Sei sulla pagina 1di 22

The Policy of Mehmed II toward the Greek Population of Istanbul and the Byzantine Buildings of the City Author(s):

Halil Inalcik Source: Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 23/24 (1969/1970), pp. 229-249 Published by: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1291293 . Accessed: 24/12/2010 03:28
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=doaks. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Dumbarton Oaks Papers.

http://www.jstor.org

THE POLICY OF MEHMED II TOWARD THE GREEK POPULATION OF ISTANBUL AND THE BYZANTINE BUILDINGS OF THE CITY
HALIL INALCIK

This paper was preparedforthe Symposium entitled"After the Fall of Constantinople," held at Dumbarton Oaks in Professor May 1968. Owing to unforeseencircumstances, Inalcik was unable to be present, and his paper was read R. J. H. Jenkins. by Professor
The Publications Commitee

the systemused in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, new edition,with the following exceptions: = j, ~= ch, 1 = 1, ) = sh, = q, ~ = kh. The long vowels are renderedwith the sign^. I am greatlyindebtedto Dr. V. L. M1nage forhis translationof this paper fromTurkishinto English and forhis many valuable suggestions. H. I.

Note:In transliterating theTurkish, and Persian words I have followed Arabic,

"Die BevolkerungKonstantinopelsim XV. Jh.," Nachrichten der Akad. der Wiss. in G6ttingen, Phil.-Hist. Klasse (1949), No. 9, 234-44. ' H. Inalclk, "Bursa and the Commerceof the Levant," Journalof theSocial and EconomicHistory the 3 (1960), 131-47. Orient, of 3 Schneider,op. cit., 236. ve vesikalar(Ankara, 1954), 126-32. 4 H. Inalcik, Fatih devriiizerinde tetkikler 5 Bonn ed., 280; ed. V. Grecu, 349-51.
1

withhis immensearmybeforeits walls, Constantinople was a halfruinedcity whose population might at the most have numbered thousand. As A. M. Schneider has shown,'from thetimeoftheLatin occupafifty no more declined untilit was nowin effect tionin 1204the cityhad progressively than a collectionofvillages.Alreadyby the seventhdecade of the fourteenth and itsimmediate had formed neighborhood Constantinople onlya small century territories under with its Ottoman islandsurrounded communications rule, by by sea and its seabornetradeunderthe controloftheItalian maritime states.Economicallytoo the Ottoman capitals of Brusa and Adrianoplehad begun to overshadowthe former imperialcenter. The old silk route fromPersia via Trebizondto Constantinople been had, by the end of the fourteenth century, divertedto Brusa, which had then become the principal trading-center in Orientalproductsforthe Genoesemerchants of Galata, and towardwhichboth Persia and thespicecaravansfrom thesilkcaravansfrom Syria nowconverged.2 In short,Constantinople was the dead centerof a dead empire, which George Scholariusdescribedbeforeits fall as "a city of ruins,poor, and largelyun"3 inhabited.' Mehmed II did not wish that the city which he envisaged as the future capital of his empireshould pass into his hands, aftersack, as a mere heap of ruins. In addressingto the Emperor Constantine his threeinvitationsto surrender the city he was, it is true,merelyobeyinga preceptof the Muslim Holy Law; but at the same time he was hopingto win a city whichhad not been exposed to pillage. To conquer the city by force--thelegal term is lead to pillageand destruction; forthisis a precept 'anwatan-would inevitably of the Holy Law; and no rulercould rob the fighters forthe faithofthisright to sack, whichwas grantedto themby Allah. On the otherhand, the Sultan was underpressureto bringmattersto a swiftconclusion.The Venetianfleet was at sea; rumorsthat the Hungarianswould break the state of truce and marchintothe Balkans werecausinguneasinessin the Ottomancamp; and the GrandVizierChandarliKhalil Pasha was pressing forthe abandonment of the wholeenterprise.4 At last, aftera councilofwar had been summonedto make thefinal the Sultancalledfora generalassault and proclaimed thatthe decision, to the Holy Law, citywas givenover to sack; a decisiondependent, according the of the the leader of the Muslim imdm, upon permission community. This proclamation was, of course,welcomedby the Muslimtroops,but it is clear that the Sultan had been reluctantto make it. Accordingto Ducas,5

in thespring of1453theOttoman SultanMehmed HEN II appeared

232

HALIL

INALCIK

Bonn ed., 390. Sphrantzes,Bonn ed., 291f.; cf. Chalcocondyles, 7 Oxford,Bodl. Marsh 313. On this work, see V. L. M6nage, Neshri's History of the Ottomans (London, 1964), 11-14. 8 For the jihdd (Holy War) and its consequences, see the section Kitdb al-siyar in Islamic legal textbooks,especiallyin al-Durar by Molla Khusrev, who was qkddi'asker in the reign of Mehmed II; also M. Khadduri, War and Peace in theLaw ofIslam (Baltimore,1955), 125ff. 9 F. Lokkegaard, Islamic Taxation in theClassic Period (Copenhagen,1950), 38-92.
6

the ambassadorwhomhe sentintothecitybefore had issuingthe proclamation put forwardthese argumentsto induce the Emperor to submit: "Are you with willingto abandon the city and depart for wherever you like, together yournoblesand theirproperty, leavingbehindthe commonpeople unharmed both by us and by you? Or do you wish that through your resistance... the commonpeople should be enslaved by the Turks and scatteredover all the world ?" After theconquestthe Sultan summoned to his presencethe Megadux Lucas Notaras and asked him why he had not persuaded the Emperor to surrender the city,in whichcase, he added angrily, it would have been saved fromall damage and destruction. The Megadux repliedthat theyhad indeed been ready to surrender, but that to do so was no longerin the Emperor's or his for the Italians assistingin the defensehad flatlyrefused own, power to consent.6 at odds withthe Italian Notaras,as is well known,was frequently An defenders the source confirms the report of the during siege. earlyOttoman historian on "When this sector of the walled Byzantine every point: citywas on thepointofbeingdestroyed, the Emperorsummoned Lucas; theyconsulted and took for the surrender. But measures the Frankish infidels were together offended and protested;'We willdefend the city;we willnot surrender it to the in continuing the fight."' Muslims,'and theypersisted The Ottoman Sultan, as a Muslimruler,was obliged to act in conformity with the Muslim Holy Law, the shari'a. The sharica decrees that if a comof ahl al-kitdb Christians and munity (literally, "people ofthe Book," in effect, invitation to surrender and continues to resist, Jews)rejectstheobligatory they are to be treatedas mushrik's "those who admit partners (literally, [to God]," in effect, When they have been subdued "by force"-,anwatan, polytheists). are conceded to them: theirgoods are legitimate qahran-no rights booty and they and theirchildrenare reduced to slavery. In the division of movable the Muslimruleras imdm-one mightsay, the state-is entitledto property, one fifth.8 a different of Immovableproperty-realestate--represents category to a which before the rise of the Ottomans booty.9According principle long had been accepted in Islamic land law, the freeholdpossession over land, whether acquiredby forceor by peacefuloccupation,belongedto the baytalthe state treasury;in otherwords,the land belongedto the state. The mdl, Ottomans,whose militaryand administrative organization reposedupon the timdr(feudal) system,adopted this principlein all its implications;even to that an estatewhichhad been made vaqf(i.e., placed in mortmain propounding forthe supportof a pious object) might,if the pious object ceased to exist, revertto the freehold possessionof the state. We shall see later how, in the last decade of his reign,MehmedII, relying on this theory,"nationalized" a of vaqfestates. large proportion

