sign in sign up
<<
Home , Berat, Courtier, Desservant, Ebussuud Efendi, Ernest Mamboury, Galata

AIX- UNIVERSITE ********

THESIS To obtain the grade of DOCTOR OF AIX-MARSEILLE Doctoral College N° 355: Espaces, Cultures, Sociétés

Presented and defended publically by Vanessa R. DE OBALDÍA 18 December 2018

TITLE

A Legal and Historical Study of Properties in from the Ottoman Conquest of 1453 until 1740

Thesis supervisor: Randi DEGUILHEM

Jury AKARLI Engin, emeritus professor, İstanbul Şehir University BORROMEO Elisabetta, Ingénieur d’Études, CNRS, Collège de , DEGUILHEM Randi, Directrice de Recherche, CNRS, TELEMMe-MMSH, Aix- Marseille University, Aix-- GHOBRIAL John-Paul, associate professor, University of Oxford GRADEVA Rossitsa, professor, American University of , rapporteure SERMET Laurent, professor, Institut d’Études Politiques, Aix-en-Provence TOLAN John, professor, University of Nantes, rapporteur

To my mother for all her support and loving care.

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i ABSTRACT ii INTRODUCTION iv

PART I: The legal status of Roman Catholics and their Religious Orders in Ottoman Istanbul 1. Introduction 1 2. and Pera 1 a. Galata 1 b. Pera 5 3. The demographic composition of Roman Catholics in Galata & Pera 8 4. The legal status of Roman Catholics in /Istanbul 15 a. Pre-conquest - Catholics as a semi-autonomous colony 15 b. Post-conquest - Catholics as zimmīs 16 5. The legal status of Latin Catholic religious orders 20 a. According to Ottoman 20 b. Compared to the status of Orthodox and Armenian churches and Jews 25 in the capital 6. The representatives of Latin Catholic churches and ecclesiastical properties 35 a. La Magnifica Comunità di Pera 35 b. La Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide 40 c. The foreign Catholic powers 43 7. Conclusion 47

PART II: The Ottoman Legal Position on Latin Properties and Land – Doctrine and Practice 48 1. Introduction 48 2. The legal status of land in Ottoman Galata 50 a. Categorisation of land based on Land Codes 51 a.i. Mīrī, Mülk, Vaḳıf, Metrūk, Mevāt 51 b. Categorisation of land according to conquest 55 b.i. Land conquered peacefully (ṣulḥen) 55 b.ii. Land conquered by force (ʿanveten) 55 b.iii. The status of land in Galata following the Ottoman conquest (ʿahdnāmes, ḳānūnnāmes) 58 c. Ottoman policy towards ecclesiastical lands in Galata 59 c.i. According to the acquisition of land 59 c.ii. According to contemporary Ottoman chronicles 61 c.iii. According to the ʿahdnāme of 1453 63 c.iv. According to rulings in Istanbul court records (1660 & 1697) 65 3. The legal status of buildings in Ottoman Istanbul 74 a. Categorisation of buildings in Ottoman Galata 78 a.i. Mülk 79 a.ii. Vaḳıf 80 a.iii. Mīrī 82 b. Ottoman policy towards Roman Catholic ecclesiastical properties in Galata 85 b.i. In the light of fetva rulings 85

i

b.ii. According to the irāde of the 94 b.iii. In relation to the Ottoman policy of destruction-reconstruction 97 4. Conclusion 104

PART III: Ecclesiastical properties of the Dominicans and Capuchins – disputes and vaḳıf 106 1. Introduction 106 2. The Dominicans of SS. Peter and Paul 107 a. Establishment of the Dominicans in the Ottoman Capital 107 b. A Short of the Church and Priory of SS. Peter and Paul 109 b.i. Pre-1453 Ottoman Conquest 109 b.ii. Post-1453 Ottoman Conquest 111 c. Properties 116 d. Property disputes 119 d.i. Vaḳıf Trustee Ṣāliḥ Efendi v. French Merchant David Maggi 123 d.i.i. Parties 123 d.i.ii. Subject of litigation 124 d.i.iii. Details of the case 124 d.i.iv. A case for the claimant 125 d.i.v. A case for the defendant 126 d.i.vi. Judgement 130 e. Conclusion 132 3. The Capuchins of St. Louis of the French 133 a. Establishment of the Capuchins in the Ottoman Capital 133 b. A Short History of the Chapel of St. Louis of the French 139 c. Properties 143 c.i Acquisition of properties 143 d. Property disputes 146 d.i. Minor Capuchin v. ambassadorial employee 146 d.i.i. Parties 146 d.i.ii. Subject of litigation 146 d.i.iii. Details of the case 147 d.i.iv. A case for the claimant 149 d.i.v. A case for the defendant 149 d.i.vi. Other evidence 151 d.i.vii. Judgement 153 d.ii. Jesuits v. Friars Minor Capuchin 153 d.ii.i. Parties 154 d.ii.ii. Subject 154 d.ii.iii. Details of the case 155 d.ii.iv. A case for the claimant 156 d.ii.v. A case for the defendant 157 d.ii.vi. Judgement 161 d.ii.vii. Conclusion 162 e. Fetvas from St. Louis of the French 162 f. Conclusion 169 4. Understanding the Latin Catholic Ecclesiastical vaḳıf 170 a. Introduction 170 b. The meaning of Christian vaḳıf 170 c. Christian vaḳıfs according to Islamic legal doctrine 172

