3/22/09 1

Human/Nature and Social Difference: Social Analysis in 16th-Century Geography

Chandra Mukerji University of California, San Diego

Draft: Paper to be discussed in the TEMS group, University of Minnesota

3/22/09 2

Sociologists, historians and philosophers of science tend to assume that the social sciences began (seriously) in the 19th century with statistical and theoretical analyses of the social characteristics of aggregates. They recognize earlier “foundations of” or “attempts at” social science, but study them less and give them little standing. As a scholar of early modern culture, I am dissatisfied with this, so I am studying a book by a 16th-century French geographer, Nicolas de Nicolay,1 where he tries to analyze social types in the . The result is both an early account of Ottoman power and a system for making sense of it. Whether this is a form of social science or not may be a matter of debate, but it is certainly a surprisingly complex analysis of the social bases of power that deserves to be understood as such. Moreover, its relationship to geography helps explain the formation of a particular logic in the social sciences: looking at environmental factors shaping human action. The idea that modern social analysis had roots in this period is not new. Levi-Strauss saw elements of modern ethnography to the writings of de Léry.2 Campbell has argued as well that social geographers became more plentiful and important in the period, but has minimized the importance of the fact by emphasizing the fabulous aspects of the writings.3 My point here is to go beyond these origin stories for anthropology (good and bad, serious and funny) by considering how a particular logic of social analysis derived from geography in the 16th century: belief in the situated character of human action and character. I do not want to make claims about the value of this type of work, per se, but to understand the historical forces that pointed Nicolay toward this kind of social analysis. Contextual explanations of social life are familiar in modern anthropology, sociology and social psychology, and begin from the assumption that human beings are sensitive to their environment. They learn to be social beings by living with others and learning to see themselves and to form their character in relation to the people and culture around them. This kind of work has many modern names and variants: cultural anthropology, socialization theory, Meadian social psychology, sociocultural psychology, and more.4 They share a similar view of human beings as cultural entities whose humanity is shaped by circumstances – both intentional and unintended group-shaped habitats. Contemporary proponents of these ideas (usually) trace their practices to the Chicago pragmatist tradition with its emphasis on the formative nature of human 3/22/09 3

character. But as Levi-Strauss, Campbell, and the historian, Legistrant, note,5 there were geographers in the 16th century already grappling with similar concerns, and I would like to understand why. The research that I am reporting on here is not an exercise in Whig history, trying to explain the development of modern social science by uncovering its “roots,” but rather an exploration into the historical contingencies in the early modern period that made thinking like a social scientist feasible and advisable—whether or not it shaped future intellectual developments. And I want to consider the relationship between the ethnographic gaze in this context and period understandings of power. I focus on the book by Nicolas de Nicolay, Navigations et Pérégrinations en la Turquie, (1568; 1576; 1580; 1588; 1662; and many more) because it contains, I believe, a clear break with geographical conventions for travel narratives, and constitutes a definitive move toward contextual explanations of social life. Nicolay wrote the Navigations et Pérégrinations en la Turquie after traveling as geographer to the French Ambassador, Aramount, to the Ottoman Empire in 1551 to help forge a Franco-Turkish alliance. The book is analytically interesting because it starts as a conventional travel narrative, but mid-text, Nicolay abandons this approach to produce instead a compendium of social types found within the Ottoman Empire that help reveal its character and its power. Why did Nicolay make the switch? There were obvious intellectual reasons for him to think about human character—particularly in the Ottoman Empire-- because the empire was expanding rapidly in the eastern Mediterranean and up the Adriatic, getting closer to the Venetian Republic and (to the north) Vienna. Nicolay was also a humanist geographer interested in the relationship between forms of human life and places in which people lived, so attention to social life was already part of his intellectual purview. But the question of how to do social geography well was not codified in the period, and this left room for him to invent its rules. According to the classical geography that Nicolay knew well, social types were natural variants -- products of physical environments and genetic descent. Groups from harsh regions were supposed to have developed harsh characters, and passed this quality down to their descendents. In the classical geographical tradition, nature was determinate, not human will. But like many European geographers, Nicolay was also a Christian, who not only saw the earth as Creation,6 but also saw human beings as vulnerable sinners. Christians were taught to see social 3/22/09 4

beings as open to outside influence, morally responsible for managing their vulnerability, and in need of spiritual guidance to do so. Such people did not have characters formed by geography alone. They were objects of Creation, of course, and in that sense creatures of the earth. But they were also made sovereign over Creation, and given moral choices. They had power over their character, and so responsibility for it. Although many Christians had doubts about the moral status of barbarians, Nicolay seemed ready to consider human nature as fundamentally similar across groups. They might have had different natures by birth or training, but people were still responsible for their moral conduct. He did not talk about conversion like Thévèt, but seemed to accept the premises for it. Malleability of character made conversion of local populations a possible and desired outcome for Christians traveling to new lands—such as Thévèt and (a generation later) Champlain.7 More concerning to Nicolay, this same quality of human nature was also why Christian slaves in the Ottoman Empire might become Muslims. Human nature, then, was both natural and open to (social and moral) formation, something based on natural order and responsive to social experience. The Ottoman Empire presented a particularly important case and problem for social explanation; its character and powers were difficult to describe in period terms. The population was diverse and the empire was expanding, shifting the geographical boundaries of group life. As new groups were conquered, they became more Ottoman because of the empire’s power to constrain action, but groups also maintained some traditions. How could such an empire thrive and cohere, producing a singularity of purpose and organized force that threatened all of Europe? The answer was not obvious, and Nicolay was both fascinated and confused by the dynamics he witnessed. Ottoman power seemed grounded not in some natural ferocity and pure, immoral animality – what crusader images of the east suggested.8 The empire seemed founded on a social intelligence and knowing use of human differences for political effect, including tendencies toward ferocity9. This was a form of power that eluded and often offended Europeans with Nicolay among them. Nicolay’s turn to social analysis was spurred by personal as well as intellectual reasons. He (like most Europeans) was fearful of Ottoman military advances, but he was in the awkward position of being a French Christian ally of the Ottomans as they attacked European strongholds and took Christian slaves. He was an ally and “other” at the same time, and understood by 3/22/09 5