POLICY

OF MEHMED

II IN ISTANBUL

233

An Ottomansourcereports that the Sultan proclaimed the assault and sack in these terms:"The stonesand the land of the city and the city's appurtenances belong to me; all other goods and property, and foodstuffs prisoners, are booty forthe troops."10 So Ducas also, who is well-informed in Ottoman that the reserved Sultan the walls and affairs, reports" buildingsforhimself but leftall the movable property to the troops. for threedays of sack, but it is clear The Sultan had grantedpermission that he put an end to thepillageon the eveningofthefirst day.12The Ottoman and theByzantinesourcesagreein reporting thathe feltprofound sadnessas he touredthe looted and enslaved city.13 are the stories Not withoutsignificance told by contemporary sourcesof the sharp punishments whichhe decreedfor soldierscaughtdestroying buildings.14 to TursunBeg,15 who was in the Sultan's entourageduringthose According days, beforeleaving the city Mehmed II proclaimed"to his viziers and his commanders and his officers that henceforth his capital was to be Istanbul" and orderedthe buildingof a palace. The wordfreely translated hereas "capital" is takht, "throne": is Istanbul." throne Ever since the time literally "My of the steppe empiresof CentralAsia, a district called "takht-ili," the "throne had been for the Turks a where the region," specificregion khaqan's (emthe seat of the khaqan'sauthority;and the perors)resided,a sacred territory, most importantprerequisite for claiming the title of khaqan was de facto to the Roman occupation of this "throneregion." This attitudecorresponds of In 1466 of in concept imperialauthority. George Trebizond, a letterto the of the Romans. Whoever Sultan,wrote: "No one doubtsthat you are emperor holdsby right thecenter oftheEmpireis emperor, and thecenterofthe Roman Empire is Istanbul."15a MehmedII and his successorsregardedthemselves, theirpossessionof the throneof theCaesars,as emperors of Rome and through heirs to all the which territories the had formerly ruled. legitimate emperors Thus, to MehmedII, whose ambitionwas to establish a worldwideempire, Istanbul providednot merelya strategic but also an essentialpolitical center, and legal basis. It is forthis reason that throughout his reignone of his main and ambitions was to transform the half-deserted and ruined preoccupations
10

on termsis a fiction 11Bonn ed., 281. The tale that the entirecity,or part of it, surrendered invented later to give a legal coloringto the fact that Mehmed II leftsome churchesin the possession of the Greeks; the mu/ft (head of the ulema) and, naturally,the Patriarch were willing to give it official sanction.The question is fullydiscussedby J. H. Mordtmann,"Die Kapitulation von Konstantinopel im Jahre 1453," Byz. Zeitschrift, 21 (1912), 129-44; Mordtmannthinksthat the peace negotiations beforethe final assault may have helped to give rise to the story. It is discussed most recently by S. Runciman, The Fall of Constantinople, z453 (Cambridge,1965), 153, 157, 199, 204; Runciman that since the quarters of the city were separated by extensiveopen spaces, it was suggests (p. 153) of some quartersto make a last-minute possible forthe local officials submission. 12 Runciman, op. cit., 148. 13 Tursun Beg, Ta'rikh-i Aba'l-Fath, appendix to TOEM (1927), 57; Critoboulos,ed. V. Grecu (Bucharest,1963), 149, Englishtrans. C. T. Riggs (Princeton,1954), 76f. 14 Ducas reports (Bonn ed., 298) that the Sultan himselfdrew his sword on a soldier damaging the pavement of Aya Sofya.
15Op. cit., 59.
15saF.

Mejmuasz (hereafter TOEM)

IstanbulFethnudmesi, appendix to Ta'rikh-iOsmdniEnjiimeni TAji-zAdeJa 'ferChelebi,Mahrilse-i


(A. H. 1331), 19.

und seine Zeit (Munich,1953), 266. Babinger, MehmedderEroberer

234

HALIL

INALCIK

into a fitting centerforthis capital of the Caesars,whichhe had conquered, he which to to rebuild to worldempire it, repopulateit, and to sought create; The most raise it to the status of a vital economicand politicalmetropolis. faithful account of the Sultan's sustainedand vigorousactivityin promoting whilein this,as well as theregeneration of Istanbulis providedby Critoboulos; in otherrespects,the most important Ottomansourceis Tursun.The details by and compared with Ottoman documents they give, when supplemented and to Ottoman archive relating vaqf's registers, presenta clearpictureofhow and the institutions to the traditions Istanbul according the Sultan refounded of a Turco-Islamiccity. Here we shall examine only the treatment which,in order to further this aim, he accorded to the Greeks and the policy which he pursuedin dealingwiththe Byzantinebuildingsand siteswhichhad come into his possession. in reorganizing a conqueredcity, thatthe Ottomans, It mustbe remembered followeda series of establishedprinciples.Accordingto the sharil'a,the into the invitation to surrender habitantsof a cityor townwhichhad responded in theirhomes, with the status of dhimmi, and their were left undisturbed and the of were their their lives, practice religion possessions, fullyprotected by the Islamic state. By a preceptof the sharl'a, "if they accept the jizya is due also to them,and [i.e., the poll tax], that whichis due to us [Muslims] that which is obligatoryupon us is obligatoryalso upon them";16 in other words,aftera Christian due populationhad agreedto pay the supplementary of thejizya, to whichMuslimswere not liable,they obtained fromthe imdm and obligations as the Muslimsenjoyed. exactlythe same rights Bertrandon de La Broquiere,who in 1432 travelledthrough Eastern Thrace the old road between and along imperial Constantinople Adrianople, speaking of the townsthen occupied by the Ottomans" reportsof some of themthat their citadels were destroyedand that they were newly populated, either whereasotherswere inentirely by Turks,or by Turks and Greekstogether, habited entirely Greeks. When we the old consult Ottomanchronicles, we by findthat thetownsinhabited by Greeksare always thosewhichhad responded to the summonsto surrender. An earlyOttomanchronicler's writes: town of Banatoz [Panados]. The [Murad I] marchedagainst the fortress infidels thereimmediately surrendered the fortress withoutfighting, and Murid securedthemin theirformer abodes. Then he wentagainstChorlu thelordofthetownwas hard,but finally [Tzouroullos];theinfidels fought struckin the eye by an arrow and they were left helpless. The troops therewas great looting,and they destroyed the swept into the fortress, fortifications. Then theycame to Misini[Mesene];and its lord came forth withgiftsto meet the Sultan.
voyaged'outremer, Ch. (Paris, 1892), 169-70. 18 Chronik des Mevland MehemmedNeschri, ed. F. Taeschner, I Gihdnniuma,die altosmanische (Codex Menzel) (Leipzig,1951),52-53. Cf.H. Inalcik,"Ottoman MethodsofConquest,"Studia Islamica, 2 (1954), 112-29.
1e Mevqafdti Sherhi (Istanbul, A. H. 1318), I, 340. 17 Le ed. Schefer

