Perhaps no more daring experiment has been tried on a large scale upon the face of the earth than that embodied in the Ottoman Ruling Institution. Its nearest ideal analogue is found in the Republic of Plato, its nearest actual parallel in the Mameluke system of Egypt; but it was not restrained within the aristocratic Hellenic limitations of the first, and it subdued and outlived the second. In the United States of America men have risen from the rude work of the backwoods to the presidential chair, but they have done so by their own effort and not through the gradations of a system carefully organized to push them forward. The Roman Catholic church can still train a peasant to become a pope, but it has never begun by choosing its candidates almost exclusively from families which profess a hostile religion. The Ottoman system deliberately took slaves and made them ministers of state; it took boys from the sheep-run and the plow-tail and made them courtiers and the husbands of princesses; it took young men whose ancestors had borne the Christian name for centuries, and made them rulers in the greatest of Mohammedan states, and soldiers and generals in invincible armies whose chief joy was to beat down the Cross and elevate the Crescent. It never asked its novices, “Who was your father?” or “What do you know?” or even “Can you speak our tongue?”; but it studied their faces and their frames and said, “You shall be a soldier, and if you show yourself worthy, a general,” or, “You shall be a scholar and a gentleman, and if the ability lies in you, a governor and a prime minister.” Grandly disregarding that fabric of fundamental customs which is called “human nature,” and those religious and social prejudices which are thought to be almost as deep as life itself, the Ottoman system took children forever from parents, discouraged family cares among its members through their most active years, allowed them no certain hold on property, gave them no definite promise that their sons and daughters would profit by their success and sacrifice, raised and lowered them with no regard for ancestry or previous distinction, taught them a strange law, ethics, and religion, and ever kept them conscious of a sword raised above their heads which might put an end at any moment to a brilliant career along a matchless path of human glory.
The members of this system were, in a general way, as long as they lived, at once slaves, proselytes, students, soldiers, nobles, courtiers, and officers of government. To be understood fully, the institution should be considered from each of these points of view. The aspects which were of central and controlling importance, however, were those of war and government; the others were preparatory or accessory. Furthermore, the sultan was the head and center of the institution in every one of its aspects. He gave it its unity, its vigor, and its propelling force. Although his despotic power was limited in many directions, it knew no limits with regard to the members and the mechanism of this institution. The person, the fortune, the property, and the life of every member lay in his hand.[78]
The absolute character of the sultan’s authority was an element of great strength to the institution, but it contained also the possibility of a great danger. To manage the system well required an almost superhuman intelligence. The sultan held the position of Deity toward his slaves, and he needed the omniscience and benevolence of Deity to exercise his power wisely and justly. Unfortunately, his position, which controlled the whole scheme, was the only one that was filled by the uncertain lot of heredity. While strong men came to the throne, the system worked out marvellous results. When weak men were to come, as happened immediately after Suleiman, the system was to begin to fall apart into dangerous fragments. Yet its vitality was so strong that it lived on through nearly three centuries of alternate decline and rehabilitation, and its spirit may almost be said to abide still.
The Ruling Institution contained certain component parts, which were capable of separate existence, and some of which at times tended to escape complete control. Among these the best-known, though not intrinsically the most important, was the body of permanent infantry known as the Janissaries. They represented the brute force of the system and its most dangerous element. Another component institution was the permanent cavalry, the Spahis of the Porte.[79] These were more numerous than the Janissaries, but being better educated and encouraged by the presence of greater opportunities, they were not so dangerous. A third important sub-institution was the hierarchy of governing officials. Although these had great power, they could be dealt with individually; and the sword was never far from their necks. Subordinate bodies of a secondary influence were the Ajem-oghlans, or apprentice Janissaries, and the colleges of pages, which trained many of the Spahis of the Porte and most of the officers of government. Each of these component parts will be dealt with in its proper place. Theoretically, and except at certain junctures practically, they were strictly subordinated to the main institution and yet fully incorporated with it. The Ruling Institution as a whole will be considered as a slave-family, a missionary institution, an educational system, an army, a court, a nobility, and a government.
