[16] _Ottoman_ is an attempt to pronounc_The government of the Ottoman Empire in the time of Suleiman the Magnificent

_th_ like _t_; _Osman_ a similar attempt by those who pronounce _th_ (as

in “thin”) like _s_.

[17] Hammer, _Geschichte_, i. 42-43.

[18] Keane, 268, 316. Peschel, 380, says, “The Turks of the west have

so much Aryan and Semitic blood in them that the last vestiges of their

original physical characters have been lost, and their language alone

indicates their previous descent.” On the other hand, E. Huntington (in

_National Geographic Magazine_, September, 1910, p. 767) expresses the

opinion that the inhabitants of the central part of the plateau of Asia

Minor are “almost purely Turkish in race.” He does not say, however, that

this opinion is based on observation of physical appearances.

[19] Hammer, _Geschichte_, i. 59.

[20] Keene, 2, makes the interesting suggestion that this custom,

followed _mutatis mutandis_ by the Moguls of India, was a survival of

exogamous conditions among the ancestors of the Turks.

[21] The twentieth power of 1/2 is 1/1,148,576. The description

given of Orchan, furthermore, shows scarcely a discernible trace of

Mongolian ancestry. Compare Hammer, _Geschichte_, i. 158: “Mit demselben

[Osman] waren ihm zwar die Bocksnase und die schön gewölbten schwarzen

Augenbrauen gemein; aber er hatte blonde Haare und lichte Augen, die

Statur und die Stirne hoch, die Brust breit, die Faust kräftig wie die

Klaue des Löwen, das Gesicht rund und die Farbe desselben weiss und roth;

der Körperbau stark, der Bart und Knebelbart dicht und wohlgenährt.”

Murad II showed a little more evidence of Tatar descent. He “is,” says

La Broquière, 181, “a man of stout build and short body, and he has

something of the broad face of a Tatar’s physiognomy, and he has a rather

large hooked nose and rather small eyes, and he is very brown in the

face, and he has plump cheeks and a round beard.”

[22] Keane, 266.

[23] Compare the election of Sebuktegin, in Schéfer’s edition of the

_Siasset Namèh_, 158.

[24] Cahun, _Introduction_, 79.

[25] Vambéry, _Uigurische Sprachmonumente und das Kudatku Bilik_, 118.

This passage closely resembles the words attributed to Artaxerxes

I, first king of the Sassanian Persian line: “There can be no power

without an army, no army without money, no money without agriculture,

and no agriculture without justice” (Rawlinson, _Seventh Great Oriental

Monarchy_, i. 61).

[26] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 36-45.

[27] _Ibid._ 36.

[28] Quoted by Cahun, in Lavisse and Rambaud, iii. 964.

[29] Schéfer, _Siasset Namèh_, 139.

[30] Bérard, 4 ff.

[31] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 30; D’Ohsson, v. 7; Heidborn, 111.

[32] D’Ohsson, i. 291; Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 32.

[33] D’Ohsson, vi. 253.

[34] _Ibid._ v. 53.

[35] _Ibid._ 109.

[36] _Ibid_. iv. 280; Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 331; Erizzo, 137.

[37] This was based upon a passage of the Koran, “Sedition is worse

than execution” (Sura 2: 187): Hammer, _Geschichte_, i. 216. Professor

G. F. Moore points out that in this passage (and in Sura 2: 214, which

is substantially identical) the text refers to Mohammed’s war with the

Meccans, or to fighting in the sacred months. The word _fitnah_, here

translated “sedition,” has various meanings: first of all, “trial,” as

gold and silver, for example, are tried by smelting; then, “successful

temptation, leading or turning a man astray, error, discord, dissension,

sedition, etc.” The context indicates clearly that Mohammed had in mind

the leading or turning of people from the true religion as that which

is “worse than killing.” The other meanings would, however, allow some

accommodating jurist or theologian to make this a plausible proof-text

for authorizing the killing of the sultan’s brothers, who might become

seditious or furnish cause for dissension.

[38] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 31.

[39] _Ibid._ 32; D’Ohsson, vii. 150.

[40] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 478, and _Staatsverfassung_, 340.

[41] For the Tartar method of raiding in the seventeenth century, see

Ricaut, book i. ch. xiii. This may be compared with Turkish methods in

the fifteenth century, as described by the author of the _Tractatus_, ch.

[42] D’Ohsson, v. 50. Orthodoxy in the Moslem religion was by no means an

insuperable obstacle to attempts at conquest. The Mamelukes whom Selim I

overthrew were Sunnites, and Malekite Morocco was long a land coveted by

the Ottomans. A desire for the unification of orthodox Islam came into

play here.

[43] D’Ohsson, v. 86.

[44] The Turks laid claim also to Morocco, but they never exercised

abiding authority there: Knolles (ed. 1687), 987.

[45] Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 520-521.

[46] These are given in detail in Hammer’s _Staatsverfassung_, 219-327.

[47] _Ibid._ 251 (_Kanun-nameh_ of the _sanjak_ of Kurdistan).

[48] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 478, and _Staatsverfassung_, 343 ff.;

Heidborn, 320 ff.

[49] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 344.

[50] D’Ohsson, vii. 372 ff.; Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 475 ff., and

_Staatsverfassung_, 337 ff.

[51] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 345.

[52] _Ibid._ 347.

[53] _Ibid._ 344.

[54] D’Ohsson, v. 96.

[55] _Ibid._

[56] Belin, _La Propriété Foncière_, 88 ff.

[57] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 476; D’Ohsson, vii. 374.

[58] D’Ohsson, ii. 523 ff., especially 552-557.

[59] Belin, _La Propriété Foncière_, 104 ff.

[60] Ricaut, 112.

[61] Bernardo, 387 (“like a mine of slaves for the service of the

Turks”); Ricaut, 123; Chardin, 85, 90 (“sometimes they will sell their

own children”), 94, 114, 192. It is said that the practice of raising

Circassian girls for sale is still carried on in Asia Minor (Heidborn,

81).

[62] Ricaut, 138; Postel, iii. 71; Nicolay, 10 (“The most of those who

are called Turks in Algiers, whether in the king’s household, or on

the galleys, are Christians of all nations who have denied their faith

and turned Mohammedan—sont Chrestiens reniez et Mahumetizez de toutes

nations”); Lavisse and Rambaud, iv. 816, 820.

[63] Nicolay, 83. Jorga, iii. 167-189, has taken note of the ancestry of

many of the high Turkish officials of the sixteenth century; he finds no

Roumanian among them.

[64] In regard to the Armenians, see Schiltberger, 73; Chalcocondyles,

53. As to both Armenians and Jews, see Navagero, 42; Postel, i. 34.

Morosini, 294, makes mention of an Armenian who was in 1585 the

_Beylerbey_ of Greece by special favor of the Sultan.

[65] Pélissié du Rausas, i. 21-22.

[66] D’Ohsson, v. 104. Visiting foreigners (_muste emin_) who might

remain more than one year became tributary subjects (_zimmi_): Belin, _La

Propriété Foncière_, 57.

[67] For the times when these different “communities” were formed within

the Ottoman state, see Steen de Jehay, _passim_. In brief, the Greek

community was organized in 1453 and the Armenian in 1461. The latter was

at first supposed to include all subjects who were not Moslem or Greek

Orthodox; those who were not Gregorian Armenians were gradually separated

off by a process of differentiation which may be said to be active still.

With the growth of the spirit of nationalism in the nineteenth century,

the Greek Orthodox community has also been divided.

[68] Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 237.

[69] See Jorga, iii. 167 ff., especially 174, 188.

[70] Gritti, 24-25.

[71] A. Barbarigo, 149-150 (from a summary of his _Relazione_).

[72] Barbaro, 315-329, _passim_.

[73] Morosini, 263-267, _passim_.

[74] Bernardo, 358-364, _passim_.

[75] Zane, 389.

[76] _Ibid._, 414.

[77] Knolles (ed. 1687), 982.

[78] Ricaut, 14-15.

[79] These _Spahis_ of the Porte are to be distinguished from the body of

feudal _Spahis_. See below, pp. 98-105.

[80] This is illustrated by the quotations in the last section of Chapter

i, above. See also Menavino, 138 (referring to the pages, he says “Tutti

sono suoi schiaui & figlioli Christiani”); Ricaut, 14 (all who receive

pay or office from the sultan are called _kul_); D’Ohsson, vii. 203 (“Les

employés civils de même que les militaires, suivant l’antique usage de

l’Orient, sont assimilés aux esclaves du Souverain, et qualifiés de ce

nom—coul—dans toutes les pièces publiques”). In D’Ohsson’s time the term

had acquired such a general usage as in the English phrase “your obedient

servant.” Della Valle, i. 44, speaking of the entry to the Divan, says,

“Tutti sono schiavi;” and Ranke, 9, says, “All were slaves.”

[81] D’Ohsson, vii. 149, 207.

[82] For example, Lodge, _The Close of the Middle Ages_ (1906), 500;

Myers, _Medieval and Modern History_ (1905), 165.

[83] The _Tractatus_, ch. viii, says simply 20 years and under; Zeno,

128, says above 10 years. Ramberti and Junis Bey (below, pp. 244, 263)

mention pages from 8 to 20 years old; Navagero, 49, says between 12 and

15 years, Trevisano, 229, says that they were taken not at the age of

6 or 7 years as formerly, but at 10 or 12 years. Postel, iii. 23, sets

between 12 and 14 as the lower limit, and 18 and 20 as the upper limit.

Nicolay, 62, says that the pages were from 8 to 20 years of age; Garzoni,

396, says that they ranged from the tenth to the thirteenth year;

Ricaut, 74, fixes the age at 10 or 12 years. Too much reliance should

not be placed on Trevisano’s statement as to former times, since hearsay

evidence as to Turkish affairs is unreliable. Considering the rougher

life in earlier times, it is likely that levies would then have been made

of older, rather than younger, boys. The presence of young boys among the

pages was due to the selection of unusually promising captives.

[84] Myers (as above) mentions the two methods of capture and tribute as

successive.

[85] Djevad Bey, i. 26: “Ces prisonniers ou esclaves étaient d’ailleurs

incorporés dans l’armée des Janissaires, et alors l’effectif qui manquait

était complété par la voie de la levée de troupes parmi les sujets

chrétiens.”

