinji).
Dervish, a member of a Moslem religious order, 207.
Deveji, a camel-driver, 251.
Devshurmeh, a gathering or collecting (of the tribute boys), 51.
Divan, the Ottoman council of state, 187 ff.; a council of a great officer,
216, note 3.
Dulbend, or Dulipante (Italianized), a turban.
Emin (plural Umena), an intendant, 132.
Emir, a descendant of the prophet Mohammed, 206 ff.; a commander, a
governor.
Emir-al-Akhor, a grand equerry, 131.
Ersi kharâjiyeh, tribute lands, 31.
Ersi memleket, state lands, 31.
Ersi ’ushriyeh, tithe lands, 31.
Eski, old.
Fetva, a response from a Mufti, 208, 223.
Fetva-khaneh, the drafting bureau of the Sheik ul-Islam, 208.
Fikh, the practical regulations of the Sacred Law, 153.
Firman, an administrative ordinance, 157.
Gachaia, _see_ Kiaya.
Gharib (oglan), _see_ Ghureba (oghlan).
Ghureba (foreigner), a member of the lowest corps of the standing
cavalry, 98 and note 5.
Gonnullu, a volunteer soldier or sailor, 102.
Gul-behar, rose of spring (a feminine proper name), 57 note 3.
Hebegibassi, _see_ Jebeji-bashi.
Hekim-bashi, a chief physician, 129.
Helvaji-bashi, a chief confectioner, 245.
Hoja, a teacher; the Sultan’s adviser, 128.
Holofagi, _see_ Ulufagi.
Humayun, imperial.
Iaching, _see_ Akinji.
Ianicerotti (Italianized), the Ajem-oghlans.
Iaxagi, _see_ Yaziji.
Ikinji Kapu-oghlan, a white eunuch in charge of the second gate of
the place, 128.
Imâm, the Caliph or lawful successor of Mohammed, 28, 150, 235; a leader
of daily prayers, 206.
Imbrahor, Imbroor, Imrakhor, or Imror, _see_ Emir-al-Akhor.
Iskemleji, a page of high rank, 244.
Itch-oghlan (inside youth), a page in one of the Sultan’s palaces, 73
ff.
Jebeji-bashi, a chief armorer, 252.
Jerrah-bashi, a chief surgeon, 129.
Jizyeh, a poll or capitation tax on non-Moslems, 175.
Kadi, _see_ Kazi.
Kadi al asker, or Kadi l’esker, _see_ Kaziasker.
Kaim, a caretaker of a mosque, 206.
Kalem, a bureau of the Treasury, 168 ff.
Kanun, an imperial decree, 152, 158.
Kanuni, legislator, 27.
Kanun-nameh, a book or collection of laws, 158 ff.
Kapu Aghasi (general of the gate), the white eunuch in charge of the
principal palace, 126.
Kapudan Pasha, an admiral, 189.
Kapuji, a gatekeeper, 130.
Kapuji-bashi, a head gatekeeper, 126.
Kapujilar-kiayasi, a grand chamberlain, 190.
Kazi, a judge, 215 ff.
Kaziasker (judge of the army), one of the two chief judges of the
Ottoman Empire, 220 ff.
Ketkhuda, _see_ Kiaya.
Kharâj, a tax or tribute in money or kind on lands belonging to
non-Moslems, 175.
Kharâji, a non-Moslem who pays the kharâj, 41.
Khass Oda (private chamber), the highest chamber of pages, 75, 126.
Khass, a very large fief, 100.
Khatib, a leader of Friday prayers, 206.
Khazinehdar-bashi, a treasurer-in-chief, 127.
Khazineh-odassi (chamber of the treasury), the second chamber of
pages, 127.
Khojagan, a chief of a treasury bureau, 168.
Khurrem, happy, joyful (a feminine proper name), 57.
Kiaya (common form of ketkhuda), a steward or lieutenant, 96 note 4,
125.
Kiaya-bey, the lieutenant of the grand vizier, 182 ff.
Kiaya Katibi, a private secretary of the Kiaya-bey, 184.
Kilerji-bashi, a chief of the sultan’s pantry, 127.
Kiler-odassi (chamber of the pantry), the third chamber of pages, 127.
Kizlar Aghasi (general of the girls), the black eunuch in charge of
the palace of the harem, 125.
Koreish, the Arabian tribe of which Mohammed the prophet was a
member, 150, 235.
Kul, a slave; one of the sultan’s slave-family, 47 ff.
Masraf-shehriyari (imperial steward), substitute for the intendant of
kitchen, 132.
Mawuna, or Maone (Italianized), a sailing vessel.
Mecter, _see_ Mihter.
Medresseh, a secondary school or college, 203 ff.
Mekteb, a school, 203.
Mektubji, a private secretary of the grand vizier, 184.
Mihter, a tent-pitcher; a musician.
Mihter-bashi, the chief tent-pitcher, 132.
Mir Alem, the imperial standard bearer, 131, 206.
Miri-akhor, _see_ Emir-al-Akhor.
Molla, a judge of high rank, 217.
Mosellem, a fief holder by ancient tenure, 105.
Muderis, a professor in a Medresseh, 205.
Muezzin, one who calls Moslems to prayer, 206.
Mufettish, a special judge dealing with endowments, 201, 218.
Mufti, a Moslem legal authority; in particular, the Sheik ul-Islam, 207
ff.
Muhtesib, a lieutenant of police, 219.
Mujtahid, a doctor of the Sacred Law.
Mulâzim (candidate), a graduate of the higher Medressehs, 205.
Mulk, land held in fee-simple, 31.
Munejim-bashi, a chief astrologer, 129.
Muste emin, a resident foreigner, 34.
Mutbakh-emini, intendant of the kitchen, 132.
Muteferrika, the Noble Guard, 129.
Muteveli, an administrator of an endowment, 201.
Naib, an inferior judge, 218.
Nakib ol-Eshraf, the chief of the Seids or descendants of the prophet
Mohammed, 206.
Nazir, an inspector of an endowment, 201.
Nishanji, a chancellor, 182 ff.
Nizam al-mulk, basis of the order of the kingdom (title of a vizier
of Melek Shah), 306.
