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: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1291293
Accessed: 17-03-2024 15:09 +00:00

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1291293?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

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.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

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

This content downloaded from 78.190.151.105 on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 15:09:14 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE POLICY OF MEHMED II
TOWARD THE GREEK POPULATION
OF ISTANBUL
AND THE BYZANTINE BUILDINGS
OF THE CITY

HALIL INALCIK

This content downloaded from 78.190.151.105 on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 15:09:14 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 This paper was preparedforthe Symposiumentitled"After
the Fall of Constantinople,"held at Dumbarton Oaks in
May 1968. Owing to unforeseencircumstances,Professor
Inalcik was unable to be present,and his paper was read
by ProfessorR. J. H. Jenkins.
The Publications Commitee

Note:In transliterating
theTurkish,
Arabic,and PersianwordsI have followed
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.

This content downloaded from 78.190.151.105 on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 15:09:14 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 HENin thespringof1453theOttomanSultanMehmedII appeared
withhis immensearmybeforeits walls, Constantinoplewas a half-
ruinedcity whose population might at the most have numbered
fiftythousand. As A. M. Schneiderhas shown,'fromthetimeoftheLatin occupa-
tionin 1204the cityhad progressively declineduntilit was nowin effectno more
than a collectionofvillages.Alreadyby the seventhdecade of the fourteenth
centuryConstantinopleand itsimmediateneighborhood had formedonlya small
islandsurroundedby territories underOttomanrule,withitscommunications by
sea and its seabornetradeunderthe controloftheItalian maritimestates.Eco-
nomicallytoo the Ottoman capitals of Brusa and Adrianoplehad begun to
overshadowthe formerimperialcenter. The old silk route fromPersia via
Trebizondto Constantinoplehad, by the end of the fourteenth century,been
divertedto Brusa, which had then become the principal trading-center in
Orientalproductsforthe Genoesemerchantsof Galata, and towardwhichboth
thesilkcaravansfromPersia and thespicecaravansfromSyria nowconverged.2
In short,Constantinoplewas the dead centerof a dead empire,which George
Scholariusdescribedbeforeits fall as "a city of ruins,poor, and largelyun-
inhabited.'
"3
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 Constantinehis threeinvitationsto
surrenderthe 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
'anwatan-would inevitablylead to pillageand destruction;forthisis a precept
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 pressingforthe abandonmentof the
wholeenterprise.4 At last, aftera councilofwar had been summonedto make
thefinaldecision,the Sultancalledfora generalassault and proclaimedthatthe
citywas givenover to sack; a decisiondependent,accordingto the Holy Law,
upon the permissionof the imdm,the leader of the Muslimcommunity.
This proclamationwas, of course,welcomedby the Muslimtroops,but it is
clear that the Sultan had been reluctantto make it. Accordingto Ducas,5
1
"Die BevolkerungKonstantinopelsim XV. Jh.," Nachrichtender 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
ofthe Orient,3 (1960), 131-47.
3 Schneider,op. cit., 236.
4 H. Inalcik, Fatih devriiizerindetetkikler
ve vesikalar(Ankara, 1954), 126-32.
5 Bonn ed., 280; ed. V. Grecu, 349-51.

This content downloaded from 78.190.151.105 on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 15:09:14 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 232 HALIL INALCIK

the ambassadorwhomhe sentintothecitybeforeissuingthe proclamationhad

put forwardthese argumentsto induce the Emperor to submit: "Are you
willingto abandon the city and depart for whereveryou like, togetherwith
yournoblesand theirproperty,leavingbehindthe commonpeople unharmed
both by us and by you? Or do you wish that throughyour resistance... the
commonpeople should be enslaved by the Turks and scatteredover all the
world?" Aftertheconquestthe Sultan summonedto his presencethe Megadux
Lucas Notaras and asked him why he had not persuaded the Emperor to
surrenderthe 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
power or his own, forthe Italians assistingin the defensehad flatlyrefused
to consent.6Notaras,as is well known,was frequentlyat odds withthe Italian
defendersduringthe siege.An earlyOttomansourceconfirms the reportof the
Byzantine historian on this point: "When everysector of the walled citywas
on thepointofbeingdestroyed,the EmperorsummonedLucas; theyconsulted
togetherand took measuresforthe surrender.But the Frankishinfidelswere
offended and protested;'We willdefendthe city;we willnot surrender it to the
Muslims,'and theypersistedin continuingthe fight."'
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 com-
munityof ahl al-kitdb(literally,"people ofthe Book," in effect,Christiansand
Jews)rejectstheobligatoryinvitationto surrender and continuesto resist,they
are to be treatedas mushrik's(literally,"those who admit partners[to God],"
in effect,polytheists).When they have been subdued "by force"-,anwatan,
qahran-no rightsare concededto them: theirgoods are legitimatebooty and
they and theirchildrenare reduced to slavery. In the division of movable
property,the Muslimruleras imdm-one mightsay, the state-is entitledto
one fifth.8
Immovableproperty-realestate--represents a different categoryof
booty.9According to a principlewhich long before the rise of the Ottomans
had been accepted in Islamic land law, the freeholdpossession over land,
whetheracquiredby forceor by peacefuloccupation,belongedto the baytal-
mdl,the state treasury;in otherwords,the land belongedto the state. The
Ottomans,whose militaryand administrativeorganizationreposedupon the
timdr(feudal) system,adopted this principlein all its implications;even to
propoundingthat an estatewhichhad been made vaqf(i.e., placed in mortmain
forthe supportof a pious object) might,if the pious object ceased to exist,
revertto the freeholdpossessionof the state. We shall see later how, in the
last decade of his reign,MehmedII, relyingon this theory,"nationalized" a
large proportionof vaqfestates.
6
Sphrantzes,Bonn ed., 291f.; cf. Chalcocondyles,Bonn ed., 390.
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.

