The Policy of Mehmed II toward the Greek Population of Istanbul and the Byzantine Buildings of the City Author(s): Halil Inalcik Source: Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 23/24 (1969/1970), pp. 229-249 Published by: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1291293 . Accessed: 24/12/2010 03:28 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=doaks. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact
[email protected].
Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Dumbarton Oaks Papers.
http://www.jstor.org
THE POLICY OF MEHMED II TOWARD THE GREEK POPULATION OF ISTANBUL AND THE BYZANTINE BUILDINGS OF THE CITY HALIL INALCIK
This paper was preparedforthe Symposiumentitled"After the Fall of Constantinople,"held at Dumbarton Oaks in May 1968. Owing to unforeseencircumstances,Professor Inalcik was unable to be present,and his paper was read by ProfessorR. J. H. Jenkins. The Publications Commitee
Note:In transliterating theTurkish, Arabic,and PersianwordsI have followed
the systemused in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, new edition,with the following exceptions: = j, ~= ch, 1 = 1, ) = sh, = q, ~ = kh. The long vowels are renderedwith the sign^. I am greatlyindebtedto Dr. V. L. M1nage forhis translationof this paper fromTurkishinto English and forhis many valuable suggestions. H. I.
HENin thespringof1453theOttomanSultanMehmedII appeared
withhis immensearmybeforeits walls, Constantinoplewas a halfruinedcity whose population might at the most have numbered thousand. As A. M. Schneiderhas shown,'fromthetimeoftheLatin occupafifty declineduntilit was nowin effectno more tionin 1204the cityhad progressively than a collectionofvillages.Alreadyby the seventhdecade of the fourteenth had formedonlya small centuryConstantinopleand itsimmediateneighborhood underOttomanrule,withitscommunications islandsurroundedby territories by sea and its seabornetradeunderthe controloftheItalian maritimestates.Economicallytoo the Ottoman capitals of Brusa and Adrianoplehad begun to overshadowthe formerimperialcenter. The old silk route fromPersia via Trebizondto Constantinoplehad, by the end of the fourteenth century,been divertedto Brusa, which had then become the principal trading-center in Orientalproductsforthe Genoesemerchantsof Galata, and towardwhichboth thesilkcaravansfromPersia and thespicecaravansfromSyria nowconverged.2 In short,Constantinoplewas the dead centerof a dead empire,which George Scholariusdescribedbeforeits fall as "a city of ruins,poor, and largelyun"3 inhabited.' Mehmed II did not wish that the city which he envisaged as the future capital of his empireshould pass into his hands, aftersack, as a mere heap of ruins. In addressingto the Emperor Constantinehis threeinvitationsto surrenderthe city he was, it is true,merelyobeyinga preceptof the Muslim Holy Law; but at the same time he was hopingto win a city whichhad not been exposed to pillage. To conquer the city by force--thelegal term is 'anwatan-would inevitablylead to pillageand destruction;forthisis a precept of the Holy Law; and no rulercould rob the fighters forthe faithofthisright to sack, whichwas grantedto themby Allah. On the otherhand, the Sultan was underpressureto bringmattersto a swiftconclusion.The Venetianfleet was at sea; rumorsthat the Hungarianswould break the state of truce and marchintothe Balkans werecausinguneasinessin the Ottomancamp; and the GrandVizierChandarliKhalil Pasha was pressingforthe abandonmentof the wholeenterprise.4 At last, aftera councilofwar had been summonedto make thefinaldecision,the Sultancalledfora generalassault and proclaimedthatthe citywas givenover to sack; a decisiondependent,accordingto the Holy Law, upon the permissionof the imdm,the leader of the Muslimcommunity. This proclamationwas, of course,welcomedby the Muslimtroops,but it is clear that the Sultan had been reluctantto make it. Accordingto Ducas,5
"Die BevolkerungKonstantinopelsim XV. Jh.," Nachrichtender Akad. der Wiss. in G6ttingen, Phil.-Hist. Klasse (1949), No. 9, 234-44. ' H. Inalclk, "Bursa and the Commerceof the Levant," Journalof theSocial and EconomicHistory the Orient,3 (1960), 131-47. of 3 Schneider,op. cit., 236. ve vesikalar(Ankara, 1954), 126-32. 4 H. Inalcik, Fatih devriiizerindetetkikler 5 Bonn ed., 280; ed. V. Grecu, 349-51. 1
232
HALIL
INALCIK
the ambassadorwhomhe sentintothecitybeforeissuingthe proclamationhad put forwardthese argumentsto induce the Emperor to submit: "Are you willingto abandon the city and depart for whereveryou like, togetherwith yournoblesand theirproperty,leavingbehindthe commonpeople unharmed both by us and by you? Or do you wish that throughyour resistance... the commonpeople should be enslaved by the Turks and scatteredover all the world?" Aftertheconquestthe Sultan summonedto his presencethe Megadux Lucas Notaras and asked him why he had not persuaded the Emperor to surrenderthe city,in whichcase, he added angrily,it would have been saved fromall damage and destruction.The Megadux repliedthat theyhad indeed been ready to surrender,but that to do so was no longerin the Emperor's power or his own, forthe Italians assistingin the defensehad flatlyrefused to consent.6Notaras,as is well known,was frequentlyat odds withthe Italian defendersduringthe siege.An earlyOttomansourceconfirms the reportof the historian on "When this sector of the walled citywas Byzantine every point: on thepointofbeingdestroyed,the EmperorsummonedLucas; theyconsulted togetherand took measuresforthe surrender.But the Frankishinfidelswere offended and protested;'We willdefendthe city;we willnot surrender it to the Muslims,'and theypersistedin continuingthe fight."' The Ottoman Sultan, as a Muslimruler,was obliged to act in conformity with the Muslim Holy Law, the shari'a. The sharica decrees that if a communityof ahl al-kitdb(literally,"people ofthe Book," in effect,Christiansand and continuesto resist,they Jews)rejectstheobligatoryinvitationto surrender are to be treatedas mushrik's(literally,"those who admit partners[to God]," in effect,polytheists).When they have been subdued "by force"-,anwatan, qahran-no rightsare concededto them: theirgoods are legitimatebooty and they and theirchildrenare reduced to slavery. In the division of movable property,the Muslimruleras imdm-one mightsay, the state-is entitledto one fifth.8 a different Immovableproperty-realestate--represents categoryof to a which before the rise of the Ottomans booty.9According principle long had been accepted in Islamic land law, the freeholdpossession over land, whetheracquiredby forceor by peacefuloccupation,belongedto the baytalmdl,the state treasury;in otherwords,the land belongedto the state. The Ottomans,whose militaryand administrativeorganizationreposedupon the timdr(feudal) system,adopted this principlein all its implications;even to propoundingthat an estatewhichhad been made vaqf(i.e., placed in mortmain forthe supportof a pious object) might,if the pious object ceased to exist, revertto the freeholdpossessionof the state. We shall see later how, in the last decade of his reign,MehmedII, relyingon this theory,"nationalized" a large proportionof vaqfestates.
