Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:34:43.211Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Early Ottoman Administration in the Wilderness: Some Limits on Comparison

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2009

Joel Shinder
Joel Shinder
Affiliation:
Minnepaolis, Minnesota
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A synthesis of Ottoman administrative history has yet to be written, and it is unlikely that one will appear in the near future. The task is enormous, and more glamorous subjects continue to receive priority. Even now the field of administrative history exists largely as an ancillary to the study of Ottoman diplomatic instruments or as a foundation for the study of the moderization of traditional society. In the latter case it has fallen under the spell of institutional history, where three theses and at least one ‘antithesis’ scurry in their murine way across the tiles of the Ottoman edifice. Despite the fact that a developed literature is lacking, speceialists in other disciplines have used the Ottoman example for broad comparative studies of bureaucratic empires. Their premature attempts have perpetuated the notion already endemic in Islamist circles that what we know of Islamic government is all there is to know and need be known. Several themes, however, have dominated the study of governing institutions in the Middle East with a force that has surely impeded progress and fresh thought. Our first results from the four theses referred to earlier are terribly outdated at worst or in need of modification at best. New source materials in the Ottoman archives and new readings of older materials long subject to scholarly scrutiny call for a reexamination of those leading themes and the theses they inspire before any attempt at synthesis and comparison is made.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Middle East Studies , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , November 1978 , pp. 497 - 517
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Author'S Note: I wish to acknowledge the support of the National Endowment for the Humanities and of the State University of New York Research Foundation in the preparation of this essay. I would also like to thank Harvard University's Center for Middle Eastern Studies for the facilities made available to me.

1 Eisenstadt, S. N., The Political Systems of Empires (London, 1963), is an example of the way in which the Ottoman case has been used for comparison and model-building.Google Scholar

2 Lybyer, , Government, pp. 36–37, 50.Google Scholar His thesis was developed and refined by Gibb, H. A. R. and Harold, Bowen in Islamic Society and the West, Vol. I, Islamic Society in the Eighteenth Century, Part I (Oxford, 1950). I am indebted to Ms. Judith-Ann Corrente of Harvard University for her comments in a seminar paper, ‘Approaches to Ottoman Institutions: An Historiographical Essay,’ which I found helpful in this analysis.Google Scholar

3 Professor Halil İnalcik has an extensive list of publications, the most relevant of which are the following: ‘Ottoman Methods of Conquest,’ Studia Islamica, 2 (1954), 103–130Google Scholar ‘The Emergence of the Ottomans,’ in The Cambridge History of Islam, Vol. I (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 263–295;Google ScholarThe Ottoman Empire in the Classical Age 1300–600 (New York, 1973). İnalcik, unlike Shaw, prefers to see the ‘Turkish Aristocracy’ as the march lords or uc begs and limits the tension between this group and the devsirme party to the period Ca. 1362-ca. 1600. He also works toward a synthesis by incorporating the ‘Muslim Aristocracy’ or chief ulema families into his scheme. The effect is to bring Wittek and Lybyer (as corrected by Shaw) together.Google Scholar

4 Thomas, , A Study of Naima (New York, 1972);Google ScholarItzkowitz, , ‘Eighteenth Century Ottoman Realities,’ Studia Islamica, 26 (1962), 73–94,CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Ottoman Empire and Islamic Tradition (New York, 1972),Google Scholar and, with Max, Mote, Mubadele: An Ottoman–Russian Exchange of Ambassadors (Chicago, 1970); İnalcik in the works cited in n. 3 above, but especially in Classical Age.Google Scholar

5 Gustave, E. von Grunebaum, Medieval Islam: A Study in Cultural Orientation, 2d ed. (Chicago, 1956), p. 543.Google Scholar

6 Reuben, Levy, trans., A Mirror for Princes: The Qābūs Nāma by Kai Kā'ūs Ibn Iskander, Prince of Gurgān (London, 1951), p. 209.Google Scholar

7 ′Aşikpaşazāde, , Tevārih-i āl-i Osnzān, ed. ′Ali, (Istanbul, 1332/1915), pp. 19–20. The existence of the timar regime and kanun legislation at this early date is a moot point. ‘Aşikpaşazāde is henceforth referred to as Apz., preceded by the editor's last name.Google Scholar

8 Friedrich, Griese, ed., Die altosmanische Chronik (Tevārikh-i āl-i Osmān) des ′Ašikpašzāde (Leipzig, 1929),Google Scholar in addition to the ′Alī and Atsiz editions; Oruç, Karamani Mehmed, şukrullah, Tursun Beg, Ahmedī, and Neşri in several editions (but do see the çiftçioğlu, N. Atsiz collection, Osmanli Tarihleri, Vol. I, Istanbul, 1949) - the earliest chronicles we know – possibly share a common prototype.Google Scholar

