It is not that slavery had disappeared from the Mogul system. Traces of

the old method can be discerned as late as the eighteenth century. In

fact, Muhammad Khan, a Bangash _Nawab_ of Farrukhabad, maintained what

was practically a replica in miniature of the Ottoman system. Hindu boys

between the ages of seven and thirteen, some of them sons of Rajputs

and Brahmins, were seized, bought, or accepted as _chelas_ or slaves to

the number of one or two hundred a year. They were taught to read and

write, and were specially rewarded when the task was completed. Five

hundred _chelas_ from eighteen to twenty years of age were trained as a

regiment of musketeers. From among the older _chelas_ were chosen the

officers of the household, generals of the army, and deputy governors

of provinces. The _Nawab_ arranged marriages between _chelas_ and the

daughters of _chelas_. He encouraged them to acquire personal property,

which he could claim in time of need; but he forbade them to found towns

or build masonry structures, lest occupying these they might tend toward

independence. Muhammad Khan did not, however, depend exclusively on his

Hindu slaves; he sent money to his own Bangash tribe, and thus obtained

a colony of Afghans to whom he gave high military positions and upon

some of whom he bestowed his daughters in marriage. Other vassals of

the emperor made use of a similar slave system; and it is not unlikely

that the emperor himself recruited his permanent infantry with the help

of slavery, and that he promoted some slaves to high positions. But the

absence of definite information in this direction is in most striking

contrast to its abundant presence in the records which deal with the

Ottoman Empire in the sixteenth century.

In theory the officers of government were so far the servants of the

emperor that their accumulated personal property belonged to him at their

death; but in practice the opulence and the generosity of the sovereign

led him often to leave such wealth in the hands of the officers’

children. When this was not done, employment in the public service was

assigned to sons and pensions were granted to widows.

Titles of nobility were awarded for life to distinguished officials; the

chief officers of the central government and governors of great provinces

were called _Emirs_ (_Omrahs_ in many Western writings, probably a

plural of majesty), generals of the army were _Khans_, and distinguished

soldiers of lesser rank were _Bahadurs_ or knights. Khondamir says that

Humayun organized a system of twelve orders or arrows, according to which

the entire imperial household was graded. “The twelfth arrow, which

was made of the purest gold, was put in the auspicious quiver of this

powerful king, and nobody could dare to touch it. The eleventh arrow

belonged to His Majesty’s relations and brethren, and all the sultans

who were in the government employ. Tenth, to the great _mushaikhs_,

_saiyids_, and the learned and religious men. Ninth, to the great nobles.

Eighth, to the courtiers and some of the king’s personal attendants.

Seventh, to the attendants in general. Sixth, to the _harems_ and to the

well-behaved female attendants. Fifth, to young maid-servants. Fourth,

to the treasurers and stewards. Third, to the soldiers. Second, to the

menial servants. First, to the palace guards, camel-drivers, and the

like. Each of these arrows or orders had three grades; the highest,

the middle, and the lowest.” Appointments and promotions were, as at

Constantinople, based upon valor and manifest ability. Through all the

period of greatness the ladder of advancement was kept so clear that

vigor, courage, and prowess could mount from the lowest ranks to the

steps of the throne.

RELATION OF GOVERNMENT TO RELIGIOUS PROPAGATION

When the Ottoman Turks conquered their European territories, as well as

parts of their Asiatic dominions, they for the first time introduced

the Moslem religion. This was not the case with the Mogul advance into

India. Beginning with Mohammed ben Kasim’s invasion of Sind in 712 A.D.,

and starting afresh with Mahmûd of Ghazni in 1000 A.D., the Moslem

political control, accompanied by the conversion of a portion of the

native population, had spread step by step until, when Baber came after

eight centuries, there remained little of India that was not actually or

had not at some time been under Moslem rule. No data appear to exist for

determining the actual proportion of the total population that was Moslem

during the Mogul period. Guesses have been made ranging from a possible

one in four to Bernier’s estimate of one in hundreds. The only basis of

any value would perhaps be that obtained by working backward from the

British censuses. In 1911 the Mohammedans constituted about twenty-one

per cent of the population of India, and their number was increasing at

a slightly more rapid rate than the average. It may be supposed that the

increase of the Moslem proportion was greater during the days of the

Mogul Empire, when it was especially profitable to change, and when there

was a strong inward flow at the northwest; but since the Mogul decline

the rate of relative progress has probably always been slow. Perhaps the

proportion about 1761 was somewhat less than one in five, and in 1526 it

may have been not more than one in from ten to twenty. Bernier’s guess

would certainly seem to have been wild, for it is inconceivable that so

small progress would have been made in a thousand years and so great in

the next two hundred. No doubt the Moslem contingent was then, as it is

now, unevenly distributed, being in high proportion in the northwest and

diminishing gradually with the distance from the mountain passes. At

points on the seacoast where trade had been active, the Moslem influence

had come early by way of the sea; hence there also the percentage was

greater. In Suleiman’s empire, comprising as it did a large amount of old

Moslem territory and including even the Holy Cities, the proportion of

Moslems was, of course, much higher; but it diminished rapidly from south

to north, until in Hungary it must have been extremely attenuated.

In the absence of an elaborate slave system in India, there was not the

steady public machinery of conversion which operated powerfully in the

Ottoman Empire. Furthermore, it would seem that before the reign of

Aurangzeb no emperor cared to promote conversion to Islam by financial

or political rewards. Akbar, in fact, removed the jizyeh, or poll-tax,

which had previously, as in all other truly Moslem lands until recent

times, laid special burdens upon unbelievers, and the tax was not

reimposed until the time of Aurangzeb. Akbar also forbade the enslavement

of captives and of their wives and children. For a century, therefore,

the government lent little encouragement to change of faith. Down to the

accession of Aurangzeb there was a clear contrast between Ottoman and

Mogul policy in the attitude toward the Moslem religion: the Moguls held

far less than the Ottomans to the idea of the conquest of the world for

Islam, or to the conversion of unbelievers, as an object of governmental

endeavor. Aurangzeb alone had such zeal as characterizes the average

descendant of Osman; he desired no infidels in his service, and regarded

the Deccan as the _Dar-ul-harb_ which he wished to make part of the

_Dar-ul-Islam_. There can be no doubt, however, that under all the Mogul

emperors the social pressure usual in Moslem lands continued to encourage

conversion privately, while the slavery which Islam normally sanctions

was also contributing to the increase of the faithful. Moreover, it is

not likely that all the officers of the liberal emperors were as tolerant

and as indifferent to Moslem progress as were their superiors.

THE ARMY

At Delhi, as at Constantinople, no sharp line could be drawn separating

government and army. The Mogul conquest was achieved by an army, and

the army became a government. Amalgamation with older systems of course

introduced groups of under-officials who had no military duties; but

those who would be great had to be capable of military command, men who

might be familiar with the pen but who must know how to wield the sword.

The Mogul army organization seems, in the midst of confused testimonies,

to have borne a considerable resemblance to that of the Ottomans. The

emperor was commander-in-chief, and as late as Aurangzeb regularly

commanded in person in great campaigns. He had a personal army of

12,000 to 15,000 paid infantry and 12,000 to 40,000 paid cavalry.

These corresponded in number and function, but not at all in political

importance, to the Janissaries and _Spahis_ of the Porte among the

Ottomans. In great campaigns the standing army was supported by the

feudal cavalry, estimated at from 200,000 to 400,000, and by indefinite

numbers of irregular infantry, drawn from a mass estimated at four

millions. The army was strong in artillery, and possessed in trained

elephants a force of which the Ottomans could not make use.

The emperor’s infantry were, at least from Akbar’s time, matchlockmen;

they seem to have been the only trustworthy and efficient foot-soldiers.

It would appear that their clumsy weapons, improved by Akbar himself,

were not changed up to the time of Aurangzeb; for Bernier reports that in

his day the muskets were rested on forks and fired by men who squatted

on the ground, and who feared that the flash might damage their eyebrows

and beards. On account of the method of payment it is not possible to

estimate closely the number of the emperor’s cavalry, or _Mansabdars_.

Men who agreed to furnish from five to five thousand troopers were taken

into his service, and pay (_mansab_) was assigned for the stipulated

number; but even in Akbar’s time, according to Badauni, it was possible

to present followers hired only for the occasion, and yet to draw

life-long pay for their services. In later years there ceased to be even

approximate correspondence between the amount of pay and the number of

troops furnished. The _mansab_ was then regarded as a salary, or even as

a pension.

The more numerous feudal cavalry consisted of the holders (with their

followers) of _jagirs_, or grants, of the revenue of districts of larger

or smaller size, in return for which they served without other pay,

except in case of unduly prolonged campaigns. Holders of large areas

were accustomed to administer them in person, whereas those who held

smaller sections would often leave the administration to the governors

of provinces, who in time tended to appropriate the revenues. Aurangzeb,

however, pursued the policy of assigning service in regions remote from

the appointee’s _jagir_, and of retaining wives and children at the

court as pledges of fidelity. Hindu _Rajahs_ were easily brought into

the system by being invested with analogous rights in their hereditary

territories. Apart from these cases, the appointments, as in Turkey,

were not regarded as hereditary, but were apt to be given to fresh

recruits of ability from beyond the mountains. It was customary to make

small assignments to sons of dead _Jagirdars_, and to increase their

allowances upon proof of merit. _Jagirdars_ and _Rajahs_, like Timariotes

and _Zaims_, had jurisdiction and other governmental duties in the areas

assigned to them, and thus carried a large part of the task of local

government. Ultimately many of the higher positions became hereditary in

families which worked toward independence in the days of decline.

The artillery seems to have been surprisingly strong under Baber and

Humayun, and to have declined later. Baber is said to have had seven

hundred guns at Panipat, which he chained together after the method

employed by Selim I at Kaldiran. Humayun is reported to have had at

Kanauj seven hundred guns discharging stone balls of five pounds

weight, and twenty-one guns discharging brass balls ten times as heavy.

Aurangzeb, it is said, transported seventy pieces of heavy artillery

and two or three hundred swivel guns, mounted on the backs of camels.

For fortress defence and siege operations the Moguls had a few enormous

guns, some of which are said to have required for transport two hundred

and fifty and even five hundred oxen! In addition to these resources, it

appears, if testimonies can be trusted, that Akbar kept five thousand

war elephants, each of which was accounted equal in time of battle to

five hundred horsemen; and Hawkins says that Jehangir had twelve thousand

elephants of all descriptions. Aurangzeb is reported to have maintained

in the palace stables the more modest number of eight hundred elephants.

The early Mogul armies were efficient and successful. Aurangzeb, however,

conducted about the Deccan in his twenty-four years’ war of conquest a

horde that resembled a migration rather than an army. For each fighting

man there were at least two camp-followers; the march was without

discipline and order, like the movement of a herd of animals; and the

camp was a city five miles long, or, as others say, seven and a half

miles, or twenty miles in circumference. One European observer even

reported that the encampment was thirty miles about, and contained five

million souls! Among these he counted seven hundred thousand soldiers,

of whom three hundred thousand were cavalry. With all due allowance

for exaggeration, the Mogul army clearly tended to become exceedingly

numerous, but of increasing weakness and inefficiency. A battle in 1526

between Baber and Suleiman would have been a worthy contest, but the army

of Aurangzeb would probably have been defeated easily by the Ottoman

troops which bit the dust before Prince Eugene.

THE COURT

Splendid as was the display of Suleiman’s _entourage_, it lacked the

financial basis which the Moguls possessed from Akbar to Aurangzeb.

Gold and silver, gems, silks and muslins, were far more abundant in the

eastern land. A more highly developed architecture, showing far greater

richness of detailed ornamentation, served in India to construct not only

temples of religion and tombs of great personages, but also marvellous

palaces and pleasure-houses for the emperors. Many thousands of

attendants supplied every possible luxury and rendered every conceivable

service.

No systematic description of the organization of the imperial household

has come to hand. Scattered allusions reveal the presence of very

numerous groups of officials, agents, and servants of all grades.

Teachers, physicians, scholars, valets, chamberlains, butlers, cooks,

kitchen servants, musicians, poets, generals, captains, guards,

equerries, hostlers, herdsmen, elephant-drivers, and stablemen, ministers

of state, judges, treasurers, secretaries, swarmed about the great halls

and myriad chambers of the palaces at Agra, Delhi, and Fatehpur-Sikri.

These, with the tradespeople who made their living by supplying the

household but who were less directly attached to the emperor, constituted

a migratory city of large size, which followed the emperor from residence

to residence and in time of campaign swelled almost unbelievably the

following of his enormous army.

As for the court life which went on at the center of this vast and

multi-colored setting, this was necessarily twofold, by that custom of

all Moslem lands according to which the sexes must be segregated. Daily

assemblages, gatherings at the mosques on Fridays, great ceremonies

for special occasions, and the imperial hunts contained none but men as

participants. If women saw any part of such festivities, it was from a

distance and through thick veils or close-wrought lattices. Khondamir

says that Humayun divided his attendants into three great classes,

concerned respectively with government and war, with learning and

literature, and with music and personal grace and beauty. The latter

were called “people of pleasure ... because most people take great

delight in the company of such young-looking men, of rosy cheeks and

sweet voices, and are pleased by hearing their songs, and the pleasing

sound of the musical instruments, such as the harp, the sackbut, and the

lute.” Humayun devoted Sundays and Tuesdays to dealings with the first

class, holding audience and attending to government duties on those

days. Saturdays and Thursdays were days when “the tree of the hope” of

literary and religious persons “produced the fruit of prosperity by

their obtaining audience in the paradise-resembling court.” Mondays and

Wednesdays were devoted to pleasure parties, when old companions and

chosen friends were entertained by musicians and singers. On Fridays were

convened “all the assemblies,” whatever this may mean; and the emperor

sat with them as long as he could.

The splendor of the court may be illustrated by two or three extracts.

Nizam-uddin Ahmad relates that Akbar, journeying in the fifteenth year

of his reign, accepted an invitation to rest at Dipalpur. “For some days

feasting went on, and upon the last day splendid offerings were presented

to him. Arab and Persian horses, with saddles of silver; huge elephants,

with chains of gold and silver, and housings of velvet and brocade; and

gold and silver, and pearls and jewels, and rubies and garnets of great

price; chairs of gold, and silver vases, and vessels of gold and silver;

stuffs of Europe, Turkey, and China, and other precious things beyond

all conception. Presents of similar kind also were presented for the

young princes and the emperor’s wives. All the ministers and attendants

and dignitaries received presents, and every soldier of the army also

participated in the bounty.”

