Part 2: Interpreting the Sources: “decline … or ...

Part 2:

Interpreting the Sources:“decline … or ‘transformation”?

A question of perspective

Oct. 1-3

Studying the Ottomans:

- Drawing principally on analysis in:

Formation of the Modern State: the Ottoman Empire, Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries

Rifa’at ‘Ali Abou-El-Haj

Studying the Ottomans

Framework for analysis: evolution of ‘the modern state’ in European context

- notes historians of Europe debate nature of evolution of state in terms of move from ‘ruling class’ to ‘autonomous power’

- also debate role of capitalism in bringing this about


- Why should we not look at Ottoman state in same fashion, ask similar questions?

- Why, in case of Europe, do we look at ‘evolution’ and ‘transformation’ but in case of Ottomans, talk only of decline from mid-to-late 16th century forward?

- Why do we insist on model of ‘immobile, unchanging society’ that ultimately must fail?


Argues two central reasons:

- misunderstanding of nature of Ottoman state in first instance

- misreading of (internally generated) Ottoman historical sources in second

Bulk of analysis develops second point.


‘Devlet’ and ‘din-u-devlet’:

- ‘devlet’ Ottoman term for ‘state’ but phrase ‘din-u-devlet’ most often used: translated as ‘religion and the state’

- focusing purely on idea of ‘state’ as central power obscures role of religion in concept


- argues the better understanding is one developed by another historian:‘the decision making power of head of state as well as to those to whom he has designated his power’

- if this is the meaning we should give to ‘devlet’, then traditional narrative of ‘decline’ has no basis: this definition allows for the ‘changes’ we have witnessed within the framework of ‘the state’

- also (as din-u-devlet) allows for continuing role religion – unlike Europe in same era


Role of Local Historical Writings:

- admits local archival sources reveal little of ‘religion’in daily life of state (‘nature of the state taken for granted’)

- argues that other ‘genres’ of writing can give glimpses into that state

- to date, they have been used but ‘misread’


‘nisihatname’ and historiographical treatises:

- nisihat focus of most of his discussion [will return to historiography of Mustafa Naima next day]

- ‘advice to rulers’: as ‘rulers’ by 17th century meant large class of people surrounding Sultan who reigned rather than (truly) ruled – understood as being addressed to all of them


- guides to action rather than political philosophy: how ‘rulers’ should behave, how laws should be enforced

- clearly politically partisan but still revealing

- issue is how they were partisan: not reflective of government ‘plan’ rather political polemics

- represented voice of author, his social group notsociety


‘nisihat’ are treatises that represent the struggles ongoing within the ruling classes’:

- historians have accepted them at face value

- seen over course late 16th through 18th centuries, collectively represent ‘moments’ in steady decline of state

- need to be read both in terms of information and circumstances in which produced


[Part I: Oct 1]

Mustapha Ali (1541-1600): wrote late 16th c.

Kocu Bey (dates?): wrote Risale c.1631-2

- Abou-El-Haj argues that their writings have formed base of contemporary historians’ understanding of ‘decline’


Mustapha Ali (late 16th C.):

- celebrates power charismatic Sultans ‘used to have’to assert authority of state:

- able to limit resistance- assure payment of taxes (timar system worked)- enforce ‘law’ (reference specifically to ‘kanun’reforms of Suleiman)


- ‘now’ bemoaning fact that scrambling for highest tax revenue has made ‘law’ irrelevant

- ‘1000s of reaya (peasants) fleeing farms to become artisans in cities’: negatively affecting tax revenues in both areas

- reflective of lack of Sultan’s authority


Critical of intisap (Sultan’s household, ‘favourites’):- noting that one no longer progressed (career-wise) because of merit and ability but because of ‘influence’

- the intisap at the heart of this unfortunate development

- implied ‘corruption’


Treatise said to be written in spirit of ‘Public Duty’:

- everyone had ‘duty’ to assist, guide, advise ‘rulers’

- therefore gives impression of speaking for ‘everyone’– for the Public

- historians have accepted this self-presentation uncritically


Abou-El-Haj on Mustapha Ali:- notes Ali not merely observer (albeit good one) but “expectant participant” in system:

- had traditional Quranic school (medersa) background

- expected promotion, influence, wealth training ‘used to’ guarantee


- had done well under previous system but recruitment to the ‘upper echelons’ had changed by late 16th C

- recounts ‘personal’ injustices as one of four ‘pillars’ of treatise, so we know he has reason to be resentful of, angry with those in power

- light in which former rulers, state cast --romanticized, idealized -- has to be understood in this context


Kocu Bey – the Risale:- considered of particular importance by Abou-El-Haj in terms of ‘importance’ and influence

- critical ‘moment’ of change: treatise ‘looks back’, then compares current situation

- speaks of breakdown in nazim i-alem (‘Ottoman World Order’)


Like Ali, romanticized ‘past’:- ‘era of the charismatic Sultan’: authority

completely centralized

- cited various documents speaking to ‘proper’behaviour, etiquette: assuming ‘guidelines’ equated to reality

- presented social order in idealized form: sipahi, kul, ulema – each knew and respected role, place


Sipahi and kul (janissaries):

- sipahi originally drawn from reaya (peasants): only they can truly represent ‘the people’

- kul important but should never replace sipahi: interests different

- current system has allowed exactly that


Key elements of Bey’s treatise:

- wrongful delegation of authority: loss of ‘idealized’power to ‘elites’ who had no moral or ethical authority

- blurring of lines between ruling and tax-paying classes: break down of ‘social order’ (eg. Celalirebellions – ‘anyone’ carrying sword, riding horse)


Argued for centrality of ‘heredity’ and ‘merit’:- not contradiction for Bey (and others of his class)

- small class with shared values should control official offices for extended periods, if not life

- even Sultan should not interfere (objecting to tax-farming, confiscations etc)

- ‘merit’ did not equate to ‘social mobility’


Important Distinction between ‘traditional’ elite and ‘new’ elite:- ‘traditional’ viziers, offices related to military function

- ‘new’ elite consisted of ‘palace favourites’: ranks of pashas, lower-level viziers with no such function but being funded by treasury

- ‘fiefs’ (farms, villages etc) traditionally given to sipahisnow supporting ‘courtiers’


- referencing mythologized ‘origin of the state’ (role of ghazi who became sipahi), partnership with ruler: shared ‘goals’ of people and state in which important office inevitably tied to military responsibility, contribution to state

- ‘now’ offices used for personal gain: competition with each other for wealth, influence

- nothing less than ‘betrayal’ of state


Summary of Risale’s critique [from Abou-El-Haj]:- breakdown in understanding among ruling elite regarding ‘resources’ and ‘responsibilities’ … and allocation thereof [not sense of both rights and responsibilities]

- power and position of sultan ‘symbolic’ (and therefore marginal)

- social order broken down: anyone could enter anywhere…


- system of ‘surplus extraction’ undergoing major (not necessarily ‘good’) changes

- conversion of appointment to public offices to ‘money making’ and ‘money raising’ propositions

- ‘Law’ (fiscal and otherwise) increasingly irrelevant


Abou-El-Haj on Bey:

- degree of centralized authority unlikely to have ever existed

- ‘social order’ of balance and harmony equally imagined


- contrast between ‘traditional’ morality, ethics and ‘new’ society (profit driven, privatized, personal) exaggerated (gives example of office introduced under Suleiman to regulate markets – clearly offered opportunity for ‘gain’)


- Bey member of small class that had lost power: ‘regrets’ about idealized past were really complaints about disappointing present

- Like all nisihat, peasantry largely absent: treatises written by members of ‘ruling class’ about members of ‘ruling class’

- They reflect more than anything conflicts and competition among those members


Abou-El-Haj would argue, therefore:

- that the treatises are valuable not for the interpretations of society they offer [what historians have paid attention to so far]

- but for what those interpretations reveal of the nature of the ruling classes in transition: the struggles, resistance, changes within that class reveal the dynamics of the empire in transformation


Example:

- surprisingly, Abou-El-Haj does not mention one institution both Ali and Bey (and others) railed against as being a central (if not the central) ‘cause’ of the Sultan’s diminished authority and the empire’s ‘decline’: namely, the harem


Mustapha Ali (1541-1600):

- commented on the deleterious effects of the practices that were developing…

“because of the proximity to the Sultan, the eunuchs and concubines of the Harem were now in a position to influence appointments…even to sell them’


Kocu Bey (Risale):

- Sultan made himself "invisible", preoccupied with his harem [because of which] :

"the Sultan no longer governs himself and neither is the grand vazir allowed to do so; power is actually in the hands of negro eunuchs and purchased slave girls”.


[anonymous Sheikh from eastern Anatolia, upon arriving in Istanbul, early 17th C.]

“The reason that religion and government [has] fallen into ruin and that the Muslims [are] mired in misery was that the Holy Law had been abandoned”… and the Queen Mother and her followers were ruining the government. As long as they continued, “disorder and depravity” would continue” [from Pierce, Imperial Harem]


[Pierce recounts following story, from 17th century accounts: intended as different kind of societal critique]:

The peasant father and daughter:

- father forced to sell his daughter to a village notable to pay his debts

- notable, in turn, took her to nearby city and sold her in the slave market

- Sultan’s Grand vizier, the Janissary agha, imperial troops all present


Intended Point of Story:

“Things had come to such an impass that even with so many great men in the city [Grand Vizier, Janissary agha, imperial troops] supposedly keeping order, not a one prevented this or was capable even of speaking out against it.”


Story of ‘subverted hierarchy’, undermining social order:- father betrayed paternal duty

- village notable exploited rather than protected peasants

- Muslim law violated: enslavement of free Muslim

- Sultan’s representatives vizier, agha, imperial troops –all failed, unable to preserve justice

[from Leslie Peirce: Imperial Harem pp. 272,3]


Alternative interpretation [Peirce]:- evolution royal women from wives (political alliances)

to mothers (slave reproducers of heirs) reflective of evolution of state

-male family members’ roles circumscribed with growth slavery, focus on unitary dynastic state

- led to inevitable rise power of valide sultan


Peirce goes on to argue that debate about women early 17th C. was really about ‘social order ‘:

- need to ‘re-establish’ order in time of transformation[her words, my emphasis]

- ‘women’, especially royal women, became metaphors for larger societal concerns

Analysis independent of Abou-El-Haj but provides strong development of it


[to be continued . . .]


Part 2: Interpreting the Sources: “decline … or ...

Documents

Transcript of Part 2: Interpreting the Sources: “decline … or ...