Every one who belonged to the Ruling Institution in any capacity from gardener to grand vizier, save only the members of the royal family, bore the title of kul, or slave, of the sultan.[80] Nor was this title a mere form: with few exceptions, all members entered the system as actual slaves, and there was nowhere along the line of promotion any formal or real process of emancipation. The power of the sultan over the lives, persons, and property of the members of the institution, and his right to their absolute obedience, bear every mark of having been derived from the idea of slavery. The very word despot means by derivation the master of slaves, and it was only over his kullar that the sultan’s power was despotic in the fullest sense.[81]
Entrance to the system came by the door of slavery, which was open regularly only to Christian boys from ten to twenty years of age. It is an error, found in some writers even lately, to name eight years as the usual age.[82] The correct limits are given approximately by many contemporary writers.[83] It is probable that the preferred ages were between fourteen and eighteen, and that only in exceptional cases were boys taken before the age of twelve or after the age of twenty.
Four methods were employed for obtaining recruits for the system,—by capture, purchase, gift, and tribute. Of these only the last is commonly considered;[84] but it was originally, and probably always, merely supplementary to the others.[85] The four methods ultimately rested on two. Slaves who were bought for the sultan or given to him had nearly all been either taken as captives or levied illegally with the tribute boys; there was hardly any other way, since slaves passed too rapidly into the Moslem fold to have their children available for the system. As to the comparative numbers obtained by the different methods there are few data for calculation. Probably about three thousand tribute boys was the annual average in the sixteenth century,[86] but there is no reason to think that this was a majority in the number of annual recruits. The whole number in the system may be estimated at about eighty thousand.[87] Since the losses by war were sometimes tremendous, it is probable that the average annual renewal required was as much as one-tenth, or between seven and eight thousand. On this basis the tribute boys furnished somewhat less than one-half of the whole number. These calculations are, of course, more or less arbitrary.
It is true that children of Spahis of the Porte might be admitted to the college of pages at the pleasure of the sultan, but their grandchildren and the children of all other Moslems were excluded by rigid rules.[88] These rules began to be invaded about the close of Suleiman’s reign by the admission of the sons of Janissaries,[89] an innovation that was of ultimately fatal import to the system. A certain number of adults were also received and some of these were sons of Moslems; exceptional individuals from among the irregular troops were admitted to the Spahis of the Porte by way of reward,[90] and that body contained a Foreign Legion of about two thousand, composed of renegade Christians, Arabs, Nubians, and the like.[91] Occasionally, also, some high official of Suleiman’s government had been born a Moslem.[92] But the total effect of all these exceptions was so slight as to cause them to be disregarded by more than one contemporary observer.[93]
The original homes of the captives have been described.[94] By the Sacred Law the sultan was entitled to one-fifth of all captives taken in war;[95] and he chose as his share, through agents, such young men as seemed suitable for a place in his system.[96] Since by special Ottoman regulation the sultan’s fifth belonged to the church, he was accustomed to pay twenty-five aspers to the church for each slave that he took.[97] His officers also purchased in the public slave-market of the capital such youths as were available.[98] These came from the captives that the Tartars of the Crimea took in great numbers, from the quasi-slave-farms of the Caucasus,[99] from the irregular raids in Austria, and from the corsair expeditions. The sultan received a large number of boys as gifts, since it was well known that no presents were more acceptable.[100] Those who desired his favor kept a lookout for such as would please him.
Although the levying of tribute boys in the Christian provinces of the empire seems not to have produced the majority of neophytes for the system, the practice has always received a share of attention far beyond its numerical importance. Several reasons for this suggest themselves. In the first place, it rested on a unique and almost unparalleled idea; then, it involved an extraordinary disregard of human affection and of the generally acknowledged right of parents to bring up their children in their own law and religion;[101] and, finally, it produced the ablest and highest officials of the system.[102] In the latter respect its youth seem to have borne some such relation to those obtained by capture as the cultivated fruits of the garden do to those gathered in the woods.
