Chapter XIX: Appendix: V (2)

PESCHEL, OSCAR. The races of man and their geographical distribution. New York, 1882.

POLICY (The) of the Turkish empire. [Anonymous.] London, 1597.—See p. 319.

POSTEL, GUILLAUME. [Pt. i] De la république des Turcs; [pt. ii] Histoire et considération de l’origine, loy, et coustume des Tartares ... Turcs, etc.; [pt. iii] La tierce partie des orientales histoires, etc. 3 pts. in 1 vol. Poitiers, 1560.—See pp. 316, 317.

RADLOFF, WILHELM. Die alttürkischen Inschriften der Mongolei. Leipsic, 1894-1895.—See p. 305.

RAGAZZONI, JACOPO. Relazione, 1571. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series, ii. 77-102. Florence, 1844.

RAMBAUD, ALFRED. L’empire ottoman (1481-1566). In Lavisse and Rambaud’s _Histoire Générale_, vol. iv. ch. xix. Paris, 1894.—See p. 321.

[RAMBERTI, BENEDETTO.] Libri tre delle cose de Turchi. Venice, 1539.—See pp. 314-316, and Appendix I.

RAMSAY, SIR W. M. Geographical conditions determining history and religion in Asia Minor. _Geographical Journal_, xx. 257-282. London, 1902. See p. 307.

—— Historical geography of Asia Minor. London, 1890.

—— Studies in the history and art of the eastern provinces of the Roman empire. Aberdeen, 1906.

RANKE, LEOPOLD. The Ottoman and the Spanish empires in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Translated by W. K. Kelly. London, 1843.—See p. 321.

RAWLINSON, GEORGE. The story of Parthia. New York, 1893.

—— The seventh great oriental monarchy. 2 vols. New York, 1882.

—— The sixth great oriental monarchy. London, 1873.

RECUEIL de voyages et de documents pour servir à l’histoire de la géographie depuis le xiiie jusqu’à la fin du xvie siècle. Edited by Charles Schéfer and Henri Cordier. 21 vols. Paris, 1882-1907.—See CHESNEAU, DU FRESNE-CANAYE, GEUFFROY, HAUSER, LA BROQUIÈRE, MAURAND, TORZELO.

REDHOUSE, SIR J. W. A Turkish and English lexicon. Constantinople, 1890.

REVUE Africaine: journal des travaux de la société historique algérienne. 55 vols. Alger, [1856]-1911.

RIANT, COUNT PAUL. Catalogue de la bibliothèque. Prepared by L. de Germon and L. Polain. 2 pts. Paris, 1899.—See p. 308.

RICAUT, SIR PAUL. The history of the present state of the Ottoman empire. 6th edition. London, 1686.—See p. 320.

RICOLDUS. De vita et moribus Turcarum. Paris, 1509.—The same as TRACTATUS, etc., _q. v._

ROBERTSON, WILLIAM. The emperor Charles V. 4 vols. London, 1811.

SAN FILIPPO, AMAT DI. Biografia dei viaggiatori italiani. 2 vols. Rome, 1882.—See p. 308.

SANUTO, MARINO (the younger). Diarii [1496-1533]. 58 vols., with an additional volume of _Prefazione_. Venice, 1879-1903.

SCHÉFER, CHARLES. Catalogue de la bibliothèque orientale. Paris, 1899.—See p. 308. See also CHESNEAU, LA BROQUIÈRE, SIASSET NAMÈH, SPANDUGINO, TORZELO.

SCHILTBERGER, JOHANN. Bondage and Travels. Translated by J. B. Telfer. Hakluyt Society. London, 1879.—See p. 309.

SIASSET NAMÈH, traité de gouvernement composé pour le sultan Melik-Châh par le vizir Nizam oul-Moulk [1092]. Translated by Charles Schéfer. Paris, 1893.—See p. 306.

SNOUCK HURGRONJE, G. Le droit Musulman. _Revue de l’Histoire des Religions_, xxxvii. 1 ff., and 174 ff. Paris, 1898.

SORANZO, GIACOMO. Relazione, 1576. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series, ii. 193-207. Florence, 1844.

[SORANZO, JACOPO.] Relazione e diario, 1581. _Ibid._ 209-253. Florence, 1844.—See p. 313, note 1.

SPANDUGINO CANTACUSINO, TEODORO. Petit traicté de l’origine des Turcqz [Paris, 1519]. Edited by Charles Schéfer. Paris, 1896.—See p. 310.

STEEN DE JEHAY, LE COMTE F. VAN DEN. De la situation légale des sujets ottomans non-musulmans. Brussels, 1906.

SULEIMAN. See KANUN-NAMEH of Suleiman.

TANCO, V. D. (ESTANCO, CLAVEDAN DEL). Libro dell’ origine et successione dell’ imperio de’ Turchi. Venice, 1558.—See p. 314.

TAVERNIER, J. B. Nova ed esatta descrizione del seraglio del gran Turco. Milan, 1687.

TIEPOLO, ANTONIO, Relazione, 1576. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series, ii. 129-191. Florence, 1844.

TISCHENDORF, P. A. VON. Das Lehnswesen in den moslemischen Staaten, insbesondere im osmanischen Reiche. Leipsic, 1872.

TORZELO, JEHAN. [Opinion on the military power of the Turks, c. 1439.] Edited by Charles Schéfer, in _Recueil de Voyages_, etc., xii. 263 ff. Paris, 1892.

[TRACTATUS.] Libellus de ritu et moribus Turcorum ante LXX annos aeditus [1460]. Wittenberg, 1530.—See pp. 309, 310.

TREVISANO, DOMENICO. Relazione, 1554. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series, i. 111-192. Florence, 1840.