Sphrantzes,Bonn ed., 291f.; cf. Chalcocondyles,Bonn ed., 390. 7 Oxford,Bodl. Marsh 313. On this work, see V. L. M6nage, Neshri's History of the Ottomans (London, 1964), 11-14. 8 For the jihdd (Holy War) and its consequences, see the section Kitdb al-siyar in Islamic legal textbooks,especiallyin al-Durar by Molla Khusrev, who was qkddi'asker in the reign of Mehmed II; also M. Khadduri, War and Peace in theLaw ofIslam (Baltimore,1955), 125ff. 9 F. Lokkegaard, Islamic Taxation in theClassic Period (Copenhagen,1950), 38-92. 6
POLICY
OF MEHMED
II IN ISTANBUL
233
An Ottomansourcereportsthat the Sultan proclaimedthe assault and sack in these terms:"The stonesand the land of the city and the city's appurtenances belong to me; all other goods and property,prisoners,and foodstuffs are booty forthe troops."10So Ducas also, who is well-informed in Ottoman that the reserved Sultan the walls and affairs,reports" buildingsforhimself but leftall the movable propertyto the troops. The Sultan had grantedpermissionfor threedays of sack, but it is clear that he put an end to thepillageon the eveningofthefirstday.12The Ottoman and theByzantinesourcesagreein reportingthathe feltprofoundsadnessas he touredthe looted and enslaved city.13Not withoutsignificance are the stories told by contemporary sourcesof the sharp punishmentswhichhe decreedfor soldierscaughtdestroyingbuildings.14 Accordingto TursunBeg,15who was in the Sultan's entourageduringthose days, beforeleaving the city Mehmed II proclaimed"to his viziers and his commandersand his officers that henceforthhis capital was to be Istanbul" and orderedthe buildingof a palace. The wordfreelytranslatedhereas "capital" is takht,literally"throne": "My throneis Istanbul." Ever since the time of the steppe empiresof CentralAsia, a districtcalled "takht-ili,"the "throne region," had been for the Turks a specificregion where the khaqan's (emthe seat of the khaqan'sauthority;and the perors)resided,a sacred territory, most importantprerequisitefor claiming the title of khaqan was de facto occupation of this "throneregion." This attitudecorrespondsto the Roman conceptof imperialauthority.In 1466 Georgeof Trebizond,in a letterto the Sultan,wrote: "No one doubtsthat you are emperorof the Romans. Whoever holdsby rightthecenteroftheEmpireis emperor,and thecenterofthe Roman Empire is Istanbul."15a MehmedII and his successorsregardedthemselves, throughtheirpossessionof the throneof theCaesars,as emperorsof Rome and whichthe emperorshad formerly ruled. legitimateheirsto all the territories Thus, to MehmedII, whose ambitionwas to establish a worldwideempire, Istanbul providednot merelya strategiccenter,but also an essentialpolitical and legal basis. It is forthis reason that throughouthis reignone of his main the half-deserted and ruined preoccupationsand ambitionswas to transform 10
appendix to Ta'rikh-iOsmdniEnjiimeni TAji-zAdeJa 'ferChelebi,Mahrilse-iIstanbulFethnudmesi,
Mejmuasz (hereafter TOEM)
(A. H. 1331), 19.
11Bonn ed., 281. The tale that the entirecity,or part of it, surrenderedon termsis a fictioninvented later to give a legal coloringto the fact that Mehmed II leftsome churchesin the possession of the Greeks; the mu/ft(head of the ulema) and, naturally,the Patriarch were willing to give it official sanction.The question is fullydiscussedby J. H. Mordtmann,"Die Kapitulation von Konstantinopel im Jahre 1453," Byz. Zeitschrift, 21 (1912), 129-44; Mordtmannthinksthat the peace negotiations beforethe final assault may have helped to give rise to the story. It is discussed most recently by S. Runciman, The Fall of Constantinople,z453 (Cambridge,1965), 153, 157, 199, 204; Runciman that since the quarters of the city were separated by extensiveopen spaces, it was suggests (p. 153) possible forthe local officialsof some quartersto make a last-minutesubmission. 12 Runciman, op. cit., 148. 13 Tursun Beg, Ta'rikh-i Aba'l-Fath, appendix to TOEM (1927), 57; Critoboulos,ed. V. Grecu (Bucharest,1963), 149, Englishtrans. C. T. Riggs (Princeton,1954), 76f. 14 Ducas reports (Bonn ed., 298) that the Sultan himselfdrew his sword on a soldier damaging the pavement of Aya Sofya. 15Op. cit., 59. 15saF.
Babinger, MehmedderErobererund seine Zeit (Munich,1953), 266.
234
HALIL
INALCIK
capital of the Caesars,whichhe had conquered,into a fittingcenterforthis worldempirewhichhe soughtto create; to rebuildit, to repopulateit, and to raise it to the status of a vital economicand politicalmetropolis.The most faithfulaccount of the Sultan's sustainedand vigorousactivityin promoting theregeneration of Istanbulis providedby Critoboulos;whilein this,as well as in otherrespects,the most importantOttomansourceis Tursun.The details they give, when supplementedby and compared with Ottoman documents relatingto vaqf'sand Ottomanarchiveregisters, presenta clearpictureofhow the Sultan refoundedIstanbul accordingto the traditionsand the institutions of a Turco-Islamiccity. Here we shall examine only the treatmentwhich,in order to furtherthis aim, he accorded to the Greeks and the policy which he pursuedin dealingwiththe Byzantinebuildingsand siteswhichhad come into his possession. a conqueredcity, thatthe Ottomans,in reorganizing It mustbe remembered followeda series of establishedprinciples.Accordingto the sharil'a,the inhabitantsof a cityor townwhichhad respondedto the invitationto surrender were left undisturbedin theirhomes, with the status of dhimmi,and their lives, theirpossessions,and the practiceof theirreligionwere fullyprotected by the Islamic state. By a preceptof the sharl'a, "if they accept the jizya [i.e., the poll tax], that whichis due to us [Muslims]is due also to them,and that which is obligatoryupon us is obligatoryalso upon them";16 in other words,aftera Christianpopulationhad agreedto pay the supplementarydue of thejizya, to whichMuslimswere not liable,they obtained fromthe imdm exactlythe same rightsand obligationsas the Muslimsenjoyed. Bertrandonde La Broquiere,who in 1432 travelledthroughEastern Thrace along the old imperialroad betweenConstantinopleand Adrianople,speaking of the townsthen occupied by the Ottomans" reportsof some of themthat their citadels were destroyedand that they were newly populated, either entirelyby Turks,or by Turks and Greekstogether,whereasotherswere inhabited entirelyby Greeks.When we consultthe old Ottomanchronicles,we findthat thetownsinhabitedby Greeksare always thosewhichhad responded to the summonsto surrender.An earlyOttomanchronicler'swrites: [Murad I] marchedagainst the fortresstown of Banatoz [Panados]. The infidelsthereimmediatelysurrenderedthe fortresswithoutfighting, and Murid securedthemin theirformerabodes. Then he wentagainstChorlu [Tzouroullos];theinfidelsfoughthard,but finallythelordofthetownwas struckin the eye by an arrow and they were left helpless. The troops swept into the fortress,therewas great looting,and they destroyedthe fortifications. Then theycame to Misini[Mesene];and its lord came forth withgiftsto meet the Sultan. 1e Mevqafdti Sherhi (Istanbul, A. H. 1318), I, 340. 17 Le ed. Schefer
voyaged'outremer, Ch. (Paris, 1892), 169-70. 18Gihdnniuma,die altosmanischeChronik des Mevland MehemmedNeschri, ed. F. Taeschner, I (Codex Menzel) (Leipzig,1951),52-53. Cf.H. Inalcik,"Ottoman MethodsofConquest,"Studia Islamica, 2 (1954), 112-29.