ii

c.i. Rules on existing vaḳıfs at the time of the Islamic conquest 173 c.ii. Rules on the creation of new vaḳıfs 174 d. Christian vaḳıfs according to Ottoman legal practice 174 d.i. Ecclesiastical buildings and land 178 e. Latin Catholic vaḳıfs 182 e.i. Through the Dominican properties 187 e.ii Through the Capuchin properties 192 f. Conclusion 193 5. Conclusion 194

PART IV: The French over the Latin Catholic churches of Ottoman Istanbul 1. Introduction 196 2. General: French influence over the Latin Catholic religious orders, churches and properties 197 a. The power of diplomacy 197 b. The significance of the Ottoman-French Capitulations in securing the protectorate 200 bi. Definition and general objective of the Capitulations 200 bii. Overview of the capitulatory agreements granted by the Ottoman to the French 203 biii. Individual articles granting privileges to the Latin Catholic religious orders, their churches, properties, institutions and activities. 206 3. Specific: The French protectorate through Ottoman firmāns of the conventual archives.216 a. Definition of firmāns 216 b. Legal weight of firmāns 218 c. The Church of SS. Peter and Paul 219 ci. Translation and analysis of the firmāns 220 d. The Church of St. Louis of the French 224 di. Translation and analysis of the firmāns 224 4. Specific: The French protectorate through letters patent, by the French king and diplomatic correspondence found in the conventual archives 226 a. Definition and legal weight of the letters 227 b. Analysis of the letters 227 5. Limitations 228 a. On ecclesiastical properties 228 b. On the activities of Latin 229 6. Concessions and privileges 236 a. Additional areas of French ambassadorial influence over individual church affairs 236 b. Privileges and preferences granted to the French king and ambassadors by these churches 243 7. Conclusion 246

CONCLUSION 248 BIBLIOGRAPHY 252 APPENDIX I. Prints, Ottoman & European Documents 281 II. Glossary 299

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am indebted to my supervisor, Prof. Randi Deguilhem, for her continual advice and encouragement of my ambitious research subject from its inception and during all the alterations that it underwent along the way, as well as for her invaluable guidance during the final phase of the doctorate. I extend my heartfelt gratitude to Prof. Engin Deniz Akarlı, Prof. Mehmet Genç, Prof. Hatice Aynur, Assist. Prof. Yunus Uğur, Prof. Abdurrahman Atçıl and Dr. Himmet Taşkömür for allowing me to audit their graduate courses in Ottoman history, palaeography and diplomatics at İstanbul Şehir University and likewise to Prof. Suraiya Faroqhi at Bilgi University in Istanbul. I wish to also extend my gratitude to Prof. Macit Kenanoğlu for his numerous informal discussions on the subject of in the from a legal perspective. I express my appreciation to Yücel Demirel, Budak Kayabek and Abdullah Uğur for helping me to improve my reading ability of manuscripts and for inspiring me with their enthusiasm for the language. A special thanks goes to Prof. Engin Deniz Akarlı, Dr. Claudio Monge O.P. and Dr. Aidan Nichols O.P. for their insightful feedback and comments on sections of an earlier draft of this thesis and for their corrections on language and terminology in particular. Likewise, to Rodrigo Araúz for editing my French texts. I also wish to express my sincere gratitude to Prof. Engin Akarlı from İstanbul Şehir University, Dr. Elisabetta Borromeo from the Collège de France, Assoc. Prof. John-Paul Ghobrial from the University of Oxford, Prof. Rossitsa Gradeva from the American University of Bulgaria, Prof. Laurent Sermet professor from IEP Aix-en-Provence, and Prof. John Tolan from the University of Nantes for their participation as members of my PhD jury and especially to Prof. Gradeva and Prof. Tolan for their valuable comments in their reports. I would like to thank the following individuals for providing access to archives and libraries: Dr. Claudio Monge O.P. for the Dominican archives of SS. Peter and Paul in Istanbul; Anne le Bastard for the Constantinople collection of the Archives des Capucins de France located in Paris; Prof. Kate for the Skilliter Centre at Newnham College in Cambridge; and the staff at the following institutions for their helpfulness and assistance: the Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi in Istanbul; the Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü Vakıf Kayıtlar Arşivi in ; the Centre des Archives diplomatics and Archives Nationales in Paris; the Rare Books Department at Cambridge University Library; the library of the Institut Français d'Études

i

Anatoliennes (IFEA), the Araştırmaları Merkezi (İSAM) in Istanbul; and the Institut Catholique de Paris (ICP). I am grateful to the TÜBİTAK 2216 Research Fellowship Programme for International Researchers for generously funding a ten-month period in as a research fellow at İstanbul Şehir University, as well as to the IFEA and TELEMMe for their grants for the undertaking of short-term research in Istanbul and Paris. Finally, my most profound gratitude goes to my mother for her unwavering and support throughout all the highs and lows during the four years of my doctorate.