Europeans (including the pope) as a traitor to his own kind.10 This was disquieting to the geographer. Also, as he worked with the Ottoman navy, Nicolay developed a horror of becoming a slave himself, so he had good reason to understand the empire in which he was constrained by historical circumstances to move. Making sense of the Ottoman Empire required social knowledge beyond what Nicolay had learned from geography. So he abandoned the assumption (of his profession) that human character was determined by physical geography,11 and considered more closely the power of social environments, maintaining his belief in human environmental sensitivity, but now looking at social context driving human life. With this switch, Nicolay began to engage in forms of social analysis that we today would call modern, considering the dynamics of socialization, situated action and the social engineering of social types. Nicolay never espoused a singular social theory, or claimed to build a social science. Nonetheless, he amassed cases, and tried to develop principles across them, using inductive methods. He adopted a format for his studies of social types from herbals, too, patterning his social analysis on botanical studies. In all these ways, he worked to construct a science of social differences, or a natural history of human character. Nicolay’s choice of analytic form for his studies of social types was over-determined. Botanical studies were an obvious comparison for a geographer because different species of plants and animals as well as social groups were understood in the period to be physically located in ways related to their qualities.12 As Nicolay himself put it:

All [animals] according to their types are confined and limited to particular elements... like fish in water, birds in the air, and beasts on the earth. I also argue that they are located not only in their proper elements, but in certain parts or regions of them. As Pliny says, it is admirable that nature distributes diverse animals not only on the earth and sea, but also in certain places.13

While human beings were dispersed across the earth like plants, they were also (to Nicolay) distinctive in their sovereignty over nature.

3/22/09 6

The archetype of human being [was] Adam, name signifying land or earth, not only because his body was formed from earth, but more because the earth was given to him for his possession and habitation as monarch of the animals....[For] man as seigneur and prince of the whole sphere, both earth and sea, all lands and seas are open to discovery. And by all climates, all airs and under whatever part of the heavens, man by prerogative from God, his Creator, can lives.... Such that on all terra firma, there is no place without human habitation.14

So, human beings were not like plants in that they could live in all parts of the world because of their exceptionalism among God’s creatures. But they also varied by place—just like plants. Human communities might exist everywhere, but physical appearance and character were not the same from place to place, and were patterned in ways that geographers were thought capable of explaining. Geographers not only accepted the classical view of the physical dispersion of plants, but also often decorated their maps with images of flora, fauna and human types, identifying with palm trees and America with fruit-bearing plants. Botany and geography were fundamentally interconnected, but herbals started to treat plant life separately, providing a template for the study of social groups apart from their geographical formation. Herbals linked the appearances of plants with four elements: their common names, their native habitats, what previous authors wrote about their attributes and uses, and new observations of their qualities. This approach was based on the principles of descriptive geography. In travel writings, maps were often accompanied by discussions of place names, descriptions of local conditions, historical writings on the qualities of places and their peoples, and new observations (mainly useful to navigators) on the land, water, food, people and plantlife of locales. Botanical compendia used this method of description to extract plants from their geographical locations (or more precisely from geographical determinism). They focused on individual specimens, their names, classical references, (often medicinal) attributes and growing habits. Where they grew mattered both as a way of explaining their qualities and where they could be found, but the important qualities of plants were more the pharmacological applications. The method of analysis reinforced the intellectual connection between botany and geography, but herbals focused on plant life as a distinct area of study. 3/22/09 7

To study social groups, Nicolay translated this method again, extracting social analysis from geographical determinism. He named, located, discussed the literature on, and gave his own accounts of social groups in the Ottoman Empire, assessing their qualities and their uses inside the empire. The familiarity of his method probably help make Nicolay’s social analysis more accessible to readers. It also located social analysis as a method of doing natural history—in this sense a science. Nicolay may have made his studies of social types more like the sciences of early modern France, but he did not attempt to write an objective account of the people he saw --like a 19th- century social scientist.15 He sought accuracy but not dispassion. He disliked some groups and praised others. He wrote with prejudice, but not out of the arrogance and racial assumptions of the 19th century. He was an Orientalist before colonialism,16 facing an “other” more powerful than Europeans who he respected and feared. His negative imagery of the Turks (like that of other humanists of the period) was more shaped by the medieval literature of the than European arrogance, trying to understand a power that seemed to lie beyond his imagination and hard to distinguish from his fearful imaginings. Nicolay was not, however, a social innocent. He repeated and elaborated derogatory stereotypes of Jews, Thracians, and Scythians.17 But his accounts of differences among nations or races were more moral than essentializing—as though group life posed moral problems for group members. His reasoning about descent and character also posed questions about his own identity, since the French like the Turks were assumed to have Thracian roots—a people he despised.18 As a man of the French navy, was he more Christian or Thracian in nature? Was he a moral man or a vicious warrior? And was he so different in the end than the Turks when he fought as their ally? Throughout his book, he repeatedly returned to his Christian faith to distinguish himself from the Ottomans—but this was only perhaps to reassure himself of his good character in the face of the brutal acts of the alliance.19 Because of his impassioned prose and disquieting stereotyping, it would be easy to reject Nicolay as an early social scientist, and to minimize his seriousness as Campbell has done. But inside the Navigations et Pérégrinations, Nicolay sought to build a systematic form of social analysis, and wrestled with the impressive, if sometimes disturbing, social intelligence of the Ottomans. The empire was built on a kind of social knowledge that Nicolay wanted to understand and teach his readers to acquire. 3/22/09 8

Book I: The Traveler’s Tale. Nicolay left with the sieur d’Aramount in 1551, traveling first to North Africa to meet the Ottoman navy. In Book I of his Navigations, he described the voyage as other travelers would in terms of winds, currents, islands, hillsides, plant life, and local cultural traditions. He sometimes made his own observations about the places the French ships passed but more often recited common knowledge about them. This reliance on earlier sources was not bad practice at the time. In mapmaking, the point was to add new knowledge to old, not to start from scratch each trip. The best maps were compendia of geographical knowledge-- not original images of the world but ones that synthesized extant and new measures-- and descriptive geography worked from the same principle. For navigators in particular, gathering geographical knowledge was circumscribed by their main duties: getting notables to a destination. “Where” they were at any given time on a map, then, was determined mainly in relation to measures and observations made by others. Nicolay wrote, for example, about islands that the French ships visited, but quickly passed, seeing them through the literature he had studied:

The Belearic islands... which are called by mariners Mallorca and Minorca, [are] situated in the sea of Spain.... Around the island of Mallorca, there are some reefs, the one on the south named Carera, and the one on the north, Dragonera. This island as two cities: Palma ...and Alcidia. Minorca is 60 milles long and [has] a circumference of 150 and on the west 30 milles from Mallorca.20

Nicolay was careful to list the multiple names of the islands, and to recite some of the basic cultural characteristics of local lands and people, according to written sources. “[The inhabitants on one Belearic] island, according to Vegetius, were the first to invent smelting.”21 He wrote, in other words, like other humanist geographers for whom the words of the ancients and the problem of place names required on-going attention. Geography was a matter of collective memory in which geographers could add to the repertoire. 3/22/09 9

At sea, Nicolay also focused on the struggle against nature to get to distant lands. Day and night, wind and calm, high seas and easy swells are all matters of note along with the distances traveled and places achieved.