POLICY
OF MEHMED
II IN ISTANBUL
235
De La Broquibredescribesthe citadel of Chorluas beingin ruinsand the town as beingrepopulatedby Turks and Greeks;Mesene,however,was "une petite place ferm6e[i.e., walled] et n'y demeurentque Grecz"; on the otherhand he says of "Pirgasi" (Pyrgos),whichhad been taken by forceof arms: "tous les mursabattus et n'y demeureque les Turcz." A secondprinciplewhichthe Ottomanshad observedfromthe earliestdays in theirreorganizationof newlyconqueredterritories was that of compulsory resettlement.19Sixteenth-century decrees orderingsuch resettlement20 show that it serveda varietyof social, political,and economicpurposes: to restore to prosperitya desertedcountrysideor a ruinedcity,to restoreto production a potential source of wealth, to move people froman overpopulatedto an underpopulatedregion,to provide a means of livelihoodto a landless comand breakup a rebelliouspopulamunity,and to removeto a distantterritory tion or a refractory tribeof nomads. When townsfolkwere subjectedto coma certainproportionofthe population,e.g., the members pulsoryresettlement, of one householdin ten,were selectedby the qddi of the town and its prefect (subasht),theirnames and descriptionswere recordedin a register,and they weredeportedto theirnew home.Therethe deporteesenjoyeda special status; fora specifiedperiodtheywere exemptfromtaxation but were forbiddento move elsewhere.It was a recurrentcause of complaintthat,in the course of such deportations,wealthyand influentialindividualswho were reluctantto abandon theirhomes managed to win over the local authoritiesand procure theirown exemption;but the centralauthoritiesknew well how essentialto the rehabilitationof a city were merchantsand craftsmen,and the Sultans made it a principalpointof policyto resettle,especiallyin theircapital cities, men of influence,wealthymerchants,and skilledcraftsmen ofnewlyconquered territories. had been takenbyforce,the Sultandid not hesitate, AlthoughConstantinople by usinghis authorityas sovereign,to institutevarious measureswhichmitigated the grievousconsequencesthat mightotherwisehave arisenfromthis. The preliminarymeasureswhichhe took beforeleaving forAdrianopleon 21 Juneconcernedthe defenseof the city and its repopulation.First,says Critoboulos,21he presentedsplendidhouses to all his dignitariesand officers, "and to some of themhe even gave beautifulchurchesfortheirresidences."Then he settled the fifthof the enslaved Greeks-his share as ruler-"along the shoresof the cityharbor,"i.e., presumably,mainlyin the Phanar region."He gave themhouses and exemptedthemfromtaxes for a specifiedtime.... He also issued a proclamationto all those who had paid theirown ransom,or who promisedto pay it to theirmasterswithina limitedtime,that theymight live in the city; to them too he grantedfreedomfromtaxes and gave them houses,eithertheirown or thoseof others." So, too, some of the nobilitywere grantedhousesand wereresettled.On the questionofrepopulatingthe citythe -9Inalclk, "Ottoman Methods of Conquest," loc. cit. 20 Ibid., 122-29. 21Ed. Grecu, 159; trans. Riggs, 83.
HALIL
236
INALCIK
Sultan soughtthe advice of Notaras. He had thought,indeed,of makinghim prefectof the cityand "puttinghimin chargeof its repopulation,"but abandoned thisidea. (We shall returnto the positionof Notaras, forit has an importantbearingon the Sultan's changeof policytowardthe Greeks.) Furthermeasureswere taken to promotethe repopulationof the city. As Critoboulosreports,22 "When the Sultan had capturedthe city of Constantinople,almosthis veryfirstcare was to have the cityrepopulated."A number of buildingprojects had to be undertakenwithoutdelay: the repair of the walls,23the constructionof a citadel (Yedikule), and the buildingof a palace forhimselfin the Forum Tauri in the centerof the city. For this work he used his Greek slaves, paying them a fairlygood wage (six aspers or more, so that they could ransom correspondingto the daily pay of a Janissary24) themselveswith theirearningsand settle as freemen in the city. He had recoursealso to compulsoryresettlement, Muslims, issuingordersthat Christians, and Jewsshouldbe sent to the cityfromeveryterritory ofhis domains;Ducas states more explicitly25 that he commandedthat five thousand households be deported to Istanbul by September.Before leaving for Adrianople he appointed KarishtiranSiileymanBeg as prefectof the city; "He put him in chargeof everthing,but particularlyof the repopulationof the city,and instructedhim to be very zealous about this matter."26From a letterof 16 August, published by N. Iorga,27we learn that the citadels of Silivri and Galata had been destroyedand their populations deportedto Istanbul. In order to encouragepeople to settle in the city, the Sultan proclaimedthat whoevercame of his own accord, be he rich or poor, could select whatever abandoned house or mansion he chose, and be grantedthe freeholdof it. Tursun,who reportsthis,28adds that numerouspeople on hearingthisinvitation came and occupied houses and mansions;but rich merchants,not being in need, did not leave theirhomesand ignoredthe invitation. The Sultanreturnedto Istanbulin theautumnof1453 to surveytheprogress made in the projectswhichhe had initiated.29 The chronologyof his activities afterthe conquesthas alwaysbeen confused.Duringthissecondstay in Istanbul he appointed (6 January1454) George Scholariospatriarch.30 According to Sphrantzes,he did thissimply"in orderto encouragethose Christianswho had fledto returnand settle in Istanbul." This was no doubt an important factorin the Sultan's decision;but the Ottomansultans were always careful to representthemselvesas protectorsof the Orthodox Church against the Ed. Grecu, 171; trans. Riggs, 93. There is an importantdocumentin the ArchivesofTopkapi Sarayl, No. E. 11975,relatingto this. 24Die Aufzeichnungen des Genuesenlacopo de Promontorio-de Campis i*berden Osmanenstaatum 22
23
ed. F. Babinger (Munich, 1957), 36. 25 Bonn ed., 313.
1475,
26 Ed.
Grecu, 163; trans. Riggs, 85. l'histoiredes croisadesau XVe siecle,IV (Bucharest, 1915), 67.
27 Notes et extraitspour servird
28
Op. cit., 60.
29 Critoboulos,ed.
Grecu, 169-75; trans. Riggs, 89-95. 30Runciman (op. cit., 155) is somewhathesitantabout this date, but according to the chronology of Critoboulosthe Patriarchwas appointed in the winterof 1453/4.
POLICY
OF MEHMED
II IN ISTANBUL
237
Latins. Documentsdating frombeforethe fall of Constantinople31 show that an Orthodoxmetropolitanor bishop in Ottomanterritories was appointedby officialpatent (berdt)of the Sultan and mighteven, like otherOttomanfunctionaries,be assigned a timdr.It is thus easily understandablethat, in the courseof theOttomanexpansion,Orthodoxpriestsfrequently cooperatedwith the Ottomansagainst the Venetians.This policy of the Ottomanswas in no way contraryto the shar 'a or to the Muslimtraditionof the state. afterappointingthe Patriarch,the Sultan went Accordingto Critoboulos,32 to Brusa where,in the courseof a residenceof thirty-five days, he dealt with "all that had to do with local disturbances,revoltsof leaders and peoples," and dismissedsome governors.It is not difficult to see what lay behindthese sternmeasures.We knowthat wealthycitizensof Brusa resisteddeportation; nor should it be forgotten that,duringthis period in the historyof this importantcommercialand industrialcity,the guildsand the merchantsengaged in the rich silk trade and industrycould feelthemselvespowerfulenough to attemptto resistthe Sultan's orders.They failed; forthereis documentary evidence3that deportationsfromBrusa werecarriedout and that the majority of these deporteesplayed the main role in the establishmentof the township ofEytib.The Sultan returnedagain to Istanbul,and shortlyafterward"he set out forAdrianoplein thewinter."34 Some yearslater,in 1459,the Sultantookextraordinary measuresto promote the prosperityand repopulationof Istanbul.35Chiefamongthemwas his summoningof the dignitariesto his presenceand commandingeach to found,in the quarterof his choice, a buildingcomplexconsistingof pious foundations -that is, a theologicalcollege,a school,a public kitchen,all groupedaround a mosque-and of such commercialbuildingsas a caravansary,a khan,and a market.The promotionof commerceand the increaseof populationwere consideredto be dependentupon the creationof such facilities.In the following years the Sultan himself,the Grand Vizier MahmfidPasha, and otherviziers and dignitariesfoundedsuch buildingcomplexesat variouspointsin the city, each groupedarounda mosque; and each such centerbecame the nucleusof a new quarter.36 At the end of 1459 MehmedII sentout ordersthat Greekswho, See, e. g., Saret-idefter-i sancak-iArvanid,ed. H. Inalclk (Ankara, 1954), Nos. 148, 162, 186, 200. Ed. Grecu, 175; trans. Riggs, 95. 