[86] Ramberti and Junis Bey (below, pp. 254, 270) say that 10,000, or

12,000 were taken every 4 years. Geuffroy, 242, and Postel, iii. 23,

give the same estimate. Ricaut, 74, says he is “given to understand”

that about 2000 were collected yearly in the middle of the seventeenth

century. The exigencies of war probably increased the number greatly at

times. Bérard, 12, naming no authority, says that in some years Suleiman

took 40,000 boys.

[87] 20,000 _Ajem-oghlans_, 12,000 to 14,000 Janissaries, 10,000 of the

auxiliary corps, grooms, etc., 40,000 _Spahis_ of the Porte (including

the 12,000 members of the four corps and the followers they were obliged

to bring), 2000 pages and high officials. Suleiman took with him on his

last campaign 48,316 men under pay (Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 181).

Morosini, 259, says that in 1585 the sultan had under pay 80,000 men.

This is exclusive of about one-half of the _Ajem-oghlans_.

[88] Postel, i. 20.

[89] See below, p. 69, note 3.

[90] Postel, iii. 36.

[91] See below, p. 99, note 1.

[92] For example, Piri Mohammed, a descendant of the thirteenth-century

poet, Jelal ad-din Rumi. Cf. Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 18.

[93] Notably Junis Bey, who says (below, p. 265), “None can be a

pasha except a Christian renegade.” This custom is said to have been

established by Bayezid II (Angiolello, 74, quoted by Jorga, ii. 306, note

2). For further instances, see the last section of Chapter i, above.

[94] See above, p. 33.

[95] D’Ohsson, v. 91.

[96] Schiltberger, 5, gives an early example. See also _Tractatus_, ch.

viii.

[97] Hammer, _Geschichte_, i. 167.

[98] Zeno, 127.

[99] Zeno is strongly impressed by these two sources.

[100] Postel, iii. 17-18. It was in this way that Menavino entered the

system (see his _Trattato_, 10).

[101] Cf. Postel, iii. 23.

[102] A study of the nationality of the high officials of the

sixteenth century gives evidence of this. For example, Ibrahim was an

Albanian (Junis Bey, below, p. 265); Rustem Pasha was a Croat (Hammer,

_Geschichte_, iii. 268); Ferhad was a Hungarian (_ibid._ 365); the grand

vizier Ali, whom Busbecq (_Life and Letters_, i. 157) calls “a thorough

gentleman,” was a Dalmatian; Ayas was an Albanian, and Kassim a Croat

(Junis Bey, p. 265); etc. For many other examples, see Jorga, iii.

167-189.

[103] The _Tractatus_, ch. viii, says every 5 years; Spandugino, 102,

says once in 5 years or oftener; Zeno, 128, says each year; Ramberti and

Junis Bey (below, pp. 254, 270) say every 4 years; Postel, iii. 22, says

every 3 or 4 years.

[104] _Tractatus_, ch. vi.

[105] Giovio, _Commentarius_, 75; Zeno, 128; Nicolay, 83. Jorga,

iii. 188, finds no Roumanian among the high Turkish officials of the

sixteenth century. Roumania, being a vassal state, was not exposed to

the _devshurmeh_. Knolles (ed. 1687, pp. 984-985) says that the tribute

boys from Asia were not advanced to become Janissaries, because they were

not of sufficiently high quality. They are not found in positions of

prominence.

[106] Navagero, 48.

[107] Menavino’s translator says _quasi decimatione_ (Lonicerus, i.

140). Postel, iii. 22-23, says expressly that the children were not

tithed; Nicolay, 83, however, states that one in three were taken, as

does J. Soranzo, 245. Morosini, 264, speaks of a tithe (_decima_).

Gibbon (ed. Bury), vii. 79, says that a fifth of the boys were taken;

see also Lavisse and Rambaud, iv. 758. The latter statements seem to be

based theoretically on the fifth of the captives to which the sultan was

entitled. The differences among those who profess to fix a proportion are

evidence that there was none.

[108] Spandugino, 103.

[109] Postel, iii. 22. Navagero, 49, says that the officers summoned the

heads of families and commanded them to present their sons.

[110] Navagero, 49.

[111] Postel, iii. 23.

[112] Navagero, 49.

[113] Postel, iii. 23.

[114] Geuffroy, 240. Bragadin (1526), 103, says: “Ibrahim has his mother

and two brothers in the palace. He does much good to Christians. His

father is _Sanjak_ in Parga.” And again, 104: “Ayas has three brothers.

His mother at Avlona is a Christian, and he sends her 100 ducats

annually.” Nicolay, 86, says, on the contrary, that the tribute boys are

never afterwards willing to recognize father, mother, or relatives. He

cites the case of an uncle and nephews of Rustem Pasha, who begged in

Adrianople, but received no aid from him. Cf. Zane, 438.

[115] Spandugino, 144, 145.

[116] Trevisano, 130.

[117] _Ibid._

[118] Bernardo, 332, says in 1592, after the system had been dislocated,

that the greater part of the recruits were then sons of Turks.

[119] Erizzo, 131; Morosini, 267; Ricaut, 14.

[120] Spandugino, 180.

[121] _Ibid._ 183; J. Soranzo, 250.

[122] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 144, 156, 162.

[123] Postel, iii. 68.

[124] _Ibid._ G. Soranzo (1576), 197, says that the Grand Signor is heir

of all the pashas.

[125] D’Ohsson, vii. 147. In the seventeenth century the sultan allowed

the children of pashas only what pleased him (Ricaut, 131). Morosini,

274, refers to a similar practice in the latter part of the sixteenth

century.

[126] Ricaut, 16, calls the Turkish court “a prison of slaves.”

[127] Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 379.

[128] Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 159.

[129] D’Ohsson, vii. 61 ff.

[130] Spandugino, 77; Ramberti, below, p. 253; Junis Bey below, p. 268;

Nicolay, 64.

[131] Spandugino, 78, is probably wrong in his statement that the girls

of the harem were recruited from gifts, _tithes_, and _tribute_. The

small number of women in the harem would make the elaborate process of

tribute-taking unnecessary.

[132] Postel, i. 34.

[133] Navagero, 75; Jovius, _Historiarum_, ii. 371. But Bragadin, 101,

calls her a Montenegrin, and Ludovisi, 29, an Albanian; while Busbecq

(_Life and Letters_, i. 178) says that she came from the Crimea. Gomara

indicates that her Turkish name was Gul-behar, the Rose of Spring

(Merriman, _Gomara’s Annals of Charles V_, 141). This confusion of

knowledge in regard to so important a personage gives evidence of the

secrecy which surrounded the sultan’s harem.

[134] See below, p. 79, note 2.

[135] Hammer, _Geschichte_, i. 232. Spandugino, 69, says that many were

made such. Menavino, who was himself a page, says that very few were so

treated, and only for punishment (_Trattato_, 138).

[136] Spandugino, 69; Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 237.

[137] Menavino, 143; “Schaiui chiamati Bascia [pasha].”

[138] Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 112. Selim I, married a princess,

daughter of the Khan of the Crimean Tartars. This appears to have been

the last of such alliances, of which there were a number in earlier times.

[139] D’Ohsson, vi. 9.

[140] _Ibid._ vii. 177. In 1537, Junis Bey (below, p. 265) says that

Ayas had 600 slaves, Mustapha 200, Kassim 150, Barbarossa 100. But this

account must contain misprints or errors; for Ramberti (below, p. 246)

says that in 1534, Ibrahim had more than 6000 slaves, Ayas 2000, Kassim

1500, and Barbarossa about 4000. Bragadin, 103, said in 1526, that

Ibrahim had 1500 slaves, Mustapha 700, Ayas 600. Junis Bey (256-258) says

further that the _Beylerbeys_ of Rumelia and Anatolia and Caramania had

1000 slaves each, the _Beylerbey_ of Syria 2000, the _Beylerbey_ of Cairo

4000, etc. Iskender Chelebi had 6000 slaves (Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii.

144). Geuffroy, 240, says of the viziers: “Tous ont saray de femmes et

d’enfans comme ledict grant Turc.” See also Menavino, 143; and Ramberti’s

description of Alvise Gritti’s household at the close of his third book.

[141] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 157. Seven of his slaves became viziers

and grand viziers, among them Mohammed Sokolli.

[142] Iskender Chelebi was followed to war by 1200 horsemen (Hammer,

_Geschichte_, iii. 144). Rustem trained 200 carbineers as part of his

household (Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 242).

[143] Garzoni, 413, says that 1000 _Spahis_ were assigned to the retinue

of the grand vizier, and 500 to those of each of the other pashas.

[144] _Tractatus_, ch. vii.

[145] D’Ohsson, i. 49.

[146] In the early days non-Arab converts held a position of clientage,

but they had never been slaves. In the Ottoman Empire new converts were

particularly honored, so that this distinction was lost. A partial

enfranchisement was possible, and might sometimes resemble the condition

of a Roman freedman. Cf. D’Ohsson, vi. 28 ff.

[147] According to D’Ohsson, v. 86, no free-born Moslem could ever

lawfully become a slave.

[148] D’Ohsson, vi. 24.

[149] _Ibid._

[150] _Ibid._ iv. 300 ff.

[151] Spandugino, 180. It may be observed that Ottoman slavery bore no

slight resemblance to the method of bondage which brought from Europe

many ancestors of present-day Americans. “In the year 1730,” says Mrs.

Susannah Willard Johnson (in her _Narrative of Captivity_ reprinted

Springfield, 1907, pp. 5-6) “my great-uncle, Colonel Josiah Willard,

while at Boston, was invited to take a walk on the long-wharf, to view

some transports who had just landed from Ireland; a number of gentlemen

present were viewing the exercise of some lads who were placed on shore

to exhibit their activity to those who wished to purchase. My uncle spied

a boy of some vivacity, of about ten years of age, and who was the only

one in the crew who spoke English: he bargained for him. I have never

been able to learn the price; but as he was afterwards my husband, I

am willing to suppose it a considerable sum.... He lived with Colonel

Willard until he was twenty years of age, and then bought the other year

of his time.” In this account a number of the characteristics of the

Ottoman system can be observed. Young boys of Caucasian blood are taken

from their native land; they are bought and sold; they are judged like

young animals by appearance and physical activity; no taint attaches

to their bondage; they may marry into the master’s family. The one

noteworthy difference is that the bondage terminates at a definite age.