Oda (a room), a chamber of the pages or of the harem recruits; a
company of the Janissaries.
Oda-bashi (head of chamber), the page of highest rank, 244; a
corporal of the Janissaries, 249.
Oghlan, a youth.
Okumak-yerleri (reading-places), primary schools, 203.
Orta, a company of the Janissaries. (_See also_ Oda.)
Ouloufedgis, _see_ Ulufaji.
Papuji, a page of high rank, 244.
Pasha, a very high official.
Peik, a member of the body-guard of halbardiers, 130.
Podesta (Italian), a municipal judge.
Quaia, or Queaya, _see_ Kiaya.
Ramazan, the Moslem month of fasting.
Rayah, non-Moslem Ottoman subjects, 159.
Reis Effendi, or Reis ul-Khuttab, a recording secretary, 174; a
recording secretary of the Divan, later an important minister
of state, 182 ff.
Reis ul-Ulema (head of the Ulema), an early title of the Sheik
ul-Islam, 208 note 3.
Rekiab-Aghalari (generals of the stirrup), a group of high officers
of the outside service of the palace, 131.
Rusnamehji, a chief book-keeper of the Treasury, 168.
Ruus Kalemi, a bureau of the Chancery, 183.
Sakka, a water-carrier.
Sanjak, a flag or standard, a district.
Sanjak Bey, a high officer of feudal cavalry and governor of a
Sanjak, 103.
Saremin, _see_ Shehr-emini.
Sarraf, a banker.
Schēni, _see_ Iskemleji.
Seferli-odassi (chamber of campaign), the fourth chamber of pages,
128 note 1.
Segban-bashi (master of the hounds), the second officer of the corps
of Janissaries, 96, 132 note 3.
Seid, a descendant of the prophet Mohammed, 206.
Seis, a groom, 251.
Selicter, _see_ Silihdar.
Seracter, _see_ Sharabdar.
Serai, a palace.
Seraskier, a commander-in-chief.
Serraj, saddlers, 251.
Seymen-bashi, a popular form of Segban-bashi, _q. v._
Shahinji, a falconer, 252.
Sharabdar (drink-bearer), a page of high rank, 127.
Shehr-emini, intendant of imperial buildings, 132.
Sheik, a preacher; a head of a religious community, 206.
Sheik ul-Islam, the Mufti of Constantinople and head of the Moslem
Institution, 208 ff.
Sheri (or Sheriat), the Moslem Sacred Law, 152 ff.
Sherif, a descendant of the prophet Mohammed, 206.
Silihdar (sword-bearer), a member of the second corps of standing
cavalry, 98 and note 5; the page who carried the sultan’s
arms, 127.
Sillictar, _see_ Silihdar.
Sipah, or Sipahi, _see_ Spahi.
Sofi, woolen; a dervish (an appellation of the Shah of Persia).
Softa, an undergraduate in a Medresseh, 205.
Solak (left-handed), a janissary bowman of the sultan’s personal
guard, 129.
Spachi, _see_ Spahi.
Spacoillain, _see_ Spahi-oghlan.
Spahi, a cavalry soldier; a member of the standing or feudal cavalry,
47, 98 ff., 100 ff.
Spahi-oghlan (cavalry youth), a member of the highest corps of the
standing cavalry, 98 and note 5.
Spai, _see_ Spahi.
Subashi, a captain of the feudal cavalry and governor of a town, 103.
Sukhta (inflamed), _see_ Softa.
Sulastrus, _see_ Silihdar.
Sultana, a princess or queen mother, 125; (the true Turkish form uses
a proper name or the word Valideh, followed by Sultan).
Suluphtar, _see_ Silihdar.
Tahvil Kalemi, a bureau of the Chancery, 183.
Talisman, _see_ Danishmend.
Tapu, a tenant’s lease or title deed, 31.
Terjuman, an interpreter (dragoman).
Terjuman Divani Humayun, a chief interpreter of the sultan, 183.
Teshrifat, ceremony, 134.
Teshrifatji, a master of ceremonies, 184.
Teskereh, a document.
Teskereji, a master of petitions, 184.
Teskereji-bashi (chief of document-writers), the Nishanji, 184, 185.
Timar, a fief of small income, 100; feudal income.
Timarji, the holder of a Timar.
Tughra, the sultan’s monogram, 185.
Ulema (plural of âlim, a learned man), the whole body of Moslems
learned in the Sacred Law, 203 ff.
Ulufaji (paid troops), a member of the third corps of the sultan’s
standing cavalry, 98 and note 5.
Umena, plural of Emin.
Urf, the sovereign will of the reigning sultan, 152, 162.
’Ushr, a tithe on lands belonging to Moslems, 175.
Vakf, a religious endowment, 31, 201 ff.
Valideh, a mother.
Veznedar, an official weigher of money, 132.
Vizier (burden-bearer), a minister of state, 163 ff.
Voivode (Slavic), an officer, a governor.
Yachinji, _see_ Akinji.
Yaya, a fief holder by ancient tenure, owing infantry service, 105.
Yaziji, a scribe or secretary.
Yedi-kuleh (seven towers), a strong castle against the land wall of
Constantinople, 172.
Yenicheri (new soldiery), the corps of the Janissaries, 91 ff.
Yeni Oda (new chamber), the lowest chamber of pages in the principal
palace, 75, 127.
Zagarji-bashi (master of the harriers), a high officer of the
Janissaries, 132 note 5.
Zanijiler (Italianized), lancers or Voinaks (?), 252.
Zarabkhane-emini, intendant of mints and mines, 132.
Ziam, the holder of a Ziamet.
Ziamet, a large fief, 100.
Zimmi, a tributary non-Moslem subject, 34.
INDEX
INDEX
Achmet I, 126 note 1, 160 and note 5.
Advancement based on merit, 82-86;
in Mogul Empire, 283.
Adviser of sultan (_Hoja_), 128, 218, 225.
Afghans, in Mogul Empire, 280, 282.
Agra, 287.
Agricultural conditions, 144 and note 2, 163, 177;
under Moguls in India, 297, 298.