33 In the register(No. A. 3/3)of the qddi of Bursa. 4 I.e., earlyin 1454. For a critiqueof F. Babinger's interpretationthat the Sultan visitedAnatolia in the summerof 1453, and that his purpose was to rest,see H. Inalcik's reviewarticle,"Mehmed the Conqueror(1432-1481) and His Time," Speculum,35 (1960), 412f. 35Critoboulos,ed. Grecu 237-39; trans. Riggs, 140f. 36 The fundamentalsources for these building complexes are the endowmentdeeds (vaqfiyye's) forthe foundationsestablishedby the Sultan and his viziers.A list ofthe relatingto Mehmed vakfiyye's II's foundationsin Istanbul is given in Fatih MehmetII vakfiyeleri(Ankara, 1938), 6-8. For the subject in general, see 0. L. Barkan, "Sehirlerintegekkiilve inkisaftarihi bakimindan Osmanli imparatorlugundaimiret sitelerininkurulusve isleyisineait arastirmalar,"Istanbul Universitesi Iktisat FakiiltesiMeimuasz, 23/1-2 (1962-63), 239-96; idem,"Fatih Camii ve imaretitesislerinin1489-1491 yillarina ait muhasebe bilangolarl," ibid., 297-341; idem, "Ayasofya Camii ve Eyiib tiirbesinin 1489-1491 yillarinaait muhasebe bilin9olar,"' ibid., 342-79. Also, forMehmed II's endowments,see Maliyedenmiidevverdeft.,No. 2057, the Baqvekilet Archives,Istanbul; forthe populationof Istanbul, a Defter-iHdneihd-iIstanbul, sene o1044, Belediye Kiitiiphanesi,Istanbul, Cevdet yazmalarl, No. O. 31 32
238
HALIL
INALCIK
eitherbeforeor afterthe conquest,had leftIstanbul as slaves or refugeesto live in othercitiesshould return.Accordingto Critoboulos,37 therewere then numerous Greek craftsmenwho had settled in Adrianople, Philippopolis, Gallipoli,Brusa,and othercities,wheretheyhad becomerich.All ofthesewere broughtto Istanbul, given houses and plots of land, and helped in other ways. That housesweregrantednot merelyto Muslimimmigrantsbut also to Christiandeporteeswas probablyone of the reasonsfordifficult relationsbetweenthetwocommunities.Greekimmigrants werebroughtto Istanbulby the Sultan also fromhis later conquests: fromthe two Phoceas in 1459; fromthe Moreaafterthe secondcampaignof 1460;38in the same yeara largeproportion ofthe populationof Imbros,Lemnos,Thasos, and Samothracewas transferred to the capital;39 as were some of the inhabitantsof Mityleneand the whole population of other towns on the island when Lesbos was occupied in 1462: "On his returnto Constantinoplethe Sultan establishedthe Mityleniansin one quarter of the city. To some he gave houses,to othersland on whichto build houses."40When the inhabitantsof Argos in the Morea capitulatedto MahmeidPasha in 1463, "he colonized all of them in Byzantiumwith their wivesand childrenand all theirbelongings,safe and unhurt.""'So, too, Greeks werebroughtfromEuboea in 1470 and fromCaffain 1475,thoughmostof the Christiansdeportedfromthe latter were wealthyGenoese and Armenians.42 A population list of 1477 shows these Genoese as numbering267 families4 (the figurefourhundredgiven in Italian sources"is clearlyan exaggeration). These deporteesfromCaffafoundedthe pleasant Istanbul quarterof Kefeli. In the courseof the campaignswaged againstKaraman in the years 146874, numerousdeportees-TurkishMuslimsand Armenians-werebroughtto Istanbul fromKonya, Larenda, Akseray,and Eregli.4 Orderswereissued that fromeach citysome hundredsof householdsof craftsmenand wealthycitizens should be selectedfortransfer.MahmfidPasha's overlytoleranttreatmentof the richand influentialand his substitutionof poorercitizensin theirstead so angeredthe Sultan that this conduct was regardedby his contemporariesas one of the main reasons for MahmfidPasha's fall.46The population list of 1477 notes the immigrantsfromKaraman as a separate community,composed of 384 families.From the factthat theyare noted separatelyit may be 68. A survey registerof vaqf's relatingto Istanbul in the sixteenthcenturyis being published by the Institute of Istanbul. From these and similar sources it is possible to put togethera detailed pictureof the developmentof Istanbul as a Muslimcity. 37 Ed. Grecu, 249; trans. Riggs, 148. 38 Idem, ed. Grecu, 261; trans. Riggs, 157. 3 Idem, ed. Grecu, 265; trans. Riggs, 159. 40Idem, ed. Grecu, 303; trans. Riggs, 185. 41Idem, ed. Grecu; 317, trans. Riggs, 197. 42 M. Malovist, Cafa, theGenoeseColonyin theCrimea,in Polish (Warsaw, 1947), 338. 43This document,drawn up under the supervisionof the qdd4iMulhyieddin,is in the archives of Topkapi Sarayl, No. D 9524 (see further,p. 247, infra). 44Malovist, loc. cit. 45Kemal Pasha-zade, Tevdrih-iAl-i'Osman, VII. defter(facsimile), ed. S. Turan (Ankara, 1954), 291f. For the Armenians,see Eremya 9elebi Komiirciiyan,Istanbul Tarihi, Turkish trans. Hrand Andreasyan(Istanbul, 1952), translator'snotes at pp. 93, 175, and (Genoese) 238. 48 KemAl Pasha-zAde,op. cit., 291f.; Neshrt,op. cit. (see note 18), 203; Tursun Beg, op. cit., 139.
POLICY
OF MEHMED
II IN ISTANBUL
239
deduced that the otherGreeksand Muslimswho had, willinglyor unwillingly, immigratedearlier,wereby thisdate alreadyso wellsettledin as to be regarded as the basic population. In orderto ensurethe provisioningof the city and palace, the Sultan was concernedalso to restoreto prosperitytheneighboring villageswhichhad been ruinedor abandoned beforeand duringthe siege. Afterhis later conquests he settled in these villages as slaves large numbersof peasants (30,000 alwiththestatusofkhadss-qul orortaqchs-qul. together,accordingto onereckoning), They could not leave the villagein whichtheyweresettledor marryoutsideit, and half of what they producedbelongedto the state.47Such settlementsof slave peasants were made afterthe Serbian campaign of 1455 and the two campaignsin the Morea of 1458 and 1460, and afterthe occupationof the islands of Zante, Cephalonia,and Aya Maura in 1479. (Critoboulosreports48 that fourthousandpeasantsweredeportedafterthe Moreacampaignof 1458.) In the courseofthesixteenthcenturythese peasants were graduallyto acquire the same status as the ordinaryre'dydand to be assimilatedin the general population,includingthat of Istanbul. It is clear that, in carryingout the repopulationof Istanbul, MehmedII did notpursuea policyofdiscrimination againstthe Greeks,whomhe regarded as rightfulsubjects of the empire.Nevertheless,at varioustimesin his reign, both in this matterand in the larger one of the whole administration, the of the Greeks was abandoned for one of toward them. policy favoring hostility The firstsign of this is to be detected in an episode concerningNotaras. Because ofhis oppositionto the Italians,Notarashad a kindofclaimon the favorof the Sultan; and the Ottomanshad long since made it theirgeneral practice,as a matterofreasonablepolicy,to take suchmenintotheirservice.49 Both Critoboulos50 and Sphrantzes5'reveal that at firstNotaras, as well as several other membersof the Byzantine aristocracy,received unexpectedly good treatmentfromthe Sultan. In consideringthe reasons forhis later unhappy fate, we may detect some mattersof policy,more fundamentalthan was impliedby the explanation--givenby Ducas and Sphrantzesand adopted and repeatedby Westernhistorians52-thathe refusedto sacrificehis son to the Sultan's lust. In Critoboulos'account the Sultan had at firstplanned to make Notaras prefectof the city-a step whichhe must have regardedas necessarytoward the promotionof his policy of repopulation.However, this was not without risk.At thattimetheVenetianfleetwas in theAegean.If,by an act oftreachery, 47For these slave colonies,see 0. L. Barkan, "XV ve XVI inci asirlardaOsmanli imparatorlugunda toprak isgiligininorganizasyon Qekilleri,"in Istanbul UniversitesiIkt. Fak. Mej., 1 (1940), 29ff.; 2 (1941), 198-245. 