Sir Thomas Roe describes a curious annual ceremony of the Mogul emperors

as carried through by Jehangir. “The first of September was the King’s

Birth-day, and the solemnitie of his weighing, to which I went, and was

carryed into a very large and beautiful Garden, the square within all

water, on the sides flowers and trees, in the midst a Pinacle, where was

prepared the scales, being hung in large tressels, and a crosse beame

plated on with Gold thinne: the scales of massie Gold, the borders set

with small stones, Rubies and Turkeys, the Chaines of Gold large and

massie, but strengthened with silke Cords. Here attended the Nobilitie,

all sitting about it on Carpets until the King came; who at last appeared

clothed or rather loden with Diamonds, Rubies, Pearles, and other

precious vanities, so great, so glorious; his Sword, Target, Throne to

rest on, correspondent; his head, necke, breast, armes, above the elbows,

at the wrists, his fingers every one, with at least two or three Rings;

fettered with chaines, or dyalled Diamonds; Rubies as great as Wal-nuts,

some greater; and Pearles such as mine eyes were amazed at. Suddenly he

entered into the scales, sate like a woman on his legges, and there was

put in against him many bagges to fit his weight, which were changed

six times, and they say was silver, and that I understood his weight to

be nine thousand rupias, which are almost one thousand pounds sterling:

after with Gold and Jewels, and precious stones, but I saw none, it being

in bagges might be Pibles; then against Cloth of Gold, Silk, Stuffes,

Linen, Spices, and all sorts of goods, but I must believe for they were

in sardles. Lastly against Meale, Butter, Corne, which is said to be

given to the Banian.” The extract neglects to state that the ceremony was

followed by the distribution as largesse of all the valuables weighed

against the royal person with its heavy adornments.

Bernier describes an audience of Aurangzeb. “The king appeared seated

upon his throne at the end of the great hall in the most magnificent

attire. His vest was of white and delicately flowered satin, with a silk

and gold embroidery of the finest texture. The turban of gold cloth had

an aigrette whose base was composed of diamonds of an extraordinary

size and value, besides an oriental topaz which may be pronounced

unparalleled, exhibiting a lustre like the sun. A necklace of immense

pearls suspended from his neck reached to the stomach. The throne was

supported by six massy feet, said to be of solid gold, sprinkled over

with rubies, emeralds, and diamonds. It was constructed by Shah-Jehan

for the purpose of displaying the immense quantity of precious stones

accumulated successively in the Treasury from the spoils of ancient

_Rajahs_ and _Pathans_, and the annual presents to the monarch which

every Omrah is bound to make on certain festivals. At the foot of the

throne were assembled all the Omrahs, in splendid apparel, upon a

platform surrounded by a silver railing and covered by a spacious canopy

of brocade with deep fringes of gold. The pillars of the hall were hung

with brocades of a gold ground, and flowered satin canopies were raised

over the whole expanse of the extensive apartment, fastened with red

silken cords from which were suspended large tassels of silk and gold.

The floor was covered entirely with carpets of the richest silk, of

immense length and breadth.”

As regards the female side of the court, although this had almost

a separate organization and was, in keeping with Moslem and Indian

tradition, to a large extent secluded, yet the imperial ladies possessed

a measure of freedom through two centuries which allowed several of them

to stand forth as distinct individuals, and a few to influence affairs

profoundly. Jehangir assigned to the women of the household the sixth

and fifth orders, or arrows, of rank. Akbar is said to have kept five

thousand women in his harem. As usual, however, only a few of these were

wives or votaries of the imperial pleasure; most of them constituted an

elaborate organization for the housekeeping and entertainment of the few

great ladies, the mother, aunts, sisters, wives, and favorites of the

emperor. As already indicated, these women were of all kinds,—free-born

and slave, Moslem, Christian, and pagan, Turki, Afghan, Persian,

Hindu, Armenian, Slavic, Circassian, Georgian, and Ethiopian. Their

communication with the outside world was kept up through their relatives

and through eunuchs.

A few of the imperial ladies may be mentioned. The princess Gul-Badan,

third daughter of Baber and Dil-Dar, wrote a history of the deeds of her

half-brother, Humayun. In her later life she went with other great ladies

on pilgrimage to Mecca, taking seven years for the journey; one-half

of this time she spent in Arabia, where she performed the rites of the

pilgrimage four times. After twenty more years filled with works of piety

and charity she died at the age of eighty. Her nephew, Akbar, with his

own hand helped bear her to the tomb.

Most powerful of all the Mogul imperial ladies was the Persian Nur-Jehan,

or Nur-Mahal, wife of Jehangir. Born in poverty and actually cast away

by her parents, she rose to the throne of command. Mohammad Hadi says

that “by degrees she became, in all but name, undisputed sovereign of the

empire, and the king himself became a tool in her hands. He used to say

that Nur-Jehan Begam has been selected, and is wise enough, to conduct

the matters of state, and that he wanted only a bottle of wine and a

piece of meat to keep himself merry. Nur-Jehan won golden opinions from

all people. She was liberal and just to all who begged her support. She

was an asylum for all sufferers, and helpless girls were married at the

expense of her private purse. She must have portioned above five hundred

girls in her lifetime, and thousands were grateful for her generosity.”

Not only could she rule the empire effectively, if not always wisely and

impartially, but she could lead armies. Defeated at last by Shah-Jehan,

she put on perpetual robes of mourning for her dead husband and spent her

last eighteen years in devoted seclusion.

Mumtaz-Mahal, niece of Nur-Jehan and wife of Shah-Jehan, did not aspire

to political control. She held fast the heart of her imperial husband and

became the mother of his fourteen children. The incomparable Taj Mahal,

built by the emperor after her untimely death, bears eternal witness to

great love followed by great grief.

Last may be mentioned two of the daughters of Mumtaz-Mahal, Jehan-Ara and

Raushan-Ara. These ladies, like Charlemagne’s daughters too great for

matrimony, stirred up much trouble in the imperial household. Jehan-Ara

was her father’s favorite in his decadent old age, and an active partisan

of her brother Dara. Of vast influence for many years, she was at

length overshadowed by Raushan-Ara, who supported Aurangzeb and rose to

greatness with his advancing fortunes. Bernier was well-nigh overcome

by a distant view of this lady’s majesty. “I cannot avoid dwelling on

this pompous procession of the Seraglio. Stretch imagination to its

utmost limits, and you can imagine no exhibition more grand and imposing

than when Raushan-Ara Begam, mounted on a stupendous Pegu elephant, and

seated in a _meghdambhar_ blazing with gold and azure, is followed by

five or six elephants with _meghdambhars_ nearly as resplendent as her

own, and filled with ladies attached to her household (and succeeded by

the most distinguished ladies of the court) until fifteen or sixteen

females of quality pass with a grandeur of appearance, equipage, and

retinue, more or less proportionate to their rank, pay, and office. There

is something very impressive of state and royalty in the march of these

sixty or more elephants; in their solemn and as it were measured steps,

in the splendour of the _meghdambhars_, and the brilliant and innumerable

followers in attendance; and if I had not regarded this display of

magnificence with a sort of philosophical indifference, I should have

been apt to be carried away by such flights of imagination as inspire

most of the Indian poets, when they represent the elephants as conveying

so many goddesses concealed from the vulgar gaze.”

THE GOVERNMENT PROPER

“The authority of the Great Mogul was despotic by all its origins: by

the fact of the conquest, by the Turkish tradition, by the tradition of

the old royalties of the country”;[798] and also, it may be added, by

the practice of Islamic governments since the abandonment of Medina as

the seat of the caliphs. The conquering chief owned all the conquered

land, and the wealth and labor and lives of its inhabitants were at his

disposal. As for the restriction of despotism by the Sacred Law, the

house of Baber did not feel this strongly until late. On the other hand,

even a drunkard like Jehangir had a keen sense of the responsibility

of his high position. The emperor considered it his duty to maintain

order, reward faithful service, and sit daily on the bench of justice

to redress the wrongs of his people. Aurangzeb is reported by Bernier

to have expressed his feeling of responsibility by saying: “Being born

the son of a king and placed on the throne, I was sent into the world

by Providence to live and labour, not for myself, but for others; ...

it is my duty not to think of my own happiness, except so far as it is

inseparably connected with the happiness of my people. It is the repose

and prosperity of my subjects that it behoves me to consult; nor are

these to be sacrificed to anything besides the demands of justice, the

maintenance of the royal authority, and the security of the State.” One

of his letters to his imprisoned father contains these words: “Almighty

God bestows his trusts upon him who discharges the duty of cherishing his

subjects and protecting the people. It is manifest and clear to the wise

that a wolf is no fit shepherd, neither can a faint-hearted man carry

out the great duty of government. Sovereignty is the guardianship of the

people, not self-indulgence and profligacy. The Almighty will deliver

your humble servant from all feeling of remorse as regards your Majesty.”

The sole fountain of legislation, the emperor observed economy in the

issuance of it, making use, so far as possible, of established Islamic

practice and immemorial custom. Yet from time to time, by administrative

regulations, ordinances, and decrees, he sought to improve the methods of

government. Aurangzeb, so much like Suleiman in many other respects, like

him also ordered and financed the compilation of a code of the Sacred

Law. It does not appear, however, that any such quantity of personal

legislation was issued by him or by any other Mogul emperor as by the

great Ottoman.

The succession to the Mogul throne never became regular, since neither by

Mongol nor by Moslem custom was any one method prescribed. Nor did the

more kindly disposition of the house of Baber ever permit the publication

of such a decree as that of Mohammed II for the execution of brothers

upon the accession of a sovereign. Accordingly the resources of the

empire were apt to be wasted in civil wars between father and son, and

between older and younger brothers. Even the sons of Baber engaged in

civil war: Kamran, aided by Askari and Hindal, fought against Humayun.

Akbar’s brothers were so young that he had no rival at the time of his

accession. His two elder sons drank themselves to death; but this did not

prevent Selim, who became the emperor Jehangir, from rebelling against

his father and hastening the latter’s death. Jehangir’s two sons rebelled

against him in turn. Shah-Jehan’s four sons, Dara, Shuja, Murad, and

Aurangzeb, fought together until the last encompassed the death of the

others, besides keeping his father a prisoner during the last seven years

of life. The mournful story need not be carried beyond the fierce civil

war which followed the death of Aurangzeb, in which two of his sons were

slain. Clearly, the Ottoman method was more practical if less humane. So

unstable was the personal situation of the emperor that, if he failed to

show his face in public daily, the empire fell into commotion and civil

war became imminent. From the uncertainty of the succession the state, at

least, derived this benefit, that the fittest of the candidates for power

was likely to obtain the throne. Nevertheless, as Dow says, “to be born

a prince” of the Mogul Empire was “a misfortune of the worst and most

embarrassing kind. He must die by clemency, or wade through the blood of

his family to safety and empire.”

As the army was the defence and prop of the Mogul government, so finance

was its sustenance. Here again the regulations of the Sacred Law were

but scantily observed. Akbar, aided by Todar Mal and extending the

methods of the Afghan Sher Shah, reduced to order and regularity the

existing revenue system, which in the course of centuries of varying

rule had become much confused. By ancient custom of India, the sovereign

as primary owner of the land was entitled to one-third of the crops in

kind. It was Akbar’s task to change the system to a more modern money

régime, a step in progress which the Ottomans have not been able to

take even to the present day. In classical times as in late years,

India, importing less of other commodities than she exported, steadily

absorbed gold and silver. It is likely that a large share of the wealth

of the newly-discovered Americas had already by Akbar’s day made its way

to India through the increasing Portuguese trade, and that Columbus,

Cortes, and Pizarro thus unwittingly gave him the means of modernizing

his land revenue. Several great tasks were involved in the change. All

the cultivated land of India had to be measured, its quality judged,

its average annual produce for the first nineteen years of Akbar’s

reign calculated, and the amount of the government’s share for each

tract reduced to current money. At first, it was attempted to renew

the settlement annually; but, since this proved very difficult in a

large and conservative land, a ten-year basis was eventually adopted.

When the British came to power they found the revenue in a state of

confusion which indicated that at some time during the Mogul period the

evaluation had ceased to be made regularly, modifications of the last

assessment having then been introduced successively, until all system had

disappeared.

The imperial revenue was collected by a separate hierarchy of officials.

The great provinces were divided into districts, or _sirkars_, in each

of which a _Diwan_ was chief financial agent. His office was the _Defter

ali_, and his clerks were _Mutasidis_. In lesser districts the collectors

were _Amils_ or _Karoris_, the treasurers _Fotadars_. _Karkums_ were

appointed to settle disputes and audit accounts. The crown revenue

might be farmed out, in areas of a size comparable to the _jagirs_,

to officials known as _Zamindars_ or _Talukdars_, who in the days of

decline strove to make their position hereditary. In the local unit, or

_pargana_, the government was represented by a _Kanungo_, who kept the

records of assessments and payments. Akbar took measures also to bring

under cultivation waste and abandoned lands, and appointed for this

purpose _Karoris_, whose efforts were attended with much success. In

the best days the imperial financial officers acted as a check upon the

civil and military officials, upholding alike the interests of emperor

and common people. Evidence exists, however, that even in the time of

Akbar there was financial corruption, and that revenue officials were not

lacking who plundered the people and defrauded the emperor.

The granting of _jagirs_ to officers and _Rajahs_, of pensions to learned

men and others, and of land in full title, free from revenue, for

religious foundations seems to have diverted from the royal treasury

about two-thirds of the possible land revenue. On the other hand, it

has been estimated that the emperor received from customs, tolls,

miscellaneous taxes, and presents an amount equal to what he got from the

land. Careful calculations have resulted in ascribing to Akbar a revenue

of over two hundred million dollars annually, and to Aurangzeb as much

as four hundred and fifty million dollars. Suleiman’s revenue would then

have been not the tenth part of Akbar’s and Louis XIV’s not the tenth

part of Aurangzeb’s.

This revenue was expended upon the standing army, the court, the support

of learned and religious persons, a series of building operations which

were perhaps costly beyond parallel, bountiful gifts at certain seasons,

and regular charities. It would appear, farther, that the expenses of the

provincial governments were deducted from the imperial land revenue after

it had been estimated but before it was paid into the treasury. In spite

of the lavish outflow, however, an enormous treasure seems to have been

accumulated. By Mandelslo it was estimated in 1638 at the incredible sum

of one and a half billion crowns, equivalent to about the same number of

dollars!

It was probably because of the greatly increased revenue which Akbar

obtained by his new method that he found it possible to remit the

_jizyeh_ or capitation tax on non-Moslems, and also the tax on pilgrims,

which had made the earlier Moslem rule obnoxious to the Hindu population.