POLICY

OF MEHMED

II IN ISTANBUL

235

De La Broquibre describesthe citadel of Chorluas beingin ruinsand the town as beingrepopulatedby Turks and Greeks;Mesene,however, was "une petite ferm6e et demeurent the on otherhand he [i.e., walled] n'y place que Grecz"; says of "Pirgasi" (Pyrgos),whichhad been taken by forceof arms: "tous les mursabattus et n'y demeureque les Turcz." A secondprinciple whichthe Ottomanshad observedfrom the earliestdays in theirreorganization of newlyconqueredterritories was that of compulsory resettlement.19Sixteenth-century decrees orderingsuch resettlement20 show that it serveda varietyof social, political,and economicpurposes: to restore to prosperity a desertedcountryside or a ruinedcity,to restore to production a potential source of wealth, to move people froman overpopulatedto an underpopulated region,to provide a means of livelihoodto a landless comand to remove to a distantterritory and breakup a rebellious munity, population or a refractory tribeof nomads. When townsfolk were subjectedto coma certainproportion ofthe population,e.g., the members pulsoryresettlement, of one householdin ten,were selectedby the qddi of the town and its prefect were recordedin a register, and they (subasht),theirnames and descriptions weredeportedto theirnew home.Therethe deportees enjoyeda special status; fora specified were from taxation but were forbidden to periodthey exempt move elsewhere. It was a recurrent cause of complaintthat,in the course of such deportations, individualswho were reluctantto wealthyand influential abandon theirhomes managed to win over the local authorities and procure theirown exemption;but the centralauthorities knew well how essentialto the rehabilitation of a city were merchantsand craftsmen, and the Sultans made it a principalpointof policyto resettle, especiallyin theircapital cities, men of influence, and skilled craftsmen ofnewlyconquered wealthymerchants, territories. had been takenby the Sultandid not hesitate, Although Constantinople force, as sovereign, to institute various measureswhichmitiby usinghis authority the that otherwise have arisenfromthis. gated grievousconsequences might The preliminary measureswhichhe took beforeleaving forAdrianopleon 21 concerned the defenseof the city and its repopulation. June First,says Critohe boulos,21 presentedsplendidhouses to all his dignitaries and officers, "and to some of themhe even gave beautifulchurchesfortheirresidences."Then he settled the fifth of the enslaved Greeks-his share as ruler-"along the shoresof the cityharbor,"i.e., presumably, mainlyin the Phanar region."He gave themhouses and exemptedthemfrom taxes for a specified time.... He also issued a proclamationto all those who had paid theirown ransom,or who promised to pay it to theirmasterswithina limitedtime,that theymight live in the city; to them too he grantedfreedom fromtaxes and gave them houses,eithertheirown or thoseof others." So, too, some of the nobility were houses and were resettled. On the questionofrepopulating granted the citythe
-9Inalclk, "Ottoman Methods of Conquest," loc. cit. 20 Ibid., 122-29. 21Ed. Grecu, 159; trans. Riggs, 83.

236

HALIL

INALCIK

Sultan soughtthe advice of Notaras. He had thought, indeed,of makinghim of him in of the and its city prefect charge "putting repopulation,"but abandoned thisidea. (We shall return to the positionof Notaras, forit has an imon the Sultan's portantbearing changeof policytowardthe Greeks.) Furthermeasureswere taken to promotethe repopulationof the city. As Critoboulos "When the Sultan had capturedthe city of Constantireports,22 care was to have the cityrepopulated."A number nople,almosthis veryfirst of buildingprojects had to be undertakenwithoutdelay: the repair of the the construction of a citadel (Yedikule), and the buildingof a palace walls,23 forhimselfin the Forum Tauri in the centerof the city. For this work he used his Greek slaves, paying them a fairlygood wage (six aspers or more, to the daily pay of a Janissary24) so that they could ransom corresponding themselves with theirearningsand settle as freemen in the city. He had recoursealso to compulsory that Christians, resettlement, Muslims, issuingorders and Jewsshouldbe sent to the cityfrom of everyterritory his domains;Ducas states more explicitly25 that he commandedthat five thousand households be deported to Istanbul by September.Before leaving for Adrianople he of the city; "He put him in appointed KarishtiranSiileymanBeg as prefect of but of of the city,and inthe charge everthing, particularly repopulation structedhim to be very zealous about this matter."26 From a letterof 16 N. we learn that of Silivri and the citadels August, published by Iorga,27 Galata had been destroyedand their populations deportedto Istanbul. In order to encouragepeople to settle in the city, the Sultan proclaimedthat whoevercame of his own accord, be he rich or poor, could select whatever abandoned house or mansion he chose, and be grantedthe freeholdof it. adds that numerous Tursun,who reportsthis,28 people on hearingthisinvitation came and occupied houses and mansions;but rich merchants, not being in need, did not leave theirhomesand ignoredthe invitation. The Sultanreturned to Istanbulin theautumnof1453 to survey theprogress made in the projectswhichhe had initiated.29 The chronology of his activities afterthe conquesthas alwaysbeen confused. this second During stay in Istanbul he appointed (6 January1454) George Scholariospatriarch.30 According to Sphrantzes, he did thissimply"in orderto encouragethose Christians who had fledto returnand settle in Istanbul." This was no doubt an important factorin the Sultan's decision;but the Ottomansultans were always careful to representthemselvesas protectorsof the Orthodox Church against the
Ed. Grecu, 171; trans. Riggs, 93. There is an important documentin the ArchivesofTopkapi Sarayl, No. E. 11975,relatingto this. 24Die Aufzeichnungen des Genuesenlacopo de Promontorio-de um Campis i*berden Osmanenstaat
22 23

1475,

ed. F. Babinger (Munich, 1957), 36. 25 Bonn ed., 313.


26 Ed.

Grecu, 169-75; trans. Riggs, 89-95. 30Runciman (op. cit., 155) is somewhathesitantabout this date, but according to the chronology of Critoboulosthe Patriarchwas appointed in the winterof 1453/4.

28

d 27 Notes et extraits pour servir


Op. cit., 60.

Grecu, 163; trans. Riggs, 85. des croisadesau XVe siecle,IV (Bucharest, 1915), 67. l'histoire

29 Critoboulos, ed.

POLICY

OF MEHMED

II IN ISTANBUL

237

Latins. Documentsdating frombeforethe fall of Constantinople31 show that an Orthodoxmetropolitan or bishop in Ottomanterritories was appointedby official of the Sultan and mighteven, like otherOttomanfuncpatent (berdt) be assigned a timdr.It is thus easily understandablethat, in the tionaries, courseof theOttomanexpansion, Orthodoxpriestsfrequently cooperatedwith the Ottomansagainst the Venetians.This policy of the Ottomanswas in no to the shar 'a or to the Muslimtradition of the state. way contrary to Critoboulos,32 the Patriarch, the Sultan went afterappointing According to Brusa where,in the courseof a residenceof thirty-five days, he dealt with "all that had to do with local disturbances, revoltsof leaders and peoples," and dismissedsome governors. It is not difficult to see what lay behindthese sternmeasures.We knowthat wealthycitizensof Brusa resisteddeportation; nor should it be forgotten that,duringthis period in the historyof this imand industrial portantcommercial city,the guildsand the merchants engaged in the rich silk trade and industry could feelthemselves powerful enough to attemptto resistthe Sultan's orders.They failed; forthereis documentary evidence3that deportations from Brusa werecarriedout and that the majority of these deporteesplayed the main role in the establishment of the township ofEytib.The Sultan returned to and afterward "he set again Istanbul, shortly out forAdrianoplein thewinter."34 Some yearslater,in 1459,the Sultantookextraordinary measures to promote the prosperity and repopulation of Istanbul.35 Chiefamongthemwas his sumof the to his and each to found,in moning dignitaries presence commanding the quarterof his choice, a buildingcomplexconsisting of pious foundations -that is, a theologicalcollege,a school,a public kitchen, all groupedaround a mosque-and of such commercial a khan,and a buildingsas a caravansary, market.The promotion of commerce and the increaseof populationwere consideredto be dependentupon the creationof such facilities. In the following the Grand Vizier Mahmfid years the Sultan himself, Pasha, and otherviziers and dignitaries foundedsuch buildingcomplexesat variouspointsin the city, each groupedarounda mosque; and each such centerbecame the nucleusof a new quarter.36 At the end of 1459 MehmedII sentout ordersthat Greekswho,
See, e. g., Saret-idefter-i sancak-iArvanid,ed. H. Inalclk (Ankara, 1954), Nos. 148, 162, 186, 200. Ed. Grecu, 175; trans. Riggs, 95. 33 In the register(No. A. 3/3)of the qddi of Bursa. that the Sultan visitedAnatolia 4 I.e., earlyin 1454. For a critiqueof F. Babinger's interpretation in the summerof 1453, and that his purpose was to rest,see H. Inalcik's reviewarticle,"Mehmed the Conqueror(1432-1481) and His Time," Speculum,35 (1960), 412f. 35Critoboulos,ed. Grecu 237-39; trans. Riggs, 140f. 36 The fundamentalsources for these building complexes are the endowmentdeeds (vaqfiyye's) forthe foundations establishedby the Sultan and his viziers.A list ofthe vakfiyye's relatingto Mehmed II's foundationsin Istanbul is given in Fatih MehmetII vakfiyeleri (Ankara, 1938), 6-8. For the subject in general, see 0. L. Barkan, "Sehirlerintegekkiil ve inkisaftarihi bakimindan Osmanli imkurulusve isleyisineait arastirmalar,"Istanbul Universitesi paratorlugundaimiret sitelerinin Iktisat FakiiltesiMeimuasz, 23/1-2 (1962-63), 239-96; idem,"Fatih Camii ve imaretitesislerinin1489-1491 yillarina ait muhasebe bilangolarl," ibid., 297-341; idem, "Ayasofya Camii ve Eyiib tiirbesinin 1489-1491 yillarinaait muhasebe bilin9olar,"' ibid., 342-79. Also, forMehmed II's endowments, see deft.,No. 2057, the Baqvekilet Archives, Maliyedenmiidevver Istanbul; forthe populationof Istanbul, a Defter-i Istanbul, sene o1044, Belediye Kiitiiphanesi,Istanbul, Cevdet yazmalarl, No. O. Hdneihd-i
31
32