9 Refer to the discussion of Ibn Taymīya's docrine of siyāsa shar′iya in Rosenthal, E. I. J., Political Thought in Medieval Islam: An Introductory Outline (Cambridge, 1958), pp. 58, 60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar It should be noted, however, that even in the small states which were successors to the Abbasids the doctrine was often ignored in practice, its author having little if any following. Ira M. Lapidus has demonstrated that in many Syrian and Mesopotamian towns and cities new elites emerged during periods of upheaval, common from the ninth century. Military regimes which controlled former Abbasid provinces were incapable of ‘reordering’ local situations. The urban ulema stepped into the vacuum and, through intermarriage with merchant, administrative, and landowning families, forged a new elite defined by religious qualification. This development, however, should not be superimposed on the scene in western Asia Minor from the thirteenth century. See ‘The Evolution of Musim Urban Society,’ Comparative Studies in Society and History, 25 (1973), 21–50, esp. pp. 39–41.Google Scholar

10 See Giese, , Apz., pp. 175–177. The importance of the juxtaposition of feth etmek (to conquer) and kaleme almak (to record) was pointed out to me by Professor Rudi Lindner of Tufts University.Google Scholar

11 Atsiz, Apz., pp. 118, 139.Google Scholar The view is shared by other works of the genre, such as ‘Ahmedī’ in Nihat, Sami Banarli, XIV. astr Anadoluşairlerinden Ahmedi'nin Osmanli tarihi: Dīasttan-t tevārih-i mülūk-i āl-i Osman ye Cemşid ye Hursid mesnevisi (Istanbul, 1939), p. 74.Google ScholarSçukrullah's, Behcet in Atsiz, Osmanli Tarihleri, p. 57,Google Scholar and Banarli's, “Ahmedī” p. 83, relate how Bayezid I had to restrain the kadis from oppressing the people.Google Scholar

12 This general historical judgment of trial by ordeal is made much of in 'Ali, Apz., pp. 197–198. History in these chronicles is fundamentally moralistic, teleological, and polemical.Google Scholar

13 Supplementing the early chroniclers with tradition (Turkish, Islamic, Middle Eastern) is standard fare in twentieth-century Turkish historiography, represented in three generations of scholarship: Zeki, Velidi Togan, Umumi Türk Tarihine Giriş, Vol. I, En Eski Devirlerden 16. Asra Kadar (Istanbul, 1946);Google ScholarUzunçarşili, İ. H., Osmanli Devleti Teşkilātina Medhal (Istanbul, 1941); and in the works of Halil İnalcik as cited.Google Scholar

14 İsmail Hikmet Ertaylan published a facsimile of the Terressül in Ahmed-i Dā'ī, Hayati ye Eserleri (Istanbul, 1952), pp. 325–328.Google Scholar Also see Björkmann, W., “Die Anfänge der türkischen Briefsammlungen,” Orientalia Suecana, 5 (Uppsala, 1956), 22–23,Google Scholar on inşa forms. A possible source for the Terressül–was published by Adnan, Sadik Erzi, ed., Selçukīler Devrine āid İnşa Eserleri… (Ankara, 1963).Google Scholar

15 Björkman, , “Anfänge”, p. 29.Google Scholar

16 şinasi, Tekin, ed., Menāhicü'l-İnşa: The Earliest Ottoman Chancery Manual by Yahyā bin Mehmed el-Kātib from the 15th Century, in Sources of Oriental Languages and Literatures: Turkic Sources, Vol. II (Roxbury, Mass., 1971), p. 11.Google Scholar

17 Ibid.

18 ömer, Lutfi Barkan, XV ve XVI mci Astrlarda Osmanli: İmparatorluğunda Zirai Ekonominin Hukukī ve Mali Esaslart, Vol. I, Kanunlar (Istanbul, 1943), pp. lxxi–lxxii.Google Scholar On the problems involved in the use of inşa model documents for historical purposes, see Irène, Beldiceanu-Streinherr, Recherches sur les actes des règnes des sultans Osman, Orkhan et Murad I (Monachii, Romania, 1967), passim. This is a critical analysis of several early texts.Google Scholar

19 Levy, , Mirror, p. xxi.Google Scholar

20 von, Grunebaum, Medieval Islam, p. 213.Google Scholar

21 Ibid., pp. 213, 250, 253–255, and Walther, Hinz, ‘Das Rechnungswesen orientalische Reichsfinanzämter im Mittelalter,’ Der Islam, 29 (1950), 1–2.Google Scholar

22 Although many parallels may be sought, or analogues found, fundamental differences obtain between various Seljuk offices (in functions, hierarchical position, and power) and the later Ottoman forms. This is clear in the work of Osman, Turan, Türkiye Selçuklulari Hakkinda Resmī Vesikalar: Metin, Tercüme ve Arastirmalar (Ankara, 1958), pp. 1–62.Google Scholar