[152] _Tractatus_, “Orario Testimonialis”: “Denique domino meo ita carus

eram, ut saepius in collocutione plurium, plusquam filium suum, quem

unicum habebat, me diligere assereret,” etc.

[153] Postel, iii. 20, says that all the pages were considered children

of the sultan, and were truly his adopted sons.

[154] Ricaut, 14.

[155] Postel, iii. 21.

[156] Ricaut, 16.

[157] Postel, iii. 21.

[158] _Ibid._ 71-72; Ramberti, below, p. 255.

[159] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 12.

[160] According to Sale’s translation, the Koran says (Sura 2: 257),

“Let there be no violence in religion.” Palmer translates, “There is no

compulsion in religion.” See D’Ohsson, vi. 59; Schiltberger, 73.

[161] Idris, fol. 107, quoted in Hammer’s _Geschichte_, i. 91.

[162] Quoted _ibid._ ii. 117.

[163] Ricaut, 147-148: “No people in the World have ever been more open

to receive all sorts of Nations to them, than they, nor have used more

arts to encrease the number of those that are called _Turks_.”

[164] _Tractatus_, ch. viii.

[165] Ricaut, 46.

[166] Bernardo, 369-370, and see also 359.

[167] Postel, iii. 21.

[168] _Ibid._ 20.

[169] Ricaut, 128 ff.

[170] The general Ottoman attitude on this point is shown by

Schiltberger, 73: Mohammed “has also ordered, that when they overcome

Christians, they should not kill them; but they should pervert them, and

should thus spread and strengthen their own faith.” _Tractatus_, ch.

xi, says, “Turci neminem cogunt Fidem suam negare, nec multum instant

de hoc alicui persuadendo, nec magnam aestimationem faciunt de his qui

negant.” The last clause of this testimony, however, is contrary to

practically all other sources. Conversion seems sometimes to have been

forced as an alternative to death when a Christian had offended greatly

against the Mohammedan faith (Lonicerus, i. 123; see also D’Ohsson,

vii. 327). Some writers, however, assert that circumcision, the outward

mark of acceptance of Islam, was regularly enforced upon the tribute

boys (Chesneau, 41; J. Soranzo, 245; Morosini, as quoted above, p. 41).

Heidborn, 128, says that conversion was not anciently enforced on a large

scale, _except_ for the recruiting of Janissaries.

[171] Ricaut, 46 ff.

[172] Schiltberger, 74; La Broquière, 219; Spandugino, 249. Ricaut,

152, says that great inducement was offered the common people to become

Turks; they obtained honor and the privilege to domineer and injure with

impunity, and they became in the fashion.

[173] _Tractatus_, ch. xi, quoted above.

[174] D’Ohsson, vi. 59; Ricaut, 148.

[175] _Tractatus_, ch. v; Nicolay, 86.

[176] Ricaut, 284.

[177] Bernardo, 367; Zane, as quoted above, p. 42. See also Jorga, iii.

188.

[178] Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 235.

[179] Nicolay, 160-161.

[180] Menavino, 244.

[181] _Tractatus_, ch. xxi.

[182] Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 351.

[183] Georgevitz (before 1552), 40, “De Ordine Peditum”; Ranke, 19-20;

Barbaro (1573), 305. 317. Selim II, on his accession granted to the

Janissaries the formal privilege of entering their sons in the corps;

for the Persian war of 1594 the corps was opened to other Turks and all

Moslems. By 1592, the majority of the Janissaries were said to be sons of

Turks; Bernardo, 332. See also Knolles (ed. 1687), 985.

[184] Postel, iii. 20.

[185] _Kanun-namch_ of Mohammed II, printed in Hammer’s

_Staatsverfassung_, 94.

[186] Hammer’s _Geschichte_, i. 94.

[187] See p. 49.

[188] Spandugino (1517), 108, says that the Janissaries are not allowed

to marry. He was probably wrong. Certainly some were married soon after

his time: Ramberti (1534), below, p. 249; Junis Bey (1537), below, p.

267; Nicolay (1551), 92.

[189] Ricaut, 366.

[190] The resemblance of the Janissaries to monks is noticed by Busbecq,

_Life and Letters_, i. 88, and Tavernier, 12.

[191] Ricaut, 151.

[192] One careful observer thought that this might be true of the whole

Ottoman nation. _Ibid._, but in the middle of the fifteenth century

contrary testimony was given (_Tractatus_, ch. xi).

[193] See the calculation above, p. 49.

[194] Navagero, 50; Barbaro, 316; Nicolay, 84. J. Soranzo, 245, states

that the tribute boys were all brought to Constantinople, circumcised,

and brought before the _Agha_ of the Janissaries. Record was made of the

name of each, of his father’s name, and of his native place. Soranzo’s

accuracy is questionable, as when he says that the greater part were put

into palaces in Constantinople.

[195] Postel, iii. 17; Ricaut, 46.

[196] Ricaut, 74: “In whom appearing more strength of body than of mind,

they are set apart for labor and menial services.”

[197] Busbecq, _De Re Militari_, 260.

[198] Spandugino, 104: the emperor chooses a few and sends the rest to

the towns of the Turks of Anatolia to live with the lords and gentlemen.

[199] Spandugino speaks of 900; Junis Bey and Ramberti, 1400; Geuffroy,

1200; Postel, 1300 to 1500.

[200] Junis Bey and Ramberti, 300; Geuffroy, 300.

[201] Junis Bey and Ramberti, 400; Geuffroy, 400; Postel (iii. 20), 600

or 700.

[202] Junis Bey and Ramberti, 700; Geuffroy, 500; Postel (iii. 3), 700 or

800.

[203] Navagero, 42. See also Tanco, 205.

[204] Menavino, 13. Postel, iii. 17, says that, when presented, they were

clothed in silk and cloth of gold or silver; but Ricaut, 49, says that

their clothing and diet were simple.

[205] Menavino, 11 ff.

[206] Busbecq, _De Re Militari_, 262-263.

[207] Postel, iii. 2.

[208] Menavino, 126.

[209] Ricaut, chs. v-vi.

[210] Spandugino, 63. See also Nicolay, 84; and the quotations in the

last section of Chapter i, above.

[211] D’Ohsson, vii. 34.

[212] Hammer (_Geschichte_, i. 232), by a singular perversion of the

truth, asserts that the page system had its origin and primary purpose in

the satisfaction of the unnatural lusts of Bayezid I and his successors.

Not only does the whole structure and organization of the system disprove

this, but the absence of reference to such a purpose in all contemporary

writers is sufficient to settle the matter. The vice which takes its name

from Sodom was very prevalent among the Ottomans, especially among those

in high position (Spandugino, 186; Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 232;

Ricaut, 151, 211; D’Ohsson, iv. 473). The pages were apt to be afflicted

by it, and were carefully watched to prevent it, and terribly punished

if discovered (Ricaut, 60). Occasionally a sultan became enamored of a

page (Ricaut, 61); but Suleiman seems to have been free from this vice

(Busbecq, i. 159; Marini Sanuto, _Diarii_, December 6, 1523).

[213] Menavino, 126-128. He was a page from about 1505 to 1514 (_ibid._

243-245).

[214] Ricaut, “To the Reader,” 45-62. This describes the system as it was

about 1650.

[215] Postel, iii. 11.

[216] _Ibid._ 19; Ricaut, 50.

[217] Postel, iii. 10; Ricaut, 50.

[218] Ricaut, 51. The same custom was observed in the education of the

princes and of all children of great officials (Spandugino, 179). Tanco,

197-198, says he has heard that Suleiman himself labored daily at a

trade, so that even the Prince should earn his bread by the sweat of his

brow; see also Jorga, ii. 343.

[219] Menavino, 126, 127.

[220] Postel, iii. 10.

[221] Ricaut, 59.

[222] Navagero, 43.

[223] Ricaut, 48, says that in the three colleges of education the

eunuchs exercised very severe discipline beyond that of monks.

[224] Menavino, 127.

[225] Ramberti, below, pp. 244, 245; Junis Bey, below, p. 263; Ricaut, 49.

[226] Ricaut, 49: “Their first Lessons are silence, reverence, humble and

modest behaviour, holding their heads downwards, and their hands across

before them.”

[227] _Ibid._ 48.

[228] D’Ohsson, vii. 47.

[229] Ricaut, 51; D’Ohsson, vii. 34 ff. These chambers were the

_Kiler-odassi_, or Pantry; the _Khazineh-odassi_, or Treasure Chamber;

the _Khas-odassi_, or Inner Chamber. See below, pp. 126-128.

[230] Ricaut, 52.

[231] Postel, iii. 11.

[232] Spandugino, 62.

[233] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 32.

[234] _Ibid_. 490.

[235] Ramberti (below, p. 244) says that they became _Spahi-oghlans_,

_Silihdars_, and officials of higher degree according to their worth and

to the favor which they had gained with the sultan; Junis Bey, below, p.

263.

[236] Menavino, 138.

[237] Ricaut, 71; Postel, i. 33; Nicolay, 64; D’Ohsson, vii. 64.

[238] Ramberti, below, p. 254 (“he marries them to Spahi-oghlans, or to

others of the slaves of the Porte according to the degree and condition

of both parties”); Junis Bey, below, p. 269; Geuffroy, 244; Chesneau, 40;

Nicolay, 64.

[239] Trevisano, 130, speaks of 16,400; but this number does not seem

sufficient to account for all.

[240] Chalcocondyles, 97; Spandugino, 103; Ramberti, 255; Junis Bey,

270; (they are sent “to dig earth in order to learn Turkish”); Zeno,

127; Geuffroy, 243; Navagero, 50. Chesneau, 44, states that those

_Ajem-oghlans_ who were levied in Anatolia were sent to gentlemen in

Rumelia.

[241] Ramberti, below, p. 255; Junis Bey, below, p. 270; Nicolay, 86.

[242] Giovio, _Commentarius_, 78; Junis Bey, as above.

[243] Ramberti and Junis Bey, as above, say after three or four years;

Geuffroy, 243, after four years. Navagero, 50, says that every two or

three years, as the service demands, an officer takes those who are

ready; some have served two or three, some four or five years. Trevisano,

130, says that they are left six or seven years.

