Chapter XX: Appendix: V (3)

[342] Spandugino, 146, states that under Mohammed II, each fief-holder who had 5000 aspers of income was obliged to bring another with him to war; but in his time (under Bayezid II) this obligation was imposed upon those who had 3000 aspers, unless retired on account of age. Ramberti and Junis Bey (below, pp. 256-271) say that for each 100 ducats a _Spahi_ must keep an armed horseman, and three or four servants, and a like number of horses; see also D’Ohsson, vii. 373. Heidborn, 145, states that holders of _timars_ brought an additional warrior for each 3000 aspers of income, and holders of _ziamets_ an additional one for each 5000 aspers; but in any case the first 3000 aspers was exempt.

[343] D’Ohsson, vii. 374.

[344] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 352.

[345] _Ibid._ 94.

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

[347] Ricaut, 343.

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

[349] The limit differed according to region. In Rumelia a _teskereh_ was required for all _timars_ of 6000 aspers and over, and for all _ziamets_: Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 275.

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

[351] Garzoni, 413; Tanco, 209.

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

[353] Spandugino, 211; Zinkeisen, iii. 129. The feudal _Spahis_ had lower officers who were not sent out from the capital, such as the _Cheribashis_.

[354] The name means “ensign bey,” and was translated _flambole_: for example, Geuffroy, 246.

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

[356] Heidborn, 140, says that the _Subashis_ had _ziamets_, the _Alai Beys_ had small _khasses_, the _Sanjak Beys_ had _khasses_ of a million aspers or more, and the _Beylerbeys_ much more. The amount which he assigns to the _Sanjak Beys_ is too large for Suleiman’s time. Ramberti (below, pp. 256-258) gives their income at from 4000 to 12,000 ducats, which would amount to from 200,000 to 600,000 aspers.

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

[358] Menavino, 186, 190, says that in his time the _Beylerbey_ of Anatolia resided at Kutaia (Custage). Ramberti, 259, mentions the same place (Chiothachie) as the seat of his sanjakate. Knolles (ed. 1687, p. 986) says that all the _Beylerbeys_ except the _Beylerbey_ of Rumelia were supposed to reside within their dominions.

[359] _Tractatus_, ch. xi.

[360] Trevisano, 132.

[361] In Europe 30,000 _Spahis_ and 20,000 _Timarjis_; in Anatolia 12,000 _Spahis_; in Karamania 7000, Amasia 4000, and Avandole 7000. This is the estimate of Junis Bey and Ramberti, which Geuffroy, 247, follows, and which Postel, iii. 37 ff., changes a little (Karamania 5000 instead of 7000, Amasia omitted). Ludovisi, 16, gives practically the same figures. Navagero, 41, gives 40,000 in Europe and 80,000 to 100,000 in Asia, the latter figure probably including the troops of Syria and Mesopotamia, and of Egypt, which was not provided with fiefs in the same way. Barbaro, 304, and Garzoni, 412, mention 80,000 in Europe and 50,000 in Asia. D. Barbarigo (1558), 33, speaks of a sum total of 160,000 feudal _Spahis_. Tiepolo (1576), 140, speaks of 60,000 _timars_ in Europe which sent 80,000 _Spahis_, and 50,000 _Spahis_ from Asia. The number may have increased about one-half during Suleiman’s reign, but it is more likely that all the groups of figures are only estimates. Ricaut, 341, after careful inquiry, gives the number of _Zaims_ in his time as 10,948, and of _Timarjis_ as 72,436, for the whole empire except Egypt. He thinks that this estimate should be increased to 100,000. The total feudal contingent in the time of Achmet I, was by Turkish authority about the same (Tischendorf, 57 ff.). D’Ohsson, vii. 375, estimates the feudal troops at 200,000 in Suleiman’s time; on p. 381, however, he speaks of more than 150,000 men. See below, p. 107, n. 1.

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

[363] Chesneau, 46; D’Ohsson, vii. 381. Knolles (ed. 1687, p. 990) says that not over one-third could safely be called to arms.

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

[365] After the year 1552: Trevisano, 124. The number of the _Beylerbeys_ was greatly increased in the last third of the sixteenth century. Knolles, 986-988, mentions five in Europe, 30 in Asia, and 4 in Africa, besides the _Beylerbey_ of the Sea, whose office was created by Suleiman, but who is not mentioned above as having no part in the army.

[366] Spandugino, 153; Nicolay, 160.

[367] The name _akinji_ is variously spelled: yachinji, alcanzi, alcangi, aconiziae, alengi, aquangi, achiar, aghiar. Spandugino, 150, says that the sultan can collect 200,000 of these for the war; Ramberti and Junis Bey (below, pp. 257, 271) mention 60,000 as inscribed; Giovio (_Commentarius_, 81) names 30,000; Garzoni, 414, says 25,000 or 30,000; Postel, iii. 26, says 50,000 or 60,000. Ramberti, 271, tells us that when in arms they were entitled to living expenses from the villages near which they passed.

[368] Zinkeisen, iii. 203.

[369] Spandugino, 152. Junis Bey, 270, mentions 1000 with the fleet, and Postel, iii. 71, mentions 10,000.

[370] Postel, iii. 26.

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

[372] Spandugino, 151.

[373] See above, p. 98.

[374] Junis Bey, below, p. 268. In addition were several thousand saddlers, etc., who were not reckoned as regular troops: the _Bostanjis_, older pages, body-guards, etc.

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

[376] Several contemporary estimates of the complete army may be compared: Marini Sanuto, under date of October 26, 1529, gives an estimate of the Turkish army then before Vienna as containing 305,200 men. The same writer (_Diarii_, lvi) gives three or four estimates from the year 1532, when Suleiman went forth on the Güns campaign: on p. 768, Suleiman’s army is said to contain 500,000 men; on p. 870 is found an account of Suleiman’s entry into Belgrade, in which 170,300 men are mentioned, besides “adventurers” and “many others”; on the same page is estimated the number with which the Sultan was to leave Belgrade, which sums up 284,500, and does not seem to account fully for the territorial armies; on p. 894 he summarizes a despatch from Ratisbon, dated August 23, 1532, which relates the testimony of three Turkish prisoners to the effect that the Turkish army numbers over 300,000 persons, but that not over 80,000 are good fighting men. Postel, iii. 38, estimates the enrolled army at 218,000, and the whole at 500,000. He states elsewhere that Suleiman took 500,000 men with him on the Persian expedition of 1534-35. Chesneau’s impression (pp. 106-108) of Suleiman’s army, when he saw it near Aleppo in the spring of 1549, was that it occupied 80,000 to 100,000 tents, on a plain eight to ten miles long; that it contained 300,000 to 400,000 fighting men, of whom all but 10,000 or 12,000 Janissaries were on horseback; and that the total number of persons assembled was about a million. Chesneau’s chief, the ambassador D’Aramont, writing concerning the same expedition from Esdron (Erzerum?) a few weeks later, speaks of “the mass of his (Suleiman’s) army, which is by common estimate of 300,000 men, as may be judged from the extent of the camp, which extends ten or twelve miles in length, and contains at least 60,000 tents or more, with such order and obedience that, considering the great multitude, it is almost unbelievable” (Charrière, ii. 68). In the year 1558, A. Barbarigo, 150-151, estimated the cavalry alone at more than 300,000. Twenty-six years after Suleiman’s death Bernardo, 331, says that the paid troops, in which he includes the sultan’s household and the feudal army, amounted to 250,000 men. Zinkeisen, iii. 199, estimates the extreme total of the sultan’s cavalry alone at 565,000. Knolles (ed. 1687, p. 984), writing about 1603, says that the sultan could always gather 150,000 Timariotes for a great expedition. He says that the Timariotes numbered in all 719,000 fighting men, of whom 257,000 were in Europe and 426,000 in Asia. The last two estimates are incredibly large.