48Ed. Grecu, 229; trans. Riggs, 133. 49Inalclk, "Ottoman Methods of Conquest," 112-22. 50Ed. Grecu, 159-63; trans. Riggs, 82-85. 51Bonn ed., 292f. 52Most recentlyS. Runciman, op. cit., 157. For J. Moschos' work on the lifeof Notaras, see A. E. der Leichenredeauf L. Notaras von JohannesMoschos," Bakalopulos, "Die Frage der Glaubwiirdigkeit 3 (1959), 13-21. Byz. Zeitschrift,
240
HALIL
INALCIK
wereto fallto the Latins,a secondand the city,conqueredwithsuch difficulty, harder siege would be required. Accordingto Critoboulos>5(who had high respectforNotaras), some influentialmembersof the Sultan's entourageopposed this measure,sayingthat they (i.e., Notaras and the nine membersof the Byzantinenobilitywho werehis followers)"would do all theycouldagainst the city, or would desertto the enemy,even while remaininghere"; it was this argumentthat made the Sultan change his mind and execute Notaras and his associates. Sphrantzes,who is hostileto Notaras,54maintainsthat he endeavored to win the Sultan's favor,wishingto preservehis formerhigh position;but that the vizierspersuadedthe Sultan to execute Notaras. Now, it is well knownthat MehmedII, again followingpractice,tookintothePalace severalsons of the Byzantinenobilityto be broughtup withinthe established systemof trainingslaves for administrativeposts-a systemwhich, before the end of the century,was to produce two Greek-bornGrand Viziers, RfimMehmedPasha and Mesih Pasha. The formerMegadux, realizingthat he would not be able to recover his previous position,must have decided not to hand over his son and son-in-law55 to serveas Palace pages-in effect, hostages. Immediatelyfollowinghis account of the executionof Notaras,Critoboulos notes that the "influentialmen" who had advised it were shortlyafterward dismissedby the Sultan forthis treacheryand were severelypunished. We knowwho theywere: the elderlyShihabeddinPasha and Zaganuz Pasha, who had played most importantroles in the conquest of Constantinople.It was they, too, who had been mainlyresponsiblefor the executionof Chandarh Khalil Pasha and who had made everyeffortto secureforthemselvesall the reins of power.56It is not impossibleto trace the reasons for Mehmed II's sudden coldnesstowardthese two men,his formertutorswho had paved the way to his success. The executionof Khalil Pasha had been regardedby the Janissaries,the intellectuals(ulema),and the people in generalas havingbeen promptedby spite,57and had caused much sorrow.Afterthe executionof the Megadux,the Sultan,realizingthattherecoveryofthe citywas notprogressing and now regretting the executionof Notaras, blamed the two Pashas. Thus, in 1456 both Zaganuz (the GrandVizier) and Shihibeddin (the second vizier) weredismissed.58 ShihibeddinPasha had urgedthathousesvacated in the city should be grantedto Muslimimmigrantsas freehold,and that the cityshould be quicklyturkicized.As related above, Mehmedhad returnedto Greekstheir former homesand distributeduninhabitedhousesamongthem;further, he had granted empty houses and mansions as freeholdto immigrantswho came voluntarily."Ashlqpashaz.dereportsthat houses weregrantedalso to deportees. The passage runs: 53Ed. Grecu, 161; trans. Riggs, 84. 54See Bakalopulos, op. cit., 19. 55His youngerson was taken into the Palace (Bakalopulos, ibid.). 66 See Inalcik, Fatih devriiizerindetetkikler ve vesikalar,55-136. 5' Sphrantzes,Bonn ed., 294. 58 Inalcik in Speculum,35, p. 413f.; idem,Fatih devriiizerindetetkikler ve vesikalar,135.
POLICY
OF MEHMED
II IN ISTANBUL
241
And he sent officersto all his lands to announce that whoeverwished should come and take possessionin Istanbul, as freehold,ofhousesand orchardsand gardens,and to whoevercame these were given. Despite this measure, the city was not repopulated; so then the Sultan commanded that fromevery land families,poor and rich alike, should be withfirmansto the cadis and broughtin by force.And theysent officers the prefectsof every land. And they, in accordance with the firman, deportedand broughtin numerousfamilies,and to thesenewcomers,too, housesweregiven; and now the citybegan to become populous.59 The procedurewas that each immigrant, afterchoosingthehousehe wanted, went to the city prefectand receivedfromhim a note of recommendation; he took thisnote to the Porte-we recallherethat real estatebelongedlegally to the Sultan and was therefore withinhis gift-and applied therefora freehold deed, a miilkndme.60Some of these documentshave come to lightin the archivesof Topkapi Sarayl. The miilkndme's are of various dates, the oldest I have foundbeing of 861, that is to say, July 1457. They grantfull freeholdtenureof real Ramad.an estate, accordingto the principlesof the shari'a, so that theyread: "It is to be in his possession;he may, as he wishes,sell it, or give it away, or make it vaqf; in short,he may enjoy it as freeholdhowever he wishes." (There is a distinctionhere between this and real estate which remainedmidr,i.e., state property:the freeholdof the latterbelongedto the state, and the holderwho enjoyedit could notsell it, give it away, or make it
vaqf.)
When, however,as a resultof these various measures,the populationhad increasedand the houseshad been occupied,the Sultan gave ordersthat these housesshouldbe subjectedto surveyand enregistered, and thatmuqdta'ashould be collectedin respectof them.In Ottomanstate financesthe termmuqdta'a means in generalthe leasingor farmingout to an individual-afteragreement on the sum whichthe individualwill pay-of a sourceof state revenue.In the contextunder considerationthe termis to be understoodas "rent," and in what followsthe word "rent" will be used. The groundsforthe Sultan's new decisionwerethat the freeholdhad been grantedonlyin respectof the building, not of the land which it occupied; and land could not be held without paymentof rent.81 The task of makingthe surveywas entrustedto Jtibbe'Ali Beg, cityprefect ofBrusa, who tookwithhimas his clerkhis nephewTursunBeg, the historian, lateran importantofficial in the financialadministration. Tursunhimselftells62 59 'Ashiqpashazade, ed. 9ift9iogluN. Atsiz, in Osmanlz Tarihleri,I (Istanbul, 1949), 193 (= ? 124; cf. German trans. R. F. Kreutel, Vom Hirtenzeltzur Hohen Plorte [Graz, 1959], 200); cf. Neshri, op. cit., 181. 60 TAji-zade Ja'fer Chelebi,op. cit. (see note 10), 24. g1 Tursun Beg, op. cit., 60. 62 Ibid., 61 f. Accordingto the registerof 1490 for the inspectionof the vaqf's of Aya Sofya (see note 67), some houses which had been made over to the churchbeforethe conquest were confirmed as vaqf by Mehmed II. A typical Arabic note recordingthis reads: al-mandzil.. .kulluha yutasarrafu bi'l-muqdfa'a al-mawdd'a qadi?an f/zamdn al-kufrwa'l-jdhiliyyaal-muqarraraba'd al-fath'ald rmd Sul.tin Muhammad Khan al-mufattahlahu abwdb kdn 'alayhi /fzamdn al-/athwa-huwa al-marfhamn al-rahmava'l-ghufrdn wa'l-ridwdn(fol. 50b; othersuch notes at fols. 43a, 45a).