[244] Ricaut, 77.

[245] Chalcocondyles, 97; Spandugino, 104; Navagero, 52.

[246] Navagero, 52; Postel, iii. 22, 25.

[247] Spandugino, 76.

[248] Ramberti, 254, says 5000; Junis Bey, 269, says 4000 or 5000;

Geuffroy, 242, says 5000 or 6000; Trevisano, 129, says 6800; Garzoni,

415, says 6000; Postel, iii. 25, says 5000 to 7000; D. Barbarigo, 33,

says 7600.

[249] Junis Bey, 269; Navagero, 51; Trevisano, 129; Postel, iii. 25.

[250] Trevisano, 129.

[251] Giovio, _Commentarius_, 77.

[252] Ramberti, below, p. 254; Junis Bey, below, p. 269; D’Ohsson, vii.

28.

[253] Postel, iii. 25.

[254] Postel, iii. 22, says that only those who had special privilege

from the sultan were allowed to learn letters. Ricaut, 76, says that

some of those in the palace service were taught to read and write. In

D’Ohsson’s time (vii. 327), each _oda_ had a _hoja_ to teach reading and

writing to those who wished.

[255] Junis Bey, 269, 270, says that they had 2 or 3 aspers per day

at first, and more as they advanced, and that their chief was allowed

100,000 aspers a year for their food and clothing. Postel, iii. 23, says

that their chief was allowed 10,000 aspers a day to keep them and pay

them, and other money for their clothing.

[256] Ramberti, 254; Junis Bey, 270; Postel, iii. 25.

[257] Spandugino, 104. Trevisano, 130, says that they became such at from

20 to 25 years old, according to their mind, value, or favor.

[258] Ricaut, 76. But those of the principal palace in Constantinople

had greater opportunities; they might become Janissaries, _Solaks_,

_Kapujis_, etc. (Ramberti, below, p. 245.)

[259] Chalcocondyles, 97.

[260] Trevisano, 130; Barbaro, 316; Garzoni, 397.

[261] Zinkeisen, iii. 228.

[262] Ricaut, 53; D’Ohsson, vii. 34-39.

[263] Ramberti, below, p. 244; Junis Bey, below, p. 263; Ricaut, 53.

[264] Junis Bey, as quoted above, p. 81, note 4.

[265] Chalcocondyles, 171; Barbaro, 305; Nicolay, 89 (“the wages of each

are increased, according to the merit of their military valor”).

[266] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 160.

[267] _Tractatus_, ch. viii.

[268] Postel, i. 121.

[269] _Ibid._ iii. 19.

[270] Tanco, 197, 206.

[271] Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 105.

[272] Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 154-155.

[273] Ricaut, 77.

[274] Spandugino, 185; Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 108.

[275] Spandugino, 132.

[276] The grand vizier Rustem’s wealth is summed up in detail in Hammer’s

_Geschichte_, iii. 386: “He himself left at his death an immense fortune;

no grand vizier before him had amassed so much wealth. His estate

consisted of 815 farms in Rumelia and Anatolia, 476 water mills, 1700

slaves, 2900 war horses, 1106 camels, 5000 richly embroidered coats and

robes of honor, 8000 turbans, 1100 caps of cloth of gold, 2900 coats of

mail, 2000 cuirasses, 600 saddles finished in silver, 500 others adorned

with gold and precious stones, 1500 helmets plated with silver, 130 pairs

of golden stirrups, 760 sabres adorned with precious stones, 1000 lances

trimmed with silver, 800 Korans, 130 of which were set with diamonds,

5000 volumes of various works, 78,000 ducats, 32 precious stones

representing a value of 112 donkey-loads (that is to say, 11,200,000

aspers); the ready money which was found in his house was estimated at

1000 loads (100,000,000 aspers, or 2,000,000 ducats.)”

[277] D. Barbarigo, 30-33.

[278] Menavino, 128.

[279] The cause of the execution of Junis Pasha by Selim I. Cf. Hammer,

_Geschichte_, ii. 524.

[280] Halil Ganem, i. 169.

[281] Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 322.

[282] Cahun, _Introduction_, p. vii: “Les Turcs et les Mongols ... nées

de la guerre et organisées pour la conquête.”

[283] This was true even in D’Ohsson’s time (vii. 399).

[284] Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 181.

[285] Curiously enough, the oldest sense in which the Turkish word _kul_

was used as a term denoting relation to a prince, was in reference to

soldiers (Vambéry, _Uigurische Sprachmonumente und das Kudalku Bilik_,

113, stanza 12b). At that time the word was applied to the foot-soldiers

as distinguished from the cavalry, who were then volunteer knights. This

usage survived in the Ottoman system to the extent that the regular

infantry, including the Janissaries, artillerymen, and other lesser

permanent corps, were regarded as in a particular and special sense the

sultan’s _kullar_ (D’Ohsson, vii. 328; Djevad Bey, i. 15-18).

[286] The _Bostanjis_, or gardeners, and other _Ajem-oghlans_ of the

palace service were not left behind: D’Ohsson, vii. 326; Djevad Bey, i. 7.

[287] Extended accounts of the Janissaries may be found in D’Ohsson, vii.

310 ff.; Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 192 ff.; Zinkeisen, iii. 201 ff.;

Djevad Bey, vol. i, book i.

[288] For an example of the persistence of this idea, see Bérard (1909),

12-13: “La Turquie désormais subsiste par le janissaire et doit vivre

pour le janissaire d’abord ... depuis la prise de Rhodes (1522) jusqu’à

l’apparition de la flotte russe aux Dardanelles (1770), tant vaut le

janissaire et tant vaut l’empire.” Professor A. C. Coolidge suggests that

the hold which this remarkable organization had upon the imagination of

fellow-countrymen as well as of foreigners was in part “due to the fact

that in almost all Oriental history good infantrymen have been extremely

rare, and the Janissaries were the only good infantrymen in the Ottoman

Empire.” It is also true that the Janissaries were that group within the

Moslem fold which came least under the taming and subordinating influence

of the system; they were a frontier province of Islamic society. When

in the seventeenth century they ceased to be drawn directly from the

Christian population and became a variety of military aristocracy, not

only did they remain in part a fighting infantry, but their original

freedom of spirit and action was by no means abandoned.

[289] D’Ohsson, vii. 359-360; Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 251, 361, iii.

45; Nicolay, 89.

[290] Rhodes was pillaged after capitulation (1521), and so were Ofen

(1529), and Wychegrad (1544): Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 28, 83, 263.

[291] _Ibid._ ii. 252. Hence the death of a sultan was kept concealed

until his successor had assumed power (_ibid._ 535; iii. 449).

[292] Mohammed II gave them ten purses of gold (1451), _ibid._ i. 504;

Bayezid II gave them 2000 aspers each (1481), _ibid._ ii. 252; Selim I

gave them 3000 aspers each (1512), _ibid._ 382; from Suleiman they asked

5000 aspers each, which he compounded by giving them one-third in cash

and increased pay (1520), _ibid._ iii. 6.

[293] Before Vienna (1529), _ibid._ 88; on march toward Persia (1534),

_ibid._ 148; at Tabriz (1535), _ibid._ 158.

[294] This usage dates from Suleiman; D’Ohsson, vii. 354.

[295] Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 86: the Janissaries “are scattered

through every part of the empire, either to garrison the forts against

the enemy, or to protect the Christians and Jews from the violence of the

mob. There is no district with any considerable amount of population, no

borough or city, which has not a detachment of Janissaries to protect

the Christians, Jews, and other helpless people from outrage and wrong.”

Janissaries might be detailed to attend on foreign ambassadors, or to

escort foreign travelers within the empire (Knolles, ed. 1687, p. 985).

[296] Nicolay, 89, was perhaps the first to point out the likeness of

the Janissaries to the Roman Pretorian Guard, and to see in them a great

danger to the Ottoman Empire.

[297] Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 420, 520.

[298] _Ibid._ iii. 88.

[299] Trevisano, 129, says that they had sufficient authority on the

death of a sultan to give the empire to which of his sons they pleased.

Cf. J. Soranzo, 248; Morosini, 255; Garzoni, 432; Knolles (ed. 1687), 985

(“neither can any of the Turks Sultans account themselves fully invested

in the Imperial Dignity, or assured of their Estate, until they be by

them approved and proclaimed”).

[300] D’Ohsson, i. 278-284; Heidborn, 120.

[301] D’Ohsson, i. 284. This rule is sometimes stated erroneously as an

old Turkish custom, a provision of Mohammedan law, or an old Ottoman law

or custom.

[302] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 98: “_Kanun_ of the Security of the

Throne: The majority of Legists (_Ulema_) have declared it allowable,

that whoever among my illustrious children and grandchildren may come

to the throne, should, for securing the peace of the world, order his

brothers to be executed. Let them hereafter act accordingly.”

[303] Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 352 ff.

[304] Menavino, 219; Trevisano, 129; Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 365.

[305] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 314.

[306] Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 185-189.

[307] Postel, iii. 87, says, about 1537: Suleiman “has among others a

son named Mustapha, marvelously well educated and prudent and of the age

to reign; for he is 23 or 24 years old; and God grant that so great an

atrocity may not come so near us (_Dieu ne permette qu’une Barbarie si

grande vienne si pres de nous_).”

[308] 10,000 is the number according to Bragadino, 106. 12,000 is given

by almost all contemporaries: Ramberti, below, p. 249; Junis Bey,

below, p. 266; Giovio, _Commentarius_, 76; Geuffroy, 234; Navagero,

53; Trevisano, 128; Barbaro, 305; Postel, iii. 30; Busbecq, _Life and

Letters_, i. 86; Nicolay, 88; Erizzo, 127. Navagero, 56, says some think

that 15,500 or 16,000 were inscribed; and Garzoni, 416, says that there

were 13,000 or 14,000. Djevad Bey, i. 90, gives 12,000 in 1523, and

13,599 in 1574. In 1564 D. Barbarigo, 33, gives a precise number, 13,502.

D’Ohsson, vii. 330, says, without stating any authority and against the

above contemporary evidence, that Suleiman raised the number to 40,000.

