We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 January 2009
The subject of this communication is a relatively short but interesting passage in the ίστορίαι of the Athenian historian Laonicus Chalcocondyles, which deals with the administration and fiscal income of the Ottoman Empire in the reign of Muhammad II. The contents of this text were first utilized by von Hammer and most recently by Franz Babinger in his monumental history of the reign of Muhammad II, so it is obvious that in choosing this theme I am not presenting something completely new or unknown. Nevertheless, this material merits closer scrutiny than it has hitherto enjoyed, not only because of the scarcity of early sources on Ottoman fiscal history but because it will contribute to the ongoing evaluation of the historical worth of the toίστορίαι, and finally because it gives a view of the system to which the peoples of the empire were subject. A translation of the text is presented, followed by an analysis of the contents and a partial comparison with other sources.
1 On Chalcocondyles see: Krumbacher, K., Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur (New York, 1970), 1, 302–305;Google ScholarMoravcsik, G., Byzantinoturcica, I: Die byzantinischen Quellen der Geschichte der Türkenvolker, 2d ed. (Berlin, 1958), pp. 396 ff.;Google ScholarDitten, H., Der RusslandExkurs des Laonikos Chalkokondyles (Berlin, 1968);Google Scholaridem, “Laonikos Chalkokondyles und die Sprache der Rumänen”, Aus der byzantinistischen Arbeit der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, ed. J. Irmscher, I (1957), 93–105.
2 von Hammer-Purgstall, Joseph, Geschichte des Omanischen reiches (Pest, 1840), I, 589.Google ScholarBabinger, F., Mehmed der Eroberer und seine Zeit: Weltstürmer einer Zeitwende (Munich 1959), pp. 482–488 and passim.Google Scholar
3 Chalcocondyles, Laonicus, Historiarum demonstrationes, ed. Darko, E. (Budapest, 1922), II, 197–205 (hereafter cited as Chalcocondyles). The translated text appears on pp. 197–201.Google Scholar
4 Babniger, F., Die Aufzeichnungen des Genuesen lacopo de Promontorio de Canipis über den Osmanenstaat um 1475, Bayeri, sche Akadernie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Sitsungsberichte, Jahrgang 956 Heft 8 (1957).Google Scholar
5 Chalcocondyles, II, 198.Google Scholar
6 Ibid., pp. 198–199.
7 Ibid., p. 201.
8 It is difficult to ascertain whether Chalcocondyles means to say inhabitants (ένοίχων) or rents (ένοιχίων).Google Scholar
9 On these rice farms see Babinger, F., Beiträge zur Frühgeschichte der Türkenherrschaft in Rumelien (14.–15. Jahrhundert) (Brno, Munich, and Vienna, 1944).Google Scholar
10 Krumbacher, Byzantinischen Literatur, I, 302.Google Scholar
11 Chalcocondyles, II, 201.Google Scholar
12 Ducas, , Istoria turco-bisantina (1341–1462), ed. Grecu, V. (Bucharest, 1958), p. 287: on the death of his father Muhammad II inspected the treasury, found it rich, and then sealed it.Google ScholarCritoboulos, (Din domnia lmi Mahomed al II-lea, 1451–1467, ed. Grecu, V. [Bucharest, 1963], p. 45) states that he tightened up the financial administration so that it would produce more and so that it would be spent more carefully.Google Scholar
13 Babinger, Iacopo, pp. 30, 48, 60.Google Scholar
15 Babinger, Mehmed, p. 478.Google Scholar
16 Iacopo does, however, give their salaries (27,000 ducats for the one, and 10,000 each for the other two) (Babinger, Iacopo, p. 30). Babinger, (Mehmed, p. 474), gives the salaries of the defterdar at 600,000 akçes and of the nisançi at 400,000 akçes, which are not far from the estimates of Iacopo. But the salary that he gives for the grand vezir, 2,600,000 akçes is much larger than that reported by Iacopo.Google Scholar