Akbar, Mogul emperor, 278, 281;
removed poll-tax on non-Moslems, 284;
army of, 295;
presents made to, 188;
harem of, 290;
revenue system of, 293, 294;
amount of revenue of, 195;
policy of, toward cultivators of soil, 297;
removed internal tolls, 298;
tolerated Hindus, 298;
relation to Mohammedanism of, 302;
“divine faith” of, 302.
Albania, status of, 30, 33, 258, 297;
furnished tribute boys, 52, 74.
Ali Pasha, grand vizier of Suleiman, steps in promotion of, 87, 88;
great authority, 164.
Anatolia, 77, 79 note 4, 102, 104, 168, 169, 220;
_Beylerbey_ of, 103-105, 189.
Arabia, status of, 6, 30;
rendering of justice in, 37;
taxation in, 175, 176.
Arabic language, 21, 77.
Arabs, influence on Ottoman Empire, 4, 20, 23;
in Foreign Legion, 50;
relation of, to Ottoman government, 227, 258, 297;
service of, to Mogul emperors, 281.
Arbitrary taxes, 175, 176.
Architecture, in Ottoman Empire, 23, 24, 239-241;
in Mogul Empire, 287, 295.
Armenian subjects, a separate organization, 34, 37;
not liable to tribute of boys, 34.
Arms, of _Spahis_ of the Porte and Janissaries, 138, 139;
of Mogul infantry, 285.
Army—
Of Ottoman Empire, 90-113, 194;
principal subdivisions of, 91;
the territorial army, 104, 105;
numbers in, 106, 107 and note 1;
the supreme command of, 109-111;
indivisibility of, 111-113.
Of Mogul emperors, 279, 285-287;
compared with Ottoman army, 285.
Artillery of Mogul emperors, 286.
Asia Minor, Occidental influence in, 7;
occupation of, by Turks, 5, 14 ff., 35, 227;
defined, 14 note 1;
teachers from, 77;
Janissary apprentices sent to, 79;
heretics in, 210.
_See_ Anatolia.
Astrologer of sultan, 129.
Audiences, of Suleiman, 101;
of Aurangzeb, 289, 296;
of Humayun, 296.
Aurangzeb, Mogul emperor, compared with Suleiman, 278, 302;
a zealous Moslem, 284, 298, 302;
army of, 286, 287;
audiences of, 289, 296;
sisters of, 291;
views on government of, 292;
in civil wars, 293;
revenue of, 295;
reimposed capitation tax on non-Moslems, 295;
education of, 300, 301.
Austria, raided, 29, 50;
paid tribute to Suleiman, 30, 177;
wars of, with Ottoman Empire, 112, 113.
Baber, founder of Mogul Empire, house of, compared with house of
Osman, 278, 292, 293, 299 (_see_ Timur, house of);
followers of, 279;
character of, 280;
family life of, 281;
treatment of Moslem subjects by, 298.
Babylon, 4.
Bairam, feast of, 135, 136, 140.
Balkan peninsula, 6, 51, 103.
_See_ Albanians, Bulgarians, Rumelia, Servians.
Bangash tribe of Afghans, 281, 282.
Battle, order of, 100, 104.
Bayezid II, circumstances of deposition of, 94;
gave _kullar_ their own justice, 116;
honor shown the _Mufti_ by, 209.
Bayezid, son of Suleiman, execution of, 94, 95, 142, 143;
war against, 136.
Bedchamber, gentlemen of the, 75-78, 126, 127.
Body-guards, 129.
Bondage, American colonial, compared with Ottoman slavery, 60 note 7.
Booty, 176, 178.
Bosra, 31.
Brahmins, 282, 298.
Buddhist influence on Mogul Empire, 279.
Bulgarians, 16, 33, 35, 74.
Bureaucratic tendencies, 19, 32, 186, 187.
Bureaus, of the Treasury, 168 ff.;
of the Chancery, 183;
of the _Mufti_, 208.
Busbecq, opinion of, on Ottoman education, 74, 86;
dealings with Janissaries, 96;
witnessed ceremonies, 136-141;
on execution of Mustapha, 213.
Byzantine Empire, disintegration of, in 13th century, 6;
bequest of, to Ottoman Turks, 4, 21, 24, 227.
Caliph, as _Imâm_, 28, 157, 163 note 1;
the sultan as, 150;
Suleiman as, 234.
Canon law, of Roman Catholic Church, 157;
of Moslems, _see_ Sacred Law.
Capitation tax, 21, 170, 175, 284.
Caucasus, slaves from, 16, 34, 50, 57, 281.
_See_ Circassia, Georgia, Mingrelia.
Cavalry—
Of Ottoman Empire, regular, _see_ _Spahis_ of the Porte;
feudal, 100-105;
irregular, 105-107.
Of Mogul Empire, regular, 285;
feudal, 285, 286.
Ceremonies of the Court, 133-141;
law of, 134, 158.
Chancellor, 182-187, 189, 248.
Chancery, bureaus of, 183;
personnel of, 186, 187.
Charles V, Emperor, relations of, with Suleiman, 112, 113 and note 2.
China, influence of, on Turks and Mongols, 5, 19, 118.
Christians, converted and incorporated as Turks, 8, 14-17, 63-68;
not entrusted with great power, 62;
right to practise their religion, 211, 212.
_See_ Renegade Christians.
Christian subjects of Ottoman Empire, protected by Sacred Law, 26,
212;
position of, 34;
subject to levy of male children, 51-55;
relation of, to Sultan, 151;
legislation regarding, 159, 160 note 1;
taxation of, 170, 175;
church lands of, 172;
Selim I’s attempt to convert forcibly, 211, 212;
treatment of, in courts, 222.
Circassia, slaves from, 33 note 2, 57, 74, 290.
Civil war, in Ottoman Empire, 94;
in Mogul Empire, 293, 301.
Clergy, Moslem, 206.
Codifications, of Moslem Sacred Law, 152, 153, 292;
of sultans’ legislation, 158-161.
Colleges, of pages, 73-79;
of education, 203-205.
Comparison of the Ruling Institution and the Moslem Institution,
227-236;
likenesses, 227-230;
differences, 230-232;
relative power, 232-236.
Confiscations, 55, 172, 178, 179.
