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.