17 Cholcocondyles, II, 200.Google Scholar
18 Babinger, Iacopo, p. 62.Google Scholar
19 Chalcocondyles, II, 199.Google Scholar
20 Inalcik, H., “Djizya,” Encyclopedia of Islam, new edition (Leiden, 1965);Google ScholarHadžibegić, H., Glavarina u osmanskoj državi (Sarajevo, 1966).Google Scholar
21 Babinger, Iacopo, p. 62: “Primo ha in Grecia et tutte antedicte provincie adherenti a quella sottoposte, hoc est al gouerno del beghlerbei di Greci charaihari, id est focagij a numero cinque cento cinquanta milia, tutte di christiani tantummodo, da quali ha per fuoco uel per casa aspri LXX, che sono ducati uno e mezzo in piu… ascendano tra tutti a numero di ducati VIIIe Lta milia.”Google Scholar
22 Ellissen, A., Analekien der mittel- und neugriechsichen Literatur (Leipzig, 1855–1862), III, 234. Aγρίϰησα πολλαίζ ϕοραίζ aπò τοùζ χαρατζáρονζ, óτι óρίξει ó āπιστοζ Хπισστιανùζ ρτο§óξουζ Σπήτιαμέταίζ πταϰοσίζ хιλιá§εζ On the date of this lament,Google ScholarBeck, H.-G., Geschichte der byzanhinischen Volksliteratur (Munich, 1971), p. 164.Google Scholar
23 Babinger, Mehmed, p. 483.Google Scholar
24 Barkan, Ö, “894 (1488/89) y˘li cizyesinin tahsilâtina âit muhasebe bilânçolari,” Belgeler, Türk Tarih Belgeleri Dergisi, I (1964), 1–117.Google Scholar
25 Ibid., pp. 3–5.
26 On tables of conversion from akçes to ducats, Beldiceanu, N., Les Actes des premiers sultans conserveś dons les manuscrits turcs de la Bibliothèque nationale à Paris, I, Actes de Mehmed II et de Bayezid II du Ms. Fonds Turcs Ancien 39 (Paris, 1960), p. 175. Drawing on contemporary documents Beldiceanu has drawn the following chart of fluctuations:Google Scholar
27 Chalcocondyles, II, 200.Google Scholar
28 Babinger, Iacopo, pp. 62 ff.Google Scholar
29 Chalcocondyles, II, 200. Babinger, Iacopo, pp. 62–65. Here the figures of Jacopo are higher, though in other items Chalcocondyles gives higher estimates. Thus the latter reckons foreign tribute at 100,000 ducats, but Iacopo reckons it at only 52,000 ducats.Google Scholar
30 Chalcocondyles, II, 199.Google Scholar
31 On the agricultural taxes see the numerous articles of Inalcik, H.: “Čift-resmi,” “Čiftlik,” Ispendje,” in EI 2; “Osmanlîlar'da raiyyet rüsümu,” Belleten, Türk Tarih Kurumu, 23 (1959), 575–610.Google Scholar See also Cağatay, N., “Osmanli imperatorluğnda reâyadan alinan vergi ye resimler,” Ankara Universitesi Dil ve Tarih-Cografya Fakültesi Dergisi, 5 (1947), 483–511. For further bibliography,CrossRefGoogle ScholarVryonis, S., “The Byzantine Legacy and Ottoman Forms,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 23–24 (1969–1970), p. 727, n. 61.Google Scholar
32 Chalcocondyles, II, 200. The figures he actually inclues in his breakdown amount to only 2,300,000, but his portion from the revenues shared with the provincial officials is missing, as are the pasturage of sheep, one-fifth booty, and so 1,700,000 ducats are unaccounted for.Google Scholar
33 Babinger, Iacopo, pp. 75–72. The individual items total 1,810,000 or 10,000 ducats more than the total Iacopo records.Google Scholar
34 Schefer, C., Le voyage d'outreiner de Bertrandon de Ia Brocquicre (Paris, 1892), p. 182.Google Scholar
35 Babinger, Mehmed, p. 488; idem., “Das Rätsel um die Goldbeute von Byzanz (1453),” in Aufsätze und Abhandlungen zur Geschichte Südosteuropa's und der Levante (Munich, 1966), II, 196–197.
36 Babinger, Iacopo, p. 72, estimates expenditures at 1,375,000 ducats.Google Scholar
37 Chalcocondyles, II, 201.Google Scholar
38 “Baştina” is, of course, of Slavic origin.Google Scholar