Hammer (_Geschichte_, i. 95, and iii. 473) says, referring to D’Ohsson,

that Suleiman had 20,000; but in his _Staatsverwaltung_, 195, he states

that Suleiman had only 12,000 before Szigets. Knolles (ed. 1687, p. 990)

says, about 1603, that the Janissaries numbered not over 12,000 to 14,000.

[309] Junis Bey, 272, and Ludovisi, 17, give the number of this garrison

as 3000. Postel, 38, gives the number as 30,000; this must include the

Mamelukes.

[310] Giovio, _Commentarius_, 77: about 6000 of the older of them stay

about the Prince. Navagero, 55: 8000 to 10,000 are always ready.

[311] Ramberti, 249; Junis Bey, 267.

[312] Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 194; Ricaut, 365 (mentions 162

_odalar_); Djevad Bey, i. 28. In Chalcocondyles’s time (1465), 97, the

strength of each _oda_ seems to have been of 50 men. In Suleiman’s time

it was less than 100. Later it became much larger.

[313] Nicolay, 96-97; D’Ohsson, vii. 313-320; Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_,

201 ff.; Djevad Bey, i. 35, 45.

[314] D’Ohsson, vii. 314; Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 428. This was the

case only from 1515 to 1582.

[315] _Kiaya_ is a word which offered infinite difficulties of

pronunciation and spelling; for example, gachaia, cacaia, checaya,

quaia, queaya, caia, cahaia, chiccaia, chechessi. Some authors employ a

different spelling each time they use the word. Trevisano, 118, gives

chietcudasci. _Kiaya_ represents the popular pronunciation. The more

nearly correct form of the word, following the Turkish spelling, is

_ketkhuda_.

[316] D’Ohsson, vii. 353.

[317] Djevad Bey, i. 35.

[318] Ramberti, below, p. 250; Junis Bey, below, p. 266.

[319] Ludovisi (1534), 9, gives a pessimistic account of them; according

to him, they had not the order or the discipline or the astuteness which

was found in the Christian infantry. Postel, iii. 30, praises them

greatly for order, frugality, and temperance. Djevad Bey, i. 56-64,

gives a favorable description; he says (p. 56) that the first of their

fundamental laws enjoined absolute obedience.

[320] Postel, iii. 31; D’Ohsson, vii. 353; Djevad Bey, i. 66, 69.

[321] Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 296.

[322] D’Ohsson, vii. 351; Djevad Bey, i. 56-59.

[323] Ramberti, below, p. 249; Junis Bey, below, p. 267; D’Ohsson, vii.

352.

[324] Djevad Bey, i. 289.

[325] This name for the sultan’s paid cavalry is that regularly employed

by the Venetian writers of the sixteenth century: for example, Moro, 337;

Bernardo, 330.

[326] Hammer, _Geschichte_, i. 95.

[327] D’Ohsson, vii. 353.

[328] For the great disturbance which they raised in 1593, see Zinkeisen,

iii. 79.

[329] All of these names are spelled with an ingenious variety in

contemporary writings:—

_Spahi_: spai, spachi, sipahi, sipah, spacoillain (spahi-oghlan).

_Silihdar_: selicter, sillictar, sulastrus, suluphtar.

_Ulufagi_: holofagi, allophase.

_Ghureba_: caripy, caripicus, ciarcagi, caripp (oglan), gharib (oglan),

capi (oglan)

The word _Spahi_ is of identical derivation with _Sepoy_.

[330] Ramberti, below, p. 250; Junis Bey, below, p. 267; Postel, iii. 34.

Giovio (_Commentarius_, 75) says that some _Spahis_ brought as many as

ten horsemen.

[331] Giovio, 75; Postel, iii. 35.

[332] They were called “poor youth” by Menavino, 152; Junis Bey, 267;

Ramberti, 251; Trevisano, 126; Postel, iii. 36. Spandugino, 97, says

that they were strangers from Asia, Egypt, and Africa. Giovio, 76, says

that they were all Moslems from Persia, Turcomania, Syria, Africa,

Arabia, Scythia, and even India; but he is wrong in confining them to

Moslems in the sixteenth century. Trevisano, 126, asserts that they were

renegades from every nation; and on this authority Zinkeisen falls into

the opposite error of confining them to Christian renegades. Postel, iii.

36, says that they were chosen from the _Akinji_, Kurds, and _Azabs_.

Menavino, 152, declares that they were not slaves of the great Turk, but

that part were Turks, part Christian renegades, and part Arabs (_Mori_).

[333] The _Spahis_ of the Porte are discussed at length in D’Ohsson, vii.

364 ff.; Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 237 ff.; Zinkeisen, iii. 168 ff.

[334] Giovio (_Commentarius_, 75) mentions 2000 in each of the first two

corps, and 1000 in each of the second two. Junis Bey (below, p. 267)

puts 3000 in each of the first two corps, 2000 in each of the second

two. Ramberti (below, p. 250) gives more than 3000 _Spahi-oghlans_, 3000

_Silihdars_, and 2000 in each of the other corps. Ludovisi, 15, puts 3000

in each of the first two, 2500 in the third, and 2000 in the fourth.

Trevisano, 125, puts 2000 in each but the fourth, which contained 1500.

D. Barbarigo, 33, mentions 7095 _Spahis_. Barbaro, 304, says that there

were 15,000 _Spahis_ of the Porte. There were under pay in 1660, after

serious changes, 7203 _Spahis_, 6254 _Silihdars_, 976 _Ulufajis_, and 722

_Ghurebas_: Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 175.

[335] A calculation based on Junis Bey’s statements gives a total of

between 41,000 and 49,000. Garzoni, 413, says distinctly that there were

40,000 _Spahis_ of the Porte paid out of the sultan’s treasury; that

among these were 3000 _Spahi-oghlans_, 3000 _Silihdars_, 3000 _Ulufajis_,

and 2000 _Ghurebas_ (_ciarcagi_); and that the grand vizier had 1000

_Spahis_ assigned to his retinue, and the other viziers each 500.

D’Ohsson, vii. 364-365, states that the _Spahis_ proper in the time of

Mohammed II, numbered 10,000, and that Achmet III, raised their strength

to 12,000; like figures for the _Silihdars_ were 8000 and 12,000. This

estimate must include the additional horsemen.

[336] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 57; Menavano, 148, 151.

[337] See above, pp. 47 (note 1), 91. The Ottoman feudal system is

discussed at length in Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 337 ff.; D’Ohsson,

vii. 372 ff.; Zinkeisen, iii. 145 ff.; Belin, _Du Régime des Fiefs

Militaires en Turquie_; Tischendorf, _Moslemisches Lehnswesen_.

[338] Junis Bey (below, p. 271) says, shortly after describing the feudal

_Spahis_ of Europe, that “all the _Spahis_ are slaves and sons of slaves

of the Seigneur (_Tutti li spachi sono schiaui & figli de schiaui del

Sig[nor]_);” but this statement is incomplete. Ramberti (below, p. 256)

adds, “and sons of _Spahis_.” The latter group undoubtedly contained the

great majority of the feudal _Spahis_. Geuffroy 246, enlarges on the

statement by saying that the 30,000 feudal _Spahis_ of Europe were all

_Ajem-oghlans_ and slaves of the great Turk. No other writer terms them

_kullar_. Garzoni, 412, calls them Turkish soldiers. The whole theory

of the Ottoman feudal system made them such; the smaller fiefs were

hereditary from of old, and gaps were filled from volunteers with the

army, who must have been Moslems, since Christians were not allowed to

bear arms: Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 349 ff. (“_Kanun-nameh_ of the

granting of _Timars_ and _Ziamets_”).

[339] Junis Bey, p. 271 (they collect the income from the Christians,

etc.); Moro, 339 (they are appointed by the king to administer justice);

Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 478; D’Ohsson, vii. 373. Heidborn, 157,

discusses their duties in some detail.

[340] Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 275; Heidborn, 145.

[341] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 476.

[342] Spandugino, 146, states that under Mohammed II, each fief-holder

who had 5000 aspers of income was obliged to bring another with him to

war; but in his time (under Bayezid II) this obligation was imposed upon

those who had 3000 aspers, unless retired on account of age. Ramberti and

Junis Bey (below, pp. 256-271) say that for each 100 ducats a _Spahi_

must keep an armed horseman, and three or four servants, and a like

number of horses; see also D’Ohsson, vii. 373. Heidborn, 145, states that

holders of _timars_ brought an additional warrior for each 3000 aspers of

income, and holders of _ziamets_ an additional one for each 5000 aspers;

but in any case the first 3000 aspers was exempt.

[343] D’Ohsson, vii. 374.

[344] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 352.

[345] _Ibid._ 94.

[346] Hammer (_ibid._ 143 ff.) describes Suleiman’s legislation, giving

translations of much of it.

[347] Ricaut, 343.

[348] D’Ohsson, vii. 374; Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 352 ff.

[349] The limit differed according to region. In Rumelia a _teskereh_ was

required for all _timars_ of 6000 aspers and over, and for all _ziamets_:

Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 275.

[350] Ramberti (below, p. 256) gives this limit as 100 ducats, or 5000

aspers.

[351] Garzoni, 413; Tanco, 209.

[352] Bernardo, 329; Knolles (ed. 1687), 983.

[353] Spandugino, 211; Zinkeisen, iii. 129. The feudal _Spahis_ had

lower officers who were not sent out from the capital, such as the

_Cheribashis_.

[354] The name means “ensign bey,” and was translated _flambole_: for

example, Geuffroy, 246.

[355] Postel, iii. 44; Tiepolo, 138.

[356] Heidborn, 140, says that the _Subashis_ had _ziamets_, the _Alai

Beys_ had small _khasses_, the _Sanjak Beys_ had _khasses_ of a million

aspers or more, and the _Beylerbeys_ much more. The amount which he

assigns to the _Sanjak Beys_ is too large for Suleiman’s time. Ramberti

(below, pp. 256-258) gives their income at from 4000 to 12,000 ducats,

which would amount to from 200,000 to 600,000 aspers.

[357] Ramberti, below, p. 256; Junis Bey, below, p. 271.

[358] Menavino, 186, 190, says that in his time the _Beylerbey_ of

Anatolia resided at Kutaia (Custage). Ramberti, 259, mentions the same

place (Chiothachie) as the seat of his sanjakate. Knolles (ed. 1687, p.