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

[378] La Broquière, 273.

[379] Chalcocondyles, 135.

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

[381] Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 293; on p. 221 he compares Turkish and Western soldiers most unfavorably for the latter.

[382] Postel, i. 126; see also Dandolo, 166. Georgevitz, 45, says that he accompanied the Turkish army on an expedition against Persia (probably 1533 to 1536): “I saw a _Spahi_ decapitated together with his horse and servant, because the horse, having been left loose, entered some one’s field.”

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

[384] Morosini, 261.

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

[386] Junis Bey (below, pp. 274, 275) gives the order of march; Postel, 29 ff., describes the encampment.

[387] Chalcocondyles, 135, says that the Turks lodged more grandly in the field than in peace at home.

[388] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 79.

[389] _Ibid._ 160.

[390] Other reasons have been advanced to account for the fall of Ibrahim (cf. Postel, iii. 48 ff.). The fact that he had became a danger to the throne is sufficient.

[391] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 438.

[392] Halil Ganem, i. 206.

[393] Ranke, 11.

[394] The _Spahis_ of the Porte, and the Janissaries were not as a body put under a _Seraskier’s_ command until the time of Murad III: D’Ohsson, vii. 368; Djevad Bey, i. 16.

[395] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 141.

[396] Final audience was given to the Austrian ambassadors on June 23 (_ibid._ 138), and Ibrahim marched about September 21 (_ibid._ 143).

[397] _Ibid._ 277.

[398] Postel, iii. 54, speaking of Charles V in 1535-36, says: “The Emperor had and lost during the war against the Sofi the fairest opportunity that ever Prince had in this world, to recover Constantinople: for at every shaking of a leaf, all the people trembled, and there was no guard in the city except the inhabitants and ten thousand _Ajem-oghlans_” [these from the time of Mohammed II had been commissioned to guard the capital during the army’s absence: D’Ohsson, vii. 348]. Erizzo, 131, also discusses this danger, emphasizing the valor of the Persians and the readiness of Asia Minor to revolt. The Turks in Constantinople in 1535 feared that the expedition which Charles V was preparing against Tunis was intended for an attack upon their city (_Revue Africaine_, xix. 352).

[399] Suleiman in his letter to Ferdinand, November 27, 1562, says, “I, Lord of the Orient from the land of Tsin to the extremity of Africa”: Busbecq, _De Re Militari_, 272.

[400] Ibrahim said, “I, if I now wished it, could place Luther on one side and the Pope on the other, and compel them to hold a council; what Charles ought to have done, the Sultan and I will now do”: Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 134.

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

[402] Postel, iii. 19.

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

[404] D’Ohsson, vii. 202.

[405] Suleiman permitted this because of the increase it produced in his income: Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 114; Halil Ganem, i. 197.

[406] D’Ohsson, vii. 182, 202.

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

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

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

[410] Spandugino, 214 ff., relates how this came about, and says (p. 218), “No _Cadi_ can have power and authority over the slaves who receive pay from the Seigneur.”

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

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

[413] _Ibid._ i. 96. The descendants of Michael have been among the very few families who were constituted landed nobles in the Ottoman Empire. Seven “endowments of the Conquerors” still exist, one of which benefits his line: Heidborn, 314.

[414] Hammer, _Geschichte_, i. 96.

[415] _Ibid._ iii. 18.

[416] Spandugino, 13; Ramberti, below, p. 242; Junis Bey, below, p. 273. D. Barbarigo, 19, names eight great families among whom the succession might fall (he says that some thought it should pass through the female line): in Rumelia four,—Micali, Ersecli, Eurenesli, Egiachiali; in Anatolia, four,—Cheselamath, Diercauli, Durcadurli, Ramadanli, formerly called Spendial. Ricaut, 107, says that in his time there existed an “ancient compact” by which, in default of heirs male in the Ottoman line, the empire was to descend to the Crimean Tartars.

[417] Ricaut, 211.

[418] _Ibid._ 129: “A Turk is never reverenced but for his Office, that is made the sole measure and rule of his greatness and honour, without other considerations of Vertue or Nobility.”

[419] Below, ch. vii.

[420] Above, ch. iii, under heads “Other Motives for Incorporating Christians,” “Advancement Based on Merit.”

[421] Ricaut, 129.

[422] About the year 1800, when the two institutions, and particularly the Ruling Institution, had reached an extreme state of decay, and before new institutions after Western models had yet been introduced, the Ottoman Empire was to come very near to such a breaking-up. It seems actually to have been saved by the lingering of the tradition against heredity in office; for, though life-tenure of purchased governorships had become regular, no Pasha except the North African corsairs of the seventeenth century, and Ibrahim in Egypt in the early nineteenth century, succeeded in founding a dynasty upon Ottoman soil. For the disorders about 1800, see Heidborn, 144.

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

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

[425] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 278.

[426] Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 6.

[427] Postel, i. 31, says that Suleiman occasionally sent for one of his women to visit him in the principal palace. Nicolay, 62, reports that about 1551 Roxelana was residing within the palace grounds. By 1585 the principal ladies of the harem had been transferred to the new palace, leaving the old palace to the function of a training-school for recruits. These steps illustrate the rapid increase of the importance of the harem in the Ottoman scheme.

[428] Exceptions were made in case of the old _Hojas_, or teachers of the young princes, the religious advisers of the queen mother, and physicians. See Postel, i. 35; Ricaut, 68; D’Ohsson, vii. 11; Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 73.

[429] _Siasset Namèh_, 121, 123, 163.

[430] “_Kanun_ of the Imperial Table,” printed in Hammer’s _Staatsverfassung_, 98: “It is not my _Kanun_ that any one should dine with my Imperial Majesty; it might be some one not of Imperial blood.” Suleiman did not always observe this _Kanun_ (cf. Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 99).

[431] Erizzo, 138; Morosini, 281.