TÜRCKEN, BERNARDIN. Getrewe und wolmeynende kurtze Erinnerung von der Türcken Ordnung, in iren Kriegen vñ Veldtschlachten. Burgel, 1542.

UBICINI, A[BDOLONYME]. État présent de l’empire ottoman. Paris, 1876.

URBINUS, THEOPHILUS. Türckisches Städt-Büchlein. Nuremberg, 1664.

URSU, J[ON]. La politique orientale de François I (1515-1547). Paris, 1908.

VAMBÉRY, HERMANN (ARMINIUS). Die primitive Cultur des turko-tatarischen Volkes auf grund sprachlicher Forschungen. Leipsic, 1879.—See p. 306.

—— Uigurische Sprachmonumente und das Kudatku Bilik. Innsbruck, 1870.—See p. 306.

VENIER, MAFFEO. Relazione, 1579, 1587. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series, i. 437-468, ii. 295-307. Florence, 1840-1844.

VIAGGI fatti da Vinetia, alla tana ... in Costantinopoli. Venice, 1543.—Contains Libri Tre, etc., of RAMBERTI, _q. v._

YOUSSOUF FEHMI. Histoire de la Turquie. Paris, 1909.

YUSEF KHASS HAJIL. Kudatku Bilik (Art of Government). See VAMBÉRY, Uigurische Sprachmonumente, etc.

ZANE, MATTEO. Relazione, 1594. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series, iii. 381-444. Florence, 1855.

ZEN (or ZENO), PIETRO. Itinerario, 1523. In Fulin’s _Diarii_, 104-136. Venice, 1881.

—— Relazione, 1524, 1530. In Alberi’s _Relazione_, 3d series, iii. 93-97, 119-122. Florence, 1855.

ZINKEISEN, J. W. Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches in Europa. 7 vols. and Index, Hamburg and Gotha, 1840-1863.—See p. 321.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Cahun, _Introduction à l’Histoire de l’Asie_, 90.

[2] The West was much concerned in the sixteenth century with the problem of ascertaining the origin of the Turks. Balbus gives an idea how difficult it was to reach a definite opinion: “Some count the Turks among the Asiatic Sarmatians, and say that they were expelled by their neighbors from the Caspian mountains into Persia, and descended into Asia Minor. Others, following the name, perhaps, think that this people had its beginning in Turce, a great and opulent city of the Persians. Others consider them the progeny of the Parthians. Some think the Turks had their origin in Arabia, and some in Syria. But it is more likely that they were Scythians by origin, and (as we said above) from the foot of Mount Caucasus, and that they formerly inhabited vast deserts.” See also Knolles, 1-2.

[3] Keane, _Man, Past and Present_, 268, 314-315. Holdich (in _Encyclopaedia Britannica_, 11th ed., ii. 749 b) says, “As ethnographical inquiry advances the Turk appears to recede from his Mongolian affinities and to approach the Caucasian.” Keene (_Turks in India_, 1 ff.) is inclined to consider the Turks a mere mixture of Mongols with Caucasians. So bald a theory does not account for the group of Turkish languages.

[4] Keane, 267.

[5] _Ibid._ 317.

[6] _Ibid._ 322; Hammer, _Geschichte_, i. 3.

[7] Keane, 322; Hammer, _Geschichte_, i. 2; etc.

[8] Hammer, _Geschichte_, i. 1. This fact, known to Knolles (p. 2), seems to have escaped the attention of Sir Charles Eliot (_Encyclopaedia Britannica_, 11th ed., xxvii. 470 d).

[9] The older view, that Iran represented peoples of Indo-European stock, and Turan peoples of Ural-Altaic stock, though once so generally adopted as to sanction the bestowal of the names Iranian and Turanian upon these groups of peoples, has been abandoned as regards the original legends, in which Turan seems to have represented ruder tribes of Indo-European lineage (Meyer, _Geschichte_, i. pt. ii. 814-815). But the Greeks from their first acquaintance with the name identified Turan with the Scythians, and at about the same time the Persians began to apply it to the Northern peoples of alien stock. The conditions of frontier contact between Turks and Persians during many centuries were undoubtedly as described in the legends.

[10] Rawlinson, _Parthia_, 33-35; Keane, 319. Meyer (in _Encyclopaedia Britannica_, 11th ed., xxi. 214 c) regards the Parni or Aparni, who became the conquering tribe in Parthia, as Iranian nomads; but Peisker (in _Cambridge Medieval History_, i. 332) asserts that the nomads of the Asiatic background all belong to the Altaian branch of the Ural-Altaian race. The fact that the Parthian army was a slave army (see Meyer, as above, 217 a) is perhaps the strongest piece of evidence that the original Parthians were Turks.

[11] Keane, 327. Asia Minor is here used in the larger sense, as denoting in general the Asian territory which lies west of a line drawn from the eastern end of the Black Sea to the head of the Gulf of Alexandretta.

[12] Quoted in Keane, 328, from Gibbon (ed. Bury), vi. 250.

[13] Vambéry, _Die Primitive Cultur_, 47; Keane, 328; Cahun, _Introduction_, 169 ff.; Ramsay, _Studies in Eastern Roman Provinces_, 295.

[14] Ramsay, _Studies in Eastern Roman Provinces_, 297. This statement has been confirmed by conversation with other persons well acquainted with conditions in Asia Minor. See also E. Huntington, in _National Geographic Magazine_, September, 1910, p. 767.

[15] Vambéry (_Die Primitive Cultur_, 47) expresses the opinion that the Ottomans never received, all told, more than 25,000 men of Turkish blood.

[16] _Ottoman_ is an attempt to pronounce _Othman_ by those who pronounce _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. v.

[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.