This content downloaded from 78.190.151.105 on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 15:09:14 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 POLICY OF MEHMED II IN ISTANBUL 233
An Ottomansourcereportsthat the Sultan proclaimedthe assault and sack
in these terms:"The stonesand the land of the city and the city's appurte-
nances belong to me; all other goods and property,prisoners,and foodstuffs
are booty forthe troops."10So Ducas also, who is well-informed in Ottoman
affairs,reports" that the Sultan reserved the walls and buildingsforhimself
but leftall the movable propertyto the troops.
The Sultan had grantedpermissionfor threedays of sack, but it is clear
that he put an end to thepillageon the eveningofthefirstday.12The Ottoman
and theByzantinesourcesagreein reportingthathe feltprofoundsadnessas he
touredthe looted and enslaved city.13Not withoutsignificance are the stories
told by contemporary sourcesof the sharp punishmentswhichhe decreedfor
soldierscaughtdestroyingbuildings.14
Accordingto TursunBeg,15who was in the Sultan's entourageduringthose
days, beforeleaving the city Mehmed II proclaimed"to his viziers and his
commandersand his officers that henceforthhis capital was to be Istanbul"
and orderedthe buildingof a palace. The wordfreelytranslatedhereas "capi-
tal" is takht,literally"throne": "My throneis Istanbul." Ever since the time
of the steppe empiresof CentralAsia, a districtcalled "takht-ili,"the "throne
region," had been for the Turks a specificregion where the khaqan's (em-
perors)resided,a sacred territory, the seat of the khaqan'sauthority;and the
most importantprerequisitefor claiming the title of khaqan was de facto
occupation of this "throneregion." This attitudecorrespondsto the Roman
conceptof imperialauthority.In 1466 Georgeof Trebizond,in a letterto the
Sultan,wrote: "No one doubtsthat you are emperorof the Romans. Whoever
holdsby rightthecenteroftheEmpireis emperor,and thecenterofthe Roman
Empire is Istanbul."15a MehmedII and his successorsregardedthemselves,
throughtheirpossessionof the throneof theCaesars,as emperorsof Rome and
legitimateheirsto all the territories whichthe emperorshad formerly ruled.
Thus, to MehmedII, whose ambitionwas to establish a worldwideempire,
Istanbul providednot merelya strategiccenter,but also an essentialpolitical
and legal basis. It is forthis reason that throughouthis reignone of his main
preoccupationsand ambitionswas to transform the half-desertedand ruined
10
TAji-zAdeJa 'ferChelebi,Mahrilse-iIstanbulFethnudmesi,
appendix to Ta'rikh-iOsmdniEnjiimeni
Mejmuasz (hereafter TOEM) (A. H. 1331), 19.
11Bonn ed., 281. The tale that the entirecity,or part of it, surrenderedon termsis a fictioninvented
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
suggests (p. 153) that since the quarters of the city were separated by extensiveopen spaces, it was
possible forthe local officialsof some quartersto make a last-minutesubmission.
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. Babinger, MehmedderErobererund seine Zeit (Munich,1953), 266.

This content downloaded from 78.190.151.105 on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 15:09:14 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
234 HALIL INALCIK

capital of the Caesars,whichhe had conquered,into a fittingcenterforthis

worldempirewhichhe soughtto create; to rebuildit, to repopulateit, and to
raise it to the status of a vital economicand politicalmetropolis.The most
faithfulaccount of the Sultan's sustainedand vigorousactivityin promoting
theregeneration of Istanbulis providedby Critoboulos;whilein this,as well as
in otherrespects,the most importantOttomansourceis Tursun.The details
they give, when supplementedby and compared with Ottoman documents
relatingto vaqf'sand Ottomanarchiveregisters, presenta clearpictureofhow
the Sultan refoundedIstanbul accordingto the traditionsand the institutions
of a Turco-Islamiccity. Here we shall examine only the treatmentwhich,in
order to furtherthis aim, he accorded to the Greeks and the policy which
he pursuedin dealingwiththe Byzantinebuildingsand siteswhichhad come
into his possession.
It mustbe remembered thatthe Ottomans,in reorganizing a conqueredcity,
followeda series of establishedprinciples.Accordingto the sharil'a,the in-
habitantsof a cityor townwhichhad respondedto the invitationto surrender
were left undisturbedin theirhomes, with the status of dhimmi,and their
lives, theirpossessions,and the practiceof theirreligionwere fullyprotected
by the Islamic state. By a preceptof the sharl'a, "if they accept the jizya
[i.e., the poll tax], that whichis due to us [Muslims]is due also to them,and
that which is obligatoryupon us is obligatoryalso upon them";16 in other
words,aftera Christianpopulationhad agreedto pay the supplementarydue
of thejizya, to whichMuslimswere not liable,they obtained fromthe imdm
exactlythe same rightsand obligationsas the Muslimsenjoyed.
Bertrandonde La Broquiere,who in 1432 travelledthroughEastern Thrace
along the old imperialroad betweenConstantinopleand Adrianople,speaking
of the townsthen occupied by the Ottomans" reportsof some of themthat
their citadels were destroyedand that they were newly populated, either
entirelyby Turks,or by Turks and Greekstogether,whereasotherswere in-
habited entirelyby Greeks.When we consultthe old Ottomanchronicles,we
findthat thetownsinhabitedby Greeksare always thosewhichhad responded
to the summonsto surrender.An earlyOttomanchronicler'swrites:

[Murad I] marchedagainst the fortresstown of Banatoz [Panados]. The

infidelsthereimmediatelysurrenderedthe fortresswithoutfighting, and
Murid securedthemin theirformerabodes. Then he wentagainstChorlu
[Tzouroullos];theinfidelsfoughthard,but finallythelordofthetownwas
struckin the eye by an arrow and they were left helpless. The troops
swept into the fortress,therewas great looting,and they destroyedthe
fortifications. Then theycame to Misini[Mesene];and its lord came forth
withgiftsto meet the Sultan.

1e Mevqafdti Sherhi (Istanbul, A. H. 1318), I, 340.

17 Le ed. Schefer
voyaged'outremer, Ch. (Paris, 1892), 169-70.
18Gihdnniuma,die altosmanischeChronik des Mevland MehemmedNeschri, ed. F. Taeschner, I
(Codex Menzel) (Leipzig,1951),52-53. Cf.H. Inalcik,"Ottoman MethodsofConquest,"Studia Islamica,
2 (1954), 112-29.