[432] Extended descriptions of the household are found in D’Ohsson, vii and Hammer’s _Staatsverwaltung_. Lane-Poole, in his _Story of Turkey_, ch. xiv, gives a good, clear summary of D’Ohsson. References to these authorities are here omitted except in a few instances of special interest.

[433] Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 71; Menavino, 179. The _Eski Serai_ of the sixteenth century stood where the _Seraskierat_, or War Office, now stands.

[434] D’Ohsson, v. 52.

[435] Postel, i. 32.

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

[437] Junis Bey (below, p. 269) says twenty, a number scarcely sufficient. Twenty years earlier Menavino, 180, speaks of about forty.

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

[439] Postel, i. 35.

[440] Ricaut, 73.

[441] Hammer (_Geschichte_, ii. 222) says that the custom of accomplishing the death of sons of daughters of sultans (by neglecting to tie the navel cord) dates from Mohammed II; but no contemporary authority appears to mention such a custom. D’Ohsson, vii. 93, says that it was instituted in the time of Achmet I. The son of a sister of Selim I was _Beylerbey_ of Aleppo about 1550 (Alberi, _Anonimo_ of 1553, 228).

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

[443] Postel, i. 31.

[444] Spandugino, 64.

[445] Menavino, 137.

[446] D’Ohsson, vii. 34. Whether this number was fixed in Suleiman’s time does not appear from the records. Mohammed II had 32 officers of the _Khas Oda_ (Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 96). Menavino, 121-123, names three special officers, 15 of second grade, and 35 of third grade, before mentioning the treasury. Ramberti and Junis Bey (below, pp. 243, 263) name 6 principal officers, but do not distinguish the _odalar_ further. Chesneau, 39, says that 25 of the pages were Suleiman’s personal servants, and that 5 served him specially. Navagero, 45, speaks of 25 or 30 in the _Khas Oda_. Ricaut, 52, speaks of 40.

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

[448] Navagero, 44.

[449] The number of pages in the _Kiler Odassi_ is given by Menavino, 125, as 25, all between 20 and 22 years of age. Navagero, 44, says that they numbered 300 or 400; but this is incredible. He gives no numbers for the purely educational _odalar_, and evidently has counted them all in the _Kiler Odassi_.

[450] Hammer (_Staatsverwaltung_, 30) erroneously says that the pages of these _odalar_ attended to the lowest duties of the palace, and were recruited from three palace schools outside. Navagero, 44, disproves this.

[451] An additional chamber, the _Seferli Odassi_, or Chamber of Campaign, was instituted by Murad IV to attend to his laundry work and other special duties in time of war. The membership was chosen out of the educational _odalar_, and it ranked next after the _Kiler Odassi_. See Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 28.

[452] Ricaut, 47.

[453] Ramberti, below, p. 255.

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

[455] Menavino, 160 ff.

[456] Zinkeisen, iii. 181, states erroneously on the authority of Trevisano, 125 (meaning p. 128), that these were all Turks and of noble blood. The fact that Menavino, 146, calls them “schiaui” is sufficient disproof. Zinkeisen also quotes Spandugino, 114, to the effect that the _Muteferrika_ were all lords, or sons of princes or of lords; but Spandugino, 62, says that pages pass to the office of _Muteferrika_ from the highest four offices at least. Trevisano, 127, says, “Li quali sono giovani nati Turchi, _e figliuoli d’uomini di autorità_” (italics not in original); but “men of authority” were practically all renegades. Moro, 341, calls them, in 1590, sons of the principal Turks. The fact seems to be that most of the _Muteferrika_ were Ottomans of the second generation (_i. e._, sons of renegades) and that the rest were regarded as ennobled by passage through the high offices of the _Khas Oda_.

[457] Menavino, 155 (he says they were Persians); Nicolay, 98; Ramberti, below, p. 251.

[458] Spandugino, 116, gives the number 300, and says that they became Janissaries. Menavino, 140, mentions 500. Ramberti (pp. 246, 253) mentions 250 at the principal palace and 100 at the palace of the harem; the latter he calls Janissaries.

[459] Junis Bey, below, p. 265.

[460] Spandugino, 125.

[461] Postel, iii. 9.

[462] Ricaut, 373. In his time they numbered 500 or 600.

[463] Junis Bey, 263. Ramberti, 245, speaks of 35, which is clearly too few.

[464] Postel, iii. 11.

[465] Menavino, 129. In D’Ohsson’s time (vii. 15) this official was also the jailer and presiding executioner of the palace, inspector of the water supply and forests near the capital, and overseer of hunting and fishing and of the trade in wine and lime. How many of these functions he exercised under Suleiman seems not to have been recorded. In Spandugino’s time (p. 118) the chief _Kapuji_ was presiding executioner.

[466] Ramberti, 251; Junis Bey, 268.

[467] Menavino, 150. They were not _kullar_. Cf. the _Zainogiler_, below, pp. 252, 268.

[468] Shortened in use to _Miri-akhor_, _Imrakhor_, _Imbrahor_, _Imbroor_, _Imror_, etc.

[469] D’Ohsson, vii. 17; Menavino, 148-150.

[470] A short form of _Emir-Alem_.

[471] Menavino, 145.

[472] D’Ohsson, vii. 21. In his time these were under the “Chief of the Black Eunuchs.” It does not appear who controlled them under Suleiman.

[473] Postel, iii. 12; Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 44.

[474] Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 37.

[475] Spandugino, 127-128, describes the hunting organization under Bayezid II. Ramberti and Junis Bey (below, pp. 249, 266) state that 2700 or 900 Janissaries served under the _Segban-bashi_ and _Zagarji-bashi_ in the care of the dogs.

[476] D’Ohsson, iv. 98 ff.

[477] _Siasset Namèh_, 161.

[478] _Tractatus_, ch. ix.

[479] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 88 ff.

[480] _Ibid._, 434 ff.

[481] The statements of this paragraph are based upon the _Kanuni Teshrifat_ as given in Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 434 ff. See Della Valle, i. 45: “Tutti gli uffici, e tutti gli ordini, tanto della militia, quanto della Corte, e d’ogni altra sorte di persone, hanno qui il loro habito proprio, and in particolare al portamento della testa, si cognosce ciascuno che cosa è.”

[482] Postel, iii. 13; Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 18.

[483] Ricaut, 156.

[484] The festival of the Birth of the Prophet was not instituted until the reign of Murad III (Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 469). The sultan’s annual visit to the relics of the Prophet also became a great ceremony.

[485] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 96-101. Only less splendid was the marriage of Ibrahim to Suleiman’s sister in 1524 (_ibid._ 38).

[486] Compare Gritti, 27: the Janissaries at the reception of ambassadors “stand in such quiet and order as for war that it is a marvellous thing and not to be believed by those who have not seen it with their own eyes.”

[487] Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 152 ff.