23 Claude, Cahen, Pre-Ottōman Turkey (New York, 1968), pp. 182–183.Google Scholar

24 Hinz, , Rechnungswesen, pp. 4–6, 13.Google Scholar

25 Ibid., pp. 20–22, and Petruchevsky, I. P., ‘The Socio-Economic Conditions of Iran under the Il-Khans,’ in The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. V, The Saljuq and Mongol Periods (Cambridge, 1968), p. 494.Google Scholar

26 İnalcik, , ‘Emergence,’ p. 280.Google Scholar

27 Togan, , Umumi Türk, p. 331.Google ScholarTogan, (pp. 329–330), is in agreement on the synthetic ‘Turkish-Islamic’ system of central government.Google Scholar

28 Hinz, , Rechnungswesen, pp. 114–134.Google Scholar

29 Petruchevsky, , ‘Iran under Il-Khans,’ pp. 532–533.Google Scholar

30 Togan, , Umumi Türk, p. 330. The Ilhanid state was non-Muslim until Ghazan's conversion, and this may account for the dual legal system. The Ottomans produced regulations under different conditions; namely, the absorption of largely non-Muslim areas with local codes of law into a state whose leadership was Muslim.Google Scholar

31 Dominique, Sourdel, Le Vizirat ′Abbāside de 749 à 936 (132 à 324 de I'Hégire), Vol. I (Damascus, 1919), pp. 50–54.Google Scholar

32 Ibid., pp. 41–43.

33 Ibid., pp. 59–61, 56–66.

34 Ibid., Vol. II (Damascus, 1960), pp. 565–568.

35 Ibid., pp. 615–656, 664–667.

36 Ibid., pp. 715–717.

37 Carla, L. Klausner, The Seljuk Vezirate: A Study of Civil Administration, 1055–1194 (Cambridge, Mass., 1973), pp. 26, 40, 44–45, 88.Google Scholar

38 ′All, Apz., pp. 36–37.Google Scholar

39 Gibb, H. A. R., trans., The Travels of Ibn Battuta A.D. 1325–1354, Hakluyt Society, Series II, Vol. CXVII, Vol. II (Cambridge, 1962), p. 452.Google Scholar

40 Arnakis, G. G., ‘Gregory Palamas among the Turks and Documents of His Captivity as Historical Sources,’ Speculum, 26 (1951), 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41 Beldiceanu-Steinherr, , Recherches, pp. 70–71.Google Scholar

42 Ibid., pp. 45–47.

43 The lack of material for this period was first noted by Franz, Babinger, Beiträge zur frühgeschichte der Türkenherrschaft in Rumelien (14–15 Jahrhundert) (Munich, 1944), p. 76.Google Scholar

44 Beldiceanu-Steinherr, , Recherches, pp. 47–48, 241 and n. 2.Google Scholar

45 Paul, Wittek, ‘Zu einigen frühosmanischen Urkunden, II,’ Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, 54 (1958), 244.Google Scholar

46 Paul, Wittek, ‘De la défaite d'Ankara à la prise de Constantinople,’ Revue des études Islamiques, 12 (1938), 5, 12–13.Google Scholar See also Arnakis, G. G., ‘Futuwwa Traditions in the Ottoman Empire: Akhis, Bektashi Dervishes, and Craftsmen,’ Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 12 (1953), 237, 240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

47 See the lists of monuments in Ekrem, Hakki Ayverdi, Osmanli Mimarisinin İlk Devri, Vol. I (Istanbul, 1966), passim.Google Scholar

48 ′Ali, , Apz., , pp. 197–198;Google ScholarGiese, , Apz., , pp. 30, 42.Google Scholar

49 The importance of this family in the formative period of the Ottoman state is outlined in Franz, Taeschner and Paul, Wittek, ‘Die Vezirfamilie der Candarlyzāde (14.-15. Jah.) und ihre Denkmäler,’ Der Islam, 28 (1929), 60–115.Google Scholar

50 Ibid., p. 95.

51 Speros, Vryonis Jr, ‘The Byzantine Legacy and Ottoman Forms,’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers, nos. 23 and 24 (1969–1970), 275–276.Google Scholar

52 Halil, İnalcik, Hicrī 835 Tarihli Sūret-i Defter-i Sancak-i Aruanid (Ankara), 1954 pp xvii–xviii.Google Scholar

53 Giese, , Apz., , p. 50;Google ScholarFranz, Babinger, ed., Die Frühosmanischen Jahrbücher des Urudsch. Nach den Handschriften zu Oxford und Cambridge… (Hanover, 1925), pp. 12–13.Google Scholar

54 Irène, Beldiceanu-Steinherr, ‘Un Transfuge qaramanide auprès de la Porte ottomane:reflexions sur quelques institutions,’ Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 26 (1973), 163–164.Google Scholar

55 Beldiceanu-Steinherr, , Recherges, p. 245.Google Scholar

56 Babinger, , Beitrage, p. 58.Google Scholar

57 Iİnalcik, , Hicrī, p. xv. Refer back to the earlier comments on the chroniclers' views of Bayezid I's policies.Google Scholar

58 Ibid., pp. xii–xiii, xvii.