[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.
[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.
[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.”
[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.
[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.
[632] Postel, i. 123.
[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.
[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.
[654] D’Ohsson, ii. 477; Heidborn, 213.