ii

ABSTRACT

This doctoral thesis seeks to address the subjects of Latin Catholic church properties in Istanbul’s traditionally Christian majority districts of Galata and Pera from the perspective of Ottoman legal doctrine and practice while providing wider historical contextualisation. The study aims to explore the theme of ecclesiastical properties and their affiliated religious orders primarily through Ottoman primary sources, in addition to European sources such as letters patent, diplomatic and apostolic correspondence found in the conventual archives of the Dominicans of SS. Peter and Paul in Galata and the Capuchins of St. Louis of the French in Pera. The thesis is divided into four sections. Part I seeks to situate the Latin Catholic community, religious orders and properties in terms of their location, demographics, legal status to and following the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople, as well as their position in relation to the Empire’s other religious minorities so as to ascertain the variations in Ottoman policy towards religious minorities. Moreover, the central roles and influence of the local and international bodies of the Magnifica Comunità di Pera and the Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide, which were responsible for the and the administration of the ecclesiastical properties in Galata and Pera in addition to the impact of the foreign Catholic powers as protectors are examined. Part II two main objectives. The first is to present a structured and clear overview on the subjects of land and property of minorities in the Ottoman Empire, especially in post-conquest lands in order to give contextualisation and placement to the subsequent analysis of Latin Catholic ecclesiastical properties in Galata. The second is to explore already touched- upon primary sources from a new approach and established theories in relation to lands and properties in Galata, as well as to examine unexplored Ottoman primary sources found within the conventual archives in order to come to more definitive conclusions regarding the status of ecclesiastical properties. In Part III, a detailed examination of three property disputes in addition to the conceptual and practical implications of the Latin Catholic ecclesiastical vaḳıf be presented. Each legal case is preceded by a short history about the establishment in Istanbul of the religious order in question and the church to which it affiliated, as well as an overview of their respective properties including methods of acquisition and loss. The section of property disputes is followed by an overview of the Christian vaḳıf in general, in terms of Ottoman legal practice

iii and doctrine and an understanding of the Latin Catholic ecclesiastical vaḳıf in specific, through the properties of the Dominican and Capuchin religious orders. Part IV focuses on the Ottoman and French legal documents that secured and facilitated the role of France as the protector of Catholicism in Ottoman lands: capitulations (ʿaḥdnāmes), imperial edicts (firmāns), and letters patent. Moreover, the conventual archives of SS. Peter and Paul and the archives of St. Louis of the French contain a collection of imperial edicts directly related to the French ambassadors and the protectorate of France over the Dominican church and the French ambassadorial chapel. I analyse these with the objective of determining the legal implications and the extent of the influence of the Catholic power over the churches’ affairs. Finally, detailed in this part are the limits of contractual relations between France and the Ottoman Empire. Both the capitulations and imperial edicts granted the religious orders legal permission to perform their and apostolic missions, and guaranteed the protection of ecclesiastical property. Nevertheless, their activities could still be hindered and their properties seized as a result of sudden changes in the Ottoman domestic policy.

iv

INTRODUCTION

The primary objective of this study is to fill the void that exists in research on Latin Catholic ecclesiastical properties and religious orders in Ottoman Galata and Pera from a legal perspective. A large body of literature exists on the history of Latin Catholic orders and their respective churches in Istanbul, yet, this is primarily either a descriptive account of their presence, evolution and demise in some instances or a primarily architectural survey of their churches albeit taking into consideration social and economic variables. Those studies which do treat the issue of church conversions and the situation of Catholicism in the Ottoman capital do so on the basis of Western sources, failing to tap into the vast reserve of Ottoman documents which treat the issue of the churches. One of the first systematic attempts to provide a comprehensive history of Latin Catholic churches in the Ottoman capital during the Ottoman era was that of François-Alphonse Belin’s Histoire de la Latinité de Constantinople. Ottoman-Catholic relations are treated in books like Charles Frazee’s Catholics and Sultans but these publications draw exclusively or primarily on Western and occasionally Greek sources. Therefore, through a careful examination of Ottoman documents, new information comes to light on issues concerning Ottoman policy on the status of Latin Catholic religious orders, ecclesiastical lands and buildings and their preservation and related property disputes, in addition to the state’s recognition of foreign Latin Catholic powers as vanguards of Catholicism in Ottoman lands. A wide variety of both Ottoman and European primary sources were used to achieve the objectives of this thesis. For Part I, I used accounts and observations by Ottoman and European travelers. In Part II, texts of jurisprudence, Ottoman peace , land codes, court records and Islamic responsa as well as Ottoman chronicles were used to determine the status of lands and buildings in Galata and Pera in addition to the status of ecclesiastical properties. Part III relied primarily on documents from the Dominican and Capuchin archives, Latin Catholic endowment , Islamic endowment charters (vaḳfıyes) and diplomatic memoires when presenting the history of the two churches and affiliated religious orders and their property disputes as well as an overview of the Latin Catholic endowment with their respective case studies. The diplomatic role of France in the protection of Catholicism in Ottoman lands, in general, and the churches, religious orders and lay people in the Ottoman capital, in particular, detailed in Part IV was examined through capitulations, imperial edicts, letters patent, royal decrees, and diplomatic and apostolic correspondence.