[488] A name for Cairo, used much from the time of the crusades onward.

[489] Nicolay, 88-89, explains that the wearing of ostrich plumes, attached in a tube of jeweled gold to the front of the turban, and curving over the head and down the back, was a highly-valued privilege accorded only to such Janissaries as had distinguished themselves in action.

[490] The _Solaks_.

[491] The _Sharabdar_, the _Chokadar_, and the _Silihdar_.

[492] Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 283 ff.

[493] _Ibid._, 302 ff. These quotations may profitably be compared with those from the _Tractatus_ in regard to the simplicity of Murad II (above, p. 134). Not a few descriptions of court and camp ceremonies in the century following the accession of Suleiman have been handed down. For example: Suleiman’s entry into Belgrade in 1532 (Marini Sanuto, lvi. 870); Suleiman’s entry into Aleppo, 1548 (anonymous report, in Alberi, 3d series, i. 224 ff.); Suleiman’s reception of Captain Pinon in 1544 (Maurand, 207-225); Selim II’s reception of De Noailles in 1573 (Du Fresne-Canaye, 59-72); Ahmed I’s going to mosque, 1614 (Della Valle, 68-71); Ahmed I’s reception of the Venetian _Bailo_, 1615 (_ibid._ 98 ff.).

[494] Postel, i. 31, speaks of the mother of Mustapha as having superior authority about 1537, though residing much at Magnesia; and he does not speak of Roxelana. But Ludovisi, 29, shows that Roxelana was in 1534 the wife of Suleiman, and that the mother of Mustapha then resided with her son at Magnesia. For the decisive quarrel between Roxelana and the mother of Mustapha, see Navagero, 75.

[495] Navagero, 79.

[496] Described above, pp. 93-95.

[497] Navagero, 76-77.

[498] The unfortunate Jehangir also was thought to have come to his death from shock at the death of Mustapha and fear of a similar fate for himself. See Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 178; Navagero, 77. But see Alberi, _Anonimo_ of 1553, 216, for another and more credible account.

[499] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 425.

[500] See above, pp. 78, 120.

[501] Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 331; Halil Ganem, i. 199.

[502] Spandugino, 185. A generation earlier still La Broquière, 186, said: “No one speaks to them [the pashas] unless he brings them a present, as well as one for each of the slaves who guard their gate.”

[503] Spandugino, 145, relates how in his time the peasants were eaten, as it were, all the year by tithes, compulsory presents, land-tax, and extortion. The earlier sixteenth-century writers seem not to have observed that the sultan’s subjects were especially miserable. Morosini (1585), 272, remarks vigorously upon the tyranny and oppression which were causing depopulation and destroying the incentive of the farm-dwellers to produce more than a bare sustenance. Zane (1595), 395, 415, writes in a similar vein. Gerlach, 52 (quoted in Zinkeisen, iii. 361), found those who lived at a distance from Constantinople in a wretched state of oppression. Knolles (ed. 1687, p. 982), writing about 1603, speaks of the desolate condition of the empire, especially in those regions through which the army was accustomed to pass. In Ricaut’s time (pp. 124, 145, 323) agricultural decline, accompanied by misery and depopulation, was apparent.

[504] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 438.

[505] D’Ohsson, i. 268; Heidborn, 112, note 11. Heidborn, 106-121, treats fully the constitutional position of the sultan.

[506] Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 226.

[507] D’Ohsson, iv. 482 ff.

[508] Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 1-3.

[509] _Ibid._ i. 557, iii. 159, etc.

[510] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 29. This use of the word _Urf_ in Turkish is not the same as that of its Arabic original (see Redhouse, 1294; Youssouf Fehmi, 237). Heidborn, 37 ff., discusses the sources of Ottoman law, giving an especially thorough and excellent treatment to the Sacred Law.

[511] Macdonald, 71; D’Ohsson, i. 5 ff.

[512] Macdonald, 94, 115; Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 4; D’Ohsson, i. 11 ff.

[513] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 9.

[514] D’Ohsson, 21.

[515] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 10; D’Ohsson, i. 22-24. The _Multeka_ is the basis of D’Ohsson’s excellent work, which consists of a translation of the code with its comments, to which he has added observations of great value based on historical studies and on his own investigations during many years’ residence in Turkey. Heidborn, 44-69, gives a detailed account of the development of the Sacred Law. He also (pp. 85-89) describes the _Multeka_ and gives a table of its contents.

[516] Heidborn, 40-41. This writer uses the form _fykyh_.

[517] Snouck Hurgronje, in _Revue de l’Histoire des Religions_, xxvii. 1 ff., 74 ff.

[518] Goldziher, in _Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft_, viii. 406 ff.; Kohler, _ibid._ 424 ff.; Juynboll, 8, 310.

[519] In Turkey at the present day the courts of the Sacred Law (_Sheriyeh_) have sole cognizance of the following classes of cases: “in civil law, questions concerning marriage, alimony, education of children, liberty, slavery, inheritance, wills, absence, and disappearance; in criminal law, suits concerning retaliation, the price of blood, the price of laming a limb, the price of causing an abortion, damages for disfigurements, the division of the price of blood” (Heidborn, 255). The _Nizamiyeh_, or secular courts, have sole cognizance of commercial and penal cases, and a few other groups. All other causes are taken before the _Sheriyeh_ courts if the parties agree; otherwise before the _Nizamiyeh_ courts. Thus the courts of the Sacred Law still retain a great deal of importance in Turkey.

[520] See, in particular, above, pp. 40, 41, 42. See also Postel, i. 116 ff., 124 ff.; Ricaut, 200 ff. Heidborn, 43, comments on this state of affairs, and explains the comparatively recent further legal developments in Turkey as follows:—

“Durant de longs siècles le fykyh, tout pétrifié qu’il était, put suffire aux besoins de la société islamique et son manque de souplesse fut d’autant moins ressenti, que l’évolution de cette société elle-mème a été à peu près nulle. Assoupie dans une léthargie profonde, elle semble se recueillir de son immense effort de jeunesse et contempler en spectatrice indifférente ou dédaigneuse les progrès réalisés, depuis, par l’Occident. En Turquie seulement, à mesure que se resserraient ses liens avec l’Europe, fut comprise l’impérieuse nécessité de sortir de cet isolement et d’emprunter à la culture occidentale certaines méthodes susceptibles de rajeunir le corps vielli de l’empire. Par suite de cette orientation récente, le fykyh a subi, en Turquie, d’importantes abrogations de fait sinon de droit, qui atteignent cependant plutôt le domaine du droit public que celui du droit privé. Celui-ci subsiste, dans une large mesure, malgré ses imperfections et son absence de plan et de clarté. On s’est contenté de combler ses lacunes les plus apparentes par des lois empruntées à la législation occidentale, sans se soucier de la complète disparate créée par la réunion d’éléments aussi hétérogènes.”

[521] D’Ohsson, i. 261, v. 11.