On the other hand, it may have been not merely religious zeal, but also

financial stress caused by the civil wars preceding his accession, by

the Rajput revolt, by the long struggle in the Deccan, and by the pious

remission of many taxes not authorized by the Sacred Law, including the

tax on Hindu temple lands, that influenced Aurangzeb to reimpose the

capitation tax, and thus open wide the rifts in his disintegrating empire.

In the days of its greatness, the budget of the Mogul Empire, alike in

income and expenditure, reached a height which had rarely if ever been

attained before. That of the East Roman Empire under the Macedonian

dynasty, and of the Saracen Empire in the days of Harun Al-Rashid, may

have rivalled it; but it is probable that only the great Western powers,

enriched by the industrial revolution in the late nineteenth and early

twentieth centuries, have ever reached a financial magnitude beyond that

of the empire of Aurangzeb.

Humayun divided the responsibilities of government among four ministers,

and a fourfold division persisted at least as late as Aurangzeb. By a

curious form of logic the classification of duties and the names of the

four departments were based, not on convenience, but on relation to the

four elements: earth, air, fire, and water. The _Khaki_ department had

the care of agriculture, buildings, and domain lands; the _Hawai_, of the

wardrobe, the kitchen, the stables, and the like; the _Ateshi_, of the

artillery and the making of war material and other things in which fire

was employed; and the _Abi_, of the emperor’s drinks, and canals, rivers,

and water-works. When Khondamir wrote, about 1534, one man had oversight

of all four departments; but the development of a regular supreme

official of great power, like the grand vizier of the Ottoman Empire,

seems never to have taken place, no doubt because the imperial house did

not abandon the tradition of personal government.

Humayun set aside two days of the week for business of state. Drums were

beaten to summon officials and give notice that the hall of audience

was open. Any subject might appear and ask for justice. Suits of fine

apparel and purses of money were at hand to reward the worthy, and

executioners stood by with drawn swords to punish the guilty. Guns were

fired at the close of the audience to notify officials that they might

retire. Aurangzeb held general court in the great hall of audience for

two hours on regular days. Persons who had petitions to present held

them up, and these were taken by the emperor, read by him, and often

granted on the spot. On at least one day in the week he sat with the two

_Kazis_ of the city, and on another day he heard privately ten cases of

persons of low rank. In the evening the chief officers were commanded

to be present in a smaller hall, where Aurangzeb sat to “grant private

audiences to his officers, receive their reports, and deliberate on

important matters of state.” This gathering resembled the Divan of

Suleiman, but it lacked most of the latter’s judicial work; in India such

work was done by the chief judges sitting separately, or by the emperor

in the great audiences. Furthermore, it was the sovereign and not a grand

vizier who presided in this council. The assembly was deliberative in

matters of policy and general administration, and judicial in that it had

jurisdiction of cases which involved officers of high rank.

For purposes of local government the empire was divided into _subahs_,

or provinces, each under a _Nawab_ (a plural of majesty, from _naib_,

often called “nabob” by Westerners), or governor. Under Akbar the number

of _subahs_ varied from fifteen to eighteen. Like the _Beylerbeys_ of

the Ottoman Empire, the _Nawabs_ tended to increase in number, the size

of their provinces diminishing accordingly. The _Nawab_ was almost a

little emperor in his province. He held audiences, commanded the army,

conferred lesser titles, appointed and dismissed most officials, and

was the highest judicial authority. His power was limited, however, by

the emperor’s right to recall him, by the right of appeal in judicial

cases from him to the emperor, and by the fact that the financial and

judicial officers were separately appointed and were responsible only to

the throne. The _Nawab_ and his court were supported by lands granted

in _jagir_. He might suspend the _jagirs_ of officers pending imperial

decision. He was responsible for the security and order of his province,

and had _Faujdars_ under him in the several districts, who exercised

military command and the powers of chief of police and police judge,

their position resembling somewhat that of the _Sanjak Beys_ of the

Ottoman system. The chief financial officers in each province were the

_Diwans_, who, as explained above, collected the imperial revenue and

had oversight of all lesser revenue officers. They and their deputies

possessed judicial powers in cases concerning finance and land titles.

The chief judge of the province, subject however to appeals to the

governor, was the _Nizam_. He heard the serious criminal cases, and his

deputy, the _Daroga Adaulat al Aulea_, attended to most of the important

civil ones. Local _Kazis_, aided by _Muftis_, _Mohtesibs_, and _Kutwals_

or mayors, kept order in the smaller cities and districts. _Rajahs_ who

had made terms with the emperor exercised powers very similar to those

of the _Nawabs_. Their positions were secured by heredity, however, and

in their provinces the imperial financial and judicial officers had no

jurisdiction. They simply owed military service and a certain amount

of tribute, failing in which they might be reduced by force of arms.

The Ottoman system contained no subjects who were at once so secure of

their positions, so nearly independent, and so powerful as the _Rajahs_.

Kurdish, Albanian, and Arabian chieftains were perhaps as secure and as

independent, but they were of very small wealth and might; while the

Voivodes of Wallachia and Moldavia were not so secure or so independent.

The condition of the common people under this government is to be known

mainly by inference. Various documents and acts show the benevolent

intentions of emperors and high officials toward the masses. Whether from

wise prevision or from genuine charitable feeling, there appears to have

been much solicitude lest the cultivators of the soil should be reduced

to utter penury or driven from their lands. Akbar, for instance, issued

strict orders that on military expeditions nothing should be taken

from the people without careful assessment and immediate or subsequent

payment. Nevertheless, at the best the result of the general policy

was to leave the cultivator little more than a bare living. The whole

system drained away wealth to a few great cities and a comparatively

few persons. If but few complaints rose from the masses, it was because

their lot was no worse than that of their forefathers had been for many

generations. Aside from the periods of civil war, the Moguls gave peace

and order. Akbar removed internal tolls two centuries before such a thing

was accomplished in France, and thus made of the land a single economic

unit, with the result that in his reign India as a whole enjoyed such

prosperity as she has known at very few other periods in her history.

Before the time of Aurangzeb special care was taken to conciliate the

Hindus. Akbar adopted definitely the policy of equal treatment for all,

a degree of toleration not to be found in the contemporary Europe of

William the Silent and Henry of Navarre. The government strove to abolish

or mitigate such Hindu practices as were abhorrent to Mohammedanism, and

at least one Moslem practice which offended the Hindus. Child-marriage,

the ordeal, and animal sacrifice were forbidden. Widows were to be

burned on the funeral pyres of their husbands only with their own full

consent, and those who preferred to live might marry again. In the Rajput

tributary states Hindu law of course prevailed. Probably in the regions

under direct Mogul rule Hindus were judged by their own law when Moslems

were not concerned and perhaps even by their own judges. It is true that

the Hindus had to wait until Akbar came to be released from the personal

disabilities imposed by earlier Moslem conquerors, that their temple

lands were taxed until the time of Aurangzeb, and that Brahmans, pundits,

and fakirs were perhaps only in Akbar’s presence treated with respect

equal to that accorded _Sheiks_, _Seids_, and _Ulema_. But the emperors

and their officers gave like justice to all; they permitted every man

to worship according to the rites of his forefathers, and apparently

never had a thought, as had Selim the Cruel, of giving to all non-Moslem

subjects the choice between Islam and death. There was little ground for

discontent until Aurangzeb began to apply a harsher policy.

THE MOSLEMS AND THE MOSLEM CHURCH

In comparison with conditions in the Ottoman Empire, Moslems and

non-Moslems in the India of the early Moguls were far more nearly on

a level. This was due not merely to the toleration and indifference

of the emperors, but even more to the circumstances of the conquest,

under which both groups were treated alike, since Baber at Panipat in

1526 subdued the Moslem Lodi Sultans of Delhi, and at Kanwaha in 1527

the Hindu Rajput confederacy. Indian-born worshippers of Allah and of

Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva were mingled in the same vast mass of conquered

subjects, equally separated from the victorious invaders. There was also,

in all probability, a much greater difference of race between Baber’s

highlanders and the Moslems that he found in India than between the

latter and the Hindus; for many inter-marriages had taken place, and

many natives of India had joined the followers of the Prophet. Time, of

course, diminished this distinction.

Suleiman was distinctly the head of the Moslems of his empire. Through

his appointee the _Sheik-ul-Islam_, through his _Hoja_, the _Kaziaskers_,

the _Nakib-ol-Eshraf_, and other learned and saintly personages, he kept

in close touch with the religious chiefs of the Mohammedan population.

All who prayed toward Mecca, at least from the older portions of the

Ottoman Empire, were attached by many ancient ties to the house of Osman.

Their ancestors had perhaps been converts through its activities, had

certainly fought for it, and had seen its gradual and vigorous rise to

greatness. No such vital bonds joined to the Moguls the great mass of

their Moslem subjects. These remembered the glories and favors of lost

dynasties, and were indebted to the new sovereigns only for defeats

and humiliations which depressed them toward the level of the Hindus,

whom they had for centuries held to be far inferior to themselves. They

had no _Sheik-ul-Islam_, honored by the sovereign with a seat above

his own, whose decisions might determine the fate of the ruler or of

the empire. Almost as much to them as to the Hindus the emperor was a

stranger and a foreigner, to whom should be rendered, because of his

power, full submission and instant obedience, but not loyal affection and

whole-hearted devotion. There was ever an absence of solidarity between

the house of Timur and those Moslem subjects who had not come into India

in the service of that house, and this was not least among the elements

of weakness that shortened the life of the empire. When Rajputs had

been stirred to revolt, when Mahrattas had grown great, when bronzed and

capable Moguls had been supplanted by “pale persons in petticoats,” who

were left to rally about the tottering throne? More than two and a half

centuries have elapsed since the Ottomans ceased to draw systematically

from the strength of the Christian population, and yet the fighting stock

of their Moslem subjects has never failed or grown weak or faltered in

its loyalty; but Aurangzeb’s successors found few upon whom to rely,

and of this few a very small proportion who would sacrifice their own

fortunes freely, who would be faithful unto death.

The Moguls found in India _Sheiks_, _Dervishes_, _Seids_, and _Ulema_,

mosques, schools, and pious foundations in abundance. In fact, the

developed system of Mohammedanism had extended itself over India with

visible results very much like those in all other Moslem lands, among

them the Ottoman Empire. From the ranks of those educated in Moslem lore

were taken teachers, judges, and counselors-at-law.

There must have existed for the children of the Moslem population

_mektebs_, ordinary _medressehs_, and law schools, in which the Arabic

language and the sciences built upon the Koran, as well as the Persian

language and literature were taught. No doubt, also, the imperial

household contained systems of education, arranged for the two sexes

separately and prepared to train imperial and noble children and young

attendants, servants, and slaves in the knowledge which was thought best

adapted to fit them for life. It is interesting to notice what impression

the teaching regularly given to a young prince made (if Bernier can be

trusted) upon the keen intellect of Aurangzeb. When the latter became

emperor, his old teacher, it appears, confidently presented himself at

Delhi for reward. What, then, must have been his surprise to receive such

a deliverance as this from the lips of majesty!

“Was it not incumbent upon my preceptor to make me acquainted with the

distinguishing features of every nation of the earth; its resources and

strength; its mode of warfare, its manners, religion, form of government,

and wherein its interests principally consist, and, by a regular course

of historical reading, to render me familiar with the origin of States;

their progress and decline; the events, accidents, or errors, owing to

which such great changes and mighty revolutions have been effected?... A

familiarity with the language of surrounding nations may be indispensable

in a king; but you would teach me to read and write Arabic; doubtless

conceiving that you placed me under an everlasting obligation for

sacrificing so large a portion of time to the study of a language wherein

no one can hope to become proficient without ten or twelve years of close

application. Forgetting how many important subjects ought to be embraced

in the education of a prince, you acted as if it were chiefly necessary

that he should possess great skill in grammar, and such knowledge as

belongs to a Doctor of Law; and thus did you waste the precious hours

of my youth in the dry, unprofitable, and never-ending task of learning

words!... Ought you not to have instructed me on one point at least, so

essential to be known by a king, namely, on the reciprocal duties between

the sovereign and his subjects? Ought you not also to have foreseen that

I might at some future period be compelled to contend with my brothers,

sword in hand, for the crown, and for my very existence? Such, as you

must well know, has been the fate of the children of almost every king of

Hindustan. Did you ever instruct me in the art of war, how to besiege a

town, or draw up an army in battle array? Happy for me that I consulted

wiser heads than thine on these subjects! Go! withdraw to thy village.

Henceforth let no person know either who thou art or what is become of

thee.”

In this rebuke, whether it comes chiefly from Bernier or from Aurangzeb,

is excellent criticism upon the stereotyped Moslem education, and

material enough to cheer the hearts of modern advocates of a closer

relation between subjects of instruction and the business of life.

The lack of solidarity between the mass of the Moslems of India and

the Mogul government, together with the religious indifference of

several emperors, prevented the Moslem church there from reaching the

full measure of the dignity, influence, and authority of the Moslem

Institution in the Ottoman Empire. Humayun’s division of the household

into three classes shows that he gave highest rank not to the clergy

but to princes of the blood, with nobles and ministers of state and

military men. “The holy persons, the great _Musheiks_ (religious men),

the respectable _Seids_, the literati, the law officers, the scientific

persons, poets, besides other great and respectable men formed the second

class.” The orders, or arrows, of nobility show a little more definitely

the place of the Moslem learned men, since they are assigned to the tenth

order, after the monarch and the princes of the blood and the _Rajahs_.

In the palace-city of Fatehpur-Sikri, Akbar built a great hall, the

Ibadat-Khana, to which he repaired on holy nights with _Sheiks_, _Seids_,

_Ulema_, and nobles. Finding that his followers could not keep the peace

when mingled indiscriminately, he assigned one of the four sides of the

hall to each group. Here he was accustomed to listen to theological

discussions; and it appears that what he heard tended to destroy his

respect for the faith of the Prophet, and to predispose his mind toward

the eclectic religion which he instituted later. Says Badauni: “The

learned doctors used to exercise the sword of their tongues upon each

other, and showed great pugnacity and animosity, till the various sects

took to calling each other infidels and perverts.” In course of time

Akbar obtained a document signed by the principal _Ulema_, to the effect

that a just ruler is higher in the eyes of God than a doctor of the law

(_Mujtahid_), that Akbar was a just ruler, and that therefore his decrees

in matters of religion were binding upon the world. This declaration

placed Akbar distinctly above the Moslem church and at least on a level

with the prophet Mohammed; and he seems even to have played with the

idea that he was himself God. Certainly he hoped to unify all creeds

by his “divine faith.” His son and grandson were not much interested

in religion, and not at all inclined to assume actively the religious

headship of the empire; under them, the Moslem church had to take care of

itself. Religious interest appeared again in Aurangzeb, not in any spirit

of free inquiry, but in a rigid conformity to the rules of the Sacred

Law. From those youthful days when he preferred the meagre life of a

saint to the splendors of princely state, down to the long-deferred close

of his troubled career, Islam knew no more faithful observer of its rites

and prescriptions. In Aurangzeb’s reign and in his alone did the Moslem

religion take such a place in India as in the Turkey of Suleiman’s time.