v

Contents: The Ottoman juridical texts themselves demonstrate how non-Muslims were integrated into the legal reasoning as part of the juridical system by not being confined to a separate chapter but rather rulings on them being interspersed throughout chapters of wider subject content.1 Part I aims to give placement to the subject matter geographically, demographically and legally. It also answers questions about the degree of the Latin Catholics’ autonomy in relation to the other Christian denominations and the identification of its local and foreign temporal, spiritual and diplomatic representatives. When analysing the Ottoman legal position towards land and buildings in Galata, it is necessary to approach the subject from the aspect of general and principles which were laid down in , comprised of şerīʿat and ḳānūn, before examining state policy towards individual churches. Part II seeks to address questions surrounding the status of lands and buildings which were in the possession of non-Muslims and the Latin Catholic churches from the aspect of legal doctrine and its practical application. The former is examined through established jurisprudence on the methods of conquest and the modes of territorial acquisition as well as through established codes and peace contracts. The latter is analysed through the ways by which additional legal mechanisms such as Islamic responsa and the will of the sultan influenced the shaping of Ottoman policy towards ecclesiastical properties, particularly, in relation to the construction, destruction, re-construction and repair of churches and friaries/priories. The fate of the churches and religious orders were inextricably linked. On the one hand, without the of a church, it was difficult for a religious order to maintain a presence in the traditionally Christian districts of Galata and Pera in the Ottoman capital due to the prohibition on the construction of new churches. On the other hand, without a religious presence at the church, it was liable to be confiscated on the basis of abandonment. Therefore, the religious orders sought different means of securing their churches and affiliated properties and expanding them through a variety of sources, which often included endowments. Nevertheless, ecclesiastical properties were often vulnerable to disputes.

1 Christian Müller argues that Non-Muslims were not an external element of the juridical system but fully integrated into it through his analysis of the Maliki legal manual al-Kāfī fī alh al-Madīna by Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr al-Namarī al-Andalūsī (d.1071). Christian Müller, “Non-Muslims as part of Islamic law: Juridical casuistry in a fifth/eleventh-century law manual,” in The Legal Status of Dimmī-s in the Islamic West, eds. Maribel Fierro and John Tolan (Madrid: Brepolis, 2013), 21-64.

vi

Part III addresses the history of two churches located in Galata and Pera, their affiliated religious orders and their property acquisitions and losses in addition to three legal disputes in regard to these properties. It seeks to address questions surrounding the recourses available to Latin Catholic friars in the resolution of their property disputes, arguments and documents which were presented by the claimants and defendants as well as who had the jurisdiction to judge these cases. Moreover, the subject of the Latin Catholic endowment will be treated by assessing how the religious orders circumnavigated the Ottoman laws on vaḳıf in order to acquire a revenue-generating form of property in addition to the degree to which these endowments were accommodated under the Ottoman legal framework. In his book, under Islam in , Oded Peri criticises the views that the Ottomans had no established policy as regards the Christian Holy Sites, questioning the position that this policy was based on the whims of the ruling sultan. He furthermore rejects the that consistency in policy was merely a reflection of the Empire’s relations with European powers. Rather, he argues that Ottoman policy towards the Christian Holy Sites was governed by law and as such, “the inconsistencies occasionally found in the religious policy of the Ottoman state were simply deviations from a definite and established norm.”2 I likewise adopt the argument in Part IV that relations between the Ottoman state and Catholics residing within its borders as well as with repect to their ecclesiastical properties were governed by Ottoman law. This part gives prominence to the role of the French ambassador in the negotiation of diplomatic accords (ʿuhud) in the form of capitulations (ʿahdnāmes), imperial edicts (firmāns) in addition to letters patent.

Methodology: The temporal limits of this thesis, which encapsulates the time period following the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453 up until the first eighteenth-century Ottoman capitulation granted to France in 1740, may appear overly ambitious for a historical and legal study on Latin Catholic ecclesiastical property. However, such research was made possible due to a strict focus of sources, primarily, those within the two Latin Catholic conventual archives: the Dominican archives of SS. Peter and Paul of Galata and the Capuchins archives of St. Louis of the French of Pera, two churches with their affiliated religious orders which are, in themselves, the main subject of this study. I stop at the capitulation of 1740 which has been

2 Oded Peri, Christianity under Islam in Jerusalem: The Question of the Holy Sites in Early Ottoman Times, (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 50.