[522] Macdonald, 66; Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 12.

[523] Heidborn, 69.

[524] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 14; Heidborn, 71.

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

[526] Ricaut, 202; Steen de Jehay, 13 ff.

[527] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 31.

[528] In the course of time the development of civil courts in the Ottoman Empire has relegated the former judicial system to the position of ecclesiastical courts with jurisdiction similar to that of Christian church courts of the Middle Ages. See Macdonald, 113; and above, p. 154, note 2.

[529] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 30.

[530] _Ibid._ 31.

[531] For an example of this practice, see _ibid._ 343.

[532] _Ibid._ 2.

[533] _Ibid._ 29.

[534] Heidborn, 90.

[535] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 31; in pages 219-327 are found the _Kanun-namehs_ of all the _sanjaks_.

[536] _Ibid._ 87-101.

[537] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 480.

[538] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_: 101-143, the _Kanun-nameh Misr_; 143-162, police and market laws of Suleiman; 187-211, _Kanuni Rayah_; 337-434, _Kanuni Timar_. Hammer does not make it clear where he found particular _Kanuns_, or how completely he has presented the originals; nor has he attempted to distinguish _Kanuns_ of Suleiman from those of earlier and later sultans. The _Kanuni Rayah_ was not made into a formal _Kanun-nameh_ till 1614 (_ibid._ 211). See Heidborn, 91-92.

[539] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 142.

[540] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 39.

[541] A translation of a portion of the table of contents of this collection, as found in the manuscript Fluegel No. 1816, in the Imperial Library at Vienna, is given in Appendix III, below. This shows by comparison with the headings in Hammer’s _Staatsverfassung_, 396-424, that Hammer has there translated at least one-half of the manuscript, though he appears to attribute these sections to the _Kanun-nameh_ of Achmet I (_ibid._ 384). The table of contents of the latter collection of laws is very different (see next note).

[542] The _Kanun-nameh_ of Achmet I, issued in 1619, contained collections of (1) feudal laws; (2) laws of the army, the navy, the outer and the inner service; (3) laws of police, finance, and fiefs. See Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, pp. xviii, xix.

[543] This statement is based on information obtained from a gentleman long resident in Turkey.

[544] Zinkeisen, iii. 161 ff.

[545] Macdonald, 10.

[546] Hammer, _Geschichte_, i. 96.

[547] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 32.

[548] D’Ohsson, i. 258 ff.

[549] “The dignity of the Imâmate does not absolutely demand that the Imâm be just, virtuous, or irreproachable, or that he be the most eminent and the most excellent of the human beings of his time” (from the _Multeka_, quoted by D’Ohsson, i. 271); “Vices or tyranny in an Imâm do not demand his deposition” (_ibid._ 288). This is the doctrine of orthodox Islam, as the outcome of the early Kharijite schisms. The Shiites are more critical as regards their sovereigns, who are not regarded as _Imâms_.

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

[551] Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 331-333; D’Ohsson, iv. 50 ff.

[552] Busbecq, i. 331; D’Ohsson, iv. 103, 280.

[553] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 71, 486.

[554] _Ibid._ ii. 216-217, 223.

[555] _Ibid._ i. 565, ii. 223.

[556] See above, pp. 58, 59.

[557] A. Barbarigo, 155; D. Barbarigo, 26; Bernardo, 326; Erizzo, 136. See also Chesneau, 41.

[558] Barbaro, 319.

[559] Postel, iii. _passim_, gives various glimpses of his life.

[560] _Siasset Namèh_, 163.

[561] The position and duties of the grand vizier at a later date are described at length by Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 79-101, and by D’Ohsson, vii. 177-189.

[562] Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 226; taken from the Turkish historian Aali and referring to the time of Mohammed II.

[563] Postel, i. 123.

[564] Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 5.

[565] _Ibid._ iii. 793.

[566] The position of the _Defterdars_ about the year 1800 is discussed in D’Ohsson, vii. 261 ff., and in Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 137 ff. Contemporary accounts are found in Menavino, 168; Ramberti, below, p. 247; Junis Bey, below, p. 265; Postel, iii. 66-70.

[567] The word means primarily “book-keeper.” It is derived either from the Greek word διφθέρα or from a similar Persian word (Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 228). Ramberti (below, p. 247) mentions but two _Defterdars_, one who took care of the revenue from all the Asiatic provinces, Egypt, and the Danubian countries, and received ten thousand ducats a year, and perquisites, the other who took care of the revenue from the rest of the European dominions, received six thousand ducats and perquisites, and was governor of Constantinople in the sultan’s absence.

[568] Spandugino, 98.

[569] Junis Bey (below, p. 265) says that the _Defterdars_ had 200 slaves each for their courts. Then he speaks of 50 scribes, each with 15 or 20 slaves, and of 25 secretaries who must have been the heads of the bureaus, and who had slaves. Next he mentions the two _Rusnamehjis_, who had 20 or 25 companions under them. Ramberti, 247, says that the first _Defterdar_ had 1000 slaves in his household, and the second 500. Postel, iii. 69, mentions only one _Rusnamehji_, but clearly states that he is over the chiefs of the twenty-five bureaus.

[570] D’Ohsson, vii. 264-273; Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 145-170.

[571] It certainly was in 1660. Cf. Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 170.

[572] D’Ohsson, vii. 265, omits the intendants of buildings and forage.

[573] D’Ohsson, vii. 236.

[574] Charges for the right to plant and transport tobacco were later assigned to the care of this bureau. See Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 156.

[575] At a later date, when the expenses of the harem became greater, the customs duties of certain regions, the tobacco revenue from Syria and Arabia, and the tax on wool and yarn were also assigned to this bureau (_ibid._ 158).

[576] Junis Bey (below, p. 266) and Postel, iii. 70, call this official _Defterdar-emini_. His department, in three bureaus, became a record office of land titles (D’Ohsson, vii. 193). It may have had this wider function in the sixteenth century.

[577] Spandugino, 65, 119; Ramberti, below, pp. 244, 248.

[578] Menavino, 182; Postel, iii. 70.

[579] Ricaut, 103, Ramberti and Junis Bey (below, pp. 256, 271) say that the _Beylerbey_ of Rumelia had 100 scribes.

[580] Spandugino, 148; Postel, iii. 63.

[581] This subject is treated in Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 478-483, and _Staatsverfassung_, 180-337; D’Ohsson, v. 15-37; and, as concerns the legal taxes, in Belin, _La Propriété Foncière_.

[582] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 37 ff.

[583] Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 523, iii. 65.

[584] _Ibid._ iii. 266. According to Heidborn, 339, the registering of the lands of the different regions of the Ottoman Empire, begun in 1548 by Suleiman’s order and completed after some 55 years, remains to the present time the basis of land titles in Turkey.

[585] D’Ohsson, vii. 242.