The learned Moslems of the Mogul Empire never had as the head of their

hierarchy a personage of such dignity and power as the _Sheik-ul-Islam_

of Constantinople. The _Sadr Jehan_ appears to have been concerned

chiefly with the granting of land from the treasury to learned and

religious persons in lieu of pensions. The hierarchy of judges seems to

have been complete, at least in territory that was directly administered,

with two officials at court who corresponded to the _Kaziaskers_ of

Suleiman, and with _Kazis_ of high rank in the chief city of each

province and of lesser rank in other cities; but the functions of these

officers appear to have been more closely restricted than in the Ottoman

Empire, by reason of the superior jurisdictions of the emperor and

the governors, and of the criminal and financial jurisdictions of the

_Nizams_ and _Diwans_ and their deputies. As there is little mention of

the _muftis_, it would seem that their rôle was not very important.

The Moslem church in India was not of the very fabric of empire. The

imperial family and most of their associates in government adhered to it;

but it had no thorough control of education and justice, and no power

to sanction war or pronounce the deposition of an emperor. It did not

curb the spirit of the nation or lay a heavy hand upon progress; but, as

it was relatively unable to hinder by its weaknesses, so it could not

contribute its abiding strength. The Mogul Empire is but a memory. The

Moslem church of India thrives and grows under the rule of aliens of

another faith.

BOOKS CONSULTED IN THE PREPARATION OF APPENDIX IV

BADEN-POWELL, B. H. A short account of the land revenue and its

administration in British India. 2d edition. Oxford, 1907.

BAYLEY, SIR E. C. The local Muhammadan dynasties. Gujarát. London,

1886.—A sequel to Elliot’s History of India.

BERNIER, FRANÇOIS. Travels in the Mogul empire, A.D. 1656-1663.

Westminster, 1891.—[As quoted by Lane-Poole and others.]

CRICHTON, A. S. The Mohammedans as rulers of India. In _The Moslem

World_, i. 99-116. London, 1911.

DOW, ALEXANDER. The history of Hindostan. 3 vols. London, 1770-1772.

ELLIOT, SIR H. M., and DOWSON, JOHN. The history of India, as told by

its own historians. 8 vols. London, 1867-1877.—Vol. v (1873) contains

extracts from Khondamir, Badáúní, Nizam uddin Ahmad, etc.

GUL-BADAN BEGAM. The history of Humāyūn (Humāyūn-nāma). Translated by

Annette S. Beveridge. London, 1902.

HOLDEN, E. S. The Mogul emperors of Hindustan. New York, 1895.

HUNTER, SIR W. W. A brief history of the Indian peoples. 23d edition.

[Oxford, 1903.]

IRVINE, WILLIAM. The army of the Indian Moghuls; its organization and

administration. London, 1903.

—— The Bangash Nawabs of Farrukhabad. J. R. A. S., Bengal, 1878, 340 ff.

KEENE, H. G. The fall of the Moghul empire of Hindustan. New edition.

London, 1887.

—— The Turks in India. London, 1879.

LANE-POOLE, STANLEY. Aurangzíb. (Rulers of India series.) Oxford, 1893.

LANE-POOLE, STANLEY. Bábar. (Rulers of India series.) Oxford, 1899.

—— Mediæval India under Mohammedan rule (A.D. 712-1764). New York, 1903.

LYALL, SIR A. C. The Moghul empire. In _Cambridge Modern History_, vi.

506-529. New York, 1909.

MALLESON, G. B. Akbar. (Rulers of India series.) Oxford, 1908.

RAMBAUD, ALFRED. Organisation de l’empire mongol. In Lavisse and

Rambaud’s _Histoire Générale_, vi. 878-883. Paris, 1895.

RITCHIE, LEITCH. A history of the oriental nations. 2 vols. London, 1848.

ROE, SIR THOMAS. Journal of his embassy to the court of the Great Mogul.

1615-1619. In Hakluyt Society’s publications, 2d series, vols. i-ii.

London, 1899.—[As quoted by Lane-Poole and others.]

APPENDIX V

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

I. SOURCES OF OTTOMAN GOVERNMENTAL IDEAS

Three traceable lines of influence can be followed from the earliest

times until their appearance in the Ottoman government of the sixteenth

century. The oldest began in Egypt, and continued down through various

dynasties until the Roman conquest, after which it began to enter the

Roman imperial government. From this it passed to the Byzantine and

thence to the Ottoman system. Locally again it followed a more direct

course through the Fatimides and Mamelukes until the time of Selim I’s

conquest of Egypt. The slave government of the Mamelukes offers an

interesting subject for comparison with the Ottoman Ruling Institution.

It would be superfluous to give references for this line of development,

except perhaps to mention Sir William Muir’s book, _The Mameluke or Slave

Dynasty of Egypt_ (London, 1896), and Stanley Lane-Poole’s _Egypt in the

Middle Ages_ (London, 1901).

The second line, which seems to have contributed a greater number of

elements, came down in the Bagdad-Euphrates valley through various

governments to the Saracen and Seljuk empires, from which it passed to

the Ottomans. Here again no general references need be given. Perhaps

the most useful book in connection with the subject is D. B. McDonald’s

_Moslem Theology, Jurisprudence, and Constitutional Theory_ (New York,

1903).

The third and most direct line of influence is through the Tatars

of the steppe lands. In A. H. Keane’s _Man, Past and Present_

(Cambridge, England, 1899) there is a full and clear discussion of the

anthropological relationships of the Turks. E. H. Parker’s _A Thousand

Years of the Tartars_ (London, 1895) gives an account which is based

closely upon the Chinese sources, but which would be helped by the

addition of as many of the two or three thousand notes which he did not

print as would show the sources of his information. The Chinese story

of the great Tatar empire of the sixth century A.D. may be found in

Stanislas Julien’s _Documents Historiques sur les Tou-Kioue_ (Paris,

1877). W. Radloff’s _Alttürkischen Inschriften der Mongolei_ (Leipsic,

1894-95) discusses the earliest known Turkish monuments, which date

from the eighth century. Emil Bretschneider’s _Medieval Researches from

Eastern Asiatic Sources_ (2 vols., London, 1888, new edition, 1910) gives

an account of the Uigurs, whose greatness came in the eighth and ninth

centuries and whose name persisted until at least the twelfth century, as

is shown by the oldest known Turkish book, which is in their dialect.

This old book has been printed, with original Syriac text,

transliteration into Roman characters, and German translation, by

Arminius (Hermann) Vambéry, under the title _Uigurische Sprachmonumente

und das Kudatku Bilik_ (Innsbruck, 1870). The _Kudatku Bilik_, the

“Wisdom that Blesses,” written at Kashgar in 1068 by Yusuf Khass Hajil,

is really an “Art of Government,” composed for the instruction of a

Turkish prince. It contains in rhymed couplets, arranged in chapters,

a large amount of advice on governmental matters, much of it being in

the form of proverbs. The book throws a great deal of light on the

fundamental Ottoman character. Vambéry has also made a study, on a

philological basis, of the civilization of the Tatars, entitled _Die

Primitive Cultur des Türko-tatarischen Volkes_ (Leipsic, 1879).

A book equally remarkable with the _Kudatku Bilik_ is the _Siasset

Namèh_, written in 1092 for the Seljuk sultan Melek Shah by the great

vizier Abu ’Ali al Hasan b. Ishaq (known better by his title, the Nizam

al-Mulk), and printed in the original Persian, with a French translation,

by Charles Schéfer, Paris, 1893. This “Book of Government” reveals to

some extent three things,—the methods of government of Sassanian times,

the actual government under Melek Shah, and the Seljuk government as

the Nizam al-Mulk would have it. It also sheds much light upon Ottoman

institutions.

The best general book on the Turks in Central Asia and their activities

down to the occupation of Asia Minor is undoubtedly Léon Cahun’s

_Introduction à l’Histoire de l’Asie: Turcs et Mongols_ (Paris,

1896). The same ground is covered briefly by Cahun in Lavisse and

Rambaud’s _Histoire Générale_, vol. ii. ch. xvi. There is a great

deal of information about the Persians and the Seljuk Turks in E. G.

Browne’s _Literary History of Persia_ (2 vols., London, 1902-1906).

Maximilian Bittner has made a valuable study of the Turkish language,

entitled _Der Einfluss des Arabischen und Persischen auf das Türkische_

(Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, _Sitzungsberichte der

Philosophisch-Historischen Classe_, vol. cxlii. pt. iii. Vienna, 1900).

Sir W. M. Ramsay’s books are valuable for a study of the settlement

of the Turks in Asia Minor, particularly his _Historical Geography of

Asia Minor_ (London, 1890), _The Geographical Conditions determining

History and Religion in Asia Minor_ (with comments by D. G. Hogarth, H.

H. Howorth, and others, _Geographical Journal_, September, 1902, xx.

257-282), and _Studies in the History and Art of the Eastern Provinces

of the Roman Empire_ (Aberdeen, 1906). Volume V of H. F. Helmolt’s

_Weltgeschichte_ (Leipsic, etc., 1905) is useful for its attempt to trace

the elements of Ottoman culture which were derived from Byzantine and

other sources. William Miller’s _The Latins in the Levant_ (New York,

1908) gives a clear picture of the confused and divided state of affairs

to which the Ottomans put an end in their rough way.

II. THE OTTOMAN GOVERNMENT IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY

Abundant material for a study of the sixteenth-century Ottoman government

has been provided and preserved; for the great place which the expanding

empire held in the world developed an immense interest in its affairs

on the part of the West, and made it worth the while of many of its

Western residents to prepare descriptions of its outstanding features,

among which its peculiar government was treated with special fulness.

The writings of these men of various Western nationalities are in a way

more helpful than a similar number of books from native writers would

be, because the foreigners could usually take nothing for granted,

but were compelled to draw a complete picture. They could not, on the

other hand, get at the inner springs of the Ottoman activity as well

as natives could; nor do any of them, with the exception of Menavino,

seem actually to have read and known the Ottoman laws. Fortunately,

Ottoman historians began to write abundantly shortly before the reign of

Suleiman. For Suleiman’s own time, the collections of his _Kanuns_ (since

he was noted as a legislator) contain much material which helps toward

an understanding of his government; moreover, writers of a later date

have been drawn with special interest toward his reign, as the climax of

Ottoman greatness. At the same time, no one but Zinkeisen has attempted

to give an extended account of the Ottoman government as it was in the

sixteenth century.

No reasonably complete bibliography of books relating to Turkey has been

made. The following lists are worthy of mention as giving information in

regard to the material for a study of Turkish history and institutions

before the year 1600:—

Richard Knolles gives a bare list of his authorities, to the number of

about twenty-five, at the beginning of his _Generall Historie of the

Turkes_, London, 1603.

J. H. Boecler published at Bautzen in 1717 a _Commentarius

Historico-Politicus de Rebus Turcicis_, in which he gives, at pp. 14-41,

a list of 317 works on Turkish history and affairs, including 45 folio

volumes, 128 quartos, 98 octavos, and 45 duodecimos.

Joseph von Hammer discusses his authorities in the preface to volume i

of his _Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches_ (Pest, 1827); and in volume

x, pp. 57-336 (1835), he prints a list containing 3,025 titles of works

relating to Ottoman history which were to be found in Europe outside of

Constantinople.

Amat di San Filippo, in his _Biografia dei Viaggiatori Italiani_, etc. (2

vols., Rome, 1882), gives accounts of many of the early Italian writers

on Turkish affairs.

Henri Hauser, in his edition of Du Fresne-Canaye, described below (p.

319), prints as Appendix II an _Essai d’une Bibliographie des Ouvrages

du XVIe Siècle relatifs au Levant_. The list, which does not pretend to

completeness, contains about 60 different titles.

The catalogue of the library of Count Paul Riant, published in two parts

at Paris in 1899, also contains the titles of a great number of books

and pamphlets which relate to the subject under discussion. Most of this

material has been transferred to the Ottoman collection of the Library of

Harvard University, through the generosity of Messrs. J. R. Coolidge and

A. C. Coolidge,—a gift, it may be added, that has made the preparation

of the present treatise possible. There are also many titles on early

Ottoman history in the catalogue of Charles Schéfer’s Oriental library

(published at Paris in 1899), from which the same donors have contributed

445 volumes to the Harvard Ottoman collection.

The list given in the _Cambridge Modern History_, i. 700-705, in

connection with Professor J. B. Bury’s chapter on “The Ottoman Conquest,”

is fuller than most of those just mentioned. It omits some valuable

authorities, however, such as Schiltberger, Menavino, Ramberti, and

Busbecq.

It is possible to get contemporaneous views of the Ottoman Empire at a

date earlier than the beginning of the sixteenth century, though they are

all incomplete. The first accounts go back to the battle of Nicopolis

in 1396. Froissart (_Chroniques_, ed. Lettenhove, xv. 319 ff., Brussels,

1871), in a description of the battle and succeeding events which was

based on accounts given by Jacques du Fay and Jacques de Helly, gives

some idea of the Turkish army and the sultan. A better account for the

present purpose is that by Johann Schiltberger (translated into English

by J. B. Telfer, and published by the Hakluyt Society as _The Bondage

and Travels of Johann Schiltberger_, London, 1879). Schiltberger, then

a youth of sixteen, was taken prisoner at Nicopolis, and after serving

as slave to Bayezid I for six years, was captured by Timur at the battle

of Angora, 1402. He was retained as captive, not without important

responsibilities and wide journeys, for twenty-five years longer, when

he succeeded in escaping. It is a matter for regret that he says very

little of his life at the sultan’s court, since he held a position which

corresponded to that of page in later times.

Another general account of the Turkish polity comes from the pen of

Bertrandon de la Broquière, first gentleman-carver (_écuyer tranchant_),

councillor, and chamberlain of Duke Philip the Good of Burgundy. In the

course of a trip through the Levant he met Murad II in Rumelia in 1433.