This content downloaded from 78.190.151.105 on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 15:09:14 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 POLICY OF MEHMED II IN ISTANBUL 235
De La Broquibredescribesthe citadel of Chorluas beingin ruinsand the town
as beingrepopulatedby Turks and Greeks;Mesene,however,was "une petite
place ferm6e[i.e., walled] et n'y demeurentque Grecz"; on the otherhand he
says of "Pirgasi" (Pyrgos),whichhad been taken by forceof arms: "tous les
mursabattus et n'y demeureque les Turcz."
A secondprinciplewhichthe Ottomanshad observedfromthe earliestdays
in theirreorganizationof newlyconqueredterritories was that of compulsory
resettlement.19Sixteenth-century decrees orderingsuch resettlement20 show
that it serveda varietyof social, political,and economicpurposes: to restore
to prosperitya desertedcountrysideor a ruinedcity,to restoreto production
a potential source of wealth, to move people froman overpopulatedto an
underpopulatedregion,to provide a means of livelihoodto a landless com-
munity,and to removeto a distantterritory and breakup a rebelliouspopula-
tion or a refractory tribeof nomads. When townsfolkwere subjectedto com-
pulsoryresettlement, a certainproportionofthe population,e.g., the members
of one householdin ten,were selectedby the qddi of the town and its prefect
(subasht),theirnames and descriptionswere recordedin a register,and they
weredeportedto theirnew home.Therethe deporteesenjoyeda special status;
fora specifiedperiodtheywere exemptfromtaxation but were forbiddento
move elsewhere.It was a recurrentcause of complaintthat,in the course of
such deportations,wealthyand influentialindividualswho were reluctantto
abandon theirhomes managed to win over the local authoritiesand procure
theirown exemption;but the centralauthoritiesknew well how essentialto
the rehabilitationof a city were merchantsand craftsmen,and the Sultans
made it a principalpointof policyto resettle,especiallyin theircapital cities,
men of influence,wealthymerchants,and skilledcraftsmen ofnewlyconquered
territories.
AlthoughConstantinople had been takenbyforce,the Sultandid not hesitate,
by usinghis authorityas sovereign,to institutevarious measureswhichmiti-
gated the grievousconsequencesthat mightotherwisehave arisenfromthis.
The preliminarymeasureswhichhe took beforeleaving forAdrianopleon 21
Juneconcernedthe defenseof the city and its repopulation.First,says Crito-
boulos,21he presentedsplendidhouses to all his dignitariesand officers, "and
to some of themhe even gave beautifulchurchesfortheirresidences."Then
he settled the fifthof the enslaved Greeks-his share as ruler-"along the
shoresof the cityharbor,"i.e., presumably,mainlyin the Phanar region."He
gave themhouses and exemptedthemfromtaxes for a specifiedtime.... He
also issued a proclamationto all those who had paid theirown ransom,or
who promisedto pay it to theirmasterswithina limitedtime,that theymight
live in the city; to them too he grantedfreedomfromtaxes and gave them
houses,eithertheirown or thoseof others." So, too, some of the nobilitywere
grantedhousesand wereresettled.On the questionofrepopulatingthe citythe
-9Inalclk, "Ottoman Methods of Conquest," loc. cit.
20
Ibid., 122-29.
21Ed. Grecu, 159; trans.
Riggs, 83.

This content downloaded from 78.190.151.105 on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 15:09:14 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
236 HALIL INALCIK

Sultan soughtthe advice of Notaras. He had thought,indeed,of makinghim

prefectof the cityand "puttinghimin chargeof its repopulation,"but aban-
doned thisidea. (We shall returnto the positionof Notaras, forit has an im-
portantbearingon the Sultan's changeof policytowardthe Greeks.)
Furthermeasureswere taken to promotethe repopulationof the city. As
Critoboulosreports,22 "When the Sultan had capturedthe city of Constanti-
nople,almosthis veryfirstcare was to have the cityrepopulated."A number
of buildingprojects had to be undertakenwithoutdelay: the repair of the
walls,23the constructionof a citadel (Yedikule), and the buildingof a palace
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,
correspondingto the daily pay of a Janissary24) so that they could ransom
themselveswith theirearningsand settle as freemen in the city. He had re-
coursealso to compulsoryresettlement, issuingordersthat Christians,Muslims,
and Jewsshouldbe sent to the cityfromeveryterritory ofhis domains;Ducas
states more explicitly25 that he commandedthat five thousand households
be deported to Istanbul by September.Before leaving for Adrianople he
appointed KarishtiranSiileymanBeg as prefectof the city; "He put him in
chargeof everthing,but particularlyof the repopulationof the city,and in-
structedhim to be very zealous about this matter."26From a letterof 16
August, published by N. Iorga,27we learn that the citadels of Silivri and
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.
Tursun,who reportsthis,28adds that numerouspeople on hearingthisinvita-
tion came and occupied houses and mansions;but rich merchants,not being
in need, did not leave theirhomesand ignoredthe invitation.
The Sultanreturnedto Istanbulin theautumnof1453 to surveytheprogress
made in the projectswhichhe had initiated.29 The chronologyof his activities
afterthe conquesthas alwaysbeen confused.Duringthissecondstay in Istan-
bul he appointed (6 January1454) George Scholariospatriarch.30 According
to Sphrantzes,he did thissimply"in orderto encouragethose Christianswho
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

22
Ed. Grecu, 171; trans. Riggs, 93.
23
There is an importantdocumentin the ArchivesofTopkapi Sarayl, No. E. 11975,relatingto this.
24Die Aufzeichnungen des Genuesenlacopo de Promontorio-de
Campis i*berden Osmanenstaatum
1475, ed. F. Babinger (Munich, 1957), 36.
25 Bonn ed., 313.
26 Ed. Grecu, 163; trans. Riggs, 85.
27 Notes et extraitspour servird l'histoiredes croisadesau XVe siecle,IV (Bucharest, 1915), 67.
28 Op. cit., 60.
29 Critoboulos,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.

This content downloaded from 78.190.151.105 on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 15:09:14 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 POLICY OF MEHMED II IN ISTANBUL 237
Latins. Documentsdating frombeforethe fall of Constantinople31 show that
an Orthodoxmetropolitanor bishop in Ottomanterritories was appointedby
officialpatent (berdt)of the Sultan and mighteven, like otherOttomanfunc-
tionaries,be assigned a timdr.It is thus easily understandablethat, in the
courseof theOttomanexpansion,Orthodoxpriestsfrequently cooperatedwith
the Ottomansagainst the Venetians.This policy of the Ottomanswas in no
way contraryto the shar 'a or to the Muslimtraditionof the state.
Accordingto Critoboulos,32 afterappointingthe Patriarch,the Sultan went
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 im-
portantcommercialand industrialcity,the guildsand the merchantsengaged
in the rich silk trade and industrycould feelthemselvespowerfulenough to
attemptto resistthe Sultan's orders.They failed; forthereis documentary
evidence3that deportationsfromBrusa werecarriedout and that the majority
of these deporteesplayed the main role in the establishmentof the township
ofEytib.The Sultan returnedagain to Istanbul,and shortlyafterward"he set
out forAdrianoplein thewinter."34
Some yearslater,in 1459,the Sultantookextraordinary measuresto promote
the prosperityand repopulationof Istanbul.35Chiefamongthemwas his sum-
moningof the dignitariesto his presenceand commandingeach to found,in
the quarterof his choice, a buildingcomplexconsistingof pious foundations
-that is, a theologicalcollege,a school,a public kitchen,all groupedaround
a mosque-and of such commercialbuildingsas a caravansary,a khan,and a
market.The promotionof commerceand the increaseof populationwere con-
sideredto be dependentupon the creationof such facilities.In the following
years the Sultan himself,the Grand Vizier MahmfidPasha, and otherviziers
and dignitariesfoundedsuch 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,