986) says that all the _Beylerbeys_ except the _Beylerbey_ of Rumelia

were supposed to reside within their dominions.

[359] _Tractatus_, ch. xi.

[360] Trevisano, 132.

[361] In Europe 30,000 _Spahis_ and 20,000 _Timarjis_; in Anatolia 12,000

_Spahis_; in Karamania 7000, Amasia 4000, and Avandole 7000. This is the

estimate of Junis Bey and Ramberti, which Geuffroy, 247, follows, and

which Postel, iii. 37 ff., changes a little (Karamania 5000 instead of

7000, Amasia omitted). Ludovisi, 16, gives practically the same figures.

Navagero, 41, gives 40,000 in Europe and 80,000 to 100,000 in Asia, the

latter figure probably including the troops of Syria and Mesopotamia, and

of Egypt, which was not provided with fiefs in the same way. Barbaro,

304, and Garzoni, 412, mention 80,000 in Europe and 50,000 in Asia. D.

Barbarigo (1558), 33, speaks of a sum total of 160,000 feudal _Spahis_.

Tiepolo (1576), 140, speaks of 60,000 _timars_ in Europe which sent

80,000 _Spahis_, and 50,000 _Spahis_ from Asia. The number may have

increased about one-half during Suleiman’s reign, but it is more likely

that all the groups of figures are only estimates. Ricaut, 341, after

careful inquiry, gives the number of _Zaims_ in his time as 10,948, and

of _Timarjis_ as 72,436, for the whole empire except Egypt. He thinks

that this estimate should be increased to 100,000. The total feudal

contingent in the time of Achmet I, was by Turkish authority about the

same (Tischendorf, 57 ff.). D’Ohsson, vii. 375, estimates the feudal

troops at 200,000 in Suleiman’s time; on p. 381, however, he speaks of

more than 150,000 men. See below, p. 107, n. 1.

[362] Postel, iii. 38 (“triple pour le moins”).

[363] Chesneau, 46; D’Ohsson, vii. 381. Knolles (ed. 1687, p. 990) says

that not over one-third could safely be called to arms.

[364] After the year 1541: Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 232.

[365] After the year 1552: Trevisano, 124. The number of the _Beylerbeys_

was greatly increased in the last third of the sixteenth century.

Knolles, 986-988, mentions five in Europe, 30 in Asia, and 4 in Africa,

besides the _Beylerbey_ of the Sea, whose office was created by Suleiman,

but who is not mentioned above as having no part in the army.

[366] Spandugino, 153; Nicolay, 160.

[367] The name _akinji_ is variously spelled: yachinji, alcanzi,

alcangi, aconiziae, alengi, aquangi, achiar, aghiar. Spandugino, 150,

says that the sultan can collect 200,000 of these for the war; Ramberti

and Junis Bey (below, pp. 257, 271) mention 60,000 as inscribed; Giovio

(_Commentarius_, 81) names 30,000; Garzoni, 414, says 25,000 or 30,000;

Postel, iii. 26, says 50,000 or 60,000. Ramberti, 271, tells us that when

in arms they were entitled to living expenses from the villages near

which they passed.

[368] Zinkeisen, iii. 203.

[369] Spandugino, 152. Junis Bey, 270, mentions 1000 with the fleet, and

Postel, iii. 71, mentions 10,000.

[370] Postel, iii. 26.

[371] Chalcocondyles, 135; Giovio, _Commentarius_, 81, etc.

[372] Spandugino, 151.

[373] See above, p. 98.

[374] Junis Bey, below, p. 268. In addition were several thousand

saddlers, etc., who were not reckoned as regular troops: the _Bostanjis_,

older pages, body-guards, etc.

[375] Knolles (ed. 1687), 984.

[376] Several contemporary estimates of the complete army may be

compared: Marini Sanuto, under date of October 26, 1529, gives an

estimate of the Turkish army then before Vienna as containing 305,200

men. The same writer (_Diarii_, lvi) gives three or four estimates from

the year 1532, when Suleiman went forth on the Güns campaign: on p.

768, Suleiman’s army is said to contain 500,000 men; on p. 870 is found

an account of Suleiman’s entry into Belgrade, in which 170,300 men are

mentioned, besides “adventurers” and “many others”; on the same page

is estimated the number with which the Sultan was to leave Belgrade,

which sums up 284,500, and does not seem to account fully for the

territorial armies; on p. 894 he summarizes a despatch from Ratisbon,

dated August 23, 1532, which relates the testimony of three Turkish

prisoners to the effect that the Turkish army numbers over 300,000

persons, but that not over 80,000 are good fighting men. Postel, iii.

38, estimates the enrolled army at 218,000, and the whole at 500,000.

He states elsewhere that Suleiman took 500,000 men with him on the

Persian expedition of 1534-35. Chesneau’s impression (pp. 106-108) of

Suleiman’s army, when he saw it near Aleppo in the spring of 1549, was

that it occupied 80,000 to 100,000 tents, on a plain eight to ten miles

long; that it contained 300,000 to 400,000 fighting men, of whom all

but 10,000 or 12,000 Janissaries were on horseback; and that the total

number of persons assembled was about a million. Chesneau’s chief, the

ambassador D’Aramont, writing concerning the same expedition from Esdron

(Erzerum?) a few weeks later, speaks of “the mass of his (Suleiman’s)

army, which is by common estimate of 300,000 men, as may be judged from

the extent of the camp, which extends ten or twelve miles in length, and

contains at least 60,000 tents or more, with such order and obedience

that, considering the great multitude, it is almost unbelievable”

(Charrière, ii. 68). In the year 1558, A. Barbarigo, 150-151, estimated

the cavalry alone at more than 300,000. Twenty-six years after Suleiman’s

death Bernardo, 331, says that the paid troops, in which he includes

the sultan’s household and the feudal army, amounted to 250,000 men.

Zinkeisen, iii. 199, estimates the extreme total of the sultan’s cavalry

alone at 565,000. Knolles (ed. 1687, p. 984), writing about 1603, says

that the sultan could always gather 150,000 Timariotes for a great

expedition. He says that the Timariotes numbered in all 719,000 fighting

men, of whom 257,000 were in Europe and 426,000 in Asia. The last two

estimates are incredibly large.

[377] _Tractatus_, ch. xi, marginal summary.

[378] La Broquière, 273.

[379] Chalcocondyles, 135.

[380] Giovio, _Commentarius_, 83 (condensed).

[381] Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 293; on p. 221 he compares Turkish

and Western soldiers most unfavorably for the latter.

[382] Postel, i. 126; see also Dandolo, 166. Georgevitz, 45, says that he

accompanied the Turkish army on an expedition against Persia (probably

1533 to 1536): “I saw a _Spahi_ decapitated together with his horse and

servant, because the horse, having been left loose, entered some one’s

field.”

[383] Postel, iii. 31, speaking particularly of the Janissaries.

[384] Morosini, 261.

[385] _The Policy of the Turkish Empire_, “To the Reader.”

[386] Junis Bey (below, pp. 274, 275) gives the order of march; Postel,

29 ff., describes the encampment.

[387] Chalcocondyles, 135, says that the Turks lodged more grandly in the

field than in peace at home.

[388] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 79.

[389] _Ibid._ 160.

[390] Other reasons have been advanced to account for the fall of Ibrahim

(cf. Postel, iii. 48 ff.). The fact that he had became a danger to the

throne is sufficient.

[391] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 438.

[392] Halil Ganem, i. 206.

[393] Ranke, 11.

[394] The _Spahis_ of the Porte, and the Janissaries were not as a body

put under a _Seraskier’s_ command until the time of Murad III: D’Ohsson,

vii. 368; Djevad Bey, i. 16.

[395] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 141.

[396] Final audience was given to the Austrian ambassadors on June 23

(_ibid._ 138), and Ibrahim marched about September 21 (_ibid._ 143).

[397] _Ibid._ 277.

[398] Postel, iii. 54, speaking of Charles V in 1535-36, says:

“The Emperor had and lost during the war against the Sofi the

fairest opportunity that ever Prince had in this world, to recover

Constantinople: for at every shaking of a leaf, all the people trembled,

and there was no guard in the city except the inhabitants and ten

thousand _Ajem-oghlans_” [these from the time of Mohammed II had been

commissioned to guard the capital during the army’s absence: D’Ohsson,

vii. 348]. Erizzo, 131, also discusses this danger, emphasizing the valor

of the Persians and the readiness of Asia Minor to revolt. The Turks

in Constantinople in 1535 feared that the expedition which Charles V

was preparing against Tunis was intended for an attack upon their city

(_Revue Africaine_, xix. 352).

[399] Suleiman in his letter to Ferdinand, November 27, 1562, says, “I,

Lord of the Orient from the land of Tsin to the extremity of Africa”:

Busbecq, _De Re Militari_, 272.

[400] Ibrahim said, “I, if I now wished it, could place Luther on one

side and the Pope on the other, and compel them to hold a council; what

Charles ought to have done, the Sultan and I will now do”: Hammer,

_Geschichte_, iii. 134.

[401] Gerlach, 257, quoted in Zinkeisen, iii. 222.

[402] Postel, iii. 19.

[403] Spandugino, 218; Postel, i. 126.

[404] D’Ohsson, vii. 202.

[405] Suleiman permitted this because of the increase it produced in his

income: Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 114; Halil Ganem, i. 197.

[406] D’Ohsson, vii. 182, 202.

[407] Ricaut, 140; D’Ohsson, vii. 287.

[408] Montesquieu, livre v, ch. xix.

[409] Postel, i. 126: “les gents de la court, qui ont leurs chefs _Aga_ &

_Bassi_ pour Iuges,” etc.

[410] Spandugino, 214 ff., relates how this came about, and says (p.

218), “No _Cadi_ can have power and authority over the slaves who receive

pay from the Seigneur.”

[411] Zane, 407; Robertson, i. 249.

[412] Hammer, _Geschichte_, i. 176, 684; ii. 674.

[413] _Ibid._ i. 96. The descendants of Michael have been among the very

few families who were constituted landed nobles in the Ottoman Empire.

Seven “endowments of the Conquerors” still exist, one of which benefits

his line: Heidborn, 314.

[414] Hammer, _Geschichte_, i. 96.

[415] _Ibid._ iii. 18.