His observations show that many features of the Turkish system were then

already in operation,—as the four pashas, the slave system, the pages,

the imperial harem, the Janissaries (_Jehanicéres_), the feudal army, the

Divan, etc. La Broquière’s memoirs are edited by Charles Schéfer, under

the title _Le Voyage d’Outremer_, as volume xii of _Recueil de Voyages et

de Documents pour servir à l’Histoire de la Géographie depuis le XIIIe

jusqu’à la fin du XVIe Siècle_ (Paris, 1892). The same volume contains an

opinion in regard to the military power of the Turks by Jehan Torzelo,

dating from the year 1439.

Still another report was written by a Transylvanian whose name remains

unknown, but who was a slave in Ottoman private families from 1436 to

1453. Evidently he had before his capture been a theological student

who held some of the ideas that preceded the Reformation movement. His

book had a great vogue after the year 1509, under various titles, such

as: Ricoldus, _De Vita et Moribus Turcarum_, Paris, 1509 (the attachment

to the name of Ricoldus is purely accidental); _Libellus de Ritu et

Moribus Turcarum_, Wittenberg, 1530 (with a preface by Martin Luther);

S. Frank, _Cronica-Abconterfayung_, etc., Augsburg, 1531; _Tractatus de

Moribus_, etc. The Wittenberg edition has been used in this treatise,

and is referred to as _Tractatus_. Although most of the book is

theological and argumentative, it affords a great deal of information.

Among other things, it contains what is probably the earliest mention of

the tribute children as the regular means of recruiting the Janissaries

(_Ginnitscheri_).

The next good contemporary account of the Ottoman system is given in the

history of Chal(co)condyles (written in Greek), of which there are many

editions and translations. The one used here is the French translation,

_Histoire de la Décadence de l’Empire Grec et Établissement de celui des

Turcs_, Rouen, 1670. This writer, whose story comes down to 1465, speaks

out of his own observation in describing the Ottoman camp and government.

The oldest authentic _Kanuns_ are in the _Kanun-nameh_ of Mohammed II,

which is translated by Hammer in his _Staatsverfassung_ (Vienna, 1815),

87-101.

The earliest book that was devoted to a description of Ottoman manners,

religion, and government is by Teodoro Spandugino Cantacusino. Born of

an Italian father and a Greek mother, he spent his life alternately in

the East and the West. His book describes the empire as it was under

Bayezid II, who died in 1512, his information about the government being

obtained from two very high renegade officials, probably Messih Pasha and

Hersek-Zadeh Ahmed Pasha. The earliest edition was printed in French at

Paris in 1519 under the title _Petit Traicté de l’Origine des Turcqz_;

later editions, with and without his name, or under the name of B.

Gycaud, bear the title _La Généalogie du Grant Turc à Présent Regnant_,

etc. The edition used here is a reprint of the first French issue, edited

with notes by C. Schéfer, Paris, 1896. This writer is sometimes quoted as

Spandugino, and sometimes as Cantacusino. The first form is used in the

present treatise.

A book that is even more valuable in some ways is Giovanni Antonio

Menavino’s _Trattato de Costumi et Vita de Turchi_. The edition used

here was printed in Florence in 1548. Menavino came of a wealthy Genoese

family. About the year 1505, when he was twelve years of age, handsome,

bright, and well educated for his years, he was captured near Corsica

by corsairs, and set aside as a gift suitable for the sultan. Taken to

Bayezid II, he pleased the old sultan greatly, and was placed at once

in the school of pages, where, as his book shows throughout, he must

have profited greatly by the teaching that he received. He describes the

religion, customs, and government of the Ottomans in much detail. In 1514

he was taken by Selim I on the expedition against Persia; but he managed

to escape to Trebizond, whence he made his way to Adrianople, Salonika,

and thence home to Genoa.

A group of excellent sources for studies of both the government and the

history of the Ottoman Empire in the sixteenth century is found in the

reports which the Venetian _Bailos_ and orators extraordinary presented

to their Senate.

Venice, says Ranke, “frequently sent her most experienced and able

citizens to foreign courts. Not content with the despatches on current

affairs regularly sent home every fourteen days, she further required

of her ambassadors, when they returned after an absence of two or three

years, that they should give a circumstantial account of the court and

the country they had been visiting.”[799] Since Constantinople was in

the sixteenth century the station of first importance in the Venetian

diplomatic service, it is safe to assume that the sons whom she sent

there were her most intelligent.

A number of these Venetian reports, which do not, however, reach far

into Suleiman’s reign, are summarized by Marini Sanuto the Younger in

his voluminous _Diarii_, 1496-1533 (58 vols. in 59, Venice, 1879-1903).

The reports of Alvise Sagudino in 1496, and of Andrea Gritti in 1503,

are quoted by Schéfer in the introduction to his edition of Spandugino’s

work, noticed above. Rinaldo Fulin, in his _Diarii e Diaristi Veneziani_

(Venice, 1881) reprints Sanuto’s abstract of the Itinerary of Pietro

Zeno, orator at Constantinople in 1523.

The Venetian reports for the reign of Suleiman are all, so far as

preserved and known, collected in the invaluable work of Eugenio Alberi,

_Relazione degli Ambasciatori Veneti al Senato_ (15 vols., Florence,

1839-1863). The three volumes of the third series (published 1840, 1844,

1855, respectively), as well as a portion of the fifteenth volume or

Appendix, are devoted to Turkish reports. Volume i of this series is

also separately printed as _Documenti di Storia Ottomana del Secolo XVI_

(Florence, 1842). A few writings are included in these volumes which were

not reports to the Venetian senate.

In all, thirty-nine documents are thus presented, of which sixteen fall

within the reign of Suleiman. Unfortunately there is a gap between the

years 1534 and 1553, a period for which there should be eight or ten

documents of great value bearing on the Ottoman dealings with France,

Austria, Spain, and Persia.

These volumes contain much helpful apparatus, such as a glossary of

Turkish words (vol. i); notes on the Venetian embassies to the Porte in

the sixteenth century, with a list of the Venetian representatives (vol.

ii); biographical notes concerning the writers (all three volumes);

chronological tables, genealogies, etc. (Appendix). The Venetians were

particularly interested in the financial side of the Ottoman government,

its mechanism, its army, and its fleet. Many character descriptions

of great personages enliven the pages. The last pages of the Appendix

contain a chronological index of the _Relazione_ and the other writings

included; also an alphabetical list of them by authors, and chronological

lists by countries. The subjoined list of reports from Constantinople

is taken from page 435, and will serve as a means of locating many

references in the foregoing pages. The more valuable reports are

distinguished by asterisks.

VENETIAN REPORTS FROM CONSTANTINOPLE

as given in Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series, 3 vols. and Appendix

(Florence, 1840-1863)

Writer Date Volume Page

Gritti, Andrea 1503 iii 1

Giustiniani, Antonio 1514 ” 45

Mocenigo, Alvise 1518 ” 53

Contarini, Bartolomeo 1519 ” 56

Minio, Marco 1522 ” 69

Zen, Pietro 1524 ” 93

Bragadino, Pietro 1526 ” 99

Minio, Marco 1527 ” 113

Zen, Pietro 1530 ” 119

*Ludovisi, Daniello 1534 i 1

*Navagero, Bernardo 1553 ” 33

_Anonimo_ ” ” 193

*Trevisano, Domenico 1554 ” 111

*Erizzo, Antonio 1557 iii 123

*Barbarigo, Antonio 1558 ” 145

Cavalli, Marino 1560 i 271

Dandolo, Andrea 1562 iii 161

Donini, Marcantonio ” ” 173

*Barbarigo, Daniele 1564 ii 1

Bonrizzo, Luigi 1565 ” 61

Ragazzoni, Jacopo 1571 ” 77

*Barbaro, Marcantonio 1573 i 299

Barbaro, Marcantonio ” Append. 387

Badoaro, Andrea ” i 347

*Garzoni, Costantino ” ” 369

Alessandri, Vincenzo 1574 ii 103

_Anonimo_ 1575 ” 309

*Tiepolo, Antonio 1576 ” 129

*Soranzo, Giacomo ” ” 193

Venier, Maffeo 1579 i 437

_Anonimo_ 1582 ii 209[800]

_Anonimo_ ” ” 427

Contarini, Paolo 1583 iii 209

*Morosini, Gianfrancesco 1585 ” 251

Michiel, Giovanni 1587 ii 255

Venier, Maffeo ” ” 295

*Moro, Giovanni 1590 iii 323

*Bernardo, Lorenzo 1592 ii 321

*Zane, Matteo 1594 iii 381

An interesting small pamphlet is the _Auszug eines Briefes ... das

Türckich Regiment unn Wesen sey_, which was printed in a South-German

dialect in 1526. It purports to be a letter from a German settled at

Adrianople to his cousin in Germany, telling of his life as subject

Christian under the sultan. The literary arrangement is so good, and the

statements diverge so uniformly toward the dark side, that this would

seem to be a pamphlet written in Germany for the purpose of arousing

alarm and activity after the battle of Mohacs.

Hieronymus Balbus, bishop of Gurk, published at Rome in 1526 a little

book of two essays addressed to Clement VII. The second part, “continens

Turcarum Originem, Mores, Imperium,” etc., was also commended to the

Archduke Ferdinand. The work makes up for a conspicuous lack of definite

and accurate information by means of abundant scriptural and classical

quotations and allusions, vituperation of the Turks, and assertion of

their military ineffectiveness. It is chiefly valuable as an evidence of

the “Turkish fear.”

A book that had a wide influence is _Turcicarum Rerum Commentarius_

addressed by Paolo Giovio, or Paulus Jovius, bishop of Nocera, to Emperor

Charles the Fifth, and dedicated at Rome in 1531. It was published in

several languages; the edition used here is the Latin one, Paris, 1539.

The book is historical except for the last ten pages, which contain a

description of the Ottoman government with particular reference to its

military resources. Giovio published also in two volumes at Florence, in

1550-1552, _Historiarum sui Temporis Tomus Primus_ [_et Secundus_].

V. D. Tanco, or Clavedan del Estanco, a Spanish gentleman, wrote in his

native tongue a book that was translated into Italian and published

at Venice in 1558 under the title _Libro dell’ Origine et Successione

dell’ Imperio de’ Turchi_. The basis of the work is the _Commentarius_

of Jovius, just noticed; but this has been intelligently combined with

information from Froissart, Aeneas Sylvius, and others. The latest date

mentioned is 1537, and the death of Ibrahim in 1536 is not known.

A very valuable and interesting work is the _Libri Tre delle Cose de

Turchi_, etc., published by Aldus in Venice in 1539, and reprinted often

thereafter. It appears also as one of the component parts of the work

published by Aldus in 1543, _Viaggi fatti da Vinetia, alla tana ...

in Costantinopoli_, known sometimes simply as _Viaggi alla tana_, or

“Travels to the Don.” The book appeared anonymously, but it has been

attributed with much confidence to Benedetto Ramberti (see Alberi,

_Relazione_, 3d series, iii. 8; _Archiv für Oesterreichische Geschichte_,

1897, lxxxiii. 9; _Revue Critique_, 1896, i. 20-21). Ramberti accompanied

Ludovisi to and from Constantinople during the first six months of 1534.

The book was written in the same year; for it shows that Barbarossa was

made pasha while it was in process of composition (see above, Appendix

I, p. 246, and, for the fact that Barbarossa was back in Algiers, May 9,

1534, see Ursu, _La Politique Orientale de François I_, Paris, 1908, p.

79), and in a long characterization at the close of the third book it

represents Luigi (Alvise) Gritti, who was assassinated in Hungary late in

1534, as still living.

The first book of the three describes the journey overland from Ragusa to

Constantinople; the third book contains observations of no great value

on the power and policies of the Turks. The second book is the _pièce de

résistance_. It opens with a brief description of Constantinople and a

rapid sketch of the origin and history of the Ottoman Turks. An account

of the Turkish government follows, beginning with the inside service

of the household of the sultan, proceeding to the outside service,

then taking up the chief officers of government, the Janissaries, the

_Spahis_ of the Porte and the auxiliary branches of the army. The harem,

the palaces of the pages, the _Ajem-oghlans_, and the arsenal are next

described; then the feudal army is explained as it was constituted in

Europe and in Asia; and, finally, a list of the sanjakates of the empire

is given. The Italian used is fairly good, and the style is very simple,

often degenerating to the mere cataloguing of officers. Throughout the

book the financial aspect of the government is emphasized strongly, the

incomes of all persons mentioned being carefully stated. This second book

of Ramberti is of so great importance to the present treatise that it is

given in translation as Appendix I. The text used is that of the _Viaggi

... alla tana_ (Venice, 1543).

Standing in exceedingly close relationship to the second book of Ramberti

is a twenty-two page pamphlet bearing the name of Junis Bey (Ionus Bei).

Written in broad Venetian dialect and printed on coarse paper in type of

a poor quality, not kept clean, it is in two portions, respectively of

eight and fourteen pages, which are distinguished by the use of larger

and smaller type. The title-page bears the inscription “reprinted in

1537.” The sixth page begins the list of pashas with the statement that

“Ibrahim of Parga is dead,” and then gives the name of his successor in

the office of grand vizier. On the seventeenth page it is said that the

territories of the _Beylerbey_ of Mesopotamia “border” those of Bagdad

which belong to Persia (Bagdad was taken by Suleiman in the winter of

1535 and 1536); on the eighteenth occurs the remark that Alvise Gritti

“says” such and such a thing; and at the close the book is attributed

to “Ionus bei” and “Signor Aluise gritti.” Now, Junis Bey was in Venice

from December 6, 1532, to January 9, 1533 (thesis of Theodore F. Jones,

p. 168, Harvard College Library); Gritti was assassinated in 1534; Junis

Bey was again in Venice from January 15 to February 17, 1537 (Jones,

209). It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that the first edition

of the pamphlet was printed at Venice in 1533 at the time of Junis Bey’s

first visit, and that at the time of his second visit in 1537 the first

eight pages were recast with a few changes, and in certain unsold copies

substituted for the older pages, the remainder being left as it stood

originally, despite the erroneous reference to Gritti.

It is very clear that Ramberti had before him while preparing his “second

book” a document almost identical with this pamphlet. Beginning with his

description of the sultan’s household service, the order of treatment

is practically the same, and even the words and phrases are often the

same, except for differences of dialect. His language frequently suggests

that he is expanding on some material before him. It is worthy of note,

however, that not only Ramberti’s use of Italian, but also his use of

Turkish, is frequently better than that of Junis Bey. Moreover, in

his list of officials he includes the _Mufti_ and the chief dragoman

(_Terjuman_), whom Junis Bey leaves out, the latter omission being the

more remarkable in that Junis Bey held that office himself. On the

other hand, where there are differences in numbers, Junis Bey is more

apt to be correct than Ramberti. It seems not unlikely that both works

were derived from a manuscript, more nearly complete and correct than

either, in the possession of Alvise Gritti, which the latter allowed the

two writers to use, Junis Bey probably in 1532 and Ramberti in 1534.