238

HALIL

INALCIK

eitherbeforeor afterthe conquest,had leftIstanbul as slaves or refugees to to Critoboulos,37 live in othercitiesshould return.According therewere then numerous Greek craftsmenwho had settled in Adrianople, Philippopolis, wheretheyhad becomerich.All ofthesewere Brusa,and othercities, Gallipoli, broughtto Istanbul, given houses and plots of land, and helped in other to Muslimimmigrants but also to ways. That housesweregrantednot merely was one of the for difficult Christian reasons relationsbedeportees probably tweenthetwocommunities. werebrought to Istanbulby the Greekimmigrants his later conquests: from the two Phoceas in 1459; fromthe Sultan also from the secondcampaignof 1460;38in the same yeara largeproportion Moreaafter ofthe populationof Imbros,Lemnos,Thasos, and Samothracewas transferred to the capital;39 as were some of the inhabitantsof Mityleneand the whole population of other towns on the island when Lesbos was occupied in 1462: the Sultan establishedthe Mitylenians "On his returnto Constantinople in one quarter of the city. To some he gave houses,to othersland on whichto build houses."40 When the inhabitantsof Argos in the Morea capitulatedto MahmeidPasha in 1463, "he colonized all of them in Byzantiumwith their wivesand children and all theirbelongings, safe and unhurt.""'So, too, Greeks werebrought from Euboea in 1470 and from Caffa in 1475,thoughmostof the Christians deportedfromthe latter were wealthyGenoese and Armenians.42 267 families4 A population list of 1477 shows these Genoese as numbering fourhundredgiven in Italian sources"is clearlyan exaggeration). (the figure These deporteesfrom Caffafoundedthe pleasant Istanbul quarterof Kefeli. In the courseof the campaignswaged againstKaraman in the years 146874, numerousdeportees-TurkishMuslimsand Armenians-werebroughtto Istanbul from and Eregli.4 Orderswereissued that Konya, Larenda, Akseray, from each citysome hundreds of households of craftsmen and wealthycitizens should be selectedfortransfer. Pasha's overlytoleranttreatment of Mahmfid the richand influential and his substitution of poorercitizensin theirstead so as angeredthe Sultan that this conduct was regardedby his contemporaries one of the main reasons for MahmfidPasha's fall.46 The population list of 1477 notes the immigrants fromKaraman as a separate community, comof 384 families. From the fact that are it noted posed they separately may be
68. A survey registerof vaqf's relatingto Istanbul in the sixteenthcenturyis being published by the Institute of Istanbul. From these and similar sources it is possible to put togethera detailed pictureof the developmentof Istanbul as a Muslimcity. 37 Ed. Grecu, 249; trans. Riggs, 148. 38 Idem, ed. Grecu, 261; trans. Riggs, 157. 3 Idem, ed. Grecu, 265; trans. Riggs, 159. 40Idem, ed. Grecu, 303; trans. Riggs, 185. 41Idem, ed. Grecu; 317, trans. Riggs, 197. 42 M. Malovist, Cafa, theGenoese Colonyin theCrimea,in Polish (Warsaw, 1947), 338. is in the archives of 43This document,drawn up under the supervisionof the qdd4i Mulhyieddin, Topkapi Sarayl, No. D 9524 (see further, p. 247, infra). 44Malovist, loc. cit. Al-i'Osman, VII. defter(facsimile), ed. S. Turan (Ankara, 1954), 45Kemal Pasha-zade, Tevdrih-i 291f. For the Armenians,see Eremya 9elebi Komiirciiyan, Istanbul Tarihi, Turkish trans. Hrand Andreasyan(Istanbul, 1952), translator'snotes at pp. 93, 175, and (Genoese) 238. 48 KemAl Pasha-zAde,op. cit., 291f.; Neshrt,op. cit. (see note 18), 203; Tursun Beg, op. cit., 139.

POLICY

OF MEHMED

II IN ISTANBUL

239

deduced that the otherGreeksand Muslimswho had, willingly or unwillingly, were this date so well settled in as to be regarded earlier, immigrated by already as the basic population. of the city and palace, the Sultan was In orderto ensurethe provisioning concerned to prosperity also to restore theneighboring villageswhichhad been ruinedor abandoned beforeand duringthe siege. Afterhis later conquests he settled in these villages as slaves large numbersof peasants (30,000 alto onereckoning), withthestatusofkhadss-qul orortaqchs-qul. together, according outsideit, They could not leave the villagein whichtheyweresettledor marry and half of what they producedbelongedto the state.47 Such settlements of slave peasants were made afterthe Serbian campaign of 1455 and the two campaignsin the Morea of 1458 and 1460, and afterthe occupationof the islands of Zante, Cephalonia,and Aya Maura in 1479. (Critoboulos reports48 that fourthousandpeasantsweredeportedafter the Moreacampaignof 1458.) In the courseofthesixteenth these peasants were gradually to acquire century the same status as the ordinary be and to assimilated in the re'dyd general that of Istanbul. population,including It is clear that, in carryingout the repopulation of Istanbul, MehmedII did notpursuea policyofdiscrimination whomhe regarded againstthe Greeks, as rightful of the at various timesin his reign, subjects empire.Nevertheless, both in this matterand in the larger one of the whole administration, the of the Greeks was abandoned for one of toward them. policy favoring hostility The firstsign of this is to be detected in an episode concerning Notaras. Because ofhis opposition to the Italians,Notarashad a kindofclaimon the favorof the Sultan; and the Ottomanshad long since made it theirgeneral practice,as a matterofreasonablepolicy,to take suchmenintotheirservice.49 Both Critoboulos50 and Sphrantzes5' reveal that at firstNotaras, as well as several other membersof the Byzantine aristocracy, received unexpectedly treatment from the In Sultan. the good considering reasons forhis later unthan happy fate, we may detect some mattersof policy,more fundamental was impliedby the explanation--given and Ducas and adopted by Sphrantzes and repeatedby Westernhistorians52-that he refusedto sacrifice his son to the Sultan's lust. In Critoboulos'account the Sultan had at first planned to make Notaras of the which he must have toward prefect city-a step regardedas necessary the promotionof his policy of repopulation.However, this was not without risk.At thattimetheVenetianfleet was in theAegean.If,by an act oftreachery,
47For these slave colonies,see 0. L. Barkan, "XV ve XVI inci asirlardaOsmanli imparatorlugunda toprak isgiligininorganizasyon Qekilleri,"in Istanbul Universitesi Ikt. Fak. Mej., 1 (1940), 29ff.; 2 (1941), 198-245. 48Ed. Grecu, 229; trans. Riggs, 133. 49Inalclk, "Ottoman Methods of Conquest," 112-22. 50Ed. Grecu, 159-63; trans. Riggs, 82-85. 51Bonn ed., 292f. 52Most recentlyS. Runciman, op. cit., 157. For J. Moschos' work on the lifeof Notaras, see A. E. der Leichenredeauf L. Notaras von Johannes Bakalopulos, "Die Frage der Glaubwiirdigkeit Moschos," 3 (1959), 13-21. Byz. Zeitschrift,