31 See, e. g., Saret-idefter-i

sancak-iArvanid,ed. H. Inalclk (Ankara, 1954), Nos. 148, 162, 186, 200.
32 Ed. Grecu, 175; trans. Riggs, 95.
33 In the register(No. A. 3/3)of the qddi of Bursa.
4 I.e., earlyin 1454. For a critiqueof F. Babinger's interpretationthat the Sultan visitedAnatolia
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 foundationsestablishedby the Sultan and his viziers.A list ofthe relatingto Mehmed
vakfiyye's
II's foundationsin Istanbul is given in Fatih MehmetII vakfiyeleri(Ankara, 1938), 6-8. For the
subject in general, see 0. L. Barkan, "Sehirlerintegekkiilve inkisaftarihi bakimindan Osmanli im-
paratorlugundaimiret sitelerininkurulusve isleyisineait arastirmalar,"Istanbul Universitesi 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
Maliyedenmiidevverdeft.,No. 2057, the Baqvekilet Archives,Istanbul; forthe populationof Istanbul,
a Defter-iHdneihd-iIstanbul, sene o1044, Belediye Kiitiiphanesi,Istanbul, Cevdet yazmalarl, No.
O.

This content downloaded from 78.190.151.105 on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 15:09:14 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 238 HALIL INALCIK

eitherbeforeor afterthe conquest,had leftIstanbul as slaves or refugeesto

live in othercitiesshould return.Accordingto Critoboulos,37 therewere then
numerous Greek craftsmenwho had settled in Adrianople, Philippopolis,
Gallipoli,Brusa,and othercities,wheretheyhad becomerich.All ofthesewere
broughtto Istanbul, given houses and plots of land, and helped in other
ways. That housesweregrantednot merelyto Muslimimmigrantsbut also to
Christiandeporteeswas probablyone of the reasonsfordifficult relationsbe-
tweenthetwocommunities.Greekimmigrants werebroughtto Istanbulby the
Sultan also fromhis later conquests: fromthe two Phoceas in 1459; fromthe
Moreaafterthe secondcampaignof 1460;38in the same yeara largeproportion
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:
"On his returnto Constantinoplethe Sultan establishedthe Mityleniansin
one quarter of the city. To some he gave houses,to othersland on whichto
build houses."40When the inhabitantsof Argos in the Morea capitulatedto
MahmeidPasha in 1463, "he colonized all of them in Byzantiumwith their
wivesand childrenand all theirbelongings,safe and unhurt.""'So, too, Greeks
werebroughtfromEuboea in 1470 and fromCaffain 1475,thoughmostof the
Christiansdeportedfromthe latter were wealthyGenoese and Armenians.42
A population list of 1477 shows these Genoese as numbering267 families4
(the figurefourhundredgiven in Italian sources"is clearlyan exaggeration).
These deporteesfromCaffafoundedthe pleasant Istanbul quarterof Kefeli.
In the courseof the campaignswaged againstKaraman in the years 1468-
74, numerousdeportees-TurkishMuslimsand Armenians-werebroughtto
Istanbul fromKonya, Larenda, Akseray,and Eregli.4 Orderswereissued that
fromeach citysome hundredsof householdsof craftsmenand wealthycitizens
should be selectedfortransfer.MahmfidPasha's overlytoleranttreatmentof
the richand influentialand his substitutionof poorercitizensin theirstead so
angeredthe Sultan that this conduct was regardedby his contemporariesas
one of the main reasons for MahmfidPasha's fall.46The population list of
1477 notes the immigrantsfromKaraman as a separate community,com-
posed of 384 families.From the factthat theyare noted separatelyit 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, theGenoeseColonyin theCrimea,in Polish (Warsaw, 1947), 338.
43This document,drawn up under the supervisionof the qdd4iMulhyieddin,is in the archives of
Topkapi Sarayl, No. D 9524 (see further,p. 247, infra).
44Malovist, loc. cit.
45Kemal Pasha-zade, Tevdrih-iAl-i'Osman, VII. defter(facsimile), ed. S. Turan (Ankara, 1954),
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.

This content downloaded from 78.190.151.105 on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 15:09:14 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 POLICY OF MEHMED II IN ISTANBUL 239

deduced that the otherGreeksand Muslimswho had, willinglyor unwillingly,

immigratedearlier,wereby thisdate alreadyso wellsettledin as to be regarded
as the basic population.
In orderto ensurethe provisioningof the city and palace, the Sultan was
concernedalso to restoreto prosperitytheneighboring villageswhichhad been
ruinedor abandoned beforeand duringthe siege. Afterhis later conquests
he settled in these villages as slaves large numbersof peasants (30,000 al-
together,accordingto onereckoning), withthestatusofkhadss-qul orortaqchs-qul.
They could not leave the villagein whichtheyweresettledor marryoutsideit,
and half of what they producedbelongedto the state.47Such settlementsof
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. (Critoboulosreports48
that fourthousandpeasantsweredeportedafterthe Moreacampaignof 1458.)
In the courseofthesixteenthcenturythese peasants were graduallyto acquire
the same status as the ordinaryre'dydand to be assimilatedin the general
population,includingthat of Istanbul.
It is clear that, in carryingout the repopulationof Istanbul, MehmedII
did notpursuea policyofdiscrimination againstthe Greeks,whomhe regarded
as rightfulsubjects of the empire.Nevertheless,at varioustimesin his reign,
both in this matterand in the larger one of the whole administration, the
of
policy favoring the Greekswas abandoned forone of hostilitytowardthem.
The firstsign of this is to be detected in an episode concerningNotaras.
Because ofhis oppositionto 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
good treatmentfromthe Sultan. In consideringthe reasons forhis later un-
happy fate, we may detect some mattersof policy,more fundamentalthan
was impliedby the explanation--givenby Ducas and Sphrantzesand adopted
and repeatedby Westernhistorians52-thathe refusedto sacrificehis son to
the Sultan's lust.
In Critoboulos'account the Sultan had at firstplanned to make Notaras
prefectof the city-a step whichhe must have regardedas necessarytoward
the promotionof his policy of repopulation.However, this was not without
risk.At thattimetheVenetianfleetwas 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 UniversitesiIkt. 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.
Bakalopulos, "Die Frage der Glaubwiirdigkeit der Leichenredeauf L. Notaras von JohannesMoschos,"
3 (1959), 13-21.
Byz. Zeitschrift,