[586] Spandugino, 144. Postel, iii. 65, says that the tithes (apparently those revenues not sold in the lump or left for individual collection) were collected by Christian receivers (_tous Chrestiens_), who delivered them to the _Kadis_, and these to the _Sanjak_, he to the _Beylerbey_, and the _Beylerbey_ to the _Defterdars_.

[587] D’Ohsson, vii. 258.

[588] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 471. It was a poll-tax of 15 aspers on each male inhabitant.

[589] Spandugino, 57.

[590] Hammer, _Geschichte_, i. 167, 592.

[591] By _Kanun_ of Mohammed II: Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 99.

[592] Postel, iii. 68.

[593] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 472.

[594] Postel, iii. 70.

[595] Hammer, _Geschichte_, i. 234.

[596] _Ibid._ iii. 471.

[597] La Broquière, 182; Ricaut, 404.

[598] Ricaut, 404.

[599] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 472.

[600] See above, pp. 115, 116.

[601] Postel, iii. 49.

[602] Below, p. 273.

[603] La Broquière, 182, estimated the sultan’s revenue in 1433 at 2,500,000 ducats. Chalcocondyles, 171, overestimated it at 8,000,000 ducats about the year 1465. Alvise Sagudino (quoted in Schéfer’s edition of Spandugino, p. lv) reckoned it in 1496 at 3,300,000 ducats; Andrea Gritti, father of Alvise, made it 5,000,000 in 1503 (_ibid._ lviii); Spandugino’s estimate, under Bayezid, was 3,600,000 (_ibid._ 132). Mocenigo, 54, set Selim I’s income at 3,130,000, besides 800,000 from the Persian conquests, all spent in Persia. Minio (1522), 71, estimated the revenue as 3,000,000. Zeno (1524), 95, called it 4,500,000, and the expenses 3,000,000. Bragadin (1526), 106, says that the treasury had an income of 12,000,000, of which the sultan took 4,500,000 (the larger amount would no doubt include the feudal income). Minio (1527), 115, states the income as 7,000,000. Zeno (1530), 121, gives 6,000,000 or more for the income, 4,000,000 for the expenses. Giovio (_Commentaries_, 73) sets the revenue at 6,000,000, and the expenses at 4,000,000 or 5,000,000. Postel, iii. 68, gives 4,000,000 on Alvise Gritti’s authority, though he apportions it differently from Junis Bey. D’Ohsson, vii. 258, says that Suleiman’s revenues rose to 26,000,000 piasters. At 40 aspers to the piaster and 50 aspers to the ducat, this gives about 20,000,000 ducats, which is far too much.

[604] Navagero (1553), 37-39, estimates 7,166,000 ducats; Trevisano (1554), 149-150, says 8,196,000 ducats. Navagero seems to overestimate the mines (1,500,000 ducats) and the duties (1,200,000); Trevisano’s estimate of 2,000,000 from the animal tax seems unwarranted. Erizzo (1557), 130, claims to give an authentic statement of the sultan’s income and expenditure; the former he sets at 4,600,000 ducats and the latter at 3,600,000. A. Barbarigo (1558), 150, gives 7,740,000 ducats as income and 4,100,000 as expenditure. Donini, 190, says that after great efforts he knows most certainly that the income of the treasury for 1561 was 216,519,826 aspers, or 4,330,396 ducats and 26 soldi, and the expenditure 206,581,957 aspers, or 4,131,639 ducats and 7 soldi. He states that this income is less by 400,000 ducats than usual, because of the prohibition of wine. Erizzo does not include the tax on mines and salt works, and the income from Mesopotamia and the domain lands, in his list of sources of revenue; and Donini does not specify the sources. Bernardo, 347, says that the income in his time of service (1584-87) was 9,000,000 ducats, and that by 1592 it was 10,000,000. Knolles (ed. 1687, p. 982) estimates the sultan’s ordinary revenues about 1603 as 8,000,000. This does not, however, include confiscations, fines, tribute, customs, booty, etc., which Knolles (p. 983) believed to exceed the ordinary revenue. Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 170, gives official figures for a hundred years later (1660): the income of the treasury then was 600,000,000 aspers, or 11,000,000 to 12,000,000 ducats at sixteenth-century valuations; capitation was nearly 2,000,000, land tax about as much, mines 1,000,000, etc.

[605] The extensive notes given above show clearly that from 1433 to 1660 there was a progressive increase in the sultan’s income, as measured in aspers or ducats. Brosch (in _Cambridge Modern History_, iii. 130) accuses Suleiman of raising by taxation double the amount exacted by Mohammed II, and thus bringing undue pressure to bear. This statement fails to take account of the fact that Suleiman’s empire was about double that of Mohammed II’s in area, population, and wealth. Also it seems to have been the case that the value of gold and silver fell greatly after the discovery of the American mines (Day, 135). If these effects were felt promptly in the Levant, Suleiman’s income in the last years of his life may have had little more purchasing power than Mohammed II’s. Distributed over a wider area, the pressure of taxation in his time may easily have been lighter than it was three generations before.

[606] Postel, iii. 67, says that it does not include the _timars_. He says (iii. 168) that some call the total revenue 12,000,000 ducats, in which they must include the income of the fief-holders. Bragadin, 106, says that the income is 12,000,000. Ramberti (below, p. 261) estimates it at 15,000,000, of which 5,000,000 goes into the treasury and 10,000,000 remains for the “servants of war.”

[607] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 472; and see above, p. 144 and note 2.

[608] Accounts are given in D’Ohsson, vii. 159-172, and in Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 101-137. References to the _Nishanji_ are found in Spandugino, 99; Menavino, 168; Ramberti, below, p. 248; Ludovisi, 14; Navagero, 94; Trevisano, 118; Garzoni, 430; Junis Bey (below, p. 266) and Postel, iii. 63, speak of a _Teskereji-bashi_, giving a description which applies exactly to the _Nishanji_ as represented by contemporaries. Since the word means merely “chief of document-writers,” it refers without doubt to the _Nishanji_.

[609] Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 133.

[610] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 54.

[611] Postel, iii. 63. See also Ramberti, below, p. 248.

[612] Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 229, iii. 796. The first _Reis Effendi_ whose name is known was Haider Effendi, executed in 1525 on the charge of promoting an uprising of the Janissaries. The office is mentioned in the _Kanun-nameh_ of Mohammed II (Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 90).

[613] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 126 ff.; Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, _passim_.

[614] Ricaut, 57.

[615] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 90.

[616] Trevisano (1554), 118. Morosini (1585), 266, says that the employees of the chancery were then native Turks.

[617] Hammer, _Geschichte_, i. 35.

[618] Cahun, _Introduction_, 82, speaking of Turks of the steppe lands: “Dès qu’ils descendaient de cheval, c’étaient des barbares bureaucrates et paperassiers.”

[619] Spandugino, 185.