240

HALIL

INALCIK

wereto fallto the Latins,a secondand the city,conqueredwithsuch difficulty, harder siege would be required. Accordingto Critoboulos>5 (who had high membersof the Sultan's entourageoprespectforNotaras), some influential this that measure,saying they (i.e., Notaras and the nine membersof posed the Byzantinenobility who werehis followers) "would do all theycouldagainst the city, or would desertto the enemy,even while remaining here"; it was this argumentthat made the Sultan change his mind and execute Notaras and his associates. Sphrantzes,who is hostileto Notaras,54 maintainsthat he endeavored to win the Sultan's favor,wishingto preservehis former high but that the the viziers Sultan to execute Notaras. Now, position; persuaded it is well knownthat MehmedII, again following tookintothePalace practice, severalsons of the Byzantinenobility to be brought up withinthe established systemof trainingslaves for administrative posts-a systemwhich, before the end of the century,was to produce two Greek-born Grand Viziers, Megadux, realizingthat RfimMehmedPasha and Mesih Pasha. The former he would not be able to recover his previous position,must have decided not to hand over his son and son-in-law55 to serveas Palace pages-in effect, hostages. his account of the executionof Notaras,Critoboulos Immediately following notes that the "influential men" who had advised it were shortly afterward dismissedby the Sultan forthis treachery and were severelypunished. We knowwho theywere: the elderlyShihabeddinPasha and Zaganuz Pasha, who had played most importantroles in the conquest of Constantinople. It was who had been for the execution of too, Chandarh they, mainlyresponsible Khalil Pasha and who had made everyeffort to secureforthemselves all the reins of power.56 It is not impossibleto trace the reasons for Mehmed II's sudden coldnesstowardthese two men,his former tutorswho had paved the to his success. The execution of Pasha had been regardedby the Khalil way the intellectuals and the Janissaries, (ulema), people in generalas havingbeen and had caused much sorrow.Afterthe executionof the prompted by spite,57 the thattherecovery ofthe citywas notprogressing Sultan,realizing Megadux, and now regretting the executionof Notaras, blamed the two Pashas. Thus, in 1456 both Zaganuz (the GrandVizier) and Shihibeddin (the second vizier) weredismissed.58 ShihibeddinPasha had urgedthathousesvacated in the city should be grantedto Muslimimmigrants as freehold, and that the cityshould be quicklyturkicized. As related above, Mehmedhad returned to Greekstheir former homesand distributed uninhabited housesamongthem;further, he had who came granted empty houses and mansions as freeholdto immigrants voluntarily. "Ashlqpashaz.dereportsthat houses weregrantedalso to deportees. The passage runs:
53Ed. Grecu, 161; trans. Riggs, 84. 54See Bakalopulos, op. cit., 19. 55His youngerson was taken into the Palace (Bakalopulos, ibid.). 66 See Inalcik, Fatih devriiizerinde tetkikler ve vesikalar,55-136. 5' Sphrantzes,Bonn ed., 294. 58 Inalcik in Speculum,35, p. 413f.; idem,Fatih devriiizerinde ve vesikalar,135. tetkikler

POLICY

OF MEHMED

II IN ISTANBUL

241

And he sent officers to all his lands to announce that whoeverwished should come and take possessionin Istanbul, as freehold, ofhousesand orchardsand gardens,and to whoevercame these were given. Despite this measure, the city was not repopulated; so then the Sultan commanded that fromevery land families, poor and rich alike, should be in to the cadis and force. sent officers withfirmans And brought by they the prefectsof every land. And they, in accordance with the firman, in numerous and to thesenewcomers, families, too, deportedand brought housesweregiven; and now the citybegan to become populous.59 The procedure thehousehe wanted, was that each immigrant, after choosing went to the city prefectand receivedfromhim a note of recommendation; he took thisnote to the Porte-we recallherethat real estatebelongedlegally to the Sultan and was therefore withinhis gift-and applied therefora freehold deed, a miilkndme.60 have come to lightin the Some of these documents archivesof Topkapi Sarayl. The miilkndme's are of various dates, the oldest I have foundbeing of 861, that is to say, July 1457. They grantfull freehold tenureof real Ramad.an estate, accordingto the principlesof the shari 'a, so that theyread: "It is to be in his possession;he may, as he wishes,sell it, or however give it away, or make it vaqf; in short,he may enjoy it as freehold he wishes." (There is a distinction here between this and real estate which remainedmidr, freehold of the latterbelongedto the state the i.e., property: state, and the holderwho enjoyedit could notsell it, give it away, or make it When, however,as a resultof these various measures,the populationhad increasedand the houseshad been occupied,the Sultan gave ordersthat these housesshouldbe subjectedto survey and enregistered, and thatmuqdta'ashould be collectedin respectof them.In Ottomanstate finances the termmuqdta'a means in generalthe leasingor farming out to an individual-afteragreement on the sum whichthe individualwill pay-of a sourceof state revenue.In the contextunder consideration the termis to be understoodas "rent," and in what followsthe word "rent" will be used. The groundsforthe Sultan's new decisionwerethat the freehold had been grantedonlyin respectof the buildnot of the land which it ing, occupied; and land could not be held without paymentof rent.81 The task of makingthe surveywas entrusted to Jtibbe 'Ali Beg, cityprefect ofBrusa, who tookwithhimas his clerkhis nephewTursunBeg, the historian, lateran important official in the financial administration. Tursunhimself tells62
59 'Ashiqpashazade, ed. 9ift9iogluN. Atsiz, in Osmanlz Tarihleri, I (Istanbul, 1949), 193 (= ? 124; zur Hohen Plorte [Graz, 1959], 200); cf. Neshri, cf. German trans. R. F. Kreutel, Vom Hirtenzelt op. cit., 181. 60 TAji-zade Ja'fer Chelebi,op. cit. (see note 10), 24. g1 Tursun Beg, op. cit., 60. 62 Ibid., 61 f. Accordingto the registerof 1490 for the inspectionof the vaqf's of Aya Sofya (see note 67), some houses which had been made over to the churchbeforethe conquest were confirmed as vaqf by Mehmed II. A typical Arabic note recording this reads: al-mandzil.. .kulluha yutasarrafu 'a qadi?an f/zamdn al-kufrwa'l-jdhiliyyaal-muqarrara ba'd al-fath'ald rmd bi'l-muqdfa'a al-mawdd Sul.tin Muhammad Khan al-mufattah kdn 'alayhi /fzamdn al-/athwa-huwa al-marfhamn lahu abwdb al-rahmava'l-ghufrdn wa'l-ridwdn (fol. 50b; othersuch notes at fols. 43a, 45a).

vaqf.)