Alvise Gritti was well known to both. Natural son of the doge Andrea

Gritti, he had won high favor with Ibrahim, who entrusted him with great

responsibilities. In fact, it may not be too bold a conjecture to suggest

that some of the information contained in his manuscript came from the

celebrated Grand Vizier himself. Aside from this possibility, a minute

survey of the Ottoman government, prepared by Gritti himself or with

his collaboration, either for his own use or for the information of his

kinsfolk the Venetians, possesses a presumption in favor of its accuracy

and truthfulness. Accordingly the closing words, “all is true,” may be

accepted with little reserve.

These two works, by Ramberti and Junis Bey, were much used by other

writers on Turkish affairs. Postel shows a close acquaintance with them,

and Geuffroy frequently does little more than present a translation.

Ramberti was incorporated into a number of the collected works in regard

to the Turks which appeared in various languages after the middle of the

sixteenth century and thus entered into systematic histories. Since the

pamphlet of Junis Bey is very rare, its text is presented in Appendix II,

above. Besides matter very similar to that of Ramberti, it contains near

the end an account of the order of march of the sultan’s army when he

went to war.

Guillaume Postel is perhaps the broadest-minded of the sixteenth-century

observers. He gives evidence of having had a legal training, and of

having reflected along political and constitutional lines. Nicolay, in

his preface, informs us that Postel knew Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Chaldean,

Syriac, and Arabic, as well as the principal Western languages. He

was sent by Francis I with the momentous embassy of La Forêt, and was

therefore in Constantinople about the year 1535. He seems to have made a

later visit for the purpose of acquiring manuscripts; but the substance

of his book, as appears from numerous references, dates from the first

visit. The volume was printed at Poitiers in 1560, but was not published

till 1570. It contains three parts, separately paged:—

I. _De la République des Turcs_; II. _Histoire et Considération de

l’Origine, Loy, et Coustume des Tartares ... Turcs_, etc.; III. _La

Tierce Partie des Orientales Histoires, où est exposée la Condition,

Puissance, & Revenue de l’Empire Turquesque_, etc. The first part gives,

among other things, an excellent account of the page system and of

Ottoman law and justice. The third part is built upon the information in

Ramberti and Junis Bey; it describes the page system further, and adds a

good account of the _Ajem-oghlans_ and the Janissaries. By a reference it

shows acquaintance with Giovio.

Antoine Geuffroy, knight of St. John, issued in 1542 his _Briefve

Description de la Court du Grand Turc_. Four years later this was

published in English by R. Grafton under the title _The Order of the

Great Turcks Court of Hye Menne of War_; and from thirty to fifty years

later it appeared, combined with other material, in large volumes in the

Latin and German tongues under the name of N. Honigerus or Haeniger,

with a Latin translation by G. Godelevæus, entitled _Aulae Turcicae,

Othomannicique Imperii Descriptio_, etc. The work of Geuffroy thus had

a great vogue. It was a sound, intelligent description of the empire,

built upon the information in Ramberti and Junis Bey. By references and

allusions it shows acquaintance with Froissart, Spandugino, and Giovio.

The references to Geuffroy in the foregoing pages are to the reprint in

Schéfer’s edition of Jean Chesneau, described below.

Bartholomew Georgevitz, pilgrim to Jerusalem, issued a small book, _De

Turcarum Moribus Epitome_, which passed through many editions in two or

three languages, the first dating not later than 1544, and the latest not

earlier than 1629. The chapters are on various topics and from various

sources. The first, on the rites and ceremonies of the Turks, is abridged

from Spandugino. The second, on the Turkish soldiery, is by Georgevitz

himself; it is perhaps the most valuable, and shows by the age assigned

to Prince Mustapha that it was written about 1537. The fourth chapter

gives useful Turkish phrases, and is interesting as showing how Turkish

words were pronounced in the sixteenth century. The fifth chapter gives

a full account of the treatment of slaves of private citizens, written

by one who had been a slave, apparently Georgevitz himself. The edition

referred to in this treatise was printed at Paris in 1566.

Jérome Maurand accompanied Captain Pinon on his mission to Constantinople

in 1544. A few years later he wrote, in Italian, an account of his

journey, which was translated by Léon Dorez as _Itinéraire de Jérome

Maurand d’Antibes à Constantinople_, and published at Paris in 1901 as

vol. xvii of _Recueil de Voyages_, etc.

Before 1549, Ibrahim Halebi, the jurist, prepared by command of Suleiman

the codification of the Sacred Law which bears the name of _Multeka

ol-ebhar_, and which formed the foundation of D’Ohsson’s great work.

Jean Chesneau went to Constantinople with D’Aramont, ambassador of Henry

II of France, and accompanied him on Suleiman’s campaign against Persia

in 1549. His narrative, which is not very illuminating or accurate, was

edited by Charles Schéfer and published at Paris in 1887, under the

title, _Le Voyage de Monsieur d’Aramon_, as vol. viii of _Recueil de

Voyages_, etc. Bound in the same volume are five letters in the Italian

language, written from Constantinople in 1547 by the ambassador Veltwyck

to Archduke Ferdinand of Austria; there is also (at pp. 227-248) a

reprint in French of the first edition of Geuffroy.

Nicolas de Nicolay of Dauphiné, royal geographer and extensive

traveler, who wrote a book called _Discours et l’Histoire Véritable des

Navigations, Pérégrinations et Voyages faicts en la Turquie_, is not

the least interesting of sixteenth-century authorities on Turkey. His

account of his voyage from Marseilles to Constantinople in the year 1551

in the train of the Seigneur d’Aramont, ambassador of Henry II, and the

drawings from life with which he embellishes his book, show his capacity

for exact observation. In his descriptions of the customs and government

of the Ottoman Empire, however, he does not reveal the possession of

much first-hand information. Menavino is here his principal source of

knowledge. The first edition of his book appeared at Lyons in 1567; it

was translated into several languages and reproduced often. An enlarged

edition, published at Antwerp in 1586, is the one referred to in the

foregoing pages. The plates in the book, about sixty in number, have been

said to be the work of Titian; but this is apparently incorrect, for

the preface merely states that Nicolay drew from life on the spot and

afterwards had the drawings reproduced “_avec fraiz & labeur incroyable_.”

From a literary point of view, Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq is by all odds

the most interesting of sixteenth-century sources for the study of

Ottoman history and government. The charm of his style should not obscure

the facts that he was a keen and exact observer possessed of a true

scientific spirit, and that he reflected carefully on what he saw. He

wrote on Turkey during his period of service as ambassador from Charles

V to Suleiman between 1555 and 1562. One of his four Turkish letters was

printed in Antwerp in 1581, and since that time at least twenty-seven

editions and reprints have appeared in seven languages. The edition of

his _Life and Letters_, in two volumes, translated from the original

Latin by C. T. Forster and F. H. B. Daniell (London, 1881), has been

used in this treatise, as has also his _De Re Militari contra Turcam

instituenda Consilium_, as printed in a complete edition of his writings

published at Pest in 1758, pp. 234-277.

Philippe Du Fresne-Canaye, a young Huguenot gentleman, was sent by his

family to Venice for safety in the troubled days after the massacre of

St. Bartholomew; and he took advantage of his nearness to the Levant

to visit Constantinople in 1573. He had prepared himself for his visit

by reading Ramberti, Postel, Nicolay, and others, but he does not seem

to have learned much that was not in those authorities. His _Voyage du

Levant_ was edited for publication in Paris in 1897 by Henri Hauser, as

vol. xvi of _Recueil de Voyages_, etc. Hauser’s Appendix II contains the

bibliography of sixteenth-century works relating to the Levant which is

mentioned above (p. 308).

The _Kanun-nameh_ of Suleiman, collected by the _Mufti_ Ebu su’ud, who

died in 1574, contained a number of the Sultan’s _Kanuns_ relating

mainly to financial and feudal matters. A translation of the incomplete

table of contents of the Turkish manuscript copy of this _Kanun-nameh_

(which is in the Imperial Library at Vienna, Fluegel No. 1816) is given

above as Appendix III. Many of the _Kanuns_ are translated in Hammer’s

_Staatsverfassung_, pp. 396-424, where they are erroneously attributed to

Achmet I.

A little anonymous book, _The Policy of the Turkish Empire_, published

at London in 1597, contains an interesting preface. The remainder of

the book deals only with the Turkish religion, and is drawn mainly from

Menavino, with some incorporation from Spandugino and Georgevitz.

At the conclusion of Richard Knolles’s _Generall Historie of the Turkes_

(London, 1603), is to be found “A Briefe Discourse of the Greatnesse of

the Turkish Empire,” written probably in the year of publication, since

the story comes down to the accession of Achmet I in 1603. The lands

of the empire, “of all others now upon earth farre the greatest,” are

described, its revenues are set forth, the Timariotes, the Janissaries,

the chief officers of state, and the fleet receive notice, and the

Turkish power is compared with that of all states which touch its

frontiers. It is to this part of Knolles’s work (as printed in the 6th

edition of his History, with Ricaut’s continuation, London, 1687, ii.

981-990) that most of the references in the foregoing pages are made.

Pietro Della Valle, known as Il Pellegrino, or The Pilgrim, wrote _Viaggi

... in la Turchia, la Persia, e l’India_, which was published in two

volumes (four parts) at Rome in 1658-1663. He was in Constantinople

in 1614 and 1615, and took advantage of every opportunity to witness

a ceremony. Observant of costumes and jewels, he could not esteem the

Turkish officials highly, because they were all slaves. The references in

this treatise are to the second edition of the first part, published in

1662.

Many collections based on the above-mentioned writings and on others were

issued after the middle of the sixteenth century, and many surveys of the

Ottoman Empire were prepared as time went on. Of the latter, three stand

forth as of sufficient importance to throw light on sixteenth-century

conditions:—

Sir Paul Ricaut, a resident of Turkey for many years, issued late in the

seventeenth century _The History of the Present State of the Ottoman

Empire_. He explains that he obtained his information from Turkish

records from high officials, from members of the Ulema, and from a Pole

who had passed through the school of pages and had spent nineteen years

in all at the Ottoman court. Ricaut was evidently a student of political

philosophy; he seems to have relied especially upon Tacitus, the civil

law, Machiavelli, and Lord Bacon. His book was printed in several

languages, has been much quoted since, and deserves the fame it received.

The sixth English edition, published in London in 1686, is used here. The

book is also printed at the end of the second volume of his edition of

Knolles’s _Turkish History_, London, 1687.

Ignatius Mouradgea D’Ohsson, born in Turkey and long a resident there,

prepared between 1788 and 1818 his great _Tableau Général de l’Empire

Othoman_. He based his work on the _Multeka ol-ebhar_ (see above, p. 318)

which with its comments he rearranged and translated, adding to it a

great many observations of his own. The book appeared in two forms, the

huge folio edition being a magnificent example of the bookmaker’s art.

The smaller edition of the book (7 vols., Paris, 1788-1824) has been used

here. The last three volumes were published under the supervision of his

son after his death. Six of the seven volumes are based on the _Multeka_;

the seventh contains a full description of the government, including the

court, the ministers, the bureaus, the army, etc.

Joseph von Hammer published at Vienna, in 1815, _Des Osmanischen Reichs

Staatsverfassung und Staatsverwaltung_, in two volumes. The former is

very largely a collection of documents, such as _Kanuns_, _fetvas_, and

extracts from the _Multeka_. A large amount of valuable material is

presented; but it is only partly digested, and the author often does not

indicate clearly whence he drew his extracts. The second volume goes

over much the same ground as D’Ohsson’s seventh volume. Another work

of Hammer’s, his _Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches_ (10 vols., Pest,

1827-1835), has furnished the historical background for this treatise.

This work is extremely valuable from the fact that it is based upon

numerous inaccessible Turkish sources; but it is largely uncritical, and

it does not make sufficient use of Western authorities.

Leopold Ranke published at Hamburg in 1827 the first volume of his

excellent work, _Fürsten und Völker von Sud-Europa_. He was the first to

discern the value of the Venetian reports, and by their aid he reached

far greater accuracy than had yet been attained in attempts to describe

these great South-European empires when at the height of their power. The

English translation by W. K. Kelly, entitled _The Ottoman and the Spanish

Empires in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries_ (London, 1843), has

been used in the present treatise.

The third volume of J. W. Zinkeisen’s _Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches

in Europa_ (Gotha, 1855) has been used for its discussion of the Ottoman

government in the sixteenth century. It is based too exclusively on

the Venetian reports, which Zinkeisen seems to have regarded as always

trustworthy, and it makes little or no use of Turkish sources.

Stanley Lane-Poole, in his _Story of Turkey_, London, 1886, chapters

xiv and xvi, gives a very good summary of the structure of the Ottoman

household and administration, condensed from D’Ohsson’s seventh volume.

In Lavisse and Rambaud’s _Histoire Générale_, iv. 747 ff., there is a

brief account, by Rambaud, of the organization of the Ottoman Empire in

general. Though not accurate in every respect, it gives, on the whole, an

excellent picture.

A. Heidborn published at Vienna and Leipsic in 1909 a careful,

well-planned, and extremely valuable work entitled _Manuel de Droit

Public et Administratif de l’Empire Ottoman_. Although the principal

purpose of the book is to explain present-day conditions, the historical

background is outlined at many points. Unfortunately there is neither

table of contents nor index; but perhaps these will be supplied when the

work is extended farther. The chapters of the present volume deal with

the territory of the state, the sources and fundamental principles of

the legislation in force in the Ottoman Empire, the head of the state,

nationality, the administrative organization, and justice. The chapter on

justice occupies more than half the book, and treats fully the judicial

organization, civil and criminal law, and procedure.

In addition to the works described above, the appended alphabetical list

contains the names of a few authors whose works, though occasionally

quoted in this treatise, call for no special comment; and also the names

of a number of writers who have dealt with the government of Turkey, but

who have not been quoted because their information either is of secondary

importance or derivation, or deals with a later time, when conditions had

been changed.

III. Alphabetical List of Works Cited

ACHMET I. See KANUN-NAMEH of Achmet I.

ALBERI, EUGENIO. Relazione degli ambasciatori Veneti al senato. 15 vols.

(in 3 series). Florence, 1839-1863.—See pp. 311-313.

ALESSANDRI, VINCENZO. Relazione, 1574. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d

series, ii. 103-127. Florence, 1844.