[620] The Divan, as it was about 1800, is described in D’Ohsson, vii. 211-232; and in Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 412-436. Contemporary references are Menavino, 169; Postel, i. 122; Navagero, 93; Trevisano, 117; Garzoni, 430. Zinkeisen, iii. 117-125, has pictured the Divan in the sixteenth century.

[621] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 489. This is the first of the reasons given by Kochi Bey for the decline of the empire after Suleiman.

[622] Postel, i. 123; Trevisano, 119; Garzoni, 431. D. Barbarigo, 32, gives an instance in which Suleiman made use of this means of information, and in consequence ordered the execution of the grand vizier Achmet.

[623] Hammer (_Staatsverwaltung_, 412-436) gives them with great exactness.

[624] In the time of Mohammed II a procession was formed by the members of the Divan, the men of the lowest rank in front, and the grand vizier last. On reaching the door of the hall, the lesser officials stopped and separated into two lines, between which the grand vizier advanced. The greater officials followed, so that the hall was entered in the order of rank. See Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 225.

[625] From the _Kanun_ of Mohammed II: Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 89. Aali (used by Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 225) gives a different arrangement, which can hardly have been correct.

[626] Postel, i. 123.

[627] Garzoni, 431.

[628] Postel, i. 123.

[629] Garzoni, 431.

[630] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 89; Trevisano, 118-119.

[631] Navagero, 98; D. Barbarigo, 26. See also above, p. 164 and note 3.

[632] Postel, i. 123.

[633] Trevisano, 120. See above, p. 164.

[634] Zinkeisen, iii. 125; Tiepolo, 164.

[635] Heidborn, 141: “Le divan était à la fois une sorte de Conseil d’État, où se discutaient les affaires politiques importantes, et une Cour suprême autorisée à évoquer tout litige devant elle et à connaître notamment des procès entre Ottomans et étrangers qui dépassaient la valeur de 3000 aspres.”

[636] Although this and other features of the Moslem Institution will be spoken of throughout this chapter in the past tense, much that is mentioned remains in existence in Turkey at the present time. The _vakfs_ are discussed at length in D’Ohsson, ii. 437-567; and more briefly in Belin, _La Propriété Foncière_, 74-104. Heidborn, 306 ff., gives a well-analyzed account; and on p. 306, note 245, he mentions additional authorities.

[637] Ricaut, 213.

[638] D’Ohsson, ii. 540.

[639] Ricaut, 217. D’Ohsson, ii. 532, expresses a different opinion.

[640] Interest was allowable on the funds belonging to mosques, though otherwise forbidden: Ricaut, 218; D’Ohsson, ii. 550.

[641] See below, p. 234, note 1.

[642] Ramberti, below, p. 243; Ricaut, 215.

[643] Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 237.

[644] Ricaut, 215. In D’Ohsson’s time (ii. 538) it was estimated at 1,000,000 aspers. Nicolay, 68, says that it had been 300,000 ducats before the conquest.

[645] Morosini, 267; Zane, 406; Heidborn, 309.

[646] Mohammed II fixed these fees: for example, 7 aspers for sealing a document, 12 for a signature, 32 for the marriage contract of a virgin, 15 for that of a widow, etc. See Hammer, _Staatsverfassung,_ 100.

[647] D’Ohsson, iv. 599.

[648] The _Ulema_ and other members of the Moslem Institution are described in D’Ohsson, iv. 482-686. Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 372-412, gives a summary of D’Ohsson’s treatment. Heidborn, 208-210, describes the educational system summarily.

[649] The ten studies were grammar, syntax, logic, metaphysics, philology, tropics, stylistics, rhetoric, geometry, and astronomy: Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 238.

[650] Among these studies were advanced rhetoric and metaphysics, dogmatics, civil law, exegesis, jurisprudence, oral tradition, and written documents (Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 239). All schools above the _mektebs_ came under the name _medresseh_. Heidborn distinguishes eight classes to which Suleiman added four colleges of yet higher degree. His implication (p. 210, note 5) that the student who aimed at the highest judgeships must study through eight or more _medressehs_, and then teach through a like series, can hardly be correct, since the ordinary human life would be too short for such a double round. Probably the steps of progress were not so precisely regulated or so numerous.

[651] D’Ohsson, ii. 464.

[652] Hammer (_Geschichte_, ix. 145-163) found 275 in Constantinople alone, of which 50 had been founded before the death of Suleiman.

[653] Chalcocondyles, 53; Ramberti, below, p. 244; Junis Bey, below, p. 265; etc.

[654] D’Ohsson, ii. 477; Heidborn, 213.

[655] Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 236: “The priesthood proper ... is perhaps in no other state of less influence, but the teaching body is in no other kingdom (except China) of greater weight and political importance.”

[656] Ricaut, 211.

[657] Spandugino, 219; Menavino, 72 ff.; Nicolay, 121. Ricaut, 261 ff., knew eight or ten orders, which he describes at some length.

[658] Hammer, _Geschichte_, i. 154, ii. 357, iii. 67; Postel, i. 112.

[659] Heidborn, 269-274.

[660] Ricaut, 201.

[661] In Ricaut’s time (p. 204) one of the _Kaziaskers_ was regularly chosen for this position.

[662] D’Ohsson, iv. 500. Heidborn, 215, says that the title _Sheik ul-Islam_ was first bestowed by Murad II upon the _mufti_ of Adrianople, who was removed to Constantinople by Mohammed II after the capture; that Mohammed assigned the title _Reis ul-ulema_, or chief of the _Ulema_, to this officer, but that he reached great dignity only under Suleiman.

[663] Spandugino, 113.

[664] Postel, i. 118.

[665] Spandugino, 112.

[666] La Broquière, 181; Ramberti, below, p. 247; Geuffroy, 241; Trevisano, 122; Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 116; Bernardo, 364.

[667] Heidborn, 216.

[668] Ricaut, 200-202.

[669] Hammer, _Geschichte_, ii. 401.

[670] _Ibid._ 536 ff.; Heidborn, 215, note 16.

[671] D’Ohsson, v. 104 ff.

[672] See Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 278 ff.; and Appendix III below. Heidborn, 215, contributes further details as to the great _Mufti’s_ advance in the _cursus honorum_ of the Moslem Institution. He shows that he began his legal studies at 27 years of age, continued them until his 45th year, was made _Kazi_ of Brusa, then of Constantinople, and in his 50th year (944 A.H.) _Mufti_. The last statement seems to be erroneous; for Hammer (as above) says that he became _Mufti_ in 952 (1545 A. D.), after eight years’ service as _Kaziasker_. Probably, then, he was made _Kaziasker_ in 944 and _Mufti_ in 952. After thirty years in that eminent position, he died in 982 (1574).

[673] Busbecq, _Life and Letters_, i. 116-117.

[674] Ricaut, 202.