vii described as marking the peak of French influence in the Ottoman Empire in the eighteenth century.3 It also marked the change in the status of the treaty to in perpetuo, thus rendering the process of renewal and extension for subsequent capitulations unnecessary. The methodology of case studies has been employed in the section relating to property disputes and Latin Catholic endowments, the choice having been determined by the primary source material. While its application in the field of history can be criticised for its lack of comprehensive representation, historians such as Maurits Van den Boogert deem the methodology of case studies “indispensable” for certain subjects for determining the boundaries of consular jurisdiction which were “defined and redefined by individual disputes that challenged them”.4 While the archive catalogue for Istanbul for the two respective orders were rich in entries concerning property-related documents in Ottoman Turkish, French and Italian, documents relating to deeds, property contracts - including sales, transfers and donations, were no longer extant within the archives. Consequently, those which remained could feasibly be grouped into three separate case studies providing extensive description of the property problems faced by the Dominican and Capuchin religious orders. I have also presented a detailed description of the different types of documents used in this thesis in order to show the variety of primary sources, both Ottoman and European, that can be employed, more generally, in the study of Latin Catholicism in the Ottoman Empire and, in particular, the study of Latin Catholic ecclesiastical properties and religious orders from a legal perspective. These documents are also applicable for studying the French role in the safeguarding of Catholicism in the from a diplomatic perspective.

Language in the Ottoman documents: In Ottoman legal documents, standard terminology was used to refer to the Latin Catholic religious orders and their ecclesiastical properties. Places of were referred to as either kilise or more commonly as kenīse. However, no distinction was made between church and chapel whereas the residence of the friars, be it a friary, priory or house, was defined as papāz odaları (lit. the rooms of the priests).

3 Robert Olson, “The Ottoman-French Treaty of 1740: A Year to be Remembered?,” Turkish Studies Association Bulletin 15, no. 2 (1991): 347. 4 Maurits H. Van Den Boogert, The Capitulations and the Ottoman Legal System: Qadis, Consults and Beraths in the 18th Century (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 14. Although he also highlights the fact that such methodology has been criticised by Edhem Eldem who agues that individual cases are not representative, here, Eldem refers specifically to cases relating to trade. Edhem Eldem, French Trade in Istanbul in the Eighteenth Century (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 229.

viii

In the court records and imperial edicts, the Latin Catholic clergy and friars are referred to by the following terms: frenk (Frank), efrenc/efrenç (Franks), frenk mezhebi (Frankish rite), papāz (priest), rāhib (/), ruhbān (), ecnebī rāhib (foreign monk), keşīş (friar) and kefere ṭāifesi ( ). In the mühimme registers, which are a compilation of the judgements issued by the Imperial Council (Dīvān-ı Hümāyūn), the terms kenīse, küffār ṭāifesi, kāfirler and āyin-ı bāṭiler are predominantly used when describing Latin Catholic churches, friars, parishioners and their rites. Church names are often affiliated to the religious order which administered the church at the time, rather than appearing as the church name . For example, Louis is described as the “Church of the Capuchins in Pera”. One should note that the Ottoman spelling of the word “Capuchin” varies greatly as does its transliteration into Latin letters from the Ottoman Turkish since it had been written phonetically. Therefore, one finds kapuçin, kapusin, kapuşin, capucin and the less common versions of kapuchin, capucin, capuçin and kapoçin.5 Nonetheless, the church of SS. Peter and Paul is rarely if ever referred to as the “Church of the Dominicans” (Dominikan kilisesi). Rather, an abbreviation of the proper church name is given in the majority of the Ottoman documents in this study as the Italian “San Petro”; it appears in the following variations: sān petro and sān betro. As regards the language in Ottoman Islamic responsa (fetvas), where names are not altogether omitted, it can be observed that the traditional Muslim hypothetical names, are used when referring to Christians. This can be noted in the majority of fetvas referring to zimmīs, in which the traditional Zeyd, ʿAmr and Bekir for men and Hind for women are not Christianised or made to sound Jewish depending on the religious adherence of the subject.6

A note on Transliteration: I have followed the transliteration system of the International Journal of Studies for the Ottoman Turkish and Turkish sources. When quoting directly form an Ottoman document, I have given the Ottoman orthography. Any alternative transliterations presented in the of books or articles are the result of in the system of transliteration that exisits in Turkey. The occasional Arabic transliteration that appears likewise follow the IJMES system.

5 These transliterations appear in the digitalised summaries of the documents at the Istanbul Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi (hereafter BOA). 6 For examples of such covering the different areas of jurisprudence, see Pehlul Düzenli, Gayri- Müslimlere Dair Fetvalar (Istanbul: Klasik, 2015).

ix

All the translations provided from Ottoman Turkish, French and Italian into English are mine unless otherwise stated. Likewise, all the transliterations of Ottoman Turkish texts into Latin script are mine unless otherwise stated.