Conservatism, in regard to taxation, 177;
in education, 204;
of the two great institutions compared, 230, 232, 233.
_See_ Custom.
Constantinople described, 239-241.
Constitution, the Sacred Law a form of, 27, 28, 150, 156, 157, 175,
193, 209, 214.
Conversion to Mohammedanism, in Asia Minor, 15 ff.;
by Ottoman Turks, 33, 67;
by the Ruling Institution, 62-71;
meaning of, 62, 63;
why encouraged, 63-66;
not usually forcible, 63 and note 2, 66 and note 3, 67;
sincerity of, uncertain, 68-69;
in India, 284.
Corruption, official, 32, 39, 86, 144, 161, 177;
judicial, 222.
Costumes, 134, 135.
Counsellors-at-law, _see_ Jurists.
Court—
Of the sultan, 120-145;
separation of men and women, 121;
organization of household, 123;
the harem, 124-126;
the inside service, 126-128;
the outside service, 128-133;
ceremonies of, 133-141;
influence of, 141-145.
Of Mogul emperors, 287-291.
Courts of justice, the Divan, 187-193, 221;
of the Grand Vizier, 166, 221;
of the _Kaziaskers_, 220;
of present-day Turkey, 154 note 2;
procedure of, 219-221;
venality of, discussed, 222, 223;
the law administered by, 223.
Crimean Tartary, status, 30;
rendering of justice in, 37, 216;
slaves sent from, 50;
Selim I married princess from, 58 note 2;
contingent furnished by, 106;
Khan of, pensioned, 171.
Croatians, 34.
Crusades, 6-9, 227.
_Cursus honorum_, of Ruling Institution illustrated, 87, 88;
of Moslem Institution, 212 and note 1, 235.
Custom, power of, 19, 21, 27, 230.
Customary law, 152, 161, 162, 223.
Decentralization, tendency toward, 32, 38, 174.
Delhi, Moslem capital of India, 280, 285, 287, 299, 300.
Democracy, 84, 198, 225.
Dervishes, 37, 207, 300.
Descendants of Mohammed the Prophet (_Seids_), 37, 206, 207, 225, 300.
Despotism, in Ottoman Empire, 25-27, 46, 48, 55, 151, 159, 174, 193;
in Mogul Empire, 279, 292.
Dil-Dar, wife of Baber, 290.
Discipline, of Janissaries, 96, 97 and note 1;
of army generally, 108, 109;
of Ruling Institution, 196.
Divan, 135, 166, 187-193;
membership of, 188-190;
sessions of, 189-191;
general character of, 191-193;
comparison with audiences of Aurangzeb, 296;
of the Grand Vizier, 166;
of lesser officials, 216 note 3.
Domain lands, 31, 169, 171, 172, 176.
Donatives to Janissaries, 92 and note 5.
Ebu su’ud, the _Mufti_, 120, 212 and note 2, 213;
table of contents of his collection of Suleiman’s laws, 276, 277.
Education—
Of members of Ruling Institution, 71-88, 196, 197;
comprehensiveness of, 71, 72;
classification of, 73.
Of members of Moslem Institution, 203-206, 225;
comparison of above systems, 228, 229, 234, 235.
Of Moslems in India, 300.
Egypt, unable to unify Levant, 10;
status of, 30;
inhabitants of, 33;
Janissaries of, 95;
legislation for, 159, 160;
taxation of, 176;
Mamelukes of, 280.
Emancipation of slaves, 48, 60.
Endowments, religious and charitable, 31, 32, 200-203, 234 and note
1, 235, 300.
Equerries, 131.
Equity in Turkey, 223.
Eugene, Prince, 287.
Eunuchs, 57, 125-128.
Execution, grounds of, 88;
of Mustapha, 89, 94, 95, 142, 213;
of Bayezid and Ibrahim, 89, 94, 111, 141, 142;
of grand viziers, 167;
process of, 210, 221;
policy of, 222.
_See_ Fratricide.
Expenditures of government, 178, 179.
Extortion, 32, 86, 144, 163, 182.
Fatehpur-Sikri, 287, 302.
Ferdinand I, Archduke and Emperor, 30, 112.
Feudal cavalry—
Of Ottoman Empire, 100-105;
rights of, 100;
obligations of, 101;
officers of, 103-105.
Of Mogul Empire, 280, 285, 286.
Feudal system of Ottomans, 21, 24, 100-105, 176, 181 and note 2;
law of, 152, 159-161;
of Mogul Empire, 285, 286.
Fiefs, origin of, 21, 24, 31, 32;
reorganized by Suleiman, 102;
vacancies, 178.
Fleet, 171, 178, 179.
Foreign affairs, minister of, 183-185.
Foreign Legion, 50, 98, 99 note 1.
Foreigners in Ottoman Empire, privileges of, 35, 37, 38;
relation of, to sultan, 151;
taxation of, 176, 177.
Foundations, _see_ Endowments.
Fratricide of Ottoman sultans, 27 and note 2, 94 and note 2;
not authorized in Mogul Empire, 293.
Gardener, the head, 81, 130, 131.
Generals (_Aghas_), of the Janissaries, 96;
of the _Spahis_, 99;
of the army, 110;
of the sultan’s harem, 125;
of the imperial stirrup, 131;
in the Divan, 189, 191.
Genghis Khan, 280.
Georgia, status of, 30;
slaves furnished by, 33.
Ghazali, 221.
Government—
Of Ottoman Empire, described, 146-198;
rested on old political ideas, 4;
functions of, 147, 148;
limitation to its own affairs, 149, 174, 175;
compared with Mogul government, 278 ff.
Of Mogul Empire, of inferior strength and durability, 278-279;
described, 292-298.
_See_ Local government.
Governors of provinces, in Ottoman Empire (_Beylerbeys_), 103, 174,
187, 189, 191, 207, 216, 219, 220;
in Mogul Empire (_Naibs_), 296, 297.
Grand vizier, 164-167, 189-191, 220, 221, 229;
none in Mogul Empire, 296.
Greek Orthodox subjects, a separate organization, 34, 37;
the sultan their temporal head, 151.