This content downloaded from 78.190.151.105 on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 15:09:14 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
240 HALIL INALCIK

the city,conqueredwithsuch difficulty, wereto fallto the Latins,a secondand

harder siege would be required. Accordingto Critoboulos>5(who had high
respectforNotaras), some influentialmembersof the Sultan's entourageop-
posed this measure,sayingthat they (i.e., Notaras and the nine membersof
the Byzantinenobilitywho werehis followers)"would do all theycouldagainst
the city, or would desertto the enemy,even while remaininghere"; it was
this argumentthat made the Sultan change his mind and execute Notaras
and his associates. Sphrantzes,who is hostileto Notaras,54maintainsthat he
endeavored to win the Sultan's favor,wishingto preservehis formerhigh
position;but that the vizierspersuadedthe Sultan to execute Notaras. Now,
it is well knownthat MehmedII, again followingpractice,tookintothePalace
severalsons of the Byzantinenobilityto be broughtup withinthe established
systemof trainingslaves for administrativeposts-a systemwhich, before
the end of the century,was to produce two Greek-bornGrand Viziers,
RfimMehmedPasha and Mesih Pasha. The formerMegadux, realizingthat
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.
Immediatelyfollowinghis account of the executionof Notaras,Critoboulos
notes that the "influentialmen" who had advised it were shortlyafterward
dismissedby the Sultan forthis treacheryand were severelypunished. We
knowwho theywere: the elderlyShihabeddinPasha and Zaganuz Pasha, who
had played most importantroles in the conquest of Constantinople.It was
they, too, who had been mainlyresponsiblefor the executionof Chandarh
Khalil Pasha and who had made everyeffortto secureforthemselvesall the
reins of power.56It is not impossibleto trace the reasons for Mehmed II's
sudden coldnesstowardthese two men,his formertutorswho had paved the
way to his success. The executionof Khalil Pasha had been regardedby the
Janissaries,the intellectuals(ulema),and the people in generalas havingbeen
promptedby spite,57and had caused much sorrow.Afterthe executionof the
Megadux,the Sultan,realizingthattherecoveryofthe citywas notprogressing
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 Muslimimmigrantsas freehold,and that the cityshould
be quicklyturkicized.As related above, Mehmedhad returnedto Greekstheir
former homesand distributeduninhabitedhousesamongthem;further, he had
granted empty houses and mansions as freeholdto immigrantswho came
voluntarily."Ashlqpashaz.dereportsthat houses weregrantedalso to depor-
tees. 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 devriiizerindetetkikler
ve vesikalar,55-136.
5' Sphrantzes,Bonn ed., 294.
58 Inalcik in Speculum,35, p. 413f.; idem,Fatih devriiizerindetetkikler
ve vesikalar,135.

This content downloaded from 78.190.151.105 on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 15:09:14 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 POLICY OF MEHMED II IN ISTANBUL 241

And he sent officersto 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 com-
manded that fromevery land families,poor and rich alike, should be
broughtin by force.And theysent officers withfirmansto the cadis and
the prefectsof every land. And they, in accordance with the firman,
deportedand broughtin numerousfamilies,and to thesenewcomers,too,
housesweregiven; and now the citybegan to become populous.59
The procedurewas that each immigrant, afterchoosingthehousehe wanted,
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 free-
hold deed, a miilkndme.60Some of these documentshave come to lightin the
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
freeholdtenureof real estate, accordingto the principlesof the shari'a, so
Ramad.an
that theyread: "It is to be in his possession;he may, as he wishes,sell it, or
give it away, or make it vaqf; in short,he may enjoy it as freeholdhowever
he wishes." (There is a distinctionhere between this and real estate which
remainedmidr,i.e., state property:the freeholdof the latterbelongedto the
state, and the holderwho enjoyedit could notsell it, give it away, or make it
vaqf.)
When, however,as a resultof these various measures,the populationhad
increasedand the houseshad been occupied,the Sultan gave ordersthat these
housesshouldbe subjectedto surveyand enregistered, and thatmuqdta'ashould
be collectedin respectof them.In Ottomanstate financesthe termmuqdta'a
means in generalthe leasingor farmingout to an individual-afteragreement
on the sum whichthe individualwill pay-of a sourceof state revenue.In the
contextunder considerationthe termis to be understoodas "rent," and in
what followsthe word "rent" will be used. The groundsforthe Sultan's new
decisionwerethat the freeholdhad been grantedonlyin respectof the build-
ing, not of the land which it occupied; and land could not be held without
paymentof rent.81
The task of makingthe surveywas entrustedto Jtibbe'Ali Beg, cityprefect
ofBrusa, who tookwithhimas his clerkhis nephewTursunBeg, the historian,
lateran importantofficialin the financialadministration.
Tursunhimselftells62
59 'Ashiqpashazade, ed. 9ift9iogluN. Atsiz, in Osmanlz Tarihleri,I (Istanbul, 1949), 193 (= ? 124;
cf. German trans. R. F. Kreutel, Vom Hirtenzeltzur Hohen Plorte [Graz, 1959], 200); cf. Neshri,
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 recordingthis reads: al-mandzil..
.kulluha yutasarrafu
bi'l-muqdfa'a al-mawdd'a qadi?an f/zamdn al-kufrwa'l-jdhiliyyaal-muqarraraba'd al-fath'ald rmd
kdn 'alayhi /fzamdn al-/athwa-huwa al-marfhamn Sul.tin Muhammad Khan al-mufattahlahu abwdb
al-rahmava'l-ghufrdn wa'l-ridwdn(fol. 50b; othersuch notes at fols. 43a, 45a).