Difficulties: I had originally intended that a significant portion of this thesis be dedicated to the theme of Latin Catholic vaḳıfs, therefore filling the void that exists on the subject and contributing to the literature that already exists on Christian vaḳıfs in the Ottoman Empire, primarily, those of the Orthodox, Armenians and . Unfortunately, due to the dearth of primary sources and the lack of secondary sources on the subject of Latin Catholic vaḳıfs in Istanbul during the time period encapsulated by this thesis, it was not possible to include a study on this topic. Rather, two different types of Latin Catholic endowments have been presented, as mentioned above: piae causae and indirect vaḳıfs. Firstly, I studied properties endowed to the religious orders which were granted legal recognition and registered by the administrative council of the Latin Catholics. Secondly, I analysed properties belonging to the religious order and their respective churches which were registered within the Ottoman legal system under the name of an individual possessing a legal identity and were thus transformed into vaḳıf, unbeknown to the state that they were for the benefit of the friars and the churches. Other difficulties emerged during the research phase of the thesis which shaped the final subject matter. The main ones included: 1. Missing or non-extant documents and difficulties tracing their whereabouts. Some of the most significant documents referring to property transactions which appeared in the catalogues of the two respective archives were no longer extant in the archives. One such example from the Dominican archives of SS. Peter and Paul is a court (iʿlām) dated 1152/1739 detailing the transformation of a freehold (mülk) storehouse, forming part of the Dominican’s properties, into an endowment (vaḳıf).7 A similar situation is found in the archives of St. Louis of the French, where, for example, sales contracts made by Levantines to the friars are currently missing from the archives.8 Difficulties were also encountered in successfully

7 Conventual archive of the Dominicans of SS. Peter and Paul in Galata (hereafter CADG), no. 37.2.4. 8 Archives de la Mission des Capucins de Constantinople (hereafter AMCC), Series F: Titres de propriété; achats; contrats; testaments; donations; comptes; dépôts; affaires contentieuses, docs. 45 and 52.

x locating these missing documents in the Ottoman archives and the provincial archives of the religious orders.9 2. The lack of secondary sources. While a generous amount of research has been published on the theme of Latin Catholic churches and religious orders of Istanbul from the time of the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople until the early eighteenth century, its focus is primarily from a historical and architectural perspective.10 Of these, many rely primarily on European and Greek sources. Therefore, few if no secondary sources exist on the topic from a legal perspective using Ottoman documents. 3. The lack of information in published primary sources. Since I was dealing with the use of churches and religious orders within the Ottoman legal system, I was hoping to find evidence of property-related issues within the different levels of the system, from the local Islamic court to the highest imperial court, thus proving their use by the religious orders and their foreign Catholic protectors. Nevertheless, long periods were spent trying to locate information about the churches and religious orders in the local court registers (şeriʿyye siciller) and the registers of imperial court rulings (mühimme defterler). I searched through thirteen

9 Inability to find a specific Ottoman document, even if one knows the approximate or exact date the document was issued, is not as rare as it may appear. For example, in his study through Ottoman documents on the (1571), through Ottoman documents İnalcık admits to being unable to discover the whereabouts of an important report within the Turkish archives. Halil İnalcık, “Lepanto in the Ottoman Documents,” in Il Mediterraneo nella Seconda Metà del ‘500 alla Luce di Lepanto, ed. Gino Bezoni (Firenze: Leo S. Olschki, 1974), 190. 10 Older but often-referenced publications include François-Alphonse Belin, Histoire de la Latinité de Constantinople, Paris: Alphonse Picard et Fils, 1894; Raymond Janin, La Géographie Ecclésiastique de l'Empire Byzantin. 1. Part: Le Siège de Constantinople et le Patriarcat Oecuménique. 3rd Vol.: Les Églises et les Monastères, Paris: Institut Français d'Etudes Byzantines, 1953, pp. 598-601; E. Dalleggio d’Alessio, Le Couvent et L’Église des -Pierre-et-Paul a Galata, Istanbul: Milli Nesriyat Yurdu, 1935; Ibid., “Recherches sur l’histoire de la Latinite de Constantinople,” Echos d’Orient (1926), vol. 25, pp. 21-41; d’Alessio, Dalleggio E., “Les origins dominicains du couvent de S. Pierre et Paul de Galata,” Echos d’Orient 29, no. 4 (1930), 459-74; P. R. Loenertz, “Les établissements dominicains de Péra-Constantinople”, Échos d’Orient, 34, (1935), pp. 336-344; Benedetto Palazzo and A. Raineri, La Chiesa Di S. Pietro in Galata, Istanbul: Harti ve Şki Basımevi, 1943; Benedetto Palazzo, L’Arap Djami ou Eglise Saint-Paul a Galata, Istanbul: Hachette, 1945. More recent publications include Borromeo, Elisabetta, “Les Catholiques à Constantinople. Galata et les églises de rite latin au XVIIe siècle”, Revue des mondes musulmans et de la Méditerranée, September 2005, pp. 227-243; Girardelli, Paolo, “Architecture, Identity and Liminality: On the use and meaning of Catholic Spaces in Late Ottoman Istanbul”, Maqarnas: An Annual on the Visual Culture of the Islamic World, 22, pp. 233-264; Rinaldo , Précis historique de la communauté latine de Constantinople et de son église: de l’Empire Byzantin a la Republique de Turquie, Istanbul: Latin Katolik Ruhani Reisliği, 2003; Sezim Sezer Darnault, Latin Catholic Buildings in Istanbul: A Historical Perspective (1839-1923), Istanbul: The ISIS Press, 2004; Mimar Yonca Kösebay, “Galata St. Pierre Hanı ve yeniden Değerlendirilmesi,” (MA diss. Yildiz Teknik University, 1996); Hakan Gündoğar, Galata Sn. Pierre Kilisesi’nin Tarihi (unpublished PhD), Marmara University SBE, 2006; Matteucci, Gualberto, La missione Francescana di Costantinopoli: il suo riorganizzarsi e fecondo apostolato sotto i Turchi (1585-1704), vol. 2, Biblioteca di Studi Francescani, 1971.

xi compilations of published court records without finding one single entry pertaining to the Latin Catholic churches of Galata, Pera or Greater Istanbul11 as well as a series of twelve different imperial court registers, yet found nothing on the Latin Catholic churches or religious orders of Istanbul.12 4. Restrictions on accessing Latin Catholic church archives. Not all of the archives of the Latin Catholic churches of Galata and Pera are open to scholarly research. This is due to the fact that some are considered private archives while others are in the process of digitalisation and are therefore shut until the process of cataloguing and creating digital formats has been completed, such as the case of the Franciscan Observant church of St. Maria Draperis located in Pera. Others have had their archives transferred to their main provincial archives such as the case of the former ambassadorial and current consular chapel of St. Louis of the French which moved their archives to Paris and do not retain archival copies in Istanbul. Moreover, not all of the archives are pertinent to the period under study in this thesis. The church of St. George of Galata, which was formerly in the hands of the Capuchins, does not have documents from the pre- period in their archives in spite of being in existence prior to the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople.

11 Those for Istanbul are as follows: İstanbul kadı sicilleri İstanbul mahkemesi 3 numaralı sicil (H.1027/ M. 1618), ed. Coşkun Yılmaz, İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Araştırmaları Merkezi (İSAM), 2010; İstanbul kadı sicilleri İstanbul mahkemesi 18 numaralı sicil (H. 1086-1087/M. 1675-1676); İstanbul kadı sicilleri İstanbul mahkemesi 12 numaralı sicil (H. 1073-1074/M. 1663-1664); İstanbul kadı sicilleri İstanbul mahkemesi 24 numaralı sicil (H. 1138-1151/M.1726-1738). Those for Galata are as follows: İstanbul kadı sicilleri Galata mahkemesi 5 numaralı sicil (H. 983 - 984 / M. 1575 - 1576), ed. Coşkun Yılmaz, İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Araştırmaları Merkezi (İSAM), 2011; İstanbul kadı sicilleri Galata mahkemesi 7 numaralı sicil (H. 985 - 986 / M. 1577 - 1578); İstanbul kadı sicilleri Galata mahkemesi 15 numaralı sicil (H. 981 - 1000 / M. 1573 - 1591); İstanbul kadı sicilleri Galata mahkemesi 20 numaralı sicil (H. 1005 - 1007 / M. 1596 - 1599); İstanbul kadı sicilleri Galata mahkemesi 32 numaralı sicil (H. 1015 - 1016 / M. 1606 - 1607); İstanbul kadı sicilleri Galata mahkemesi 37 numaralı sicil (H. 1022 - 1024 / M. 1613 - 1615); İstanbul kadı sicilleri Galata mahkemesi 46 numaralı sicil (H. 1024 - 1029 / M. 1615 - 1620); İstanbul kadı sicilleri Galata mahkemesi 65 numaralı sicil (H. 1051 - 1053 / M. 1641 - 1644); İstanbul kadı sicilleri Galata mahkemesi 90 numaralı sicil (H. 1073 - 1074 / M. 1663). 12 These were: 3 Numeralı Mühimme Defteri (966-968/1558-1560); 5 Numeralı Mühimme Defteri (973/1565-1566); 6 Numeralı Mühimme Defteri (972/1564-1565); 7 Numeralı Mühimme Defteri (975- 972/1567-1569) vols. I-III; 12 Numeralı Mühimme Defteri (978-979/1570-1572) vols I-II; 82 Numeralı Mühimme Defteri (1026-1027/1617-1618); 83 Numeralı Mühimme Defteri (1036-1037/1626-1628); 84 Numeralı Mühimme Defteri; 85 Numeralı Mühimme Defteri (1040/1630-1631); 91 Numeralı Mühimme Defteri (1056/1646-1647); 103 Numeralı Mühimme Defteri (1102-1107/1691-1695) and 113 Numeralı Mühimme Defteri (1113-1115/1701-1703). .

xii

PART I: The legal status of Roman Catholics and their Religious Orders in Ottoman Istanbul

1. Introduction In the mid-seventeenth century, the French consul Louis Laurent d’Arvieux praised Istanbul as “la plus heureuse, la plus belle et la plus commode qui soit au monde: il semble que l’auteur de la nature ait pris plaisir à la former pour y placer une Ville, qui sembloit destinée à commander aux deux plus belles parties du monde, l’ & l’Asie.”13 Within “cette belle ville” which he describes were located the two Christian-majority districts of Galata and Pera which were home to Latin Catholic Ottoman subjects and foreigners alike. They were also the areas in which the most significant churches, chapels and affiliated ecclesiastical properties were to be found in addition to the seat of the council of the Catholic community’s governing body. This section aims to situate the Latin Catholic lay community and the religious orders in terms of their location, demographics and legal status prior to and following the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople as well as their position in relation to the Empire’s other Christian denominations and Jews so as to ascertain the variations in Ottoman policy towards religious minorities. Moreover, the central roles and influence of the local and international bodies of the Magnifica Comunità di Pera and the Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide, which were responsible for the clergy and the administration of the ecclesiastical properties in Galata and Pera, will be examined in addition to the impact of the foreign Catholic powers as protectors of Catholicism in Ottoman lands.