The levying was accomplished by a regular process, the devshurmeh. Normally every four years, but oftener in case of need,[103] a body of officials more skilled in judging boys than trained horse-dealers are in judging colts were sent out by the government to the regions from which tribute was taken.[104] The whole of the Balkan Peninsula, Hungary, the western coast of Asia Minor, and the southern and eastern shores of the Black Sea were included in the territory visited; but the strongest and ablest youths came from the mountain regions inhabited by Albanians and the Southern Slavic peoples.[105] The recruiting officers were commissioned each to bring in a certain number, which had been apportioned to them out of a total determined at the capital.[106] There was no principle of tithing, and no fixed proportion or number of boys was levied from each village or family;[107] the quota desired from each district was obtained for the government by selection of the most available youths. The recruiting officers sometimes collected a larger number than was asked for, and sold the surplus on their own account to high officials or wealthy private citizens.[108] A regular procedure was followed. The officers obtained from the Christian priest of the village a list of the boys whom he had baptized, and who were between the ages of twelve and twenty years or thereabouts.[109] All these were brought before the officers, who selected the best.[110] Parents who had strong and well-favored sons might lose them all, while those who had weaklings would lose none.[111] On leaving each village, the officer took with him the boys whom he had selected; and, when his quota had been gathered, he took them to the capital.[112]
This levying of boys as tribute has always elicited a great amount of moral indignation, as representing an extreme of oppression, heartlessness, and cruelty. The religious factor has increased the odium of the custom. Certainly no argument can be found which will justify it to those who believe in the liberty of the individual, the absolute right of parents over minor children, and a complete withdrawal of human beings from the category of property,—principles which seem in the sixteenth century to have had no place in Ottoman philosophy or jurisprudence, at least as regards Christian subjects. It may be said at once that the custom cannot be brought into harmony with Western ideas. So much being granted, how did the system bear upon the parents who were despoiled and the boys who were taken?
In the midst of the conflicting testimony of reputable witnesses, it is evident that the parents of tribute boys did not all feel alike. The grief at parting was often a heart-breaking thing to witness;[113] the mother whose son was taken by force to an unknown life among enemies of all that she had been taught to hold dear would hardly have suffered more at the death of her son. At the same time, she might hope to see him one day in the possession of great wealth and power. It is not to be supposed that youth taken at from twelve to twenty years of age would ever forget their parents; and, if they lived and prospered, they would sometimes seek them out, as did Ibrahim, even though they might not try his unfortunate experiment of bringing them up to the capital.[114] Fathers would appreciate the opportunities which arose before their sons much more than would the mothers. Both would be more or less reluctant to let them go, according as their Christian religious convictions were deep or shallow. Parents who wished to keep their sons would sometimes marry them in tender years, since married boys were ineligible; those who had means bought exemption for their sons from the recruiting officers, who thus reaped great rewards.[115] On the contrary, many parents were glad to have their sons chosen, knowing that they would thus escape from grinding poverty,[116] receive a first-rate training suited to their abilities, and enter upon the possibility of a great career. Some parents, in fact, came to regard the process as a privilege rather than a burden;[117] and they had reason to do so, since Turkish parents envied them the opportunity, and sometimes tried to evade the regulations by paying Christians to take their Moslem sons, and declare them as Christian children, so that they might be enrolled as the sultan’s slaves.[118] Apart, then, from political theory and religious prepossession, the levying of tribute children was by no means a mere evil to the parents.
The situation of the boys themselves, considered under the same reservations, was almost wholly favorable. They were taken at an age when they would not feel the parting as they might have felt it in earlier or later years, when their attachment to things and places would be at its weakest, and before their religious convictions were likely to have become fixed. They were taken from the narrow mountain valleys and the labor-hungry plains. They were taken at the age when the bounding pulse and the increasing strength of youth suggests great hope and promises great achievement. They were taken to opportunities as great as their utmost abilities, greater often than they could possibly imagine. They might still have to labor for a time, but a distinct career lay ahead. The best military education in the world would certainly be theirs. If their abilities lay in that direction they could have a finished and thorough, though specialized, education of the mind. They could look forward to travel, wealth, power, and all else that human ambition desires. In that land and that age of the world, the question of the religious and social systems being laid aside, an unprejudiced observer could hardly imagine a more brilliant opportunity than that which lay before the tribute boys.