[675] This description, based on D’Ohsson’s account, may represent at some points a development later than the time of Suleiman. No sixteenth-century writer seems to have gone into the organization of the system in detail. Heidborn, 220 ff., treats with fulness the past and present judicial system of the Ottoman Empire.

[676] Hammer, _Staatsverwaltung_, 380.

[677] Postel, i. 117.

[678] The _Subashis_ in particular were closely connected with the administration of justice. Postel, i. 120, says loosely that _Pasha_, _Kazi_, and _Subashi_ all mean the same thing. Chesneau, 47, says that the sultan had two judges in every city, a _Kazi_ for civil cases and a _Subashi_ for criminal cases. This is certainly incorrect, for the Sacred Law provided for many criminal cases, while _Kanuns_ dealt with many civil cases. The _Sanjak Beys_ and _Beylerbeys_ held Divans, or councils, resembling on a lesser scale the sultan’s Divan (Heidborn, 143, note 17); following the analogy of the _Kaziaskers_, the _Kazi_ of the city in which each such officer resided would sit in his Divan and decide the cases that came up touching the Sacred Law, and would also hold independent court at other times. In cities of lesser importance, the _Kazis_ appear to have been the heads of the restricted municipal governments (_ibid._, note 16).

[679] A scheme of the higher offices in the judicial system in the early nineteenth century is given in Hammer’s _Geschichte_, ix. 1-10.

[680] _Kazi_ is the Turkish pronunciation of the Arabic word _kadi_, judge; _Molla_ is the Turkish form of the Arabic word _maulā_, lord.

[681] Junis Bey (below, p. 265) and Postel, i. 119, state that the _Kaziaskers_ nominated all _Kazis_. Junis Bey says: “Two _Cadilescher_ talismans, one of Greece and the other of Natolia or Asia, and they each have revenues of 6 or 7 thousand ducats a year: who are executors of their law ... it is they who appoint the Kadis or podestas of all the lands of the Seigneur.” Ramberti (below, p. 247) and Nicolay, 119, say that the consent of the pashas was necessary also.

[682] Ricaut, 205.

[683] Hammer (as above, p. 216, note 4) gives a list of 39 judges of rank above the _Kazis_ proper, and 243 _Kazis_ of Rumelia, 280 of Anatolia, and 34 of Egypt. The total is thus 557 _Kazis_ proper, and 596 judges in all. In the subsequent list of 247 positions in Rumelia as rearranged under Mahmûd II, five places in the Crimea are mentioned as seats of _Kazis in partibus_, but neither list appears to mention any in North Africa.

[684] Spandugino, 188; Postel, i. 127.

[685] Spandugino, 213; D’Ohsson, vi. 333.

[686] Postel, i. 126. This officer is called by Postel _Mortasi_.

[687] Menavino, 66; Spandugino, 211.

[688] Postel, i. 120, 124; Nicolay, 119. There was no regular organization of the procedure of appeal; nevertheless it was allowed (Heidborn, 389).

[689] Hammer, _Staatsverfassung_, 100. See above, p. 203, note 1.

[690] See above, p. 116.

[691] Spandugino, 211.

[692] _Ibid._

[693] The Arabic words _kadi al asker_ signify judge of the army. In the sixteenth century the pronunciation seems to have been _kadi l’esker_; nowadays it is _kazi asker_. The burdensome duty of holding court continually is mentioned in Spandugino, 96; D’Ohsson, iv. 581.

[694] Postel, i. 123. Heidborn, 141-143, note 15, quotes from Ypsilanti an interesting description of a session of the grand vizier’s court.

[695] Postel, i. 127, iii. 8.

[696] _Ibid._ iii. 9.

[697] Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 11.

[698] _Ibid._ 61.

[699] Ricaut, 3.

[700] Garzoni, 430. See also Morosini, 273.

[701] Postel, i. 124. Matters were distinctly worse in Ricaut’s time (pp. 140-141).

[702] Spandugino, 114.

[703] It has been suggested (Morosini, 273) that the promptness of justice had a connection with the early military character of the Moslems.

[704] Spandugino, 211, 255.

[705] Postel, i. 127, iii. 87.

[706] _Ibid._ i. 117.

[707] _Ibid._

[708] The use of cannon is perhaps the most conspicuous example.

[709] Halil Ganem, i. 201.

[710] Spandugino, 207: “And the Turkish lords generally, as well great as small, study only to build churches and hospitals and to enrich and make hostelries for lodging travelers, to improve the roads, to build bridges, to construct baths, and several other charitable works which they do in such a way that I suppose the Turkish lords are beyond comparison greater alms-givers than our Christian lords; and in proportion as they have good zeal, they use great hospitality. They voluntarily lodge Christian, Turk, and Jew alike.” See also Morosini, 270.

[711] He built seven mosques (Hammer, _Geschichte_, iii. 456), four colleges at Mecca (_ibid._ 459), four colleges around the Suleimanieh Mosque (_ibid._ 470), and endowed them all, etc.

[712] See above, p. 150.

[713] Ramberti came overland from Ragusa on his journey from Venice to Constantinople.

[714] The writer seems not to have observed that these groves were cemeteries.

[715] The writer evidently did not know that this Egyptian obelisk consists of a single stone. It actually rests on four bronze cubes.

[716] This was the support of the tripod of the priestess at Delphi. The heads have been broken off, and are now in the treasury of the Old Seraglio at Constantinople.

[717] This was overthrown at the downfall of Ibrahim in 1536.

[718] This remarkable statement is probably the source of Nicolay’s similar idea (p. 77). The Danube is more than two hundred miles distant from Constantinople.

[719] Rather, of the Sea of Marmora.

[720] _Marrani_: Jews and Moors of Spain, baptized, but remaining true to their own religion.

[721] This statement and the following one are certainly exaggerations.

[722] Either the writer’s geographical knowledge or the text is in confusion. The description here, as well as that which follows, cannot be made to fit the map.

[723] The boundary between Europe and Asia is now, of course, placed far to the east of the Don.

[724] Compare Junis Bey, below, pp. 272, 273.

[725] Michaloghli.

[726] More accurately, Othman, beginning in 1299, ruled 27 years; Orchan, 33 years; Murad I, 30 years; Bayezid I, 13 years; Mohammed I (_Chelebi_) in undisputed rule 8 years, after 11 years of civil war; Murad II, 30 years; Mohammed II, 30 years; Bayezid II, 31 years; Selim, 8 years, until his death in 1520, when Suleiman came to the throne.

[727] Celeby and Calepino are forms of _Chelebi_, the Gentleman, which was an appellation of Mohammed I; these three names, therefore, refer to the same person.

[728] At this point the writer begins to follow the pamphlet of Junis Bey.

[729] Seraglio Point is thrust out into the Bosphorus just before it meets the Sea of Marmora.

[730] The land on which Mohammed’s palace was built had belonged to the church of St. Sophia under the Byzantine Empire. See above, p. 202.