The government of the Ottoman Empire in the time of Suleiman the Magnificent Albert Howe Lybyer 1548 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The government of the
Ottoman Empire in the time of Suleiman the Magnificent
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you
will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: The government of the Ottoman Empire in the time of Suleiman
the Magnificent

Author: Albert Howe Lybyer

Release date: May 9, 2025 [eBook #76054]

Language: English

Original publication: Cambridge: Harvard University press, 1913

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/76054

Credits: Tim Lindell, Turgut Dincer and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive/American Libraries.)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE IN THE TIME OF
SULEIMAN THE MAGNIFICENT ***

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.

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: & q̄ lli 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, & q̄ sti 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 q̄ sti 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 q̄ lli che uano alla mā sinistra del Signor q̄ ndo 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 q̄ llo ch’e timonero quādo il Signor
ua in Fusta hāno uno p̄ toiro 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 q̄ sti 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 q̄ sti sono homini grādi
& quādo uāno ꝑ fare morire alcuno sia dassai quāto si uoglia sono
obediti senza altra cōmissione in scritto, & q̄ ndo 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 & p̄ senti.
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: q̄ sti sono executori de
la lege loro & hano 10. homini executori per uno dati dal Signor sono
q̄ lli 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 q̄ sti 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 q̄ lli & 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 q̄ lli
che non hāno moglie li maritati stano fora cō le dōne loro, & nel vitto
ogniuno mette tāto al di & hano dispēsieri choghi & q̄ lli 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 & q̄ lla 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.