This content downloaded from 78.190.151.105 on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 15:09:14 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
242 HALIL INALCIK

how everyhouse was visited,how everyhouse, great or small,everyorchard,

and everygardenwas listed in a register,and how rentwas imposedon each
accordingto its value. In the courseofthe surveymanyhouseschangedhands
because holders,findingthemselvestoo poor to pay the rentdemanded,moved
to houses bettersuited to theircircumstances.When the operationwas com-
pleted,it was foundthat these rentswould 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.
Shortlyafterthis survey,we findthe Sultan issuingnew orders,by which
he abolished this rent "for his officersand his subjects" and again granted
miilkndme's.Accordingto Tursun Beg,63 who was closely concernedin the
survey,the Sultan explainedto one of his intimateswhyafterso shorta time
he had taken thissecond decisionwhichcontradictedthe first:the firstmeas-
ure 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
imposed,therefore, to induce everyoneto take a house that suitedhis means;
the primaryintentionhad not been to raise revenueforthe treasury.
The real reasonswhichpromptedthe Sultan to abandon this richsourceof
revenueare revealedby anotherhistorian,'Ashlqpashazade,who,unlikeTur-
sun, was writingforthe generalpublic:
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 officernamedKavala (Kephalia) Shahin[thatis, Shihabed-
din Pasha] who had served under the Sultan's fatherand grandfather
and who had been vizier. He said to the Sultan: 'Come now, Your Maj-
esty! Your fatherand your grandfather conquerednumerousterritories,
but in not one of them did they impose rent; nor is it fittingthat 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 freeholdof 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
properties,and thiscityreturnedto its formergood 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
63 Op. cit., 61 f.
6
See supra, note 59.

This content downloaded from 78.190.151.105 on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 15:09:14 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 POLICY OF MEHMED II IN ISTANBUL 243

outspokenlanguage of 'Ashiqpashazade doubtlessreflectspopular sentiment.

To induce the Sultan to retractthis measure had requiredthe intervention
of ShihabeddinPasha-the old and influential vizierwho had been the Sultan's
tutorand his greatestsupport.This changeofpolicymusthave occurredbefore
1457, for in that year we find that ShihAbeddinPasha had already been
dismissed.65The Topkapi Sarayi archivescontainmiilkndme's belongingto the
yearsimmediatelyfollowing, that is, 1457 to 1459.66
In A. H. 861 (29 November1456-20October1457)manyof thehousessur-
vivingfromtheByzantineperiodwere,we find,made overby the Sultan to the
vaqfofthe mosque ofAya Sofya,the incomearisingtherefrom as rentaccruing
to the vaqf.At varioustimesfurtherpropertiesweremade over as vaqfto the
mosque; and thesevaqfpropertieswereinspectedand checkedtwiceduringthe
reignof MehmedII (onceby the qddi'askerKebelti-zadeMuhyieddinMehmed,
and then by the qddiasker Fenari-zade 'Alaeddin 'Ali). In an inspectionand
surveymade in 1490, duringthe next reign,6"it is noted that some of the
houses had been given to the vaqf in 861 (1456/7).Accordingto this survey,
in 1490 the real estate in Istanbul, Galata, and Uskiidarthat belongedto the
vaqfof the mosque consistedof 2,350shopsbringingin an annual rentof 458,
578 aspers; fourcaravansaries,various"rooms" (hujardt,odalar),68two baths,
thirtyshopssellingmilletbeer (boza),twenty-two sheep-headshopsbringingin
a rentof 174,175aspers; and 987 houses let at a total rentof 85,668 aspers.
(We note in passingthat at the then currentrate of forty-nine aspers to the
ducat these rentsrepresentedan annual incomeof some 14,500 ducats.) Most
of the 987 housesmusthave survivedfromthe Byzantineperiod.As to 111 of
them,thereis the followingnote: "Afterthe conquest,beforetheyweremade
vaqf,thesehouses weregrantedas freeholdand theirholderswere givenmiilk-
ndme's;subsequentlyan annualrentof9,655asperswas imposeduponthem; ...
and 178 houses, bringingin a rent of 11,509 aspers, were held by servants
(qul) of the Sultan; thus, in 887 [1482] some of these holders were given
miilkndme'sand otherswere given certificatescancellingthe rent." Besides
these houses belongingto the Sultan's servantswhose freeholdtenure was

6s Inalcik, Fatih devriiizerindetetkikler

ve vesikalar,134-36.
66 Nos. E. 7222, E. 7232, E 3056/2.The city prefects(subashz)named as recommendingthe grant
of miilkndme'sare Chakir Beg/Agha(1457), Murid Beg (1462), Chakir Agha (again, 1466),
Ilyds Beg
(1468). The registerof the vaqf'sofAya Sofya refersto houses in respectof whichmiilkndme's 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 registeris 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 vaqf-
propertiesof Aya Sofya situated in Istanbul, Galata, and Vtskiidar.Anothersurvey registerof the
Aya Sofya properties,made in 926 (= 1520), is in the Belediye Kiitiiphanesi,M. Cevdet yazmalarl,
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 fairlylarge room used as a
separate workshopor
lodging,as appears fromthe entriesin the Aya Sofya register.At the same time,completehouses were
sometimesapparentlycalled huiraor oda. Such "rooms" werebuiltin marketsand bazaars as workshops
and lodgings(T. G6kbilgin,Edirne ve [Istanbul, 1952], 503).
Papa Livasz

This content downloaded from 78.190.151.105 on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 15:09:14 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
244 HALIL INALCIK

recognizedor whose rent was cancelled in 1482, there is referenceto other

houses forwhichthe renthad been cancelledearlier,in Fenari-zade'sprevious
survey,because theywere held by servantsof the Sultan. It may be said in
generalthathousessurvivingfromtheByzantineperiodwhichhad beengranted
to such servantswerealways givenspecial treatmentand made rentfree.
As to the houses grantedin freeholdto private individuals,they became
the subject of controversy once again in the years 1471 and 1472. When Rim
MehmedPasha was appointedGrandVizierin 1471,69he embarkedon a series
of extraordinary financialmeasures.These weremainlypromptedby the sud-
den 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 followingyear.70Once morewe findin 'Ashiqpashaz de
-who was violentlyhostileto Rfm MehmedPasha-the pronouncedreaction
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 formerinfidelinhabitants
of this city of Istanbul had been friendsofthisvizier'sfather.They came
to him and said: 'What do you thinkyou are doing? These Turks have
restoredthecity.Have you no spirit? They have takenyourfather'shome
and our homes and occupy them beforeour very eyes. Come now! You
are the favoriteof the Sultan. Exert yourselfso that these people may
cease the restorationof 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 refrainfrombuilding
freeholdhouses; thusthe citywill again fallintoruinand finallybe leftin
the possessionof our people.' One day this vizier foundan occasion for
suggestingthis idea to the Sultan and got the rents reimposed.They
sent out one of these deceitfulinfidels,accompanied by a nominally
Muslimservantofthe Sultan,who did whateverthis deceitfulinfideltold
him to do, and theywroteit all down.
Question: Who is thisvizier?
Answer:It is Rim MehmedPasha, whomtheSultancaused to be strangled
like a dog.
... and because of this rent the people began to refrainfromrestoring
Istanbul.
If the Sultan is capriciousin the decreeshe makes
Then his territory always suffersharm.
And if his viziershouldbe an infidel,
He always seeks to cause damage to the truefaith.
And the blame forthe reimpositionof this rent whichwe now have to
pay restswiththis RfimMehmed.
69 For the date, see Inalclk, in Speculum,35 (see supra, note 34), 414.
70 See Inalclk, s.v. "Mehmed II," in Isldm Ansiklopedisi,VII, p. 525; Babinger, Mehmed der
Erobererund seineZeit, 326f.
71 Op. cit., ? 124 (see supra, note
59).