[416] Spandugino, 13; Ramberti, below, p. 242; Junis Bey, below, p. 273.

D. Barbarigo, 19, names eight great families among whom the succession

might fall (he says that some thought it should pass through the female

line): in Rumelia four,—Micali, Ersecli, Eurenesli, Egiachiali; in

Anatolia, four,—Cheselamath, Diercauli, Durcadurli, Ramadanli, formerly

called Spendial. Ricaut, 107, says that in his time there existed an

“ancient compact” by which, in default of heirs male in the Ottoman line,

the empire was to descend to the Crimean Tartars.

[417] Ricaut, 211.

[418] _Ibid._ 129: “A Turk is never reverenced but for his Office, that

is made the sole measure and rule of his greatness and honour, without

other considerations of Vertue or Nobility.”

[419] Below, ch. vii.

[420] Above, ch. iii, under heads “Other Motives for Incorporating

Christians,” “Advancement Based on Merit.”

[421] Ricaut, 129.

[422] About the year 1800, when the two institutions, and particularly

the Ruling Institution, had reached an extreme state of decay, and

before new institutions after Western models had yet been introduced,

the Ottoman Empire was to come very near to such a breaking-up. It seems

actually to have been saved by the lingering of the tradition against

heredity in office; for, though life-tenure of purchased governorships

had become regular, no Pasha except the North African corsairs of the

seventeenth century, and Ibrahim in Egypt in the early nineteenth

century, succeeded in founding a dynasty upon Ottoman soil. For the

disorders about 1800, see Heidborn, 144.

[423] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 490-491, quoting Kochi Bey.

[424] See above, p. 69, note 3.

[425] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 278.

[426] Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 6.

[427] Postel, i. 31, says that Suleiman occasionally sent for one of his

women to visit him in the principal palace. Nicolay, 62, reports that

about 1551 Roxelana was residing within the palace grounds. By 1585 the

principal ladies of the harem had been transferred to the new palace,

leaving the old palace to the function of a training-school for recruits.

These steps illustrate the rapid increase of the importance of the harem

in the Ottoman scheme.

[428] Exceptions were made in case of the old _Hojas_, or teachers of

the young princes, the religious advisers of the queen mother, and

physicians. See Postel, i. 35; Ricaut, 68; D’Ohsson, vii. 11; Hammer,

_Staatsverwaltung_, 73.

[429] _Siasset Namèh_, 121, 123, 163.

[430] “_Kanun_ of the Imperial Table,” printed in Hammer’s

_Staatsverfassung_, 98: “It is not my _Kanun_ that any one should dine

with my Imperial Majesty; it might be some one not of Imperial blood.”

Suleiman did not always observe this _Kanun_ (cf. Hammer, _Geschichte_,

iii. 99).

[431] Erizzo, 138; Morosini, 281.

[432] Extended descriptions of the household are found in D’Ohsson, vii

and Hammer’s _Staatsverwaltung_. Lane-Poole, in his _Story of Turkey_,

ch. xiv, gives a good, clear summary of D’Ohsson. References to these

authorities are here omitted except in a few instances of special

interest.

[433] Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 71; Menavino, 179. The _Eski Serai_ of

the sixteenth century stood where the _Seraskierat_, or War Office, now

stands.

[434] D’Ohsson, v. 52.

[435] Postel, i. 32.

[436] See above, pp. 56, 57, 78, 79.

[437] Junis Bey (below, p. 269) says twenty, a number scarcely

sufficient. Twenty years earlier Menavino, 180, speaks of about forty.

[438] Ricaut, 67-68, mentions several of these.

[439] Postel, i. 35.

[440] Ricaut, 73.

[441] Hammer (_Geschichte_, ii. 222) says that the custom of

accomplishing the death of sons of daughters of sultans (by neglecting to

tie the navel cord) dates from Mohammed II; but no contemporary authority

appears to mention such a custom. D’Ohsson, vii. 93, says that it was

instituted in the time of Achmet I. The son of a sister of Selim I was

_Beylerbey_ of Aleppo about 1550 (Alberi, _Anonimo_ of 1553, 228).

[442] Ludovisi, 29; Postel, i. 31. See p. 141, note 2.

[443] Postel, i. 31.

[444] Spandugino, 64.

[445] Menavino, 137.

[446] D’Ohsson, vii. 34. Whether this number was fixed in Suleiman’s

time does not appear from the records. Mohammed II had 32 officers of

the _Khas Oda_ (Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 96). Menavino, 121-123,

names three special officers, 15 of second grade, and 35 of third grade,

before mentioning the treasury. Ramberti and Junis Bey (below, pp. 243,

263) name 6 principal officers, but do not distinguish the _odalar_

further. Chesneau, 39, says that 25 of the pages were Suleiman’s personal

servants, and that 5 served him specially. Navagero, 45, speaks of 25 or

30 in the _Khas Oda_. Ricaut, 52, speaks of 40.

[447] Ramberti and Junis Bey, as above; Postel, iii. 4; Navagero, 45.

[448] Navagero, 44.

[449] The number of pages in the _Kiler Odassi_ is given by Menavino,

125, as 25, all between 20 and 22 years of age. Navagero, 44, says that

they numbered 300 or 400; but this is incredible. He gives no numbers for

the purely educational _odalar_, and evidently has counted them all in

the _Kiler Odassi_.

[450] Hammer (_Staatsverwaltung_, 30) erroneously says that the pages

of these _odalar_ attended to the lowest duties of the palace, and were

recruited from three palace schools outside. Navagero, 44, disproves this.

[451] An additional chamber, the _Seferli Odassi_, or Chamber of

Campaign, was instituted by Murad IV to attend to his laundry work and

other special duties in time of war. The membership was chosen out of the

educational _odalar_, and it ranked next after the _Kiler Odassi_. See

Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 28.

[452] Ricaut, 47.

[453] Ramberti, below, p. 255.

[454] Ramberti and Junis Bey, below, pp. 245, 264.

[455] Menavino, 160 ff.

[456] Zinkeisen, iii. 181, states erroneously on the authority of

Trevisano, 125 (meaning p. 128), that these were all Turks and of noble

blood. The fact that Menavino, 146, calls them “schiaui” is sufficient

disproof. Zinkeisen also quotes Spandugino, 114, to the effect that

the _Muteferrika_ were all lords, or sons of princes or of lords; but

Spandugino, 62, says that pages pass to the office of _Muteferrika_ from

the highest four offices at least. Trevisano, 127, says, “Li quali sono

giovani nati Turchi, _e figliuoli d’uomini di autorità_” (italics not in

original); but “men of authority” were practically all renegades. Moro,

341, calls them, in 1590, sons of the principal Turks. The fact seems to

be that most of the _Muteferrika_ were Ottomans of the second generation

(_i. e._, sons of renegades) and that the rest were regarded as ennobled

by passage through the high offices of the _Khas Oda_.

[457] Menavino, 155 (he says they were Persians); Nicolay, 98; Ramberti,

below, p. 251.

[458] Spandugino, 116, gives the number 300, and says that they became

Janissaries. Menavino, 140, mentions 500. Ramberti (pp. 246, 253)

mentions 250 at the principal palace and 100 at the palace of the harem;

the latter he calls Janissaries.

[459] Junis Bey, below, p. 265.

[460] Spandugino, 125.

[461] Postel, iii. 9.

[462] Ricaut, 373. In his time they numbered 500 or 600.

[463] Junis Bey, 263. Ramberti, 245, speaks of 35, which is clearly too

few.

[464] Postel, iii. 11.

[465] Menavino, 129. In D’Ohsson’s time (vii. 15) this official was also

the jailer and presiding executioner of the palace, inspector of the

water supply and forests near the capital, and overseer of hunting and

fishing and of the trade in wine and lime. How many of these functions he

exercised under Suleiman seems not to have been recorded. In Spandugino’s

time (p. 118) the chief _Kapuji_ was presiding executioner.

[466] Ramberti, 251; Junis Bey, 268.

[467] Menavino, 150. They were not _kullar_. Cf. the _Zainogiler_, below,

pp. 252, 268.

[468] Shortened in use to _Miri-akhor_, _Imrakhor_, _Imbrahor_,

_Imbroor_, _Imror_, etc.

[469] D’Ohsson, vii. 17; Menavino, 148-150.

[470] A short form of _Emir-Alem_.

[471] Menavino, 145.

[472] D’Ohsson, vii. 21. In his time these were under the “Chief of the

Black Eunuchs.” It does not appear who controlled them under Suleiman.

[473] Postel, iii. 12; Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 44.

[474] Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 37.

[475] Spandugino, 127-128, describes the hunting organization under

Bayezid II. Ramberti and Junis Bey (below, pp. 249, 266) state that 2700

or 900 Janissaries served under the _Segban-bashi_ and _Zagarji-bashi_ in

the care of the dogs.

[476] D’Ohsson, iv. 98 ff.

[477] _Siasset Namèh_, 161.

[478] _Tractatus_, ch. ix.

[479] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 88 ff.

[480] _Ibid._, 434 ff.

[481] The statements of this paragraph are based upon the _Kanuni

Teshrifat_ as given in Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 434 ff. See Della

Valle, i. 45: “Tutti gli uffici, e tutti gli ordini, tanto della militia,

quanto della Corte, e d’ogni altra sorte di persone, hanno qui il loro

habito proprio, and in particolare al portamento della testa, si cognosce

ciascuno che cosa è.”

[482] Postel, iii. 13; Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 18.

[483] Ricaut, 156.

[484] The festival of the Birth of the Prophet was not instituted until

the reign of Murad III (Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 469). The sultan’s

annual visit to the relics of the Prophet also became a great ceremony.

[485] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 96-101. Only less splendid was the

marriage of Ibrahim to Suleiman’s sister in 1524 (_ibid._ 38).

[486] Compare Gritti, 27: the Janissaries at the reception of ambassadors

“stand in such quiet and order as for war that it is a marvellous thing

and not to be believed by those who have not seen it with their own eyes.”

[487] Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 152 ff.

[488] A name for Cairo, used much from the time of the crusades onward.

[489] Nicolay, 88-89, explains that the wearing of ostrich plumes,

attached in a tube of jeweled gold to the front of the turban, and

curving over the head and down the back, was a highly-valued privilege

accorded only to such Janissaries as had distinguished themselves in

action.