Being back in our ship to continue our voyage, a wind picked up so against us that all night long we were only able to head into the wind without making any progress. But at dawn, it turned favorable so that the 17th day after leaving Marseilles, we arrived at the a the cape of Casines, distant from Algiers by 15 milles [15.75 miles]. At that cape, we laid anchor because night was coming.22

When Nicolay first encountered North African cities and courts, he was struck by their opulence as well as the beauty of the surrounding countryside. The riches of the land and the wealth of those who populated the cities of the Barbary coast were impressive. And so were the fortifications and markets:

Alger is a Citie in Africa very ancient …shee is situated upon the Mediterran Sea, upon the hanging of a Mountaine environed with strong Walls, Ramperds, Ditches, Platformes, and Bulwarks, in forme almost three-square….The Citie is very Merchant-like, for that she is situated upon the Sea, and for this cause marveilously peopled, for her bigness: she is inhabited of the Turkes, Moores, and Jewes in great number, which with marveilous gaine exercise the Trade of Merchandise, and land out money at Usury. …[The] people of the Mountaines, Plaines, and Vallies, being negithbours thereabouts, do bring thither all sorts of Fruits, Corne and Foule, of very cheape price….Without the Citie towards the West are many faire and pleasant Gardens,, set and adorned with divers trees bringing forth fruits of al sorts. Amongst other things there be Milons [melons] of marveilous goodness, and incomparable sweetnesse…. About the Gardens are many Wells full of good water, and the ground there abouts, although it is Mountaines and Vallies, is very fertile for fruites and Vines.23

The tone of his book quickly changed, however, when Nicolay reaches the slave markets, and saw Christians being sold there. 3/22/09 10

I went to see the market of the Turkes (which they call Basar) being hard by where the poore Christians of , , and Goze, were sold unto those that most offered for them… [following] the ancient Custome of the Orientall Babarians to strip them starke naked … to the intent to see if they have any naturall impediment in their bodies, visiting afterwards their teeth and eyes, as though they had beene horses.24

The geographer was appalled that former soldiers were inspected like animals, and became increasingly concerned for his own safety, particularly when Christian slaves started swimming to the French ships to flee captivity.

Thursday the 16th of July, a Christian slave that had accompanied [the French official] Cotignac [ashore]... threw himself into the sea to swim to our ship. But a Turk from another ship saw him, also threw himself into the water in pursuit and got onto his back and would have drowned him without the help of our sailors who pulled him half dead onto our decks... A number of Turks came to recover the slave. Also his master came, who appeased himself by leaving him with u for 10 écus.25

The matter seemed settled with this exchange, but other slaves followed the first. The ambassador and the ships’ crews tried to hide and protect the new stowaways, claiming that there were no slaves on board. But the Turks told Aramount they would hold his ships captive in the harbor until the slaves were returned. While the standoff was in progress, Nicolay contemplated his Christian identity and faith as he had never done before. Now he saw himself through the eyes of the Turks, who analyzed and pressured the French in startlingly effective ways. Returning the slaves and leaving Algiers, the French flotilla proceeded to to meet the Ottoman navy that was preparing to siege the city. The siege itself was a potential source of tension between the French and Ottomans, since Tripoli was a target chosen by the empire, and not part of the agreement with the French king. But the Knights of Malta were holding Tripoli for France’s enemy, the Habsburg Empire, so the French prepared to join their allies in the fight. But as the siege started in earnest, the French were startled —not by the fury of the fighting, but the Bascha’s reaction to their presence: 3/22/09 11

The sixth of August we came to Tripoli, a City which Charles the fifth had given in keeping to the Knights of Malta, and [was starting to be] besieged by Sinan Basha. …The Turks having in the night placed their gabions, & their ordinance readie to the battry, did the next day folowing beyng the eight of August, begin to shoote at the castle with great furie, which was not least unanswered, & every houre some slaine: whilest this was a doing the Bascha sent to pray the Ambassador that he wold suffer none of his men to com a land, least the Turks might do them some outrage in mistaking them to bee of those of the castle… [and] as we were on our departure, the Bascha (being almost mad) sent to him by an Eunuch, his Dragoman, [a message to tell the French Ambassador that he had to] stay two days longer, within whiche time he hoped to win the castle. This message [was] so greevous [that it] put the Ambassador … in the choler because of the retarding of his voyage. 26

The Bascha, in other words, held the French fleet and ambassador hostage in the harbor until the battle was won. The ambassador had expected a courteous greeting, but instead he was treated like pawn in the Ottoman chess game. For the Bascha, holding the French ships solved a tactical problem, but the French ambassador was a man of standing and resented his treatment.27 The social affront made clear the terms of this alliance; the Ottomans needed the alliance to use the French harbors for the navy, but had no interest in sharing any power with the French. In his retelling of the story, Nicolay demonstrated to his readers the depths of the gulf between the French and the Ottomans, the relative impotence of the French in this alliance, and the danger for Europeans hoping to maintain their autonomy or even freedom in this empire. If the Ambassador was infuriated by these social slights, Nicolay was confused and frightened by what he was learning. Having already taken pity on the Europeans sold in the Algiers market, Nicolay’s fear only grew after the Turks took Tripoli. The French ambassador asked the Bascha to free any Frenchmen that remained among the Knights of Malta (Nicolay, 1637: 878). But while the Bascha accepted the Ambassador’s request in principle, one Dauphinois soldier had injured an important figure in the Turkish army, so he was not freed. Instead, he was publicly tortured. As 3/22/09 12

Nicolay put it, “that their feast of victory should not be unfurnished of some sacrifice of cruelty.”28