This content downloaded from 78.190.151.105 on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 15:09:14 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 POLICY OF MEHMED II IN ISTANBUL 245

Althoughthis bitterpassage of 'Ashlqpashazade has been quoted by his-

torians,72its true historicalsignificanceand the reasons promptingit have
not been considered.It shouldbe recalled that,in othercontextstoo, 'Ashlq-
pashazade gives vent to his hostilityto Rfim Mehmed Pasha and thereby
reflectsalso the feelingsof a specificgroup in Ottoman society. Behind his
hostilitylie the facts that among the various financialmeasures taken by
Rfim Mehmed Pasha there was, besides his reimpositionof the previously
cancelled rent,his abolition (doubtlessfor reasons of economy)of the gifts
and bountiescustomarilydistributedby the Palace to dervishesand sheykhs,73
the class to which'Ashlqpashazadehimselfbelonged.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 influencein the Palace
and in state 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 execu-
tion,75duringthe rest of Mehmed II's reign.Under his successor,however,
these questionswerereconsidered.
In 887 (1482), shortlyafterBayezid II's accession,whenmany of his prede-
cessor's financialmeasures were abolished, the Sultan consideredalso the
matterof the rentsand cancelledthem,particularlyin respectof houses held
by what the documentscall qul's. This word, translatedhere as "officer"or
"servant," is applied to state officialsof whateverrank; it embraces,and
sometimesspecificallymeans, the Janissaries,the group which in 1481 had
helpedBayezid to the throne.76 A firmandated Rebi' I, 889 (April1484)reads:77
72 Cf. Babinger,MlehmedderErobererund seineZeit, 487.
73 'Ashiqpashazdde,ed. Atsiz (see supra, note 59), 243-44. For specimenentriesin a registerrecord-
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 Verfiigungdes 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 Jakrbiicherdes Urudsch,ed. F. Babinger
[Hanover, 1925], 126). It may be significantthat in his history,writtenforpresentationto the Sultan,
Critoboulosdid not hesitateto expresshis sorrowover the executionsofthe membersofthe 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,sipdhhi, jebeji, topju, arabajz,yayabashz;the Palace servantsas helvajz,
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
miilkndme's;thus
the governorof Istanbul, ChakirAgha, had houses in various quartersof the city; a big house in the
Germiyanquarter was granted by millkndmeto the khatibof Galata, Mevlan& 'Alt, and anotherto
the childrenof Za'im 'Alt. Non-Muslimsalso possessed houses: in ShawwOl863, houses were granted
by miilkndmeto "Manul Komnen," "Nikefor," and the sons of "Yorgi"; the house belongingto
"Angelina," in the same quarter,was given to the bootmakerDavud, 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.

This content downloaded from 78.190.151.105 on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 15:09:14 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
246 HALIL INALCIK

I have abolishedrentin respectof all my servantswho receivea stipend

fromme and are actuallylivingnow in houses and on sitesliable to rent
in Istanbul78and Galata which belong to the vaqf's of the Aya Sofya
Mosque; fromsuch as these,rentis not to be demanded.But, as forthose
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
rent,whetherhe be a servantofminereceivinga stipendor not,fromhim
the rentforthe house and site wherehe lives is to be collected,not can-
celled.
Bayezid thuscancelledthe rentsonlyforthosewho at that date wereactually
in his service.
When he issued this firman,in April 1484, he was makingpreparationsfor
his firstmajor campaign,in Moldavia,the success of whichwas to strengthen
his own prestigeas Sultan. Now it was at thisverytimethat 'Ashlqpashazade
was writinghis history,79 and he was evidentlypromptedto devotea separate
chapter to the of
question rentsbecause theirpartial cancellationthen had
once more made them a subject of discussionin Istanbul. From his account
it is clear that public opinionobjected to the rentson the groundsthat they
werecontraryto the sharica,that theyfavoredthe Greeks,and that Mehmed
II, havingfirstgrantedthepropertiesas freehold, then,"led astray"by Greeks,
had goneback on his word.It shouldbe rememberedalso that,upon BAyezid's
accession,the appointmentof Khalil Pasha's son Ibrahim as qdd4iasker re-
flecteda reactionagainst the too frequentrecourse,duringMehmed'sreign,
to the doctrineof the Sultan's executiveauthority('crf)8s to justifymeasures
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
requiretheirabolition.All the Ottomanhistorianswritingin Bayezid's reign-
cAshlqpashazade,Neshri, Tursun, Idris, KemAlpasha-zade-praise him for
revivingthe authorityof the sharicaand forpromoting"justice."
From the recordofthe inspectionmade in 1490 of the imperialvaqf's ofthe
Aya Sofya mosque, whichincludedmany house propertiesliable to rent,it is
possibleto identifyotherprincipleswhichhad been laid down in applyingthe
new policy.
First, as we have seen, rent has been cancelled forhouses owned and oc-
cupied by qul's who are in the immediateserviceof the Porte; it remainsin
force,however,forhouses ownedby qul's who have been granteda tlimdr and
thus have leftthe immediateserviceof the Porte, and forhouses whichhave
passed by sale or inheritanceinto the possessionof others. Second, "in ac-
cordancewiththe preceptof the sharf'a,"renthas,in principle,been cancelled

78 The registerused the name Islambol (a folketymologymeaning "full of Muslims") ratherthan

Istanbul; elsewherethe registerspeaks of "Qostantaniyye."
7" See the Introductionto Giese's edition.