Whether captured, purchased, presented, or levied, the young men who entered the system were the slaves of the sultan, the personal property of a despot. They were his slaves for life, and, though they felt honored by the title,[119] they were never allowed to forget the responsibilities of their condition. They must to the end of their days go where the sultan chose to send them, obey his slightest wish, submit to disgrace as readily as to promotion,[120] and, though in the highest office of state, they must accept death by his order from the hands of their humblest fellow-slaves.[121] If one of them was executed, all his property went to his master. The time had not yet come when heads would be removed for the sake of the owner’s possessions; yet Suleiman profited greatly by the death of several of his slaves, in particular from the estates of the Defterdar Iskender Chelebi and the grand vizier Ibrahim.[122] When one of the sultan’s slaves died leaving sons or daughters, the master sealed up his property, and took the tenth part for himself before distributing the rest to the children;[123] the nine-tenths was, indeed, given to the children rather by the favor of a bountiful and wealthy master than as a right. If the slave had no sons or daughters, the sultan took his whole estate;[124] and a day was to come when his empty treasury would demand the whole estate under all circumstances.[125] Thus in all essential respects the eighty thousand kullar of the sultan constituted one great slave-family.
Two or three less numerous but highly important groups may properly be discussed in the present connection. The imperial harem and the imperial family itself were virtually parts of the same slave system.[126] The harem of Suleiman was not the large and costly institution that was maintained by some of his successors; like his father Selim,[127] he was not given to sensuality, but is said to have been faithful to Khurrem from the time that he made her his wife.[128] The character of an Oriental royal harem has often been set forth incorrectly. While it may contain hundreds or even thousands of women, a very few of these are the actual consorts of the monarch. A large number are the personal servants and entertainers of himself, his mother, his consorts, his daughters, and his infant sons. Another section consists of those who are being educated for the same personal service. A fourth group, probably the great majority, are mere house-servants, who attend to all the domestic labors of the harem and are seldom promoted to more honorable positions. There is, finally, a group of older women who preserve order and peace, teach, keep accounts, and manage the establishment generally.[129]
Suleiman’s harem contained about three hundred women, who were kept in a separate palace well fortified and guarded.[130] His harem fully deserves to be reckoned as part of the great slave-family, since all its inmates except his children were purchased or presented slaves.[131] These women, brought for the most part from the region of the Caucasus,[132] and including in their number some of the fairest female captives of many lands, were nearly all daughters of Christians. Khurrem herself was a Russian, while the rival of her youth seems to have been a Circassian.[133] In another respect the harem deserves to be reckoned with the Ruling Institution, in that its inmates, upon attaining the age of twenty-five, were, if they had not attracted the sultan’s special attention, as a rule given in marriage to distinguished Spahis of the Porte.[134]
A comparatively small group, not hitherto mentioned, of the attendants at the sultan’s palace and harem belong within the slave-family. Although the Sacred Law strongly disapproved of the employment of eunuchs, that unfortunate class was thought too useful to be dispensed with entirely. Some were white, brought mainly from the Caucasus region; but the great majority were negroes brought from Africa. Tribute children seem rarely to have been made eunuchs.[135] The class deserves mention because several of the important offices of state among the “men of the pen” were held by eunuchs, and now and then one rose to high place in the army or the administration.[136]
The royal family also may rightly be included in the slave-family. The mothers of the sultan’s children were slaves; the sultan himself was the son of a slave; and his daughters were married to men, who, though they might be called vizier and pasha, wore these titles at the sultan’s pleasure, whereas they bore indelibly the title of kul, or slave.[137] The sultan’s sons, though they might sit upon the throne, would be the consorts of none but slaves. Long before Suleiman’s time, the sultans had practically ceased either to obtain brides of royal rank, or to give the title of wife to the mothers of their children.[138] Suleiman, given to legality and religious observance, and greatly devoted to the lovely Roxelana, made her his lawful wife. Since, by the Sacred Law, the status of the mother as wife or slave does not affect the legitimacy of the children if the father acknowledges them,[139] all children born in the harem were of equal legitimacy and rank.
The ruling institution of any state is apt to be copied in miniature by many organizations within the same state. The municipalities of Rome, and the state and city governments of the United States, were each modeled after the central government. In a similar way, every great officer of the Ottoman court built up a slave-family after the model of the Ruling Institution. The grand vizier had a very large establishment; the viziers had somewhat smaller ones; the governors of provinces had households in proportion to their incomes;[140] and each adult prince kept a miniature government. Not only the slave-family feature but all the other features of the Ruling Institution were imitated. All deemed it meritorious to purchase Christians and turn them into Moslems. Iskender Chelebi had a highly successful educational system;[141] he also kept a little standing army, and at a later time so did Rustem.[142] Each great officer protected his slaves, each kept them about him like a court, each used them as a little government to rule his affairs. Such imitation might easily become a danger to the state, but ordinarily a prompt remedy could be applied. Every such household was strictly personal; it was gathered about a living man; that man was ordinarily himself a slave of the sultan: let him show the least movement toward treason, and his head would be removed, his property would come to his master, his household would be incorporated with the central slave-family, all danger would be at an end, and the sultan would only be the stronger. Further safeguards lay in the close relations of the head of each slave-family to the sultan, and in the fact that some Spahis of the Porte and other imperial kullar of inferior position seem usually to have been attached to the suite of each great official.[143] Moslem private citizens also kept slave-families as numerous as they could afford,[144] but these could hardly become dangerous under any circumstances. They might emulate the missionary and educational character of the greater households, but they would not dare attempt any imitation of the military features. Further, the whole Ottoman system so discouraged great accumulations of wealth that private citizens could never hope to compete with the power of officials and of the sultan.
Ottoman slavery was a very different institution from that which Anglo-Saxons have practised. In it there could ordinarily be no color-line, and therefore no ineffaceable distinction. Where difference in color existed it counted for nothing, by old Islamic customs. Nor did the fact of slavery impart any indelible taint. Islam knew slave and free;[145] in the Ottoman Empire, at least, it knew no intermediate class of freedmen.[146] The sultan seems never to have emancipated his slaves, probably because of a lingering Oriental theory, foreign to Mohammedanism,[147] that all his subjects were his slaves. Private citizens had the power of emancipation,[148] and they often exercised it as a meritorious act. The slave who was set free was immediately in possession of full rights.[149] Slavery had therefore no inherent quality. It was merely an accidental misfortune from which complete recovery was possible. The idea of Aristotle, that some men are born to be slaves, was wholly absent.
Where no permanent wall of separation exists, natural human affection can have free play. The Moslem religion teaches kindness and benevolence to all but armed enemies of the faith.[150] Moslem masters, in constant personal association with persons whose condition led them to strive to please, were apt to become very friendly toward them. Such friendliness often led to warm affection and the bestowal of benefits. Emancipation was one of these; and, further, not only the sultan but many of his subjects did not hesitate to give their daughters in marriage to worthy slaves.[151] A slave was often beloved above a son;[152] it was felt that, while a son possessed a character which was more or less a matter of chance, a slave had been selected. Thus it is clear why the sultan’s slaves were sometimes called his children,[153] and why the title of kul was prized.[154] Suleiman was a stern, and sometimes a cruel parent to his great family; but he was as just in rewarding as in punishing, and it is not surprising that all his slaves were true to him.[155]
Thus was woven what has well been termed “a wonderful fabric of slavery.”[156] History may have known as large a slave-family, but certainly none that was more powerful and honorable, better provided for and rewarded, more obedient and more contented.