Gritti, Alvise (or Luigi), household of, 58 note 4;
given command in Hungary, 62;
testimony of, as to Suleiman’s income, 179;
pamphlet of (with Junis Bey), 262-275.
Gul-Badan, daughter of Baber, 281, 290.
Hanifa, Abu, 152, 224.
Harem—
Of Suleiman, organization of, 56;
recruited from slaves, usually Christian, 56, 57;
number of women in, 56;
education of recruits for, 78, 79;
officers of, 125;
Suleiman’s mother, consorts, and daughter, 126.
Of Mogul emperors, 290, 291.
Harem intrigue, 121, 165.
Harun Al-Rashid, 295.
Heads of executed persons, 221.
Heredity of privilege and office discouraged, 66, 117-120;
how permitted to feudal cavalry, 101;
in Mogul Empire, 286.
Heretics, Moslem, 210, 211.
Hindus, influence of, on Mogul Empire, 279;
in service of Mogul emperors, 281, 286;
their religion tolerated, 298;
condition of, compared with that of Moslem subjects, 299.
Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina, 30, 125, 153, 169, 171, 228, 284.
Holy war, 209.
Household of the sultan, 123-133;
organization of, 123;
the harem, 124-126;
the inside service, 126-128;
the outside service, 128-133;
number in, 133.
Humayun, Mogul emperor, orders of nobility of, 282, 283;
artillery of, 286;
attendants of, at court, 288;
in civil war, 293;
ministers of state of, 295;
audiences of, 296.
Hungary, 30, 33, 51, 74, 178;
administration of, 176;
small proportion of Moslems in, 284.
Huns, 10, 20.
Hunting organization, 132.
Ibrahim Halebi, 153.
Ibrahim Pasha, grand vizier, treatment of parents, 53;
estate of, taken by Suleiman, 55;
vast power of, 83, 164, 167;
made Seraskier, 110;
execution of, 89, 111, 141;
proposes to settle Lutheran controversy, 113;
chief falconer, 132;
marriage of, 136 note 2;
other references, 62, 246, 265.
Ideas, not racial descent, the basis of Ottoman Empire, 3 ff., 228;
illustrated in Mogul Empire, 279-283.
Immunity from taxation, of the _kullar_, 35, 66, 114, 115;
of the _Ulema_, 35, 118, 119, 203, 206.
Imperial family, in Ottoman Empire, 56-58;
in Mogul Empire, 281, 290, 293.
Income of Suleiman, 179-182, 260;
of Mogul emperor, 293-295.
Incorporating spirit, of early Ottomans, 16;
of Tatars, 18;
of Ottoman Turks, 64 and note 3;
of Moslems and Byzantines, 65;
of Ruling and Moslem Institutions, 228.
India, absorbs gold and silver, 294;
influence of, upon Mogul Empire, 279;
prosperity of, under Akbar, 298.
Infantry—
Of Ottoman Empire, regular, _see_ Janissaries;
irregular, 105-107.
Of Mogul Empire, 285.
Inside service, 126-128.
Institutions of government in Ottoman Empire, 25, 35-38;
compared with Mogul institution, 278, 279.
_See_ Moslem Institution, and Ruling Institution.
Intendants, 132.
Interest, lawful only for funds of mosques, 201 note 3.
Interpreters, 130, 183.
Iranians, 13 and notes 3, 4.
Irregular troops, 50, 105-107.
Iskender Chelebi, _Defterdar_, estate of, taken by Suleiman, 55;
educational system and armed household of, 59.
Issus, battle of, 7.
Janissaries, described, 47, 91-97;
religious character of, 68, 69;
rule against admission of their sons broken down, 69 note 3;
not supposed to marry, 70;
uprisings of, 92;
conquests limited by, 93;
influence of upon succession to the throne, 93-95;
number of, 95 and note 3;
organization and officers of, 95, 96;
promotions of, 96;
appearance of, 138, 139;
finances of, 169, 179;
other references, 249, 250, 266, 267.
Janissary apprentices (_ajem-oghlans_), education of, 79-82;
rewards of, 82, 83;
punishments of, 88;
other references, 47, 73, 129, 254, 255, 269, 270.
Jehan-Ara, daughter of Shah-Jehan, 291.
Jehangir, son of Suleiman, 142, 143 note 1.
Jehangir, Mogul emperor, elephants of, 286;
ceremony of weighing of, 288, 289;
harem of, 290;
sense of responsibility of, 292;
in civil war, 293.
Jelal ad-din Rumi, 118.
Jemali, the _Mufti_, 211, 212.
Jerbé, victory of, 89.
Jewish subjects, not liable to tribute of boys, 34;
have separate organization, 34, 37;
the sultan their legal head, 151;
Ramberti’s testimony regarding, 241.
Judges—
General description of, 216-223;
classification of, 216-219;
venality of, discussed, 222, 223;
the law administered by, 223;
power of, over individuals, 224.
Grand vizier, 165, 189-191, 220, 221.
_Kaziaskers_, in Divan, 167, 189-191;
duties, 217-220;
other references, 225, 247, 263.
Special, for endowments, 201, 218.
In Mogul Empire, 297, 300.
Junis Bey, chief interpreter of Suleiman, testimony of, as to
Suleiman’s income, 179;
pamphlet of (with Alvise Gritti), 262-275.
Jurisconsults or jurists (_muftis_), 207-215, 225, 303;
their chief (_Sheik ul-Islam_), 151, 208 ff., 247, 299.
Jurisprudence, Moslem, 153-155.
Justice, systems of, in general, 34-36, 216;
of the Janissaries, 97;
of the _kullar_, 116;
of the _Ulema_, 203;
of the _Seids_, 206, 207;
of the Moslem Institution, 215-224;
in India, 297, 300.
Justinian, 6, 158.
Kara Khalil Chendereli, traditional founder of Janissaries, 63, 64,
117.
Khaireddin Barbarossa, 246.
Khosrew Pasha, 152.
Khurrem (or Roxelana), wife of Suleiman, 56-58, 95, 126, 141-143, 213.
Kitchen service, 129.
Kiuprilis, 165.
Koran, 40, 42, 152, 214, 223, 300.
Koreish, 150, 235.
Kurdistan, 30.
Kurds, 105, 106, 296.