The Turkes having in their hand an ancient Gunner of the Castle, named John de Chabas, borne within the Towne of Romance in Daulphine … that with the Canon he had shot off the hand of the Clerke general of the [Turkish] army, brought him into the Towne: and having cut off his hands and his nose, they put him quickly into the ground even to the girdle stead, and there with a cruelty was persecuted and shot at with arrowes, and in the end for to accomplish the execution of his glorious martyrdom, they cut his throat.29

With this telling of the siege of Tripoli, Nicolay presented the Ottoman military as both strategically effective and appallingly monstrous in ways reminiscent of the infidels of the crusades, and all the more incomprehensible and threatening because of the mix. The experience at Tripoli made clear to Nicolay that the French did not know with whom they were dealing, or how to act in this foreign world. The Ottomans exercised a power over the French that they could not evade or fully understand. The geographer’s story about Tripoli was inflammatory and probably popular because it played off of medieval tales of eastern barbarism, while giving the French a way to distance themselves from the excesses of the alliance. The dramatic narrative was widely republished as a separate piece of writing, becoming a staple in English compilations of voyages that were full of devilish exoticism.30 But the events described had another effect on the author of this account. He stopped writing about travels, and started doing social analysis. The traveler’s tale in book I of the Navigations lived on, but Nicolay left this genre of writing behind. He stopped chronicling events, and started to describe the social types inhabiting the Ottoman Empire. The other geographers of his era tried to become good social analysts, such as de Léry, but did not take this route. De Léry continued to describe what he saw in chronicle form, and spoke of himself as a historian. Nicolay tried to explain what he had learned about the people of the Ottoman Empire, reflecting on the analytic basis for his thinking. He may have been wrong in his understandings of some groups, but what he was doing was distinctive in grappling with the bases for social differences and sources of social power. 3/22/09 13

It might be that Nicolay was saving face in refusing to document the events of the alliance. The French and Ottoman ships attacked Sicily, and the French were widely condemned for it. But Nicolay was also traumatized by the events in Tripoli and made this clear in his text. Nicolay needed some way to think about human character and social power, since the Ottomans were so skilled at managing the French and using them to advantage. The Ottomans harbored powers that only careful study of groups could explain. Nicolay saw their danger to Europeans not only in their military but also their socialization, management and deployment of people. Nicolay could not undo the assaults by the alliance, but he could at least tell his readers about the dangers the Ottomans posed and the powers they possessed. So, he started to chronicle not a voyage by sea, but human voyages in character and conduct that served and helped define the power of the Ottoman Empire.

Nicolay’s Method. If it Book II, he spoke of women, in Book III, he described Ottoman warriors, perfecting his analytic method, and foregoing historical methods. For each of the groups he discussed, Nicolay presented a portrait – a full-page printed picture --that he claimed was drawn from life and carefully printed from his drawings. These images were presented with commentaries on the opposite page or the following few pages that discussed the type. This was precisely the format of herbals that served ostensive reasoning – thinking in relation to things observable in the natural world. The content of the commentaries varied to some extent by the level of his knowledge (or “common” knowledge). The types were defined according to two social categories: occupational and “ethnic” groups, and above all, types that were intersectional. The descriptions of them usually included some discussion of their (historical) names, the history of the group (focusing on political and/or geographical migration), the office held by such a person within the empire, duties of office, and character. The “types” that Nicolay discussed the most were intersectional, e.g., doubly located in a line of cultural descent and an office in the empire. 3/22/09 14

His writings on the Peich of the Great Turk (also known as his lackey) provides a good example of the social portraiture that Nicolay perfected in Book II. It was less as an exemplar of the form than an ideal type, though, since his discussion of the lackey was more extensive than most. As an extreme case, though, it indicated the types of information that interested Nicolay in analyzing the people of the empire.

There are eighty to one hundred “Peichz or Laquais Persiens.” The best of these are as able and courtly as one could imagine. They wear multi-color damask robes. They wear a shirt of fine cotton under this. They have a high hat made of pounded silver and with fine or false stones, according to their means. These are decorated with ostrich or other fancy feathers, according to their fantasy. They march with the grand Seigneur into the countryside, crying for God to keep his powers great….31

The Peichs or lackeys were Persian, Nicolay said. They exemplified the highest level of personal grace, gentility, and self-discipline. The lackey was both a soldier and a courtier, whose fine clothes and refined manner were a tribute to the Great Turk he served. As royal guard running ahead of Soliman the Magnificent to announce his arrival and to protect him during his travels ,32 the lackey often had to run for days, remain alert without sleep, and frequently even run backward while singing praises to God for the well-being of his masters. 3/22/09 15

Persians like the lackeys were generally viewed as more courtly to Nicolay than other groups in the empire, and the lackey, as a courtly character, was an object of his admiration. His high respect for Persians may have derived from the fact that the Byzantine empire had been deeply affected by European classical culture, supporting scholarship in ancient Greek and Roman writings (including the Ptolemaic geography for important to geographers of the period.)33 Nicolay emphasized the lackey’s debt to classical traditions in his description of their history.“ Long ago and under other turkish emperors, the “peics” that we call ‘laquis’ differed greatly in their habits.... As others have written, retaining the ancient Greek tradition, they walked and ran on bare feet.”34 Nicolay also described their animalistic degradation as slaves of the Ottomans that spoke to their subservience to the Great Turk.

In times past... [they] raveiled and ranne barefooted without any shoes, or any other thing on their feet having that the soles of their feete were shod like unto horses, the skin under the plant of their feet being so hard that easily they could forbeare the nailes and irons …and being thus shod the better to counterfait the horses, did wear in their mouths a bal of silver, perced and made with holes in divers places, like unto the bit of a bridle, & is for to keep their mouth fresh & the longer to sustain their breath. Round about their girdle, which was very large and very wel wrought of leather, they hung divers cymbals or belles, which by moving and shaking in their running made a very plesant and delectable noyce….35(Nicolay 1585 : 84)

The Lackeys also sported facial hair like Turks. This fearsome mask was taken on for its military virtue, the geographer explained. Turkish soldiers regularly grew a beard around their chin, and a longer mustache to curl over it. This mode of grooming covered and controlled their expression, making them look more fearsome. The result was a gruesome, inhuman appearance that Nicolay said was designed to terrorize enemies. It was at odds with the Persian character that Nicolay admired, but part of the transformation of Persians into social types of the Ottoman empire.36 3/22/09 16

To make the social type identifiable, Nicolay went to great pains to describe their appearance in terms that Europeans would understand:

Each [lackey] is outfitted two times a year with a robe of satin or damask, figured in diverse mixed colors nd short... Under this, ...ample taffeta... pulled over the belt [in the style] of ladies of Paris... On their heads they wear a high hat of fine gilded silver, called in their language “scuff” ... decorated with many gems of which some are fine and some are false.... In one of their hands, they hold... a hatchet.37

Because of his attention to patterns of dress, Nicolay has been described as writing about fashion and dress rather than social types.38 But this type of information was vital to the identification of types. They were equivalent to the descriptions of plant features in herbals. Dress was a means for distinguishing among social types in the empire –both by office and ethnicity-- and to Nicolay, the medium with which they both performed their identities and hid character. In his discussion of the lackeys, Nicolay included some reflections on his methods for studying them.

As to me, I report what is [factual about the lackeys] and want no other than to assure [the reader] that it is true, because I have seen it with my own eyes. In any case, many in Constantinople have confirmed it. And it was thus written by Jean Antonio Menavino, from Genoa, who was raised when a child as a slave in the serail in the times of sultan Bajazet.39

Nicolay derived much of his knowledge from others—from previous writings and information from informants—but emphasized his direct knowledge of the appearance of Lackeys and their way of life. He treated other sources as verifications of his own observations, not vice versa, ratifying the conventions of geography in which original observations are held in highest regard, but first-hand accounts from others (even in written form) were respected and respectable sources. Nicolay clearly liked the Lackeys as Persian athletes, saw them as admirable in character, and was troubled by their “animalization” by their Ottoman rulers. With other groups, he was not 3/22/09 17

so generous. But in all the cases, he tried to isolate and analyze social components of the empire, explaining how they looked, what they did, and how they gained or used their character in service of the empire. In this exercise, he not only typified specific groups, but also drew attention to social practices within the empire that made a virtue of diversity and produced through social practices the types needed for the exercise of power. Throughout the rest of the Navigations, Nicolay described mechanisms of social differentiation and formation through his examination of types: the public performance of social identity, socialization practices, marginization of stigmatized groups, political exploitation of differences, and social management of animality. He clustered them around social worlds. Book III focused on the military; Book IV focused on the marketplace and popular culture. Both were essential foundations for Ottoman power, and analyzing the groups that inhabited them was a way for Nicolay to approach this terrible and important subject. The military figures were models (impressive and terrifying) of the mixture of discipline and ferocity that made the Ottoman army and navy so hard to stop. And the marketplace was a place where human desires were turned into wealth, and diverse groups met around common interests in human weakness. In each of these sites, he identified social processes by which groups performed their identities, were socialized to turn weakness into power, and were politically managed to empower the empire.

Books II-III: Nicolay’s Turn to Social Analysis. At the beginning Book II, Nicolay tried to continue his traveler’s tale. He described the landscape and fruits of Greek islands, and reviewed some of the history of the Byzantine Empire. But he began to draw portraits, too, particularly of the pretty women of the Greek island. In an aside, he explained that his pictures were drawn from life and that he would describe the women before he procedded to his historical narrative of the islands.40 He admired the beauty of their clothing and their elegant but modest demeanor. By the end of Book II, Nicolay was also writing of the seclusion of Turkish women in Constantinople—particularly the women of the Grand Turk in the serail. His grand narrative of navigation and discovery was punctuated by his distracted eye and fearful heart. How are we to understand Nicolay at this point? Was he just another sailor away from home too long and longing for female companionship? Or was there something else at stake? 3/22/09 18

One way to think about this is to consider the effects on Cervantes of his incarceration as a slave Algiers in roughly the same period. He, too, became obsessed with women, women who were foreign and not, saviors and not. Later the author wrote in tandem about his fears of captivity and his dreams of idealized women.41 Nicolay seemed similarly to seek some solace from his fears in the beauty of a world that had turned bleak, hoping for a perfection in women that he also did not find. He assembled a set of pictures of women, young and old, who he described as virtuous and not. And this broke the cadence of his traveler’s tale, and posed for him questions about human character and conduct.

The portraits that Nicolay assembled helped contrast beauty with danger, virtuousness with vanity or heartlessness. Most figures were drawn to be beautiful but described in less glowing terms. He worried about female sexuality and the efforts of young Greek women to be pretty to please men. Then he returned to his recitations of extant geographical and historical knowledge of places that the French ships had passed. The French stayed for some time in Thrace, first Gallipoli and then Constantinople, And he spoke of these times and histories of these places as though he would continue his geographer’s prose. But there was an anxiety about this part of his narrative, too. He hated the Thracians, and saw them as double-dealing, child-selling people— not the elegant educated group that the ancients took them to be.42 3/22/09 19

According to some versions of humanist geography, the French were descendents of the Thracians.43 And so were the Turks. Although by convention, the Turks grew mean by living in a hostile country and the French became benign in their fertile land, still there was a distinct possibility that they shared basic qualities of character that socialization could tap.44 For a French ally of the Ottoman Empire engaged in common assaults on European strongholds that were vicious and brutal, it might well have been hard to accept the implied equality of the two. And although Nicolay may have been trying to return to his travel narrative, it still could have been haunted by his fears about the Turks and confusion about his own identity – the issues that made him return again to writings on human character, social types, moral responsibility, and the power of the empire. All these themes returned when Nicolay arrived in Constantinople and considered the power of the Great Turk. Surprisingly, he did not describe retinue of the court at this time, but rather turned his thoughts again to women. He wrote of the serail and the baths-- of which he could have had no direct knowledge. In his mind (like Cervantes) he sought out a perfect beauty in women and found them both compelling and wanting. Using imagery that addressed his fears of Ottoman power, the geographer explained that Turkish women might seem to be more modest than (for example) the Greeks because they lived behind closed doors, and covered themselves with layers of clothing and veils in the streets, but they were in fact veiling their intentions as well as their bodies this way.