80 On this subject, see H. Inalclk, in Isldm Ansiklopedisi,s.v. "Orf."

This content downloaded from 78.190.151.105 on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 15:09:14 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 POLICY OF MEHMED II IN ISTANBUL 247
forhouses whichhad been grantedin freeholdby miilkndme to privateindi-
viduals beforethe endowmentwas made, but upon whichrenthad later been
imposed; thus we findthat rent has been cancelled for some houses by an
"imperialdocumentof cancellation" (refcndme-i hiimdyi~in), but forthe great
majority it has been confirmed. In the of
register the vaqf's each propertyhas
a separate note affirming its position.
A thirdcase is that of houses subject to rentswhichhave been made over
to the vaqf.These representhouseswhichhad 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
principle"rent due on land does not lapse withthe deteriorationof the build-
ing upon it."
The Byzantine houses which came into the hands of the Ottomans thus
presentedthe Ottoman authoritieswith an awkward problem of policy, a
problemwhichnot only affectedthe Ottomanfinancialdepartmentsbut also
had repercussionsuponthe questionsof the settlement ofMuslimsin Istanbul
and of Ottomanpolicytowardthe Greeks;it became moreand morecomplex
in relationto the furtherfactorsthat some were occupied by qul's and some
had been made over as vaqf.
Generallyspeaking,and admittedlywiththe intentionof restoringthe city
to prosperity,MehmedII gave favorabletreatmentto the Greeks.The census
of the city made underthe supervisionof the qddi Muhyieddinin 1477 shows
the followingpopulationfigures,by households,forMuslimsand Greeks:
Istanbul Galata
Muslims 8,951 535
OrthodoxGreeks3,151 592
All the other communitiescollectively-Armenians,Latins and Gypsies-
amountonlyto 3,095households.81 As we have seen,a large proportionof the
Greeks had been broughtto Istanbul by compulsoryresettlementfromthe
Morea and elsewhere.
It is a prominentcharacteristicof MehmedII's policy that he soughtto
give primeemphasisin state affairsto the principleof 'c'rf (in Arabic, curf),
the executivecompetenceof the ruler,and thus win absolute and unlimited
authorityfor his own decisions. His contemporariesthoughtthat 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
81For this document,see supra,p. 238 and note 43. It may be noted that it records3,667 shops in
Istanbul and 260 in Galata.
82 The letteris foundin a
MS of the Mendhiju'l-inshd,in Izzet Koyunoglu's libraryat Konya.

This content downloaded from 78.190.151.105 on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 15:09:14 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 248 HALIL INALCIK

Murad II. Certainly,MehmedII was a man of a different stamp fromhis son

Bayezid II; also from his great-grandsonSiileymAn,upon whose ordersthe
mufti Abu 's-Su'fid triedto bringthe executiveregulationsof the Empireinto
conformity withtheshari a. In settlingGreeksin Istanbuland leavingchurches
in Christianhands,whichMehmedII undertookin orderto promotethe city's
prosperity,he invoked the principleof 'ifrfratherthan the authorityof the
sharica,as beingin the best interestsof the state. It is true that the religious
scholars of his day-chiefly the Molla Khusrev, who had been
closelyconnected with him sincehis childhood-did
qdd.l'asker not regardthesemeasures
as contraryto the shariya,preciselybecause they servedthe best interestsof
theMuslimcommunity."But whenMehmed'sprotectionofthe Greeksenabled
themto forma substantialproportionof the populationof the city,and when
theybegan to gain wealth and influencein trade,in the guilds,s4and through
the farmingofrichcustomsand mineralconcessions,85 then,not unnaturally,a
certainhostilitybetweenthemand the MuslimTurkishpopulationdeveloped;
or, rather,the hostility,already apparentimmediatelyafterthe conquest in
the incidentof Lucas Notaras, was exacerbated.Thus, fromtimeto timein
the reignsof Mehmed'ssuccessorsthe question was raisedwhetherit was not
contraryto the shary'athat Greeksshould be living in a city taken by force
of arms and that some of its churchesshould be leftin Christianhands. In
1538,whenforvariousspecial reasons86this questionwas raised again, it was
necessaryto obtain a fetvd(i.e., a writtenopinionof the mufti)in orderto
protectthe Greek population. The fetvdjustifiedthe situationon the ficti-
tious groundsthat duringthe siege the Jews and the Christianshad made a
secretcompactwithMehmedII and had refrained fromassistingtheByzantine

88 For this question,see Isldm Ansiklopedisi,s.v. "'Orf."

84
Accordingto the Aya Sofya registerof 1490,among the leadingmerchantsof the Bedestan there
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 non-
Muslims appearing, without distinction,in the lists of Muslim names): thus, in the market around
the Bedestan, of forty-onecarpenters'shops only one belonged to an Armenian;of fortyworkshops
makingpots and pans sixteenbelonged to Greeks (fromMitylene,the Morea, and Galata); of thirty-
fourgrocersonlyfourwere Greeks; and all the 142 shops in the saddlers' quarterbelongedto Muslims.
But the Greeks were particularlyactive in big tax-farmingoperationsand in the trade by sea (see
note 85).
1*Under Mehmed II the Greekswere enabled to
engage in commerceunder more favorablecondi-
tions than had existed before.Since they were dhimmisubjects 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 tariffthan the Greeks. Thus, they gradually
supplantedthe Italians, particularlyin the Black Sea trade and in trade withthe countriesof North-
ern Europe. The customs registersforthe ports of Kilia (on the estuary of the Danube), Akkerman
(at the mouth of the Dniester), and Caffashow that toward the end of the fifteenthcenturyGreek
ship captains and merchantswerenumerous:of twenty-five 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
provinces,chieflyinhabitedby Christians,are only waitingfornews of the Emperoror his fleetgoing
to Constantinopleto rise in rebellion."

This content downloaded from 78.190.151.105 on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 15:09:14 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 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
centuryit was feltto be scandalous that Christiansshould hold timdr'sand
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.s8Furthermore, shortlyafter
1500 the historianIdris had commentedthat in leaving these Christiansun-
disturbedthe Sultans had had in view the prosperityof the worldand of the
Muslimreligion.

Postscript:Afterthisarticlehad gone to pressProfessorB. S. Baykal, ofthe

UniversityofAnkara,broughtto my attentiona photocopyof a survey-book
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-bookmakes it available for study.

87See note 11, supra.

88For Christian
sipdhi's, see Inalclk, Fatih devriiizerindetetkikler
ve vesikalar,137-84.

This content downloaded from 78.190.151.105 on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 15:09:14 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms