Cover Page The handle http://hdl.handle.net/1887/22974 holds various files of this Leiden University dissertation Author: Olnon, Merlijn Title: “Brough under the law of the land” : the history, demography and geography of crossculturalism in early modern Izmir, and the Köprülü project of 1678 Issue Date: 2014-01-08 The European City In short, among the possessions of the Ottoman dynasty there are two-hundred and sixty populous trading ports. Of these cities importing and exporting cargo, the port of Izmir is the most famous. For in all the world there are eighteen unbelieving [Christian] kings that have befriended the Ottoman dynasty and all their balios [consuls of the Italian city- states] and consuls reside there. And their merchants bring products from all over the face of the earth and goods from all the peoples of the world. Every year a thousand ships come and go to have their goods sold in this city of Izmir. Thus, this place has become a truly shining trading port adorned with bustling quays. And because of these malevolent Frank- ish ships arriving, half the city of Izmir resembles the land of the Franks [Western Eu- rope]. And if someone strikes an unbeliever of rank, doormen and watchmen immediately encircle the man and, without showing any mercy whatsoever, bring him straight before the judge. Whether the judge kills him or the unbelievers, then and there the corpse is lost to the Muslims. On one side, therefore, the place is sinister like Malta and modeled on the land of the Franks. But because of the charm of this city’s light-blue sky there are such attractive tavern-waiters, young monks and unbelieving unripe beauties with their locks let down – as to bring the minds of lovers still further to the same disorder as that of a beauty’s hair.200 Of such qualities are the beauties born of the tavern-keep. And the markets and bazaars of this Frankish quarter are very richly adorned. In its public squares stand seven churches, which they call places of worship, where they can perform their corrupted rites and evil cere- monies. These are sinister places brimful with Patriarchs and priests. And all the houses of the polytheists [those professing the Holy Trinity, here; Greeks and Armenians] are in the northern part of the city; many more houses of impious unbelievers [here; Franks] being situated among the buildings along the [outer] harbor’s shore. In going back and forth between their ships and [these] their houses in boats, they always fire a canon from every ship [in salute]. As it is their custom to do so night and day, the city of Izmir is never spared the canons’ noise. Evliya (1671)201 History Considering 17th-century Izmir as a double city consisting of distinct Otto- man and European parts not only strengthens our awareness of the city’s 200 Here, Evliya draws heavily upon the Persian-Ottoman lyrical tradition to sing the praises of Izmir’s Frankish quarter. The motif used is that in which intoxication with the love of God is likened to the intoxication caused by the consumption of inordinate amounts of wine. In this topos the object of the metaphorical alcohol-induced enamoredness is the person filling the glasses; the tavern-waiter. This is usually a young monk since the Islamic prohibition of alcohol meant that wine was only (supposed to be) available in Christian monasteries. Cleverly toying with the possibilities offered by both the unsuspect language of the accepted literary topos and the absence of gender in the Turkish language, however, Evliya is in fact paraphrasing the very real alcoholic and (hetero)sexual pleasures to be had in the taverns of the European quarter (see infra). 201 Evliya, Seyahatname 9, 96-97 (my translation). 141 history as a frontier; it also forces us to think about what defined and sepa- rated the city’s parts in the minds of its inhabitants and visitors. As such, the interest of Evliya’s description above not only lies in its being a rare Otto- man narrative description of the city’s situation, but also in its providing a clear illustration of contemporary attitudes towards the city’s constituent communities. While everyone, be they Ottoman or European, seemed to agree wholeheartedly upon the basic polarity between the Turkish and Frankish zones, the status of the Armenian, Greek and – to a lesser degree – Jewish elements was never so clear. The following sections will discuss the historical causes of this ambivalence, its development in light of a growing European presence, and the history of that privileged presence as embodied in the Ottoman capitulations. From “the Community of Non-Muslims” to “Frank Street” As the foregoing has shown, the dichotomy between East and West, land and sea, Muslim and Christian, Turk and Greek played an important part in shaping Izmir, in body as well as in soul. Due to the geographical characteris- tics of the city’s location this dichotomy was translated to one of North- South, lower-upper on the ground. Among other things, it is apparent in the location of the city’s two fortresses and in the distribution of its population over quarters according to creed. After the Battle of Manzikert (1071) opened up Anatolia to the full thrust of Central-Asian migration, centuries of growing Turkish population pres- sure, a crushing Mongolian invasion (Timur Lenk’s of 1402) and the subse- quent restoration of the Ottoman emirate had combined to press Izmir’s Byzantine/Greek population north; ever further away from the ancient ago- ra, the inner harbor, and eventually from the last vestige of its former inde- pendence, the lower castle. Guarded opposition, always at least partially mili- tary, was superseded by cautious cohabitation. A cohabitation, nevertheless, in which the former frontier still lingered as ethno-religious and administra- tive separation. The definitive incorporation, in 1424, of a now marginalized Greek element into the Ottoman polity, although not doing away completely with the lingering frontier of a status aparte, did formally dissolve the Greco- Turkish duality. This did not, however, mean the end of the East-West dichotomy in Iz- mir. For as the Greco-Turkish dimension was losing relevance (through increased incorporation of the Greeks into the Ottoman polity), the East- West quality of Izmir’s inner frontier was given a new lease on life by Latins (and later Franks) representing the Western side of the equation. We have already noted how the Venetians and Genoese had acquired increasing pow- er in the region, leading to a formalization of the Genoese presence in Izmir in 1304, how a Frankish contingent had taken the lower castle in 1344, and how Latins and Franks had conjointly taken over where the Byzantines were forced to leave off. With the departure of the Knights Hospitallers in 1402 142 and the Ottomans firmly in control of the city and its bay from 1424, the military and political power of the Latins no longer extended to the Anatoli- an coast. Nevertheless, their commercial influence, though diminished, seems to have been uninterrupted. There is no definitive proof for it, but in all likelihood the presence of Latin and perhaps even Frankish resident merchants in Izmir survived the string of Seljukid, Byzantine, Aydınoğlu, Timurid and Ottoman takeovers. Mercantile evidence apart, as much is also suggested by the existence of priv- ileges awarded the Venetians and Cyprus by the Seljuks of Rum in 1207, the Genoese by the Byzantines in 1304, the Holy League (i.e. the Papacy, Venice, the Knights Hospitallers and Cyprus) by the Aydınoğlus in 1348, and the Genoese and Venetians by the Ottomans starting from the mid-14th century onwards.202 Although Izmir is not explicitly referred to in these documents, the frequency with which it was fought over, was used as a naval (victualing) base, and was maintained as the regional seat of government does signal an unceasing desire to capture it for its commercial riches and implies that the various rulers must have pragmatically protected its commercial routes and ventures in times of military upheaval and administrative transition. It is this pragmatism that accounts for the common practice among all heirs to the Byzantine possessions to confirm the privileges awarded by their predeces- sors and often to extend them significantly. Given the continuity of Izmir’s status as commercial center during many otherwise tumultuous stretches of its history, it is fair to assume that the Genoese quarter of 1304 with its loggia, bath, bakery, church and so on was in fact the first incarnation of 17th-century Izmir’s Frenk Mahallesi. Even so, one should take care not to ascribe too much value to the continuity of Eu- ropean trade through Izmir. It would be tempting to construe its history as one of steady growth, promoted by stable resident “foreign” merchant communities somehow impervious to the vicissitudes of the great historical changes that were occurring in the region. In fact, though a general need was felt to protect the city’s international commerce, its masters did not com- mand the full length of the trade routes running through their territories. On their end they could attempt to keep the risks and costs of transport to a minimum and guarantee proper conditions for an uninterrupted flow of commodities, but what happened further along the routes was beyond their control. 202 For the texts here referred to, as well as others, see, e.g., İnalcik, “Imtiyāzāt”, 1182b-83a and throughout. See also Dölger, Regesten 4; and Theunissen, Ottoman-Venetian Diplomatics. There are many corpora of Byzantine, pre-Ottoman and Ottoman privileges, treaties and capitulations and even more discussions of their history.