242
HALIL
INALCIK
how everyhouse was visited,how everyhouse, great or small,everyorchard, and everygardenwas listed in a register,and how rentwas imposedon each accordingto its value. In the courseofthe surveymanyhouseschangedhands because holders,findingthemselvestoo poor to pay the rentdemanded,moved to houses bettersuited to theircircumstances.When the operationwas completed,it was foundthat these rentswould bringto the treasuryan annual income of a hundredmillionaspers (aqche),that is to say, over two million Venetian ducats. For the period,this is an enormoussum: the total revenue of the OttomanEmpire around 1432 had been estimatedat only two and a halfmillionducats. Shortlyafterthis survey,we findthe Sultan issuingnew orders,by which he abolished this rent "for his officersand his subjects" and again granted miilkndme's.Accordingto Tursun Beg,63 who was closely concernedin the survey,the Sultan explainedto one of his intimateswhyafterso shorta time he had taken thissecond decisionwhichcontradictedthe first:the firstmeasure had been promptedby the fact that many people had obtained freehold of houses beyondtheirmeans and status; they could not sell them,forthere was no one to buy; but if these large houses and mansionsremainedin their possessionthey would inevitablyfall into disrepairand ruin. Rent had been to induce everyoneto take a house that suitedhis means; imposed,therefore, the primaryintentionhad not been to raise revenueforthe treasury. The real reasonswhichpromptedthe Sultan to abandon this richsourceof revenueare revealedby anotherhistorian,'Ashlqpashazade,who,unlikeTursun, was writingforthe generalpublic: They imposed rent on the houses whichthey had given to these people [the deportees].When this happened,the people foundit more onerous and said: 'You forcedus to leave our old homes,whichwe owned. Did you bringus herethatwe shouldpay rentforthesehousesoftheinfidels?' And some of them abandoned their wives and childrenand fled. The Sultan had an officer namedKavala (Kephalia) Shahin[thatis, Shihabeddin Pasha] who had served under the Sultan's fatherand grandfather and who had been vizier. He said to the Sultan: 'Come now, Your Majesty! Your fatherand your grandfather conquerednumerousterritories, but in not one of them did they impose rent; nor is it fittingthat you shouldimposeit.' The Sultan acceptedwhathe said and abolishedtherent and issuedneworders:'Whateverhouseyou give,giveit as freehold.'Then they gave a documentin respectof everyhouse that was given,stating that the house shouldbe the freeholdof the possessor.When thingswere arrangedthus, the city began to be more prosperous;people began to build mosques, some built dervish convents and some built freehold properties,and thiscityreturnedto its formergood state."4 This passage shows clearly that the attempt to raise such a large revenue fromthe inhabitantsof the city had given rise to strongopposition,and the cit., 61 f. See supra, note 59.
63 Op.
6
POLICY
OF MEHMED
II IN ISTANBUL
243
outspokenlanguage of 'Ashiqpashazade doubtlessreflectspopular sentiment. To induce the Sultan to retractthis measure had requiredthe intervention of ShihabeddinPasha-the old and influential vizierwho had been the Sultan's tutorand his greatestsupport.This changeofpolicymusthave occurredbefore 1457, for in that year we find that ShihAbeddinPasha had already been The Topkapi Sarayi archivescontainmiilkndme's dismissed.65 belongingto the that 1457 to 1459.66 is, yearsimmediatelyfollowing,
In A. H. 861 (29 November1456-20October1457)manyof thehousessur-
vivingfromtheByzantineperiodwere,we find,made overby the Sultan to the as rentaccruing vaqfofthe mosque ofAya Sofya,the incomearisingtherefrom to the vaqf.At varioustimesfurtherpropertiesweremade over as vaqfto the mosque; and thesevaqfpropertieswereinspectedand checkedtwiceduringthe reignof MehmedII (onceby the qddi'askerKebelti-zadeMuhyieddinMehmed, and then by the qddiasker Fenari-zade 'Alaeddin 'Ali). In an inspectionand surveymade in 1490, duringthe next reign,6"it is noted that some of the houses had been given to the vaqf in 861 (1456/7).Accordingto this survey, in 1490 the real estate in Istanbul, Galata, and Uskiidarthat belongedto the vaqfof the mosque consistedof 2,350shopsbringingin an annual rentof 458, 578 aspers; fourcaravansaries,various"rooms" (hujardt,odalar),68two baths, thirtyshopssellingmilletbeer (boza),twenty-two sheep-headshopsbringingin a rentof 174,175aspers; and 987 houses let at a total rentof 85,668 aspers. (We note in passingthat at the then currentrate of forty-nine aspers to the ducat these rentsrepresentedan annual incomeof some 14,500 ducats.) Most of the 987 housesmusthave survivedfromthe Byzantineperiod.As to 111 of them,thereis the followingnote: "Afterthe conquest,beforetheyweremade vaqf,thesehouses weregrantedas freeholdand theirholderswere givenmiilkndme's;subsequentlyan annualrentof9,655asperswas imposeduponthem; ... and 178 houses, bringingin a rent of 11,509 aspers, were held by servants (qul) of the Sultan; thus, in 887 [1482] some of these holders were given miilkndme'sand otherswere given certificatescancellingthe rent." Besides these houses belongingto the Sultan's servantswhose freeholdtenure was ve vesikalar,134-36. 6s Inalcik, Fatih devriiizerindetetkikler
66 Nos.
E. 7222, E. 7232, E 3056/2.The city prefects(subashz)named as recommendingthe grant of miilkndme'sare Chakir Beg/Agha(1457), Murid Beg (1462), Chakir Agha (again, 1466), Ilyds Beg (1468). The registerof the vaqf'sofAya Sofya refersto houses in respectof whichmiilkndme's had been granted in Rejeb 860 (= June 1456). It recordsalso that in 861 (29 Nov. 1456-20 Oct. 1457), when there was a general inspection,many old houses and shops were made vaqf,the milkndme'sbeing cancelled (same register,fol. 56a), these changes may be connectedwith the surveycarriedout by Jiibbe 'Ali Beg. 67 This registeris No. 19 in the series "Maliye'den miidevver"in the Basvekilet Arsiviin Istanbul. Composed by Kestelli Yusuf b. Khalil, its prefacestates that the inspectionwas made on the basis of registers drawn up by Kebelii-zade and Fenari-zAde. It contains a detailed listing of the vaqfpropertiesof Aya Sofya situated in Istanbul, Galata, and Vtskiidar.Anothersurvey registerof the Aya Sofya properties,made in 926 (= 1520), is in the Belediye Kiitiiphanesi,M. Cevdet yazmalarl, No. 64. The annual accounts for the years 893, 894, and 895 have been published by 0. L. Barkan (see note 36: "Ayasofya Camii .... "). 68 In such contextshujra or oda usually means a fairlylarge room used as a separate workshopor lodging,as appears fromthe entriesin the Aya Sofya register.At the same time,completehouses were sometimesapparentlycalled huiraor oda. Such "rooms" werebuiltin marketsand bazaars as workshops and lodgings(T. G6kbilgin,Edirne ve [Istanbul, 1952], 503). Papa Livasz
244
HALIL
INALCIK
recognizedor whose rent was cancelled in 1482, there is referenceto other houses forwhichthe renthad been cancelledearlier,in Fenari-zade'sprevious survey,because theywere held by servantsof the Sultan. It may be said in generalthathousessurvivingfromtheByzantineperiodwhichhad beengranted to such servantswerealways givenspecial treatmentand made rentfree. As to the houses grantedin freeholdto private individuals,they became the subject of controversy once again in the years 1471 and 1472. When Rim MehmedPasha was appointedGrandVizierin 1471,69he embarkedon a series of extraordinary financialmeasures.These weremainlypromptedby the sudden increase in expenditurebrought about by the stubbornresistanceof Karaman, and by the sack of Tokat and the invasion of Karaman by Uzun Hasan's forcesin the followingyear.70Once morewe findin 'Ashiqpashaz de -who was violentlyhostileto Rfm MehmedPasha-the pronouncedreaction to the changemade at this date. He says:7' There came to the Sultan a certainvizierwho was the son of an infidel and had won highfavorwiththe Sultan. The formerinfidelinhabitants of this city of Istanbul had been friendsofthisvizier'sfather.They came to him and said: 'What do you thinkyou are doing? These Turks have restoredthecity.Have you no spirit? They have takenyourfather'shome and our homes and occupy them beforeour very eyes. Come now! You are the favoriteof the Sultan. Exert yourselfso that these people may cease the restorationof this city,and it may be left,as it was before,in our possession.' The vizier said: 'Let us reimposeon them that rent which was imposed earlieron, so that they may refrainfrombuilding freeholdhouses; thusthe citywill again fallintoruinand finallybe leftin the possessionof our people.' One day this vizier foundan occasion for suggestingthis idea to the Sultan and got the rents reimposed.They sent out one of these deceitfulinfidels,accompanied by a nominally Muslimservantofthe Sultan,who did whateverthis deceitfulinfideltold him to do, and theywroteit all down. Question: Who is thisvizier? Answer:It is Rim MehmedPasha, whomtheSultancaused to be strangled like a dog. ... and because of this rent the people began to refrainfromrestoring Istanbul. If the Sultan is capriciousin the decreeshe makes Then his territory always suffersharm. And if his viziershouldbe an infidel, He always seeks to cause damage to the truefaith. And the blame forthe reimpositionof this rent whichwe now have to pay restswiththis RfimMehmed. For the date, see Inalclk, in Speculum,35 (see supra, note 34), 414. See Inalclk, s.v. "Mehmed II," in Isldm Ansiklopedisi,VII, p. 525; Babinger, Mehmed der Erobererund seineZeit, 326f. 71 Op. cit., ? 124 (see supra, note 59). 69 70
POLICY
OF MEHMED
II IN ISTANBUL
245
Althoughthis bitterpassage of 'Ashlqpashazade has been quoted by historians,72its true historicalsignificanceand the reasons promptingit have not been considered.It shouldbe recalled that,in othercontextstoo, 'Ashlqpashazade gives vent to his hostilityto Rfim Mehmed Pasha and thereby reflectsalso the feelingsof a specificgroup in Ottoman society. Behind his hostilitylie the facts that among the various financialmeasures taken by Rfim Mehmed Pasha there was, besides his reimpositionof the previously cancelled rent,his abolition (doubtlessfor reasons of economy)of the gifts and bountiescustomarilydistributedby the Palace to dervishesand sheykhs,73 the class to which'Ashlqpashazadehimselfbelonged.These measuresevidently caused a violentreactionamong the Muslimpopulace, especiallyin religious circles. It may be true that the Pasha's descent inclinedhim to favor the Greeksand that at this period Greeksexercisedsome influencein the Palace and in state affairs;74but 'Ashlqpashazade's assessmentof Rcim Mehmed Pasha's motives must be viewed with some reserve,for the measures the Pasha had institutedremainedin force,even afterhis dismissaland execution,75duringthe rest of Mehmed II's reign.Under his successor,however, these questionswerereconsidered. In 887 (1482), shortlyafterBayezid II's accession,whenmany of his predecessor's financialmeasures were abolished, the Sultan consideredalso the matterof the rentsand cancelledthem,particularlyin respectof houses held by what the documentscall qul's. This word, translatedhere as "officer"or "servant," is applied to state officialsof whateverrank; it embraces,and sometimesspecificallymeans, the Janissaries,the group which in 1481 had A firmandated Rebi' I, 889 (April1484)reads:77 helpedBayezid to the throne.76 Cf. Babinger,MlehmedderErobererund seineZeit, 487. 'Ashiqpashazdde,ed. Atsiz (see supra, note 59), 243-44. For specimenentriesin a registerrecording such donationsmade by the Palace, see G6kbilgin,op. cit.,470-85. 74 After the conquest of Constantinople,Mehmed II caused young members of the Byzantine nobilityto be broughtinto his servicein the Palace-i.e., to be trainedforstate servicein the various "chambers" of the Palace School (see Critoboulos,ed. Grecu,163-65; trans. Riggs, 85f.); after the occupation of Aenos and of Trebizond too he took into the palace groups of childrenof the nobility (Critoboulos,ed. Grecu, 197, 287; trans. Riggs, 110, 175). The Palaeologue KhAss Murad (for whom see F. Babinger, "Eine Verfiigungdes Paliologen Chass Murad-Paga...," in Documenta Islamica inedita [Berlin, 1952], 197-210) was appointed beylerbeyof Rumeli in 1471, i.e., duringthe Grand Vizierate of Ri^m Mehmed Pasha (Die friihosmanischen Jakrbiicherdes Urudsch,ed. F. Babinger [Hanover, 1925], 126). It may be significantthat in his history,writtenforpresentationto the Sultan, Critoboulosdid not hesitateto expresshis sorrowover the executionsofthe membersofthe Byzantine aristocracy. 7s He was executed in 1474; see Inalcik, in Speculum,35, p. 415. 76 According to the Aya Sofya register,the qul's whose houses were exempted fromrent were describedas yenicheri,sekbdn,sipdhhi, jebeji, topju, arabajz,yayabashz;the Palace servantsas helvajz, qapzjz, sarrdj, also kdtiband miinejjim.There are notes of several Janissariesengaged in commerce and industryin the marketsand holdingshops at a rent. The registershows also that high-ranking membersof the militaryclass-beg's and ulema-held several houses by virtue of miilkndme's;thus the governorof Istanbul, ChakirAgha, had houses in various quartersof the city; a big house in the Germiyanquarter was granted by millkndmeto the khatibof Galata, Mevlan& 'Alt, and anotherto the childrenof Za'im 'Alt. Non-Muslimsalso possessed houses: in ShawwOl863, houses were granted by miilkndmeto "Manul Komnen," "Nikefor," and the sons of "Yorgi"; the house belongingto "Angelina," in the same quarter,was given to the bootmakerDavud, and a house belongingto a Greek woman, "Zabya," to Re'is 'Al. "Pandeliyo Moris," who had lost his miilkndme, was given a new one in A. H. 889 (his house was a big one, assessed at a rent of 250 aqche's). 7 The register"Maliye'den miidevver,"No. 19 (see note 67), fol. 52. 72
73
246
HALIL
INALCIK
I have abolishedrentin respectof all my servantswho receivea stipend fromme and are actuallylivingnow in houses and on sitesliable to rent in Istanbul78and Galata which belong to the vaqf's of the Aya Sofya Mosque; fromsuch as these,rentis not to be demanded.But, as forthose who are my servantsand do not receive a stipend,as they are brothers or relativesof my servants,fromthem rentis to be demanded forthe houses and the sites they occupy which are liable to rent and belong to the vaqf. For the future,whoevertakes over a house or a site liable to rent,whetherhe be a servantofminereceivinga stipendor not,fromhim the rentforthe house and site wherehe lives is to be collected,not cancelled. Bayezid thuscancelledthe rentsonlyforthosewho at that date wereactually in his service. When he issued this firman,in April 1484, he was makingpreparationsfor his firstmajor campaign,in Moldavia,the success of whichwas to strengthen his own prestigeas Sultan. Now it was at thisverytimethat 'Ashlqpashazade was writinghis history,79 and he was evidentlypromptedto devotea separate to of the question rentsbecause theirpartial cancellationthen had chapter once more made them a subject of discussionin Istanbul. From his account it is clear that public opinionobjected to the rentson the groundsthat they werecontraryto the sharica,that theyfavoredthe Greeks,and that Mehmed then,"led astray"by Greeks, II, havingfirstgrantedthepropertiesas freehold, had goneback on his word.It shouldbe rememberedalso that,upon BAyezid's accession,the appointmentof Khalil Pasha's son Ibrahim as qdd4iasker reflecteda reactionagainst the too frequentrecourse,duringMehmed'sreign, to the doctrineof the Sultan's executiveauthority('crf)8s to justifymeasures which many felt to be contraryto the sharz'ca.When, in these years, such measures were abolished,it was always the shari a which was adduced to requiretheirabolition.All the Ottomanhistorianswritingin Bayezid's reigncAshlqpashazade,Neshri, Tursun, Idris, KemAlpasha-zade-praise him for revivingthe authorityof the sharicaand forpromoting"justice." From the recordofthe inspectionmade in 1490 of the imperialvaqf's ofthe Aya Sofya mosque, whichincludedmany house propertiesliable to rent,it is possibleto identifyotherprincipleswhichhad been laid down in applyingthe new policy. First, as we have seen, rent has been cancelled forhouses owned and occupied by qul's who are in the immediateserviceof the Porte; it remainsin force,however,forhouses ownedby qul's who have been granteda tlimdr and thus have leftthe immediateserviceof the Porte, and forhouses whichhave passed by sale or inheritanceinto the possessionof others. Second, "in accordancewiththe preceptof the sharf'a,"renthas,in principle,been cancelled 78 The registerused the name Islambol (a folketymologymeaning "full of Muslims") ratherthan Istanbul; elsewherethe registerspeaks of "Qostantaniyye." 7" See the Introductionto Giese's edition. 80 On this subject, see H. Inalclk, in Isldm Ansiklopedisi,s.v. "Orf."
POLICY OF MEHMED II IN ISTANBUL
247
forhouses whichhad been grantedin freeholdby miilkndme to privateindividuals beforethe endowmentwas made, but upon whichrenthad later been imposed; thus we findthat rent has been cancelled for some houses by an but forthe great "imperialdocumentof cancellation" (refcndme-i hiimdyi~in), In it has been confirmed. the of the each majority register vaqf's propertyhas a separate note affirming its position. A thirdcase is that of houses subject to rentswhichhave been made over to the vaqf.These representhouseswhichhad fallenintoruinand upon whose sites new houses or shops had been built: in this event,theywere subject to rentonly in respectof the land on whichthey stood, in accordancewith the principle"rent due on land does not lapse withthe deteriorationof the building upon it." The Byzantine houses which came into the hands of the Ottomans thus presentedthe Ottoman authoritieswith an awkward problem of policy, a problemwhichnot only affectedthe Ottomanfinancialdepartmentsbut also had repercussionsuponthe questionsof the settlement ofMuslimsin Istanbul and of Ottomanpolicytowardthe Greeks;it became moreand morecomplex in relationto the furtherfactorsthat some were occupied by qul's and some had been made over as vaqf. Generallyspeaking,and admittedlywiththe intentionof restoringthe city to prosperity,MehmedII gave favorabletreatmentto the Greeks.The census of the city made underthe supervisionof the qddi Muhyieddinin 1477 shows the followingpopulationfigures,by households,forMuslimsand Greeks: Istanbul Galata Muslims 535 8,951
OrthodoxGreeks3,151
592
All the other communitiescollectively-Armenians,Latins and Gypsiesamountonlyto 3,095households.81 As we have seen,a large proportionof the Greeks had been broughtto Istanbul by compulsoryresettlementfromthe Morea and elsewhere. It is a prominentcharacteristicof MehmedII's policy that he soughtto give primeemphasisin state affairsto the principleof 'c'rf (in Arabic, curf), the executivecompetenceof the ruler,and thus win absolute and unlimited authorityfor his own decisions. His contemporariesthoughtthat he had pushed the principletoo far. At his death, as we have seen, many of the measureswhichhe had taken-although responsibility forthemwas imputed not to him but to his viziers-were declared to be contraryto the sharica. In a letterof advice addressedto his successor,82 the writermaintainedthat Mehmed,"by the counsel of mischiefmakers and hypocrites,"had "infringed the Law of the Prophetand impairedthe good orderof the land," and advised the new Sultan to followin the steps not of his fatherbut of his grandfather 81For this document,see supra,p. 238 and note 43. It may be noted that it records3,667 shops in Istanbul and 260 in Galata. 82 The letteris foundin a MS of the Mendhiju'l-inshd,in Izzet Koyunoglu's libraryat Konya.
248
HALIL
INALCIK
Murad II. Certainly,MehmedII was a man of a different stamp fromhis son from his also II; Bayezid great-grandsonSiileymAn,upon whose ordersthe Abu tried to mufti bringthe executiveregulationsof the Empireinto 's-Su'fid withtheshari a. In settlingGreeksin Istanbuland leavingchurches conformity in Christianhands,whichMehmedII undertookin orderto promotethe city's prosperity,he invoked the principleof 'ifrfratherthan the authorityof the sharica,as beingin the best interestsof the state. It is true that the religious Molla Khusrev, who had been scholars of his day-chiefly the not regardthesemeasures connected with his childhood-did him since qdd.l'asker closely as contraryto the shariya,preciselybecause they servedthe best interestsof theMuslimcommunity."But whenMehmed'sprotectionofthe Greeksenabled themto forma substantialproportionof the populationof the city,and when theybegan to gain wealth and influencein trade,in the guilds,s4and through the farmingofrichcustomsand mineralconcessions,85 then,not unnaturally,a certainhostilitybetweenthemand the MuslimTurkishpopulationdeveloped; or, rather,the hostility,already apparentimmediatelyafterthe conquest in the incidentof Lucas Notaras, was exacerbated.Thus, fromtimeto timein the reignsof Mehmed'ssuccessorsthe question was raisedwhetherit was not contraryto the shary'athat Greeksshould be living in a city taken by force of arms and that some of its churchesshould be leftin Christianhands. In 1538,whenforvariousspecial reasons86this questionwas raised again, it was necessaryto obtain a fetvd(i.e., a writtenopinionof the mufti)in orderto protectthe Greek population. The fetvdjustifiedthe situationon the fictitious groundsthat duringthe siege the Jews and the Christianshad made a secretcompactwithMehmedII and had refrained fromassistingtheByzantine For this question,see Isldm Ansiklopedisi,s.v. "'Orf." Accordingto the Aya Sofya registerof 1490,among the leadingmerchantsof the Bedestan there were only two Armenians,five Jews,and three Greeks,all the remaining122 businessesbelonging to Muslims. In the marketguilds,too, the Muslims were greatlyin the majority(the names of nonMuslims appearing, without distinction,in the lists of Muslim names): thus, in the market around the Bedestan, of forty-onecarpenters'shops only one belonged to an Armenian;of fortyworkshops makingpots and pans sixteenbelonged to Greeks (fromMitylene,the Morea, and Galata); of thirtyfourgrocersonlyfourwere Greeks; and all the 142 shops in the saddlers' quarterbelongedto Muslims. But the Greeks were particularlyactive in big tax-farmingoperationsand in the trade by sea (see note 85). 1*Under Mehmed II the Greekswere enabled to engage in commerceunder more favorableconditions than had existed before.Since they were dhimmisubjects of the Sultan, the whole Empire was open to them as a fieldfortheircommercialactivitiesand they enjoyed protection,especiallyagainst the Italians, who were subjected to a highercustoms tariffthan the Greeks. Thus, they gradually supplantedthe Italians, particularlyin the Black Sea trade and in trade withthe countriesof Northern Europe. The customs registersforthe ports of Kilia (on the estuary of the Danube), Akkerman (at the mouth of the Dniester), and Caffashow that toward the end of the fifteenthcenturyGreek ship captains and merchantswerenumerous:of twenty-five ships callingat Akkermanin 1490, fifteen belonged to Greeks (of the rest, six belonged to Muslims,threeto Italians, and one to an Armenian). I am preparinga study on this trade; for the present see my article, "Bursa and the Commerceof the Levant" (supra, note 2). For the customs system and for Greek farmersof taxes, dues, and concessions, see my "Notes on N. Beldiceanu's translation...," Der Islam, 43 (1967), 152-56. 86 The fall of Coron in the Morea to the Emperor Charles V's fleetin 1532 caused consternation in Istanbul, and was attributedto treacheryon the part of the Greeks; a Venetian reportof 1535 (Calendar of State Papers, Spain [London, 1838], V/I, doc. 197) said: "Albania and the surrounding provinces,chieflyinhabitedby Christians,are only waitingfornews of the Emperoror his fleetgoing to Constantinopleto rise in rebellion." 88
84
POLICY
OF MEHMED
II IN ISTANBUL
249
Emperor:it was allegedlyforthis reasonthatthe Sultanhad notenslavedthem but leftthemin theirhomes."7Similarly,too, in the course of the sixteenth centuryit was feltto be scandalous that Christiansshould hold timdr'sand servethe Sultan as sipdhi's (cavalry),whereasin the reignof MehmedII, and before,it had been regarded as completelynormal that Christians,Greek Orthodoxamong them,should serve as sipdh$'s.s8Furthermore, shortlyafter 1500 the historianIdris had commentedthat in leaving these Christiansundisturbedthe Sultans had had in view the prosperityof the worldand of the Muslimreligion. Postscript:Afterthisarticlehad gone to pressProfessorB. S. Baykal, ofthe UniversityofAnkara,broughtto my attentiona photocopyof a survey-book of Galata produced toward the end of 1455. How this new originalsource will affectthe points dealt with in this paper can be discussed only when Prof. Baykal's publicationof the survey-bookmakes it available for study. See note 11, supra. 88For Christian ve vesikalar,137-84. sipdhi's, see Inalclk, Fatih devriiizerindetetkikler 87