Land system, outline of, 28-32;
complication of, 32, 175, 176.
Law, classification of, 152;
of Ceremonies, 134;
of Subjects, Fiefs, Egypt, and Fines and Punishments, 159, 160.
_See also_ Sacred Law.
Law schools, 203-205.
Lawyers, none in Turkey, 208, 223.
Learned associates of sultans, 128, 129, 218, 225.
Legislation, 27, 150-163;
of the sultans generally, 157-158;
of Mohammed II, 158, 159;
of Suleiman, 32, 159-161;
of the jurists through _fetvas_, 214.
Lepanto, battle of, 95, 143.
Local government—
In Ottoman Empire, officers of, 103-105, 256-260, 270-272;
justice in, 216-220.
In Mogul Empire, 294, 296, 297.
Mahmûd of Ghazni, 280, 283.
Malta, 143, 145.
Malversations, 177, 294.
Mamelukes of Egypt: how recruited, 33;
duration of rule, 280.
March, order of, 274, 275.
Master of ceremonies, 184.
Masters of the hunt, 132.
Mediterranean civilization, 7, 279.
Menzikert, battle of, 7.
Merit the basis of advancement, 82-86;
also in Mogul Empire, 283.
Mesopotamia, 31.
Michael of the Pointed Beard, 117, 118.
Mihrmah, daughter of Suleiman, 126, 142, 143.
Mines, 132, 171, 176.
Mingrelia, status of, 30;
slaves furnished by, 33, 57, 289.
Missionary motive of Ruling Institution, 62-71.
Mogul emperor’s authority, original feudal bond, 279, 280;
commander-in-chief of army, 283;
despot, 298.
Mogul Empire, less durable than Ottoman, 278, 279;
government of, 278-303;
financial greatness of, 295.
Mohacs, battles of, 177, 278.
Mohammedanism, relation to Christianity, 8, 68;
effect on Turkish character, 8;
bequest of, to Ottoman Turks, 21, 227 ff.;
missionary energy of, 63, 64, 284.
Moldavia, 30, 52 note 1, 106, 129, 178, 297.
Mohammed II, the Conqueror, quotation from letter of, to Uzun Hassan,
title page, 64;
his _Kanun_ of fratricide, 94 and note 2, 142;
dined alone, 122 and note 3;
built palace, 123;
adopted ceremonies, 134;
ordered Sacred Law codified, 152;
legislation of, 158, 159;
organized the Treasury, 168;
instituted tax-farming, 177;
regulated education of Moslem Institution, 203;
rule of as to jurisdiction of _Kaziaskers_, 220.
Mohammed Piri Pasha, grand vizier, 167.
Mohammed Sokolli, grand vizier, 120, 164, 165, 167.
Mohammed the Prophet, tradition of, 152;
descendants of, 206, 225, 300;
completed Sacred Law, 209;
granted toleration to Christian subjects, 212;
represented by judges, 220;
founder of Moslem system, 224, 235;
derivation of ideas, of, 227.
Mongols, relation of, to Turks, 12;
invasion of, 15;
empire of, 280.
_See_ Tatars.
Morocco, 30.
Moslem-born subjects, not admitted to high office, 40-44, 66;
pressure of, to enter Ruling Institution, 69 note 3, 117, 120, 195,
231;
persistent loyalty of, 300.
Moslem Institution of the Ottoman Empire, antecedents of, 21;
general description of, 36, 37, 199, 200, 224-226;
institutions parallel to, 37;
relation of, to Ruling Institution, 38;
contemporary descriptions of, 38-44;
Suleiman its head, 151;
received sultan’s fifth of booty, 178;
the Divan its cap-stone, 188;
financial support of, 200-203;
educational system of, 203-206;
clergy, _seids_, and _dervishes_, 206, 207;
jurists and the _Mufti_, 207-215;
democratic spirit of, 225;
comparison of with Ottoman Ruling Institution, 227-236;
cumulative influence of, 234;
needed support of Ruling Institution, 235;
comparison of, with Moslem church in India, 300-303.
Moslems in India, 283, 284, 299-303;
not in close touch with emperors, 299, 300;
had no powerful chief, 299, 302;
their educational system, 300.
Mosques, 24, 202, 240, 300.
Muhammad Khan, _Nawab_ of Farrukhabad, 281, 282.
Mumtaz-Mahal, empress of India, 281, 291.
Murad II, sultan, appearance, 17 note 4;
simplicity of life, 134.
Mustapha, eldest son of Suleiman, mother of, 57 note 3, 126;
execution of, 89, 94, 95, 142, 213;
character of, 95 note 2;
ceremony at circumcision of, 136.
Nenuphar, or Nilufer, bride of Orchan, 17.
Nobility, of the _kullar_, 84, 85, 114-120;
of the _Seids_, 118, 206, 207;
of the _Ulema_, 118, 119, 203;
in the Mogul Empire, 282.
Noble Guard (_Muteferrika_), 78, 129, 140, 248.
Non-Moslem subjects, 34.
_See_ Christian subjects, Jewish subjects, etc.
North Africa, status of, 6, 30, 38;
inhabitants of, 33;
rendering of justice in, 37, 216;
Janissaries of, 95;
Suleiman desires to unify, 113 and note 1.
Notarial work, 219.
Nur-Jehan (or Nur-Mahal), empress of India, 281, 290, 291.
Old Testament, ideas of, in Mohammedanism, 8.
Orchan, sultan, 17 and note 4.
Osman I (Othman), sultan, 4, 6, 16 and note 1, 242, 272, 273;
house of, compared with that of Timur, 278, 281, 299.
Ottoman Empire, based on ideas, not race, 4;
rapidity of growth, 6;
character and mission, 7-10;
definition, 25;
lands comprised in, 6, 28-32;
peoples governed by, 33-35;
comparison of, with Mogul Empire, 278 ff.
Ottoman Ruling Institution, _see_ Ruling Institution.
Ottoman Turks, racial descent of, 10-18;
unification of Levant by, 9;
early history of, 15 ff.;
a mixed race, 16, 17;
sources of culture of, 18-24.
Outside service, 128-133.