242

HALIL

INALCIK

how everyhouse was visited,how everyhouse, great or small,everyorchard, and everygardenwas listed in a register, and how rentwas imposedon each to its value. In the courseofthe surveymanyhouseschangedhands according because holders, themselves too poor to pay the rentdemanded,moved finding to houses bettersuited to theircircumstances. When the operationwas comit found was that these rents would pleted, bringto the treasuryan annual income of a hundredmillionaspers (aqche),that is to say, over two million Venetian ducats. For the period,this is an enormoussum: the total revenue of the OttomanEmpire around 1432 had been estimatedat only two and a halfmillionducats. we findthe Sultan issuingnew orders, Shortlyafterthis survey, by which he abolished this rent "for his officers and his subjects" and again granted miilkndme's. Accordingto Tursun Beg,63 who was closely concernedin the the Sultan survey, explainedto one of his intimates whyafterso shorta time he had taken thissecond decisionwhichcontradicted the first: the first measure had been promptedby the fact that many people had obtained freehold of houses beyondtheirmeans and status; they could not sell them,forthere was no one to buy; but if these large houses and mansionsremainedin their possessionthey would inevitablyfall into disrepairand ruin. Rent had been to induce everyone to take a house that suitedhis means; imposed,therefore, the primary intention had not been to raise revenueforthe treasury. The real reasonswhichprompted the Sultan to abandon this richsourceof revenueare revealedby anotherhistorian, 'Ashlqpashazade,who,unlikeTurforthe generalpublic: sun, was writing They imposed rent on the houses whichthey had given to these people [the deportees].When this happened,the people foundit more onerous and said: 'You forcedus to leave our old homes,whichwe owned. Did ?' you bringus herethatwe shouldpay rentforthesehousesoftheinfidels And some of them abandoned their wives and childrenand fled. The Sultan had an officer namedKavala (Kephalia) Shahin[thatis, Shihabeddin Pasha] who had served under the Sultan's fatherand grandfather and who had been vizier. He said to the Sultan: 'Come now, Your Majesty! Your fatherand your grandfather conquerednumerousterritories, but in not one of them did they impose rent; nor is it fitting that you shouldimposeit.' The Sultan acceptedwhathe said and abolishedtherent and issuedneworders:'Whateverhouseyou give,giveit as freehold.' Then they gave a documentin respectof everyhouse that was given,stating that the house shouldbe the freehold of the possessor.When thingswere arrangedthus, the city began to be more prosperous;people began to build mosques, some built dervish convents and some built freehold and thiscityreturned to its former properties, good state."4 This passage shows clearly that the attempt to raise such a large revenue fromthe inhabitantsof the city had given rise to strongopposition,and the
6

63 Op.

cit., 61 f. See supra, note 59.

POLICY

OF MEHMED

II IN ISTANBUL

243

popular sentiment. outspokenlanguage of 'Ashiqpashazade doubtlessreflects To induce the Sultan to retractthis measure had requiredthe intervention of Shihabeddin Pasha-the old and influential vizierwho had been the Sultan's tutorand his greatest before support.This changeofpolicymusthave occurred for in that we find that Pasha had 1457, year already been ShihAbeddin The Topkapi Sarayi archivescontainmiilkndme's to the dismissed.65 belonging that 1457 to 1459.66 is, yearsimmediately following, theByzantineperiodwere, we find, made overby the Sultan to the vivingfrom the incomearising therefrom as rentaccruing vaqfofthe mosque ofAya Sofya, to the vaqf.At varioustimesfurther were made over as vaqfto the properties and thesevaqfproperties wereinspectedand checkedtwiceduring the mosque; of II Mehmed the Mehmed, reign (onceby Muhyieddin qddi'askerKebelti-zade and then by the qddiasker Fenari-zade In an and 'Ali). inspection 'Alaeddin in made the next it is noted that some of the 1490, survey during reign,6" houses had been given to the vaqf in 861 (1456/7).According to this survey, in 1490 the real estate in Istanbul, Galata, and Uskiidarthat belongedto the in an annual rentof 458, vaqfof the mosque consistedof 2,350shopsbringing 578 aspers; fourcaravansaries, various"rooms" (hujardt, two baths, odalar),68 millet beer in shopsselling thirty (boza),twenty-two sheep-head shopsbringing a rentof 174,175aspers; and 987 houses let at a total rentof 85,668 aspers. rate of forty-nine (We note in passingthat at the then current aspers to the ducat these rentsrepresented an annual incomeof some 14,500 ducats.) Most of the 987 housesmusthave survivedfrom the Byzantineperiod.As to 111 of note: "Afterthe conquest,beforetheyweremade them,thereis the following these houses were and theirholderswere givenmiilkvaqf, grantedas freehold an annualrentof9,655asperswas imposeduponthem; ... ndme's;subsequently and 178 houses, bringing in a rent of 11,509 aspers, were held by servants (qul) of the Sultan; thus, in 887 [1482] some of these holders were given and otherswere given certificates miilkndme's cancellingthe rent." Besides these houses belongingto the Sultan's servantswhose freeholdtenure was
E. 7222, E. 7232, E 3056/2.The city prefects(subashz)named as recommending the grant of miilkndme's are Chakir Beg/Agha(1457), Murid Beg (1462), Chakir Agha (again, 1466), Ilyds Beg of the vaqf'sofAya Sofya refers to houses in respectof whichmiilkndme's (1468). The register had been granted in Rejeb 860 (= June 1456). It recordsalso that in 861 (29 Nov. 1456-20 Oct. 1457), when there was a general inspection,many old houses and shops were made vaqf,the milkndme'sbeing cancelled (same register, fol. 56a), these changes may be connectedwith the surveycarriedout by Jiibbe 'Ali Beg. 67 This register is No. 19 in the series"Maliye'den miidevver"in the Basvekilet Arsiviin Istanbul. Composed by Kestelli Yusuf b. Khalil, its prefacestates that the inspectionwas made on the basis of registers drawn up by Kebelii-zade and Fenari-zAde. It contains a detailed listing of the vaqfpropertiesof Aya Sofya situated in Istanbul, Galata, and Vtskiidar. Anothersurvey registerof the made in 926 (= 1520), is in the Belediye Kiitiiphanesi,M. Cevdet yazmalarl, Aya Sofya properties, No. 64. The annual accounts for the years 893, 894, and 895 have been published by 0. L. Barkan (see note 36: "Ayasofya Camii .... "). 68 In such contextshujra or oda usually means a fairly large room used as a separate workshopor At the same time,completehouses were lodging,as appears fromthe entriesin the Aya Sofya register. sometimes apparentlycalled huiraor oda. Such "rooms" werebuiltin marketsand bazaars as workshops and lodgings(T. G6kbilgin,Edirne ve [Istanbul, 1952], 503). Papa Livasz
66 Nos.

In A. H. 861 (29 November 1456-20October sur1457)manyof thehouses

tetkikler ve vesikalar,134-36. 6s Inalcik, Fatih devriiizerinde

244

HALIL

INALCIK

to other recognizedor whose rent was cancelled in 1482, there is reference houses forwhichthe renthad been cancelledearlier, in Fenari-zade'sprevious because theywere held by servantsof the Sultan. It may be said in survey, that from housessurviving theByzantine had beengranted general periodwhich to such servantswerealways givenspecial treatment and made rentfree. As to the houses grantedin freehold to private individuals,they became the subject of controversy once again in the years 1471 and 1472. When Rim MehmedPasha was appointedGrandVizierin 1471,69 he embarkedon a series of extraordinary financial measures.These weremainlyprompted by the sudden increase in expenditurebrought about by the stubbornresistanceof Karaman, and by the sack of Tokat and the invasion of Karaman by Uzun Hasan's forcesin the following Once morewe findin 'Ashiqpashaz de year.70 hostileto Rfm MehmedPasha-the pronounced reaction -who was violently to the changemade at this date. He says:7' There came to the Sultan a certainvizierwho was the son of an infidel and had won highfavorwiththe Sultan. The former infidel inhabitants of this city of Istanbul had been friends ofthisvizier'sfather. They came to him and said: 'What do you thinkyou are doing? These Turks have restored thecity.Have you no spirit ? They have takenyourfather's home and our homes and occupy them beforeour very eyes. Come now! You are the favoriteof the Sultan. Exert yourself so that these people may cease the restoration of this city,and it may be left,as it was before, in our possession.' The vizier said: 'Let us reimposeon them that rent which was imposed earlieron, so that they may refrain frombuilding freehold the thus will be leftin houses; city again fallintoruinand finally the possessionof our people.' One day this vizier foundan occasion for this idea to the Sultan and got the rents reimposed.They suggesting sent out one of these deceitfulinfidels,accompanied by a nominally Muslimservantofthe Sultan,who did whateverthis deceitful infidel told him to do, and theywroteit all down. Question: Who is thisvizier? Answer:It is Rim MehmedPasha, whomtheSultancaused to be strangled like a dog. fromrestoring ... and because of this rent the people began to refrain Istanbul. If the Sultan is capriciousin the decreeshe makes Then his territory harm. always suffers And if his viziershouldbe an infidel, He always seeks to cause damage to the truefaith. And the blame forthe reimposition of this rent whichwe now have to rests with this Mehmed. pay Rfim
For the date, see Inalclk, in Speculum,35 (see supra, note 34), 414. See Inalclk, s.v. "Mehmed II," in Isldm Ansiklopedisi,VII, p. 525; Babinger, Mehmed der Eroberer und seineZeit, 326f. 71 Op. cit., ? 124 (see supra, note 59).
69
70