ANGIOLELLO. Mss. in Bibliothèque Nationale, Fonds Italien, No. 1238.

AUSZUG eines briefes ... das türckich Regiment und Wesen sey. n. p.

1526.—See p. 313.

[AVENTINUS, JOHANNES.] Türckische Historien, oder Warhaftige

Beschreibunge aller Türcken Ankunfft, Regierung, u. s. w. Translated from

the Italian by Heinrich Müller. Frankfort, 1570.—Earlier edition, with

slightly different title, 1563-[1565].

BADOARO, ANDREA. Relazione, 1573. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series, i.

347-368. Florence, 1840.

BALBUS, HIERONYMUS. H ... B ... ad Clementem VII ... de civili & bellica

fortitudine liber ... cui additus est alter continens Turcarum originem,

mores, imperium, etc. Rome, 1526.—See p. 313.

BARBARIGO, ANTONIO. Sommario della relazione, 1558. In Alberi’s

_Relazione_, 3d series, iii. 145-160. Florence, 1855.

BARBARIGO, DANIELE. Relazione, 1564. _Ibid._ ii. 1-59. Florence, 1844.

BARBARO, MARCANTONIO. Relazione, 1573. _Ibid._ i. 299-346. Florence, 1840.

—— Relazione, 1573. _Ibid._ Appendix vol., 387-415. Florence, 1863.

BASSANO, LUIGI. See DU ZARE.

BAUDIER, MICHEL. Histoire généralle du serrail, et de la cour du grand

seigneur empereur des turcs. Paris, 1626.

BELIN, A[LPHONSE]. Du régime des fiefs militaires dans l’Islamisme, et

principalement en Turquie. _Journal Asiatique._ 6th series, xv. 187-301.

Paris, 1870.

—— Étude sur la propriété foncière en pays musulman, et spécialement en

Turquie. Paris, 1862.

BÉRARD, VICTOR. La révolution turque. Paris, 1909.

BERNARDO, LORENZO. Relazione, 1592. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series,

ii. 321-426. Florence, 1844.

BITTNER, MAXIMILIAN. Der Einfluss des Arabischen und Persischen auf das

Türkische. Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. _Sitzungsberichte

der Philosophisch-Historischen Classe_, vol. cxlii. pt. iii. Vienna,

1900.—See p. 306.

BOECLER, J. H. Commentarius historico-politicus de rebus Turcicis.

Bautzen, 1717.—See p. 308.

BON, OTTAVIANO. Il serraglio del gransignore (1608). [Edited by Guglielmo

Berchet.] Venice, 1865.

BONRIZZO, LUIGI. Relazione, 1565. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series, ii.

61-76. Florence, 1844.

BRAGADINO, PIETRO. Sommario della relazione, 1526. In Alberi’s

_Relazione_, 3d series, iii. 99-112. Florence, 1855.

BRETSCHNEIDER, E[MIL]. Medieval researches from Eastern Asiatic sources.

2 vols. London, 1888; another edition, 1910.—See p. 306.

BROSCH, MORITZ. The height of the Ottoman power. _Cambridge Modern

History._ Vol. iii. ch. iv. London, 1904.

BROWNE, E. G. A literary history of Persia. [2 vols.] London,

1902-1906.—See p. 306.

BURY, J. B. The Ottoman conquest. _Cambridge Modern History_, vol. i. ch.

iii. London, 1902.

BUSBECQ, OGIER GHISELIN DE. Exclamatio: sive De re militari contra Turcam

instituenda consilium, etc. In _Augerii Gislenii Busbequii Omnia quae

extant_, 234-277. Pest, [1758].—See p. 319.

—— Life and Letters. Translated by C. T. Forster and F. H. B. Daniell. 2

vols. London, 1881.—See p. 318.

CAHUN, LÉON. Introduction à l’histoire de l’Asie: Turcs et Mongols.

Paris, 1896.—See p. 306.

—— Les révolutions de l’Asie. In Lavisse and Rambaud’s _Histoire

Générale_, vol. ii. ch. xvi. Paris, 1893.—Formation territoriale de

l’Asie. _Ibid._, vol. iii. ch. xix. Paris, 1894.

CAMBRIDGE medieval history (The). Planned by J. B. Bury; edited by H. M.

Gwatkin and J. P. Whitney. Vol. i. Cambridge, England, 1911.—See PEISKER.

CAMBRIDGE modern history (The). Edited by A. W. Ward, G. W. Prothero, and

Stanley Leathes. 12 vols. and Index. London, 1902-1911.—See BROSCH, BURY.

CANTACUSINO. See SPANDUGINO.

CAVALLI, MARINO. Relazione, 1560. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series, i.

271-298. Florence, 1840.

CHAL(CO)CONDYLES, L[AONICUS]. Histoire de la décadence de l’empire grec

et éstablissement de celui des Turcs. Translated from the Greek by

B[laise] de Vigenere. Rouen, 1670.—See p. 310.

CHARDIN, SIR JOHN. Travels into Persia and the East-Indies. London, 1686.

CHARRIÈRE, E[RNEST]. Négociations de la France dans le Levant. 4 vols.

Paris, 1848-1860.

CHESNEAU, JEAN. Le voyage de Monsieur d’Aramon (1549). Edited by Charles

Schéfer, in _Recueil de Voyages_, etc., vol. viii. Paris, 1887.—See p.

318.

CONTARINI, BARTOLOMEO. Sommario della relazione, 1519. In Alberi’s

_Relazione_, 3d series, iii. 56-68. Florence, 1855.

CONTARINI, PAOLO. Relazione, 1583. _Ibid._ 209-250. Florence, 1855.

CRONICA—ABCONTERFAYUNG, etc. Augsburg, 1531.—The same as TRACTATUS, _q.

v._

DANDOLO, ANDREA. Relazione, 1562. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series,

iii. 161-172. Florence, 1855.

DAY, CLIVE. A history of commerce. New York, 1907.

DELLA VALLE, PIETRO (IL PELLEGRINO). Viaggi ... in ... la Turchia, la

Persia, e l’India. 4 pts. in 2 vols. Rome, 1658-1663 (pt. i, La Turchia,

1662, is 2d edition). — See p. 320.

DJEVAD BEY, AHMED. État militaire ottoman. Vol. i. bk. i. Le corps des

Janissaires. Translated from the Turkish by Georges Macridès. Paris,

etc., 1882.

DOCUMENTI di storia ottomana del secolo XVI. Vol. i. Florence, 1842.—The

same as Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series, i (1840). See p. 311.

D’OHSSON, IGNATIUS MOURADGEA. Tableau général de l’empire othoman. 7

vols. Paris, 1788-1824.—See p. 320.

DONINI, MARCANTONIO. Relazione, 1562. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series,

iii. 173-208. Florence, 1855.

DOREZ, LÉON. See MAURAND.

DU FRESNE-CANAYE, PHILIPPE. Le voyage du Levant (1573). Edited by Henri

Hauser in _Recueil de Voyages_, etc., vol. xvi. Paris, 1897.—See p. 319.

DU ZARE, LUIGI BASSANO. Consuetudines & ratio vitae Turcorum. Rome, 1545.

EBU SU’UD. See KANUN-NAMEH of Suleiman.

ELIOT, SIR CHARLES. Turks. _Encyclopedia Britannica_, 11th edition,

xxvii. 468-473. Cambridge, 1911.

ERIZZO, ANTONIO. Relazione, 1557. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series,

iii. 123-144. Florence, 1855.

ESTANCO. See TANCO.

FEBURE, MICHELE. L’état présent de la Turquie. Paris, 1675.

FROISSART, SIR JOHN. Œuvres (chroniques). Edited by Kervyn de Lettenhove.

25 vols. (in 26). Brussels, 1867-1877. — See p. 309.

FULIN, RINALDO. Diarii e diaristi veneziani. Venice, 1881.—See p. 311.

GARZONI, COSTANTINO. Relazione, 1573. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series,

i. 369-436. Florence, 1840.

GEORGEVITZ, BARTHOLOMEW. De Turcarum moribus Epitome. Paris, 1566.—See p.

317.

GERLACH, STEPHAN. Tage-buch (1674). Quoted in Zinkeisen’s _Geschichte des

Osmanischen Reiches_, iii. 222 ff. Gotha, 1855.

GEUFFROY, ANTOINE. Briefve description de la court du grand Turc (1542).

Edited by Charles Schéfer in _Recueil de Voyages_, etc., viii. 227-248.

Paris, 1887.—See p. 317.

GIBBON, EDWARD. The history of the decline and fall of the Roman empire.

Edited by J. B. Bury. 7 vols. London, 1906.

GIOVIO, PAOLO (JOVIUS, PAULUS). Historiarum sui temporis tomus primus [et

secundus]. 2 vols. Florence, 1550-1552.—See p. 314.

—— Turcicarum rerum commentarius. Paris, 1539.—See p. 313.

GIUSTINIANI, ANTONIO. Sommario della relazione, 1514. In Alberi’s

_Relazione_, 3d series, iii. 45-50. Florence, 1855.

GODELEVÆUS, G. [translator of GEUFFROY, _q. v._]. Aulæ Turcicæ,

Othomannicique imperii descriptio. Basel, 1569.—See p. 317.

GOLDZIHER, IGN[ATIUS]. Muhammedanisches Recht in Theorie und

Wirklichkeit. _Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft_, viii.

406-423. Stuttgart, 1889.

—— The progress of Islamic science in the last three decades. _Congress

of Arts and Science, St. Louis, 1904_ (ed. H. J. Rogers), ii. 497-517.

Boston, etc., 1906.

GRAFTON, R. [translator of GEUFFROY, _q. v._]. The order of the great

Turcks court of hye menne of war. London, 1546.—See p. 317.

GRASSI, ALFIO. Charte turque, ou organisation religieuse, civil et

militaire, de l’empire ottoman. 2 vols. Paris, 1825.

GRITTI, ALVISE (or LUIGI). See JUNIS BEY.

GRITTI, ANDREA. Relazione, 1503. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series, iii.

1-43. Florence, 1855.

GYCAUD, B. La généalogie du grant Turc á present regnant.—The same as

SPANDUGINO, _q. v._

HALIL GANEM. Les sultans ottomans. (Études d’Histoire Orientale.) 2 vols.

Paris, 1901-1902.

HAMMER, JOSEPH VON. Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches. 10 vols. Pest,

1827-1835.—See p. 321.

—— Des osmanischen Reichs Staatsverfassung und Staatsverwaltung. 2 vols.

(vol. i, Staatsverfassung; vol. ii, Staatsverwaltung). Vienna, 1815.—See

p. 321.

HAUSER, HENRI. Essai d’une bibliographic des ouvrages de XVIe siècle

relatifs au Levant. In _Recueil de Voyages_, etc., xvi. 316-320. Paris,

1897.—See p. 308. See also DU FRESNE-CANAYE.

HEIDBORN, A. Manuel de droit public et administratif de l’empire ottoman.

Vienna, etc., 1909.—See pp. 321, 322.

HELMOLT, H. F. Weltgeschichte. 9 vols. Leipsic, etc., 1899-1907.—See p.

307.

HOLDICH, T. H. Asia. _Encyclopaedia Britannica_, 11th edition, ii.

748-749. Cambridge, 1910.

HONIGERUS (or HAENIGER), NICOLAUS [German translator of GEUFFROY, _q.

v._].

HUNTINGTON, ELLSWORTH. The fringe of verdure around Asia Minor. _National

Geographic Magazine_, xxi. 761-775. Washington, 1910.

IBRAHIM HALEBI. Multeka ol-ebhar. See MULTEKA.

IDRIS, Turkish poet-historian. Quoted in Hammer’s _Geschichte_, i. 91.

Pest, 1827.

IONUS BEI. See JUNIS BEY.

JOHNSON, MRS. [SUSANNAH WILLARD]. Narrative of ... captivity.

Springfield, 1907.—Reprinted from the 3d edition, Windsor, Vt., 1814; 1st

edition, Walpole, N. H., 1796.

JONES, THEODORE F. Venice and the Porte, 1520-1542. Thesis in the Library

of Harvard University.

JORGA, N[ICOLAE]. Geschichte der Türkei. Vols. i-iv. Gotha, 1908-1912.

JOVIUS, PAULUS. See GIOVIO.

JULIEN, STANISLAS. Documents historiques sur les Tou-Kioue (Turcs),

traduite du chinois. Paris, 1877.—See p. 305.

JUNIS BEY (IONUS BEI), and ALVISE GRITTI. Opera noua la quale dechiara,

etc. Venice, 1537.—See pp. 315, 316, and Appendix II.

JUYNBOLL, T. W. Handleiding tot de Kennis van de mohammedanasche Wet.

Leyden, 1903.

KANUN-NAMEH, of Achmet I. In Hammer’s _Staatsverfassung_, pp. xvii-xix.

Vienna, 1815.

—— of Mohammed II. Translated _ibid._ 87-101. Vienna, 1815.—See p. 310.

—— of Suleiman. Collected by the Mufti Ebu su’ud, 1574; translated in

part, _ibid._ 384-427. Vienna, 1815.—See p. 319 and Appendix III.

KEANE, A. H. Man, past and present. Cambridge, England, 1899.—See p. 305.

KEENE, H. G. The Turks in India. London, 1879.

KNOLLES, RICHARD. Generall historie of the Turkes. London, 1603.—See p.

319.

—— The same, entitled “Turkish History,” with continuation by Paul

Ricaut. 3 vols. London, 1687-1700.—Knolles’s work runs, with continuous

pagination, a little way into vol. ii (pp. 837-990).—See p. 320.

KOCHI BEY. Turkish historian. Quoted in Hammer’s _Geschichte_, iii. 490,

etc. Pest, 1835.

KOHLER, J. Die Wirklichkeit und Unwirklichkeit des islamitischen Rechts.

_Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft_, viii. 424-432.

Stuttgart, 1889.

KUDATKU BILIK (Art of Government). By Yusuf Khass Hajil, 1068. See

VAMBÉRY, Uigurische Sprachmonumente, etc.

LA BROQUIÈRE, BERTRANDON DE. Le voyage d’outremer (1433). Edited by

Charles Schéfer, in _Recueil de Voyages_, etc., vol. xii. Paris,

1892.—See p. 309.

LANE-POOLE, STANLEY. A history of Egypt in the Middle Ages. London, 1901.

See p. 305.

—— The story of Turkey. London, 1886.—See p. 321.

LAVISSE, ERNEST, and RAMBAUD, ALFRED. Histoire générale du IVe siècle à

nos jours. 12 vols. Paris, 1893-1901.—See CAHUN, RAMBAUD.