3/22/09 20

In women’s baths, according to Nicolay, women of all ranks would come from one to three times a week, and to his horror (or delight?), bathe each other in full view of one another. He claimed that lesbians openly expressed their sexual feelings in these places, while women of high standing brought their servants to clean them, and publicly apply potions to their skin. Instead of a public life of virtue like European noble women, these women had a private existence that illustrated the inner licentiousness of Ottoman culture.45 Of course, Nicolay did not go into the baths to observe women there. He heard stories, and he found in them a pattern of Ottoman power. The regime was founded on a deep understanding human nature, human vulnerabilities and desires. The Greak Turk provided his people with severe controls over public life but gave their animal passions free reign --either in private or in battle. Groups of different backgrounds observed the rules, converted to Islam and became Turks. They learned to perform their identities as members of the empire. They were pushed to conform in public by policy and made part of the culture through socialization practices, but they were also drawn to the empire and could belong to it in spite of their differences by the freedoms that lay within it.46

The Performance of Social Identity. Nicolay became centrally concerned with the performative aspects of social identity as soon as he left Algiers, and started reflecting on his fears and complicity in the alliance. He wrote, as we have seen, on clothes and habits, body posture and demeanor, in his description of social types. This was precisely the kind of performance of the body and identity described by Judith Butler.47 Clothes in the Ottoman Empire were particularly important to Nicolay as costumes, tools for dissembling to perform social roles. This was in part because he found brocades that were marks of high rank in Europe worn by Thracian women who he saw as monstrous. Civilized dress was part of a performance, and was a mask as much as an expression of social station. The performative nature of social conduct was important to Nicolay in part because of his moral concerns about his own character. He repeatedly asserted that people had an inner character, and he obsessively reflected on how to act as a Christian in this world where being one was dangerous. The Ottoman world required compliance in public life, and inner feelings not in 3/22/09 21 line with public policy were not meant to be visible. So character could not determine outward appearances, and public life became a matter of show.48 Some social types in the Ottoman Empire were singled out by Nicolay as con men in Goffman’s sense – ordinary people whose identities were explicitly crafted for public effect.49 The most charming, disarming, and deceptive was what Nicolay called “the religious Turk.”

There are moreover throughout the whole of Turkey another sect of religious [men] dwelling within the towns and villages in certain shops, the walls of which they cover with skins of diverse wild beasts...To show themselves more strange and marvelous, they bring up and feed certain wild beasts, such as wolves, deer, eagles and ravens to declare that they have abandoned the world, to live a solitary life amongst the beasts. But in this, their hypocrisy is openly shown, for ...they do not dwell in hermitages, but in towns full of people, and likewise they do not live among wild beasts, unless they mean the beastly and barbarous Turks, rather their animal companions are tame.... These good religious people thus live on the profit of their shops... for the maintenance of their idle life.. or go about the streets asking for alms.50

This religious Turk could stand for natural virtue, but this did not mean that he acted the way that men of natural virtue were expected to act in Europe. He did not live as a hermit in the countryside, but in group homes in the city, representing a natural virtue in public which he did not embody in private life. 3/22/09 22

Nicolay unmasked this con man to reveal the “true nature” behind the performance, providing for his readers a “true” look into the people and powers of the Ottoman world. His approach was not necessarily meant to be prejudiced, although it had the effect of stereotyping Turks as duplicitous. He spoke of the danger of the empire, and looked for its sources. Deceptive appearances were not dangerous in themselves, but pointed to secret worlds and ways of being, backstages where real life was lived and frontstages where performances managed the dangers of public life. Nicolay drew the religious Turk as handsome and engaging, and not as dangerous. But he stood for a distance that foreigners learned to manage in the empire, when the line between visiting and belonging there began to blur.51 They lived in a liminal space between public and private life—a place of contested rules that made the Ottoman world dangerous to Europeans and made Ottomans vigilant observers of their actions.52

Book III: Socialization Practices, Controlled Animality, and Military Power. To Nicolay, the most frightening specter of the Ottoman world and most threatening figure for his own identity was also the most effective warrior under the Great Turk: the Janissary. This fearsome social actor was a product of carefully crafted socialization practices: a fierce soldier raised from a child of Christian slaves.53 The janissary was a merciless warrior who was disconcerting to Nicolay. The fact that such a soldier had European parents was troubling, and the fact that janissaries hated Europeans with unconstrained rage made them dangerous to the geographer if he tried to approach them—particularly when they were drunk. 3/22/09 23

Janissaries were on one level a reminder to Nicolay of the Turkish ability to absorb and use people from different backgrounds.54 Europeans, Jews, Persians, and other groups did not lose their distinctiveness in the Ottoman Empire, but their characters were adapted or shaped to serve Turkish needs and desires.55 European slaves, disconcertingly, could be turned into an effective and terrible fighting force, and forestalled in Nicolay any easy tendency to reduce Ottoman power to Turkish character or heritage. Janissaries began their transformation, according to Nicolay, as four-year old sons of Christian slaves, taken away from their families to be trained in Islam. Being removed from their families at such a young age and taught Islam made Janissaries malicious, Nicolay said, particularly to Christians. Their parents gave up their boys in the hope they would enjoy a better life. Since high-ranking officials of the empire were slaves, this hope was not without foundation. But the personal toll of the process was enormous.56 The Janissary depicted by Nicolay in his illustration was the consummate soldier with a sword, musket, and great uniform. He had the tall stature of a northern European, and a demeanor that exuded confidence. But the text suggested that he carried within him the unconstrained power of rage that was easily triggered against European Christians. The Janissary’s character was indelibly associated with a child’s (partially) suppressed anger; this emotion had an unparalleled purity that gave it profound intensity. The Janissary raised questions about nature and nurture that did not go unnoticed by Nicolay. This social type exemplified the vulnerability of people to their social context because 3/22/09 24

the social transformation of these boys was so complete. Still, the Janissary also raised questions about Europeans and their character that Nicolay did not want to address, but must have haunted his view of them.

Book IV: Social Marginalization and the Management of Diversity. If the military men of the empire were objects of fear and admiration for Nicolay, the men and women of the marketplace were more often objects of contempt. These were the consummate performers of the Ottoman empire, the entertainers, itinerant religious seekers, food sellers, and cut-throat merchants. The religious Turk with his deer that he depicted was a relative benign actor in this tumultuous world where meanings and values were exchanged along with goods and reputations. The bazaar was both highly public and the backstage to official life. Like the baths, it was a place where human desires could be let loose.