POLICY

OF MEHMED

II IN ISTANBUL

245

Althoughthis bitterpassage of 'Ashlqpashazade has been quoted by hisand the reasons prompting it have its true historicalsignificance torians,72 not been considered. It shouldbe recalled that,in othercontextstoo, 'Ashlqpashazade gives vent to his hostilityto Rfim Mehmed Pasha and thereby of a specificgroup in Ottoman society. Behind his reflects also the feelings hostilitylie the facts that among the various financialmeasures taken by of the previously Rfim Mehmed Pasha there was, besides his reimposition cancelled rent,his abolition (doubtlessfor reasons of economy)of the gifts and bountiescustomarily distributed and sheykhs,73 by the Palace to dervishes the class to which'Ashlqpashazadehimself belonged.These measuresevidently caused a violentreactionamong the Muslimpopulace, especiallyin religious circles. It may be true that the Pasha's descent inclinedhim to favor the Greeksand that at this period Greeksexercisedsome influence in the Palace in state and affairs;74but 'Ashlqpashazade's assessmentof Rcim Mehmed Pasha's motives must be viewed with some reserve,for the measures the Pasha had institutedremainedin force,even afterhis dismissaland execution,75 duringthe rest of Mehmed II's reign.Under his successor,however, these questionswerereconsidered. In 887 (1482), shortly afterBayezid II's accession,whenmany of his predecessor's financialmeasures were abolished, the Sultan consideredalso the matterof the rentsand cancelledthem,particularly in respectof houses held what the documents call translated here as "officer" This or word, by qul's. of whateverrank; it embraces,and "servant," is applied to state officials sometimesspecifically the the group which in 1481 had means, Janissaries, A firman dated Rebi' I, 889 (April helpedBayezid to the throne.76 1484)reads:77
Cf. Babinger,Mlehmed und seineZeit, 487. derEroberer record'Ashiqpashazdde,ed. Atsiz (see supra, note 59), 243-44. For specimenentriesin a register ing such donationsmade by the Palace, see G6kbilgin, op. cit.,470-85. 74 After the conquest of Constantinople,Mehmed II caused young members of the Byzantine nobilityto be broughtinto his servicein the Palace-i.e., to be trainedforstate servicein the various "chambers" of the Palace School (see Critoboulos,ed. Grecu,163-65; trans. Riggs, 85f.); after the occupation of Aenos and of Trebizond too he took into the palace groups of childrenof the nobility (Critoboulos,ed. Grecu, 197, 287; trans. Riggs, 110, 175). The Palaeologue KhAss Murad (for whom see F. Babinger, "Eine Verfiigung des Paliologen Chass Murad-Paga...," in Documenta Islamica inedita [Berlin, 1952], 197-210) was appointed beylerbeyof Rumeli in 1471, i.e., duringthe Grand Vizierate of Ri^m Mehmed Pasha (Die friihosmanischen des Urudsch,ed. F. Babinger Jakrbiicher that in his history, written forpresentation to the Sultan, [Hanover, 1925], 126). It may be significant Critoboulosdid not hesitateto expresshis sorrowover the executionsofthe members ofthe Byzantine aristocracy. 7s He was executed in 1474; see Inalcik, in Speculum,35, p. 415. 76 According to the Aya Sofya register,the qul's whose houses were exempted fromrent were describedas yenicheri, sekbdn, jebeji, topju, arabajz,yayabashz;the Palace servantsas helvajz, sipdhhi, qapzjz, sarrdj, also kdtiband miinejjim.There are notes of several Janissariesengaged in commerce and industryin the marketsand holdingshops at a rent. The registershows also that high-ranking membersof the militaryclass-beg's and ulema-held several houses by virtue of thus miilkndme's; the governorof Istanbul, ChakirAgha, had houses in various quartersof the city; a big house in the to the khatibof Galata, Mevlan& 'Alt, and anotherto Germiyanquarter was granted by millkndme the childrenof Za'im 'Alt. Non-Muslims also possessed houses: in ShawwOl863, houses were granted to "Manul Komnen," "Nikefor," and the sons of "Yorgi"; the house belongingto by miilkndme "Angelina," in the same quarter,was given to the bootmaker Davud, and a house belongingto a Greek woman, "Zabya," to Re'is 'Al. "Pandeliyo Moris," who had lost his miilkndme, was given a new one in A. H. 889 (his house was a big one, assessed at a rent of 250 aqche's). 7 The register "Maliye'den miidevver,"No. 19 (see note 67), fol. 52.
72 73

246

HALIL

INALCIK

I have abolishedrentin respectof all my servantswho receivea stipend from me and are actuallylivingnow in houses and on sitesliable to rent in Istanbul78 and Galata which belong to the vaqf's of the Aya Sofya such as these,rentis not to be demanded.But, as forthose Mosque; from who are my servantsand do not receive a stipend,as they are brothers or relativesof my servants,fromthem rentis to be demanded forthe houses and the sites they occupy which are liable to rent and belong to the vaqf. For the future, whoevertakes over a house or a site liable to he be a servantofminereceiving a stipendor not,from him rent,whether the rentforthe house and site wherehe lives is to be collected,not cancelled. Bayezid thuscancelledthe rentsonlyforthosewho at that date wereactually in his service. in April 1484, he was makingpreparations When he issued this firman, for his first in the which success of to was Moldavia, major campaign, strengthen his own prestige as Sultan. Now it was at thisverytimethat 'Ashlqpashazade was writing his history,79 and he was evidently to devotea separate prompted to of the rents because their cancellation then had question chapter partial once more made them a subject of discussionin Istanbul. From his account it is clear that public opinionobjected to the rentson the groundsthat they werecontrary to the sharica,that theyfavoredthe Greeks,and that Mehmed first theproperties as freehold, then,"led astray"by Greeks, II, having granted had goneback on his word.It shouldbe remembered also that,upon BAyezid's of the Khalil Pasha's son accession, appointment Ibrahim as qdd4iasker reflecteda reactionagainst the too frequent recourse,duringMehmed'sreign, to the doctrine of the Sultan's executiveauthority measures ('crf)8s to justify which many felt to be contraryto the sharz'ca. When, in these years, such measures were abolished,it was always the shari a which was adduced to in Bayezid's reignrequiretheirabolition.All the Ottomanhistorians writing cAshlqpashazade,Neshri, Tursun, Idris, KemAlpasha-zade-praise him for the authority of the sharicaand forpromoting reviving "justice." From the recordofthe inspection made in 1490 of the imperialvaqf's ofthe liable to rent,it is Aya Sofya mosque, whichincludedmany house properties to other which had been laid down in applyingthe possible identify principles new policy. First, as we have seen, rent has been cancelled forhouses owned and occupied by qul's who are in the immediateserviceof the Porte; it remainsin forhouses ownedby qul's who have been granteda tlimdr force, however, and thus have leftthe immediateserviceof the Porte, and forhouses whichhave into the possessionof others. Second, "in acpassed by sale or inheritance cordancewiththe preceptof the sharf'a,"renthas,in principle, been cancelled
used the name Islambol (a folketymology 78 The register meaning"full of Muslims") ratherthan Istanbul; elsewherethe register speaks of "Qostantaniyye." 7" See the Introduction to Giese's edition. s.v. "Orf." 80 On this subject, see H. Inalclk, in Isldm Ansiklopedisi,