Pages, the colleges of, 73-79;
the three palaces of, 74;
course of training of, 75-78;
graduation of, 75;
rewards of, 82;
punishments of, 88;
age of their dismissal postponed, 120;
duties of, in the palace service, 126, 127;
Ramberti’s description of, 244.
Palace-guards, 130.
Palaces of Suleiman, principal palace, 74, 79, 123, 124, 243, 262;
palace of the harem (Old Palace), 124, 253, 268, 269;
other palaces, 74, 79, 254, 269;
accounts of the palaces, 128.
Panipat, battles of, 278, 299.
Parthians, 4, 11 note 1, 13 and note 4.
Patriarch of Constantinople, 151.
Pensions, in Ottoman Empire, 32, 183;
in Mogul Empire, 285, 294, 302.
Persian language, 21, 77.
Persians, bequests of, to Ottoman Turks, 4, 20, 21, 23, 33, 175;
blockade of Ottoman trade-routes by, 7;
could not lawfully be enslaved, 29;
wars of, with Ottoman Empire, 112, 113;
support of Mogul emperors by, 280, 281.
Personality of law, 28, 34, 35.
Physicians of sultan, 129.
Plato, 45, 71.
Police, Janissaries as, 93;
minister of, 183;
lieutenants of, 219.
Poll-tax, _see_ Capitation tax.
Pope, compared with _Mufti_, 42, 209, 213.
Portuguese, blocked Ottoman sea-trade, 7;
served Mogul emperors, 281;
brought gold and silver to India, 294.
Primary schools, 203, 204.
Printing in Turkey, 223.
Punishments, in Ruling Institution, 88, 89, 197.
Queen mother, 56, 57, 122 note 1, 125.
Ragusa, 30, 178.
Rajputs, in service of Mogul emperors, 281, 282;
at war, 295, 299, 300;
their _Rajahs_, 281, 286, 297, 301.
Raushan-Ara, daughter of Shah-Jehan, 291.
Reformation, 9, 10, 113.
Religious “communities,” origin of, in Turkey, 20;
when organized, 34 note 5.
_See_ Armenian subjects, Greek subjects, and Jewish subjects.
Renegade Christians, given chief offices of Ottoman Empire, 39-44,
62-71;
unfavorable view of their character, 42;
counted as Turks, 70;
total number made by Ruling Institution, 70;
Khosrew Pasha learned in Moslem law, 152;
other references, 167, 186.
Revenues, of Suleiman, 179-182;
of Mogul emperors, 293-295.
Revolution, right of, 26, 157, 209, 233.
Rivalry of Ruling and Moslem Institutions, 38, 233-236.
Roman Empire, 6;
its influence on Turks, 150, 279-281.
_See_ Byzantine Empire.
Roumania, 52 note 1.
_See_ Moldavia, and Wallachia.
Roxelana, _see_ Khurrem.
Ruling Institution, antecedents of, 23;
general description of, 36, 45-47, 193-198;
institutions parallel to, 37;
relation of, to Moslem Institution, 38;
not clearly understood by certain historians, 38, 39;
contemporary descriptions of, 39-44;
component parts of, 47;
number of personnel of, 49 and note 4;
advancement by merit in, 82-88;
break-down of system of, 43, 69 note 3, 120;
relation of, to rest of Empire, 133;
influenced by Suleiman’s splendor, 144;
the Divan its cap-stone, 188;
comparison of, with Moslem Institution, 227-236;
artificiality of, 231;
support of Moslem Institution by, 233, 235.
_See also_ chapter headings.
Rûm, Seljuks of, 6, 16.
Rumelia, 104, 168, 169, 220;
_Beylerbey_ of, 103, 105, 189.
Russia, 29, 57, 74.
Rustem Pasha, grand vizier, armed household of, 59;
liberal religious views of, 68;
wealth of, 87 note 1;
attitude of, toward Janissaries, 97;
sale of offices by, 115, 116;
suspected of influencing Mustapha’s execution, 213;
other references, 53 note 3, 142, 164, 167.
Sacred Law of Islam, scope of, 21, 156, 235;
limitation of despotism by, 25, 26, 157;
character of, 152-157;
sketch of history of, 152, 153;
lack of elasticity of, 27, 156, 157, 215;
Suleiman’s observance of, 163;
how developed by _fetvas_, 214;
precepts of, both civil and criminal, 216;
relation of, to Moslem Institution, 225;
spirit of freedom in, 230;
not so much regarded in Mogul Empire, 279, 292, 293, 302.
St. Sophia, church of, 24, 202, 239.
Sale of office, 115, 116, 179.
Saracens, Empire of, 5, 6, 14;
bequest of, to Ottoman Empire, 21-23;
comparison of, with Turks, 231.
Scholasticism, Moslem, 8, 9, 215, 228.
Scouts, 105.
Scythians, 11 note 1, 12, 13 note 3.
Seal, the imperial, 165.
Selim I, the Cruel, or the Grim, not given to sensuality, 56;
said to have executed seven viziers, 88;
circumstances of accession of, 94, 142;
effect of conquests of, 112, 228, 233, 234;
punishment of heresy by, 210;
attempt of, to convert Christian subjects forcibly, 211, 298.
Selim II, the Sot, 95, 111, 136, 143, 165.
Seljuk Empire, 5, 7, 119;
occupation of Asia Minor by, 14 ff.;
bequest of, to Ottoman Turks, 4, 23, 227;
simplicity of life in, 133.
Servians, 34.
Shah-Jehan, Mogul emperor, constructs Peacock Throne, 289;
defeats Nur-Jehan, 291;
civil war of sons of, 293.
Sher Shah, 293.
Simplicity of life among Seljuks and early Ottomans, 133, 134.
Slave-Families of Ottoman subjects, 58, 59;
conversion encouraged in, 67.
Slave-Family of the sultan, 36, 39-44, 47-58;
age of admission to, 48;
methods of recruiting for, 49-53;
number of members of, 49 and note 4;
status of members of, 55;
faithfulness of, 65;
education of, 71 ff.;
constituted standing army, 90 and note 4;
honors and privileges of, 114-120;
influence of, upon government, 149.
Slavery—
Of Turks in Saracen Empire, 22.