For Nicolay, the dangers of the markeplace were most closely identified with Hebrew merchants. He called them “detested and detestable,” exposing his own prejudices and those of the Ottomans, although expressed surprisingly little hostility to them compared to the Thracians. Perhaps their weaknesses seemed less threatening to his own identity, or he was pandering to his audience in this remark. In either case, he drew them as duplicitous merchants, using the same techniques he employed for Armenians, Arabs, and Moors. The Jewish merchants were shown in fine clothing: soft furs, finely detailed brocades or embroideries, and elegant turbans or hats. Nicolay pointed to them holding their fat bellies and 3/22/09 25

hiding their hands to reveal how they operated in the marketplace.57 If their danger lay in their economic skill, the same quality was also essential to the vitality of markets. This was part of what made the Ottoman empire powerful, and what made Jews essential to it. He may in fact have overestimated their numbers and economic importance in Ottoman Empire, but he did not overestimate their powers.58

The number of the Jews dwelling in all the cities of Turkey and Greece, and principally at Constantinople is so great, that it is marvelous and incredible. The number of these, using trade and traffic in merchandise, like money in usury, multiples daily, and the great hunt and bringing of merchandise from all parts by sea and land [by them] is such that it can be said that they handle the greatest merchandise and money in all the Levant. And the richest shops and warehouses in Constantinople belong to the Jews, and they are most excellent workmen in the arts and crafts....59

Nicolay praised their skills in business and manufacture but attributed their economic effectiveness as much to deceit as ability. Like the religious Turk, they were performers, and used their skills to get rich.

[T]his detested nation of the Jews, are men full of all malice, fraud, deceit, and subtle dealing...And since their extermination and the vengeance upon until this present day, they have had at no time any certain dwelling place upon the face of the earth but have always gone straying, dispersed and driven away from country to country. And yet even in this day in whatever region they are permitted to dwell, they are abhorred by God and men and more persecuted by the Turks.... [In Constantinople and other cities of the Turkish empire, they] are appareled with long costumes like other nations of the Levant, but must wear a yellow turban to make themselves known from others.60

What was interesting in this section of the book was not only Nicolay’s prejudices, but also his description of the marginalization practices with which the Ottomans controlled the Jews, keeping them part of the Ottoman world but clearly outside of it at the same time. 3/22/09 26

The Ottomans detested the Jews even more than others, Nicolay argued, but simply made them wear yellow turbans and live in ghettos. The diversity of the empire was not based on tolerance, per se, but rather the social use of differences and constraints on behavior that limited the ability of Jews to assert power with their riches. They were marginalized and marked as such so even in the marketplace where they flourished, they performed their stigmatized role.

Management of Social Diversity. The success of the Ottoman Empire in using “weaknesses of character” for political effect was most vividly portrayed in Nicolay’s description of Delli horsemen.

Dellis are adventurers, light horsemen of sorts, whose profession is to seek their adventures in the most dangerous places, where by violent feats of arms they show their strength and manhood. Because of this, they like to follow the army of the great Turk without any wages...[They are] of great stature, well shapen, and with big feet, their color being yellowish, but they are naturally malicious.. and easy to deceive. Notwithstanding this, they were greatly esteemed by Alexander the great....61

The Delli horseman, although not Turkish in origin, was drawn to the Ottoman army by his wild, uncivilized character that he liked to let loose in war. His clothing revealed his will to be 3/22/09 27

animalistic, like a great predatory bird. Unlike higher status soldiers and guards, his dress was not a cover for his brute nature, but a means for giving it form, and using his inner demons to wage war. The Turkish army was the perfect outlet for his desires because it cultivated and sought out such tendencies in men. He was both its most degraded specimen and most fearsome face. In the military culture of this empire, according to Nicolay, men were meant to be warriors, and warriors endured and inflicted pain without regret.62 The Janissaries were more effective than Dellis because their appearance so effectively masked their inner selves, and their rage was so easily channeled on European enemies. But Turkish power also grew from opportunistic exploitation of extant human frailty (rather than its cultivation in men like the Janissaries). This embrace of weaknesses was disturbing to Nicolay who became increasingly obsessed with his own moral status. But to the Ottomans, according to Meeker63 to act like an “animal” was to tap a vital source of passion and energy. The result was a collision of metaphysics that remained difficult for Nicolay to manage. So, he tried to analyze it, and saw in the Dellis a perfect embodiment of this ideal.

Conclusions. The power of the Turks lay partly in their military bravery and partly in their social knowledge: understanding and putting to political use the less-than-perfect world of human desires. Sometimes they used the desire of children for their parents to socialize Janissaries to hate Christians. Sometimes they took advantage of human greed by freeing the marketplace. Sometimes they simply embraced the animal desires of Delli horsemen to be the wild warriors. Nicolay catalogued not only the social types in the empire, but their political uses, describing the social relations the empire devised to channel human propensities into Ottoman power. Inside the Ottoman Empire, groups were constrained by tight political controls over public life, but enjoyed their freedom in private. Janissaries could get drunk behind closed doors and women could enjoy sex with each other in the baths. Jews could get rich, and religious men could go begging with their animals in the city. Dellis could fight like wild men and lackeys could run like the wind to feel their powers. The diversity of the empire worked because behavior was situationally defined and controlled, letting human desires and differences find expression in backstage sites like taverns, baths and ghettos while public life was highly 3/22/09 28

controlled. The result was a social order designed for war: organized into a singular power with discipline, but made tolerable by acceptance of a diversity of being and passion. Nicolay’s Navigations may not be a great piece of social analysis, or such a masterful account of Ottoman power, but it certainly pointed to the power of situational variables in the constitution of social order. Nicolay was primed for understanding behavior as situation by virtue of being a geographer, who was used to thinking of people as shaped by the natural world – by the vagaries of climate and landscape. He may have rejected geographical determinism, but he maintained the view that people were shaped by their environments. He simply took the salient environment to be social and understood Ottoman power to be based on this knowledge and its application. In this sense, the Navigations et Pérégrinations was an extension of period geographical practice. It was a voyage of discovery, but what was to be discovered was not a continent or city, but an empire. It was a voyage into social worlds and public performances, unconstrained passions and their political deployment. The Navigations was an early work of “science,” too, because it took as its analytic template the herbal, a form of botanical study. Nicolay might have relied on the observations of others about the inner life of Turkish baths or about the character of Jews or Thracians, but the power over the social fabric that he saw in the Ottoman Empire was not a figment of his imagination, but derived from his observations of the public and private lives of social types. 3/22/09 29

1 Reprinted as Nicolas de Nicolay, Dans l’Empire de Soliman le Magnifique. Paris: Presses

CNRS, 1980.