POLICY OF MEHMED II IN ISTANBUL

247

forhouses whichhad been grantedin freehold to privateindiby miilkndme viduals beforethe endowment was made, but upon whichrenthad later been imposed; thus we findthat rent has been cancelled for some houses by an but forthe great "imperialdocumentof cancellation" (refcndme-i hiimdyi~in), In it has been confirmed. the of the each has majority register vaqf's property a separate note affirming its position. A thirdcase is that of houses subject to rentswhichhave been made over to the vaqf.These represent houseswhichhad fallenintoruinand upon whose sites new houses or shops had been built: in this event,theywere subject to rentonly in respectof the land on whichthey stood, in accordancewith the "rent due on land does not lapse withthe deterioration of the buildprinciple ing upon it." The Byzantine houses which came into the hands of the Ottomans thus presentedthe Ottoman authoritieswith an awkward problem of policy, a the Ottomanfinancialdepartments but also problemwhichnot only affected had repercussions ofMuslimsin Istanbul uponthe questionsof the settlement and of Ottomanpolicytowardthe Greeks;it became moreand morecomplex in relationto the further factorsthat some were occupied by qul's and some had been made over as vaqf. withthe intention of restoring the city Generally speaking,and admittedly to prosperity, MehmedII gave favorabletreatment to the Greeks.The census of the city made underthe supervision of the qddi Muhyieddin in 1477 shows the following for and Muslims Greeks: populationfigures, by households, Istanbul Galata Muslims 535 8,951

Orthodox Greeks 3,151

592

All the other communitiescollectively-Armenians, Latins and Gypsiesamountonlyto 3,095households.81 As we have seen,a large proportion of the Greeks had been broughtto Istanbul by compulsory resettlement fromthe Morea and elsewhere. It is a prominentcharacteristic of MehmedII's policy that he soughtto to the principle of 'c'rf (in Arabic, curf), give primeemphasisin state affairs the executivecompetenceof the ruler,and thus win absolute and unlimited authorityfor his own decisions. His contemporaries thoughtthat he had pushed the principletoo far. At his death, as we have seen, many of the measureswhichhe had taken-although responsibility forthemwas imputed not to him but to his viziers-were declared to be contraryto the sharica. In a letterof advice addressedto his successor,82 the writermaintainedthat Mehmed,"by the counsel of mischiefmakers and hypocrites," had "infringed the Law of the Prophetand impairedthe good orderof the land," and advised the new Sultan to followin the steps not of his fatherbut of his grandfather
see supra,p. 238 and note 43. It may be noted that it records3,667 shops in 81For this document, Istanbul and 260 in Galata. 82 The letteris foundin a MS of the Mendhiju'l-inshd, in Izzet Koyunoglu's libraryat Konya.

248

HALIL

INALCIK

Murad II. Certainly, MehmedII was a man of a different stamp fromhis son from his also II; SiileymAn, upon whose ordersthe Bayezid great-grandson Abu tried to the executive of the Empireinto regulations mufti bring 's-Su'fid In the a. Istanbul in with Greeks and shari leavingchurches conformity settling in Christian undertook order in which to MehmedII hands, promotethe city's he invoked the principleof 'ifrf ratherthan the authority of the prosperity, in of the as the interests state. It is true that best the sharica, being religious Molla Khusrev, who had been scholars of his day-chiefly the withhimsincehis childhood-did not regardthesemeasures qdd.l'asker closelyconnected as contrary to the shariya, because they servedthe best interests of precisely theMuslim of But when Mehmed's the Greeks enabled protection community." themto form of the populationof the city,and when a substantialproportion in trade,in the guilds,s4 and through theybegan to gain wealth and influence the farming ofrichcustomsand mineral a concessions,85 then,not unnaturally, certainhostility betweenthemand the MuslimTurkishpopulationdeveloped; afterthe conquest in or, rather,the hostility, already apparentimmediately the incidentof Lucas Notaras, was exacerbated.Thus, fromtimeto timein the reignsof Mehmed'ssuccessorsthe question was raisedwhether it was not the in a to that should be Greeks taken contrary living city by force shary'a of arms and that some of its churchesshould be leftin Christianhands. In this questionwas raised again, it was 1538,whenforvariousspecial reasons86 in orderto necessaryto obtain a fetvd(i.e., a writtenopinionof the mufti) the Greek The the situation on the fictiprotect population. fetvdjustified tious groundsthat duringthe siege the Jews and the Christians had made a secretcompactwithMehmedII and had refrained from the assisting Byzantine
For this question,see Isldm Ansiklopedisi, s.v. "'Orf." of 1490,among the leadingmerchants of the Bedestan there Accordingto the Aya Sofya register were only two Armenians,five Jews,and three Greeks,all the remaining122 businessesbelonging to Muslims. In the marketguilds,too, the Muslims were greatlyin the majority(the names of nonMuslims appearing, without distinction, in the lists of Muslim names): thus, in the market around the Bedestan, of forty-one carpenters'shops only one belonged to an Armenian;of fortyworkshops the Morea, and Galata); of thirtymakingpots and pans sixteenbelonged to Greeks (from Mitylene, fourgrocersonlyfourwere Greeks; and all the 142 shops in the saddlers' quarterbelongedto Muslims. But the Greeks were particularlyactive in big tax-farming operationsand in the trade by sea (see note 85). 1*Under Mehmed II the Greekswere enabled to engage in commerceunder more favorableconditions than had existed before.Since they were dhimmi subjects of the Sultan, the whole Empire was open to them as a fieldfortheircommercialactivitiesand they enjoyed protection, especiallyagainst the Italians, who were subjected to a highercustoms tariff than the Greeks. Thus, they gradually in the Black Sea trade and in trade withthe countriesof Northsupplantedthe Italians, particularly ern Europe. The customs registers forthe ports of Kilia (on the estuary of the Danube), Akkerman (at the mouth of the Dniester), and Caffashow that toward the end of the fifteenth centuryGreek werenumerous:of twenty-five ship captains and merchants ships callingat Akkermanin 1490, fifteen belonged to Greeks (of the rest, six belonged to Muslims,threeto Italians, and one to an Armenian). I am preparinga study on this trade; for the present see my article, "Bursa and the Commerceof the Levant" (supra, note 2). For the customs system and for Greek farmersof taxes, dues, and concessions, see my "Notes on N. Beldiceanu's translation...," Der Islam, 43 (1967), 152-56. 86 The fall of Coron in the Morea to the Emperor Charles V's fleetin 1532 caused consternation in Istanbul, and was attributedto treacheryon the part of the Greeks; a Venetian reportof 1535 (Calendar of State Papers, Spain [London, 1838], V/I, doc. 197) said: "Albania and the surrounding inhabitedby Christians, are only waitingfornews of the Emperoror his fleetgoing provinces,chiefly to Constantinople to rise in rebellion."
88

84

POLICY

OF MEHMED

II IN ISTANBUL

249

Emperor:it was allegedlyforthis reasonthatthe Sultanhad notenslavedthem but leftthemin theirhomes."7Similarly, too, in the course of the sixteenth was felt to that be scandalous Christians should hold timdr'sand centuryit servethe Sultan as sipdhi's (cavalry),whereasin the reignof MehmedII, and before,it had been regarded as completelynormal that Christians,Greek Orthodoxamong them,should serve as sipdh$'s.s8 after Furthermore, shortly 1500 the historianIdris had commented that in leaving these Christians undisturbedthe Sultans had had in view the prosperity of the worldand of the Muslimreligion. thisarticlehad gone to pressProfessor B. S. Baykal, ofthe Postscript:After ofAnkara,broughtto my attentiona photocopyof a survey-book University of Galata produced toward the end of 1455. How this new originalsource will affectthe points dealt with in this paper can be discussed only when Prof. Baykal's publicationof the survey-book makes it available for study.
See note 11, supra. 88For Christian tetkikler ve vesikalar,137-84. sipdhi's, see Inalclk, Fatih devriiizerinde
87