[490] The _Solaks_.

[491] The _Sharabdar_, the _Chokadar_, and the _Silihdar_.

[492] Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 283 ff.

[493] _Ibid._, 302 ff. These quotations may profitably be compared with

those from the _Tractatus_ in regard to the simplicity of Murad II

(above, p. 134). Not a few descriptions of court and camp ceremonies in

the century following the accession of Suleiman have been handed down.

For example: Suleiman’s entry into Belgrade in 1532 (Marini Sanuto, lvi.

870); Suleiman’s entry into Aleppo, 1548 (anonymous report, in Alberi,

3d series, i. 224 ff.); Suleiman’s reception of Captain Pinon in 1544

(Maurand, 207-225); Selim II’s reception of De Noailles in 1573 (Du

Fresne-Canaye, 59-72); Ahmed I’s going to mosque, 1614 (Della Valle,

68-71); Ahmed I’s reception of the Venetian _Bailo_, 1615 (_ibid._ 98

ff.).

[494] Postel, i. 31, speaks of the mother of Mustapha as having superior

authority about 1537, though residing much at Magnesia; and he does not

speak of Roxelana. But Ludovisi, 29, shows that Roxelana was in 1534 the

wife of Suleiman, and that the mother of Mustapha then resided with her

son at Magnesia. For the decisive quarrel between Roxelana and the mother

of Mustapha, see Navagero, 75.

[495] Navagero, 79.

[496] Described above, pp. 93-95.

[497] Navagero, 76-77.

[498] The unfortunate Jehangir also was thought to have come to his

death from shock at the death of Mustapha and fear of a similar fate for

himself. See Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 178; Navagero, 77. But see

Alberi, _Anonimo_ of 1553, 216, for another and more credible account.

[499] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 425.

[500] See above, pp. 78, 120.

[501] Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 331; Halil Ganem, i. 199.

[502] Spandugino, 185. A generation earlier still La Broquière, 186,

said: “No one speaks to them [the pashas] unless he brings them a

present, as well as one for each of the slaves who guard their gate.”

[503] Spandugino, 145, relates how in his time the peasants were eaten,

as it were, all the year by tithes, compulsory presents, land-tax,

and extortion. The earlier sixteenth-century writers seem not to

have observed that the sultan’s subjects were especially miserable.

Morosini (1585), 272, remarks vigorously upon the tyranny and oppression

which were causing depopulation and destroying the incentive of the

farm-dwellers to produce more than a bare sustenance. Zane (1595), 395,

415, writes in a similar vein. Gerlach, 52 (quoted in Zinkeisen, iii.

361), found those who lived at a distance from Constantinople in a

wretched state of oppression. Knolles (ed. 1687, p. 982), writing about

1603, speaks of the desolate condition of the empire, especially in

those regions through which the army was accustomed to pass. In Ricaut’s

time (pp. 124, 145, 323) agricultural decline, accompanied by misery and

depopulation, was apparent.

[504] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 438.

[505] D’Ohsson, i. 268; Heidborn, 112, note 11. Heidborn, 106-121, treats

fully the constitutional position of the sultan.

[506] Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 226.

[507] D’Ohsson, iv. 482 ff.

[508] Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 1-3.

[509] _Ibid._ i. 557, iii. 159, etc.

[510] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 29. This use of the word _Urf_ in

Turkish is not the same as that of its Arabic original (see Redhouse,

1294; Youssouf Fehmi, 237). Heidborn, 37 ff., discusses the sources of

Ottoman law, giving an especially thorough and excellent treatment to the

Sacred Law.

[511] Macdonald, 71; D’Ohsson, i. 5 ff.

[512] Macdonald, 94, 115; Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 4; D’Ohsson, i. 11

ff.

[513] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 9.

[514] D’Ohsson, 21.

[515] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 10; D’Ohsson, i. 22-24. The

_Multeka_ is the basis of D’Ohsson’s excellent work, which consists

of a translation of the code with its comments, to which he has added

observations of great value based on historical studies and on his own

investigations during many years’ residence in Turkey. Heidborn, 44-69,

gives a detailed account of the development of the Sacred Law. He also

(pp. 85-89) describes the _Multeka_ and gives a table of its contents.

[516] Heidborn, 40-41. This writer uses the form _fykyh_.

[517] Snouck Hurgronje, in _Revue de l’Histoire des Religions_, xxvii. 1

ff., 74 ff.

[518] Goldziher, in _Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft_,

viii. 406 ff.; Kohler, _ibid._ 424 ff.; Juynboll, 8, 310.

[519] In Turkey at the present day the courts of the Sacred Law

(_Sheriyeh_) have sole cognizance of the following classes of cases: “in

civil law, questions concerning marriage, alimony, education of children,

liberty, slavery, inheritance, wills, absence, and disappearance; in

criminal law, suits concerning retaliation, the price of blood, the

price of laming a limb, the price of causing an abortion, damages for

disfigurements, the division of the price of blood” (Heidborn, 255).

The _Nizamiyeh_, or secular courts, have sole cognizance of commercial

and penal cases, and a few other groups. All other causes are taken

before the _Sheriyeh_ courts if the parties agree; otherwise before the

_Nizamiyeh_ courts. Thus the courts of the Sacred Law still retain a

great deal of importance in Turkey.

[520] See, in particular, above, pp. 40, 41, 42. See also Postel, i. 116

ff., 124 ff.; Ricaut, 200 ff. Heidborn, 43, comments on this state of

affairs, and explains the comparatively recent further legal developments

in Turkey as follows:—

“Durant de longs siècles le fykyh, tout pétrifié qu’il était, put suffire

aux besoins de la société islamique et son manque de souplesse fut

d’autant moins ressenti, que l’évolution de cette société elle-mème a été

à peu près nulle. Assoupie dans une léthargie profonde, elle semble se

recueillir de son immense effort de jeunesse et contempler en spectatrice

indifférente ou dédaigneuse les progrès réalisés, depuis, par l’Occident.

En Turquie seulement, à mesure que se resserraient ses liens avec

l’Europe, fut comprise l’impérieuse nécessité de sortir de cet isolement

et d’emprunter à la culture occidentale certaines méthodes susceptibles

de rajeunir le corps vielli de l’empire. Par suite de cette orientation

récente, le fykyh a subi, en Turquie, d’importantes abrogations de fait

sinon de droit, qui atteignent cependant plutôt le domaine du droit

public que celui du droit privé. Celui-ci subsiste, dans une large

mesure, malgré ses imperfections et son absence de plan et de clarté. On

s’est contenté de combler ses lacunes les plus apparentes par des lois

empruntées à la législation occidentale, sans se soucier de la complète

disparate créée par la réunion d’éléments aussi hétérogènes.”

[521] D’Ohsson, i. 261, v. 11.

[522] Macdonald, 66; Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 12.

[523] Heidborn, 69.

[524] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 14; Heidborn, 71.

[525] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 32; D’Ohsson, i. 291.

[526] Ricaut, 202; Steen de Jehay, 13 ff.

[527] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 31.

[528] In the course of time the development of civil courts in the

Ottoman Empire has relegated the former judicial system to the position

of ecclesiastical courts with jurisdiction similar to that of Christian

church courts of the Middle Ages. See Macdonald, 113; and above, p. 154,

note 2.

[529] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 30.

[530] _Ibid._ 31.

[531] For an example of this practice, see _ibid._ 343.

[532] _Ibid._ 2.

[533] _Ibid._ 29.

[534] Heidborn, 90.

[535] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 31; in pages 219-327 are found the

_Kanun-namehs_ of all the _sanjaks_.

[536] _Ibid._ 87-101.

[537] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 480.

[538] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_: 101-143, the _Kanun-nameh Misr_;

143-162, police and market laws of Suleiman; 187-211, _Kanuni Rayah_;

337-434, _Kanuni Timar_. Hammer does not make it clear where he found

particular _Kanuns_, or how completely he has presented the originals;

nor has he attempted to distinguish _Kanuns_ of Suleiman from those of

earlier and later sultans. The _Kanuni Rayah_ was not made into a formal

_Kanun-nameh_ till 1614 (_ibid._ 211). See Heidborn, 91-92.

[539] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 142.

[540] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 39.

[541] A translation of a portion of the table of contents of this

collection, as found in the manuscript Fluegel No. 1816, in the Imperial

Library at Vienna, is given in Appendix III, below. This shows by

comparison with the headings in Hammer’s _Staatsverfassung_, 396-424,

that Hammer has there translated at least one-half of the manuscript,

though he appears to attribute these sections to the _Kanun-nameh_ of

Achmet I (_ibid._ 384). The table of contents of the latter collection of

laws is very different (see next note).

[542] The _Kanun-nameh_ of Achmet I, issued in 1619, contained

collections of (1) feudal laws; (2) laws of the army, the navy, the

outer and the inner service; (3) laws of police, finance, and fiefs. See

Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, pp. xviii, xix.

[543] This statement is based on information obtained from a gentleman

long resident in Turkey.

[544] Zinkeisen, iii. 161 ff.

[545] Macdonald, 10.

[546] Hammer, _Geschichte_, i. 96.

[547] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 32.

[548] D’Ohsson, i. 258 ff.

[549] “The dignity of the Imâmate does not absolutely demand that the

Imâm be just, virtuous, or irreproachable, or that he be the most

eminent and the most excellent of the human beings of his time” (from

the _Multeka_, quoted by D’Ohsson, i. 271); “Vices or tyranny in an

Imâm do not demand his deposition” (_ibid._ 288). This is the doctrine

of orthodox Islam, as the outcome of the early Kharijite schisms. The

Shiites are more critical as regards their sovereigns, who are not

regarded as _Imâms_.

[550] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 32; D’Ohsson, i. 291.

[551] Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 331-333; D’Ohsson, iv. 50 ff.

[552] Busbecq, i. 331; D’Ohsson, iv. 103, 280.

[553] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 71, 486.

[554] _Ibid._ ii. 216-217, 223.

[555] _Ibid._ i. 565, ii. 223.

[556] See above, pp. 58, 59.

[557] A. Barbarigo, 155; D. Barbarigo, 26; Bernardo, 326; Erizzo, 136.

[16] _Ottoman_ is an attempt to pronounce _Othman_ by those who pronounce