2 Frank Lestingant, Jean de Léry ou l’invention du sauvage. Paris Honoré Champion, 2005, p.

24.

3 Mary Baine Campbell, Wonder and Science: Imagining Worlds in Early Modern Europe.

Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999.

4 See for example, George Herbert Mead, On Social Psychology. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, 1964; Howard Becker, Outsiders. Glencoe: Free Press 1963; Michael Cole, Cultural

Psychology: a once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 1996.

5 Lestringant, Jean de Léry, pp. 24-26.

6 This was typical of the last part of the 16th century and the beginning of the 17th. Mercator said:

“It is a common Axiom among those, who are any wise elevated in the contemplation of the worke of this frame of the world, that God who is the Author thereof, is of an immense power, wisdome, and goodnesse, and …in handling Cosmographie, the infinite wisdome of God, and his inexhaust goodnesse, may be knowne…. [We are told by religious men] not to pry further into the hidden secrets and judgements of God, [than] he hath revealed unto us in his holy Word, [but exegeses of text] beget onlely opinions, not sciences, and therefore can bring no true wisdome along with them: but rather produce strange doctrines, which obscure and darken the truth. Let it

suffice us then, to know the truth of things, so farre forth, as history and sense reveales them to

us, and not according to opinions, whereof there is no science, and in so doing, we shall not erre, if we onely proceed in a right order.” (Mercator, 1637:1-2) 3/22/09 30

7 Frank Lestringant, André Thévèt. Geneve: Droz, 1991; David Hackett Fischer, Champlain’s

Dream. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2008.

8 Margaret Meserve, Empires of Islam in Renaissance Historical Thought. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

9 The view that animal ferocity was embraced in Ottoman culture remains part of anthropology.

See Michael Meeker, A Nation of Empire. Berekeley: University of California Press, 2002.

10 Nicolay, Dans l’Empire, introduction.

11 Meserve. Empires of Islam.

12 See for example, Jacques Mathieu, Le premier livres de plantes du Canada. Sainte-Foy,

Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval, 1998.

13 Nicolay, Dans l’Empire,, p. 44

14 Ibid, p. 43

15 Ian Hacking; Porter

16 Edward Said, Orientalism. New York: Pantheon, 1978.

17 Nicolay, Dans l’Empire, pp. 233-243, 244-253.

18 Meserve, Empires of Islam, pp. ???

19 Nicolay, Dans l’Empire, pp. 13, 21, 27

20 Ibid, p. 58.

21 Ibid, p. 58.

22 Ibid, p. 59.

23 Nicolay, “The Description of the Citie of Alger, written by Nicolas de Nicolay....” in Samuel

Purchase, Pilgrimes. London: 1625, pp. 874-881, particularly 874-875.

24 Ibid, p. 878. 3/22/09 31

25 1980, p. 61

26 Nicolay, 1585, pp.22-22v

27 Meeker, Nation of Empire, pp. 111-112, 144-146; Albert Howe Lybyer, The government of the Ottoman empire in the time of . Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press, ch.1.

28 Nicolay in Purchase, p. 881.

29 Ibid, p. 881.

30 Nicolay in Purchase; “The History of Alger, with the History of its falling into the hands of

Barbarossa....” in John Harris, Navigantium atque Itinerantium Bibliotheca. London, 1705, pp.

367-369.

31 Nicolay in Leonclavius ca. 1588:13-14

32 Lybyer, Government of the Ottoman Empire, pp.129-130.

33 see Cosgrove, 1992.

34 Nicolay, Dans l’Empire, pp. 167-168

35 Ibid, p. 170.

36 Ibid, pp. 167-168.

37 Ibid, pp. 167-168.

38 Campbell, Empires of Islam, pp. ???

39 Nicolay, Dans l’Empire, p. 168.

40 Ibid, p. 12

41 Maria Antonia Gracés, Cervantes in Algiers, Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, pp. 15-

45, 182-229.

42 Nicolay, Dans l’Empire, pp. 246-247. 3/22/09 32

43 Nicolay (Dans l’Empire, p. 118) refers to this tradition of thought in his discussion of Gallipoli in Thrace. He says that some argue the name of the town means city of the Gauls because the

French had lived there. With this turn of phrase, he does not equate the French with the

Thracians, as some would have done at the time, but certainly indicates some knowledge of this discussion.

44 Meserve, Empires of Islam, pp.??

45 Nicolay, Dans l’Empire, pp. 135-140.

46 Edhem Eldem, “The ‘other’ in an Ottoman context.” in Virginia Akson and Daniel Goffman,

The Early Modern Ottomans. Cambridge University Press, 2007, pp. 61-74.

47 Bodies that Matter. New York: Routledge,1993.

48 Goffman 1959;1963; 1974; Becker 1982; Star 1995.

49 Goffman, “On Cooling the Mark Out.”

50 Nicolay, Dans l’Empire, p. 198

51 Eldem, pp. 64-67

52 Gábor Ágoston, “Information, ideology and the limits of imperial policy: the Ottoman grand strategy in the context of Ottoman-Habsburg rivalry.” in Virginia Akson and Daniel Goffman,

The Early Modern Ottomans. Cambridge University Press, 2007, pp. 75-103, particularly pp. 79-

84.

53 Ágoston, “Information, ideology,” pp. 79-80.

54 Lybyer, Government of the Ottoman Empire, pp. 91-97.

55 Ágoston, “Information, ideology,” pp. 79-80; Lybyer, Government of the Ottoman Empire, pp.

79-82

56 Lybyer, Government of the Ottoman Empire, pp. 79-82. 3/22/09 33

57 Nicolay, Dans l’Empire, pp. 233-235.

58 Compare to Ágoston, “Information, ideology,” p. 83; Yaron Ben-Naeh, Jews in the Realm of the Sultans Ottoman Jewish Society in the Seventeenth Century. Jerusalem: Mohr Siebeck, 2008, particularly pp. 56-62, 317-350.

59 Nicolay, Dans l’Empire, pp. 233-234; compare to Ben-Naeh, pp. 317-350. Nicolay argues for their power over the marketplaces of the empire, and speaks of an earlier period. Ben-Naeh sees fewer Jews in the empire, but assigns to them greater influence over the conduct of economic life in the empire.

60 Nicolay, Dans l’Empire, p. 234.

61 Ibid, pp. 226-228

62 Lybyer, Government of the Ottoman Empire, ch. 4.

63 Meeker, Nation of Empire.