LEFÈVRE, M. See FEBURE.

LIBELLUS de ritu et moribus Turcarum. Wittenberg, 1530.—The same as

TRACTATUS, etc., _q. v._

LODGE, RICHARD. The Close of the Middle Ages, 1273-1494. London, 1906.

LONICERUS, Philippus. Chronicorum Turcicorum. 2 vols. (in one).

Frankfort, 1584.

LUDOVISI, DANIELLO. Relazione, 1534. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series,

i. 1-32. Florence, 1840.

MACDONALD, D. B. Moslem theology, jurisprudence, and constitutional

theory. New York, 1903.—See p. 305.

MARSH, H. A new survey of the Turkish empire. London, 1664.

MAURAND, JÉROME. Itinéraire d’Antibes à Constantinople (1544). Edited

and translated by Léon Dorez, in _Recueil de Voyages_, etc., vol. xvii.

Paris, 1901.—See p. 317.

MAURER, CASPAR. Türckishe chronica, oder historische Beschreibung von der

Türcken Ursprung. Nuremberg, 1660.

MENAVINO, GIOVANNI ANTONIO. Trattato de costumi et vita de Turchi.

Florence, 1548.—See p. 310.

MERRIMAN, R. B. Gomara’s annals of Charles V. Oxford, 1912.

MEYER, EDUARD. Geschichte des Altertums. 2d edition. Vol. i (in 2 pts.).

Stuttgart, etc., 1907-1909.

—— Persia. _Encyclopedia Britannica._ 11th edition, xxi. 202-224.

Cambridge, 1911.

MICHELI, GIOVANNI. Relazione, 1587. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series,

ii. 255-294. Florence, 1844.

MILLER, WILLIAM. The Latins in the Levant. New York, 1908. See p. 307.

MINIO, MARCO. Relazione, 1522, 1527. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series,

iii. 69-91, 113-118. Florence, 1855.

MOCENIGO, ALVISE. Sommario delle relazioni, 1518. _Ibid._ 51-55.

Florence, 1855.

MOHAMMED II. See KANUN-NAMEH of Mohammed II.

MONTESQUIEU, BARON DE. Esprit des lois.

MORO, GIOVANNI. Relazione, 1590. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series, iii.

323-380. Florence, 1855.

MOROSINI, GIANFRANCESCO. Relazione, 1585. _Ibid._ 251-322. Florence, 1855.

MUIR, SIR WILLIAM. The Mameluke or slave dynasty of Egypt, 1260-1517.

London, 1896.—See p. 305.

MÜLLER, HEINRICH. See AVENTINUS.

MULTEKA OL-EBHAR. By Ibrahim Halebi, 1459.—See p. 318.

MYERS, P. V. N. Medieval and modern history. Revised edition. Boston,

[1905].

NAVAGERO, BERNARDO. Relazione, 1553. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series,

i. 33-110. Florence, 1855.

NICOLAY, NICOLAS DE. Discours et histoire véritable des navigations,

pérégrinations, et voyages faicts en la Turquie. Antwerp, 1586.—See p.

318.

NIZAM AL-MULK. See SIASSET NAMÈH.

PARKER, E. H. A thousand years of the Tartars. London, 1895.—See p. 305.

PEISKER, T. The Asiatic background. _Cambridge Medieval History_, i.

323-359. Cambridge, 1911.

PÉLISSIÉ DU RAUSAS, G. Le régime des capitulations dans l’empire ottoman.

2 vols. Paris, 1902-1905.

PESCHEL, OSCAR. The races of man and their geographical distribution. New

York, 1882.

POLICY (The) of the Turkish empire. [Anonymous.] London, 1597.—See p. 319.

POSTEL, GUILLAUME. [Pt. i] De la république des Turcs; [pt. ii] Histoire

et considération de l’origine, loy, et coustume des Tartares ... Turcs,

etc.; [pt. iii] La tierce partie des orientales histoires, etc. 3 pts. in

1 vol. Poitiers, 1560.—See pp. 316, 317.

RADLOFF, WILHELM. Die alttürkischen Inschriften der Mongolei. Leipsic,

1894-1895.—See p. 305.

RAGAZZONI, JACOPO. Relazione, 1571. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series,

ii. 77-102. Florence, 1844.

RAMBAUD, ALFRED. L’empire ottoman (1481-1566). In Lavisse and Rambaud’s

_Histoire Générale_, vol. iv. ch. xix. Paris, 1894.—See p. 321.

[RAMBERTI, BENEDETTO.] Libri tre delle cose de Turchi. Venice, 1539.—See

pp. 314-316, and Appendix I.

RAMSAY, SIR W. M. Geographical conditions determining history and

religion in Asia Minor. _Geographical Journal_, xx. 257-282. London,

1902. See p. 307.

—— Historical geography of Asia Minor. London, 1890.

—— Studies in the history and art of the eastern provinces of the Roman

empire. Aberdeen, 1906.

RANKE, LEOPOLD. The Ottoman and the Spanish empires in the sixteenth and

seventeenth centuries. Translated by W. K. Kelly. London, 1843.—See p.

321.

RAWLINSON, GEORGE. The story of Parthia. New York, 1893.

—— The seventh great oriental monarchy. 2 vols. New York, 1882.

—— The sixth great oriental monarchy. London, 1873.

RECUEIL de voyages et de documents pour servir à l’histoire de la

géographie depuis le xiiie jusqu’à la fin du xvie siècle. Edited by

Charles Schéfer and Henri Cordier. 21 vols. Paris, 1882-1907.—See

CHESNEAU, DU FRESNE-CANAYE, GEUFFROY, HAUSER, LA BROQUIÈRE, MAURAND,

TORZELO.

REDHOUSE, SIR J. W. A Turkish and English lexicon. Constantinople, 1890.

REVUE Africaine: journal des travaux de la société historique algérienne.

55 vols. Alger, [1856]-1911.

RIANT, COUNT PAUL. Catalogue de la bibliothèque. Prepared by L. de Germon

and L. Polain. 2 pts. Paris, 1899.—See p. 308.

RICAUT, SIR PAUL. The history of the present state of the Ottoman empire.

6th edition. London, 1686.—See p. 320.

RICOLDUS. De vita et moribus Turcarum. Paris, 1509.—The same as

TRACTATUS, etc., _q. v._

ROBERTSON, WILLIAM. The emperor Charles V. 4 vols. London, 1811.

SAN FILIPPO, AMAT DI. Biografia dei viaggiatori italiani. 2 vols. Rome,

1882.—See p. 308.

SANUTO, MARINO (the younger). Diarii [1496-1533]. 58 vols., with an

additional volume of _Prefazione_. Venice, 1879-1903.

SCHÉFER, CHARLES. Catalogue de la bibliothèque orientale. Paris,

1899.—See p. 308. See also CHESNEAU, LA BROQUIÈRE, SIASSET NAMÈH,

SPANDUGINO, TORZELO.

SCHILTBERGER, JOHANN. Bondage and Travels. Translated by J. B. Telfer.

Hakluyt Society. London, 1879.—See p. 309.

SIASSET NAMÈH, traité de gouvernement composé pour le sultan Melik-Châh

par le vizir Nizam oul-Moulk [1092]. Translated by Charles Schéfer.

Paris, 1893.—See p. 306.

SNOUCK HURGRONJE, G. Le droit Musulman. _Revue de l’Histoire des

Religions_, xxxvii. 1 ff., and 174 ff. Paris, 1898.

SORANZO, GIACOMO. Relazione, 1576. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series,

ii. 193-207. Florence, 1844.

[SORANZO, JACOPO.] Relazione e diario, 1581. _Ibid._ 209-253. Florence,

1844.—See p. 313, note 1.

SPANDUGINO CANTACUSINO, TEODORO. Petit traicté de l’origine des Turcqz

[Paris, 1519]. Edited by Charles Schéfer. Paris, 1896.—See p. 310.

STEEN DE JEHAY, LE COMTE F. VAN DEN. De la situation légale des sujets

ottomans non-musulmans. Brussels, 1906.

SULEIMAN. See KANUN-NAMEH of Suleiman.

TANCO, V. D. (ESTANCO, CLAVEDAN DEL). Libro dell’ origine et successione

dell’ imperio de’ Turchi. Venice, 1558.—See p. 314.

TAVERNIER, J. B. Nova ed esatta descrizione del seraglio del gran Turco.

Milan, 1687.

TIEPOLO, ANTONIO, Relazione, 1576. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series,

ii. 129-191. Florence, 1844.

TISCHENDORF, P. A. VON. Das Lehnswesen in den moslemischen Staaten,

insbesondere im osmanischen Reiche. Leipsic, 1872.

TORZELO, JEHAN. [Opinion on the military power of the Turks, c. 1439.]

Edited by Charles Schéfer, in _Recueil de Voyages_, etc., xii. 263 ff.

Paris, 1892.

[TRACTATUS.] Libellus de ritu et moribus Turcorum ante LXX annos aeditus

[1460]. Wittenberg, 1530.—See pp. 309, 310.

TREVISANO, DOMENICO. Relazione, 1554. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series,

i. 111-192. Florence, 1840.

TÜRCKEN, BERNARDIN. Getrewe und wolmeynende kurtze Erinnerung von der

Türcken Ordnung, in iren Kriegen vñ Veldtschlachten. Burgel, 1542.

UBICINI, A[BDOLONYME]. État présent de l’empire ottoman. Paris, 1876.

URBINUS, THEOPHILUS. Türckisches Städt-Büchlein. Nuremberg, 1664.

URSU, J[ON]. La politique orientale de François I (1515-1547). Paris,

1908.

VAMBÉRY, HERMANN (ARMINIUS). Die primitive Cultur des turko-tatarischen

Volkes auf grund sprachlicher Forschungen. Leipsic, 1879.—See p. 306.

—— Uigurische Sprachmonumente und das Kudatku Bilik. Innsbruck, 1870.—See

p. 306.

VENIER, MAFFEO. Relazione, 1579, 1587. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d

series, i. 437-468, ii. 295-307. Florence, 1840-1844.

VIAGGI fatti da Vinetia, alla tana ... in Costantinopoli. Venice,

1543.—Contains Libri Tre, etc., of RAMBERTI, _q. v._

YOUSSOUF FEHMI. Histoire de la Turquie. Paris, 1909.

YUSEF KHASS HAJIL. Kudatku Bilik (Art of Government). See VAMBÉRY,

Uigurische Sprachmonumente, etc.

ZANE, MATTEO. Relazione, 1594. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series, iii.

381-444. Florence, 1855.

ZEN (or ZENO), PIETRO. Itinerario, 1523. In Fulin’s _Diarii_, 104-136.

Venice, 1881.

—— Relazione, 1524, 1530. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series, iii. 93-97,

119-122. Florence, 1855.

ZINKEISEN, J. W. Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches in Europa. 7 vols.

and Index, Hamburg and Gotha, 1840-1863.—See p. 321.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Cahun, _Introduction à l’Histoire de l’Asie_, 90.

[2] The West was much concerned in the sixteenth century with the

problem of ascertaining the origin of the Turks. Balbus gives an idea

how difficult it was to reach a definite opinion: “Some count the Turks

among the Asiatic Sarmatians, and say that they were expelled by their

neighbors from the Caspian mountains into Persia, and descended into

Asia Minor. Others, following the name, perhaps, think that this people

had its beginning in Turce, a great and opulent city of the Persians.

Others consider them the progeny of the Parthians. Some think the Turks

had their origin in Arabia, and some in Syria. But it is more likely that

they were Scythians by origin, and (as we said above) from the foot of

Mount Caucasus, and that they formerly inhabited vast deserts.” See also

Knolles, 1-2.

[3] Keane, _Man, Past and Present_, 268, 314-315. Holdich (in

_Encyclopaedia Britannica_, 11th ed., ii. 749 b) says, “As ethnographical

inquiry advances the Turk appears to recede from his Mongolian affinities

and to approach the Caucasian.” Keene (_Turks in India_, 1 ff.) is

inclined to consider the Turks a mere mixture of Mongols with Caucasians.

So bald a theory does not account for the group of Turkish languages.

[4] Keane, 267.

[5] _Ibid._ 317.

[6] _Ibid._ 322; Hammer, _Geschichte_, i. 3.

[7] Keane, 322; Hammer, _Geschichte_, i. 2; etc.

[8] Hammer, _Geschichte_, i. 1. This fact, known to Knolles (p. 2),

seems to have escaped the attention of Sir Charles Eliot (_Encyclopaedia

Britannica_, 11th ed., xxvii. 470 d).

[9] The older view, that Iran represented peoples of Indo-European stock,

and Turan peoples of Ural-Altaic stock, though once so generally adopted

as to sanction the bestowal of the names Iranian and Turanian upon these

groups of peoples, has been abandoned as regards the original legends,

in which Turan seems to have represented ruder tribes of Indo-European

lineage (Meyer, _Geschichte_, i. pt. ii. 814-815). But the Greeks

from their first acquaintance with the name identified Turan with the

Scythians, and at about the same time the Persians began to apply it to

the Northern peoples of alien stock. The conditions of frontier contact

between Turks and Persians during many centuries were undoubtedly as

described in the legends.

[10] Rawlinson, _Parthia_, 33-35; Keane, 319. Meyer (in _Encyclopaedia

Britannica_, 11th ed., xxi. 214 c) regards the Parni or Aparni, who

became the conquering tribe in Parthia, as Iranian nomads; but Peisker

(in _Cambridge Medieval History_, i. 332) asserts that the nomads of the

Asiatic background all belong to the Altaian branch of the Ural-Altaian

race. The fact that the Parthian army was a slave army (see Meyer,

as above, 217 a) is perhaps the strongest piece of evidence that the

original Parthians were Turks.

[11] Keane, 327. Asia Minor is here used in the larger sense, as denoting

in general the Asian territory which lies west of a line drawn from the

eastern end of the Black Sea to the head of the Gulf of Alexandretta.

[12] Quoted in Keane, 328, from Gibbon (ed. Bury), vi. 250.

[13] Vambéry, _Die Primitive Cultur_, 47; Keane, 328; Cahun,

_Introduction_, 169 ff.; Ramsay, _Studies in Eastern Roman Provinces_,

295.

[14] Ramsay, _Studies in Eastern Roman Provinces_, 297. This statement

has been confirmed by conversation with other persons well acquainted

with conditions in Asia Minor. See also E. Huntington, in _National

Geographic Magazine_, September, 1910, p. 767.

[15] Vambéry (_Die Primitive Cultur_, 47) expresses the opinion that the

Ottomans never received, all told, more than 25,000 men of Turkish blood.