In Ottoman Empire, sources of supply for, 29, 30;
mainly of European Christians, 33;
provided high officials, 39-44;
character of, 60, 61;
comparison of, with American colonial bondage, 60 note 7;
color line not drawn, 60;
emancipation frequent, 61;
attitude of converted slaves to Sacred Law, 230.
In Mogul Empire, 280-282, 284.
Slavs, Southern, 33, 52, 74.
_See_ Bulgarians, Croatians, and Servians.
Sovereign will of sultan, 162, 163.
_Spahis_ of the Porte, described, 47;
recruiting of, from pages, 78, 98-100;
organization of, 98, 99;
number of, 99 and notes 3, 4;
appearance of, 138, 139;
finances of, 169, 179;
other references, 250, 251, 267.
Splendor—
Of Suleiman, 133-141, 195;
its effect, 144, 145.
Of Mogul emperors, 287-291;
its effect, 297, 298.
Stable service, 131.
State lands, 31, 32.
Steppe lands, 5, 11, 231.
Stirrup, generals of imperial, 131.
Studies—
In the colleges of pages, 76, 77.
In the imperial harem, 79.
Of the _Ajem-oghlans_, 81 and note 3.
In schools, 203;
in colleges, 203 and note 4;
in law schools, 204 and note 1.
Of Aurangzeb, 300, 301.
Succession to throne, in Ottoman Empire, 93-95;
in Mogul Empire, 293.
Suleiman the Magnificent, limitations on despotic power of, 26-28;
family life of, 56-58;
said to have labored at a trade, 76 note 5;
self-command of, 89;
execution of Mustapha by, 89, 94, 142, 312;
execution of Bayezid and Ibrahim by, 89, 94, 111, 141, 142;
reorganization of feudal system by, 102;
appointment of Ibrahim as Seraskier by, 110;
relations of, to Charles V and Ferdinand of Austria, 112, 113;
promotion of Ibrahim and Rustem by favor of, 120;
mother, consorts, and daughter of, 126;
authority of, as caliph, 150;
head of all institutions, 151;
legislation of, 32, 152-163;
attitude of, to Sacred Law, 163;
ceased to preside at Divan, 188;
treatment of criminals by, 221, 222;
relation of, to power of great institutions, 234;
endowments of, 235 and note 1;
head of Moslems of Empire, 299.
Sultan’s authority, head of Ruling Institution, 46;
master of slave-family, 55;
commander-in-chief of the army, 109, 110;
head of state and government, 150, 151;
head of Moslem Institution, 151;
subject to Sacred Law, 157;
legislative power, 157, 158;
unworthiness of character irrelevant, 163 note 1, 233;
consultation with the _Mufti_, 210-214;
comparison of relations to the two great institutions, 229;
supported by Sacred Law, 233.
Syria, 31.
Szigeth, campaign of, 111.
Taj Mahal, 291.
Tartars of the Crimea, _see_ Crimean Tartary.
Tatars, definition, 11, 12;
bequests to Ottoman Turks, 18;
political organization, 19;
influence on Mogul Empire, 279, 280.
Taxation, 175-182;
inelasticity of, 177.
Tent-pitchers, 132.
Theodosius I, 9, 158.
Timariotes, _see_ Feudal cavalry.
Timur (Tamerlane), character of, 280;
house of, compared with that of Osman, 272, 281, 299.
_See_ Baber, house of.
Tithe lands, 31, 32.
Todar Mal, 281, 293.
Transylvania, 30, 178.
Treasure, of Suleiman, 172;
of Prince of Gujarat, 178;
of Mogul emperors, 295.
Treasurers, of the household, 127;
of the Empire (_Defterdars_), 167-172, 189, 191, 247, 265;
in Mogul Empire, 294, 297.
Treasury, twenty-five bureaus of, 168-172;
characteristics of, 173, 174;
personnel of, 186, 187.
Tributary provinces, 30;
condition of inhabitants of, 33;
government of, 37.
Tribute, 178.
Tribute boys, increased the number of Turks, 16, 70;
regions from which taken, 34, 51;
process of levying, 51, 52;
estimate of the system, 53, 54;
ultimate effect, 69-71, 231;
not levied by Mogul government in India, 279, 281, 282.
Tribute lands, 31, 32.
_Tu-kiu_, Empire of, 13, 14, 19.
Turanians, 12, 13 note 3.
Turki followers of Mogul emperors, 280, 281.
Turkish language, 18, 77, 79.
Turks, in Western Asia, 5, 14 ff.;
relation of, to Mongols, 12;
relation of, to Caucasians, 11 and note 2;
comparison of, with Saracens, 231;
Ramberti’s account of origin of, 242;
influence of, on Mogul Empire, 279.
_See_ Ottoman Turks, and Seljuk Empire.
Unification of territories by Ottoman Turks, 9, 10.
United Greek subjects, a separate organization, 34.
United States of America, compared with Ottoman Empire, 3, 28, 45,
58, 209, 213.
Unnatural vices, 75 note 6, 232.
Uses (legal term), 32, 202.
Ushers, 130.
Uzun Hassan, 64.
Vassal states, of Ottoman Empire, 29, 30;
of Mogul Empire, 297.
Venality, of Ottoman officials, 39, 69;
of Ottoman justice, 222.
Venice, 30, 178, 179.
Vienna, siege of, 93, 143.
Viziers, 163-167, 189-191;
Ramberti’s account, 246.
Voinaks, 131.
Volunteer soldiers, 102, 106.
Wallachia, 30, 52 note 1, 106, 129, 178, 297.
War, declaration of, 26, 209.
Wealth, accumulation of, discouraged, in private citizens, 59;
allowed to high officers, 86, 87, 260;
of Rustem Pasha, 87 note 1, 161;
of Mogul Empire, 278, 287, 295.
Western Europe, not interested in East after Crusades, 10;
comparison with Ottoman Empire, 35, 36, 74, 94, 121, 157, 179, 204,
222.
Women, had no part at Ottoman Court, 121;
more prominent in Mogul Empire, 281, 290, 291.Project Gutenberg
The government of the Ottoman Empire in the time of Suleiman the Magnificent
Lybyer, Albert Howe
Chimera65
Academic