2. Galata and Pera a. Galata: The area known as Galata today first appeared in the Byzantine sources under the name Sykai (the fig trees) or Peran en Sykais (the opposite fig trees).14 It was later called Peran by the Genoese and subsequently Galata whereas the term “Pera” was used by the Levantines.

13 Louis Laurent d’Arvieux, Memoires du chevalier d'Arvieux: envoyé extraordinaire du roy à la Porte, consul d'Alep, d'Alger, de Tripoli, & autres echelles du Levant (Paris: chez Charles-Jean-Baptiste Delespine le fils, 1735), 4:447. 14 Albrecht Berger (trans.), Accounts of Medieval Constantinople: The Patria (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2013), 11.

1

Although the appellations Galata and Pera have appeared interchangeably in sources such as travellers’ accounts until the early eighteenth century, they constituted two separate districts.15 Maybe the confusion can be attributed to the foreign demographic and architectural nature of both districts. Furthermore, upon their ascent from Galata up to Pera, travellers commented that the two locations were only separated by some cemeteries on the left and, therefore, the boundaries between the two may have appeared non-existent.16 The exact etymology of the word “Galata” is debated, with various theories existing as to the derivation of the word. One theory states that it is from the Greek “Galaktos” meaning milk (gala) due to the presence of herds grazed by shepherds on the hills opposite the Byzantine Palace during the early medieval period and which provided milk for the king.17 Another possible derivation was from the Greek word galatai (sing. galli) meaning , after the Gallic tribe that passed through the area before settling in Anatolian during the .18 Derivations from people and places have been suggested from terms such as Galat, Kelt, Kal for or Gauls from the Thracian rooted word “galat” meaning peninsula or point.19 Another view is that it is based on the Italian word calata meaning Genoese staircase due to the resemblance of the staired streets in Galata to those in near the harbour.20 Another widely accepted view is that the area was named after a Galatan palace which was located in the same area.

15 Robert Mantran, Istanbul dans la seconde moitié du XVIIe siècle; essai d’histoire institutionnelle, économique et sociale (Paris: A. Maisonneuve, 1962), 76. For example, the composer and author Pietro della Valle (d. 1652) described Galata as another name for Pera, thus mistaking them for a single district, Pietro della Valle, Viaggi di Pietro della Valle Il Pellegrino: con minuto ragguaglio di tutte le cose notabili osservate in essi (Roma: appresso Vitale Mascardi, 1650), 4:53. Jean Quiclet described Galata and Pera as a single district, i.e. “Pera or otherwise Galata,” Jean Quiclet, Les Voyages de M. Quiclet à Constantinople par terre (Paris: F. Clousier, 1664), 165. George Wheler recognised the distinction but mentioned that Pera was often a term used to refer to Galata and the outlying districts, George Wheler, A Journey into Greece (: printed for William Cademan et al, 1682), 202. 16 Corneille Le Brun, Voyage au Levant: c'est-à-dire, dans les principaux endroits de l'Asie mineure, dans les isles de Chio, , & Chypre & c. (Paris: Guillaume Cavelier, 1714), 52; Jean de Thévenot, The travels of Monsieur de Thevenot into the Levant in three parts, Viz. into I. Turkey, II. Persia, III. the East-Indies, trans. Archibald Lovell (London: Printed by Henry Clark, 1687), 1:27. 17 Robert Dankoff and Sooyong Kim trans., An Ottoman Traveller: Selections from the Book of Travels of Evliya Çelebi (London: England, 2010), 17; Eremya Çelebi Kömürciyan, İstanbul Tarihi XVII. Asırda İstanbul, trans. Hrand D. Andreasyan (Istanbul: Eren Yayıncılık, 1988), 40. 18 François Alphonse Belin, Histoire de la Latinite de Constantinople (Paris: Alphonse Picard et Fils, 1894), 124. This attribution has been rejected by Tournefort claiming that the tribe’s passage through the region was at a much earlier date, Joseph Pitton de Tournefort, Relation d’un voyage du Levant fait par ordre du roy (Paris: L’Imprimerie Royal, 1717), 1:502. 19 Louis Mitler, “The Genoese in Galata: 1453-1682,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 10, no. 1 (1979): 71. 20 Ibid., 72.

2

Archeological finds have proven that Galata was an important settlement in antiquity. During the rule of Emperor Constantine (r. 324-337), it was a fortified settlement consisting of a forum, a church, a theatre, a harbour and bath buildings as well as 431 houses.21 The walls used for fortification, the remnants of which are visible today, were constructed by Emperor (r. 527-565) in 528. The same year, it was granted the status of a city and renamed Joustinianoupolis.22 By the fourteenth century, the city displayed the traditional urban features of a Mediterranean city. While the Genoese had fortified and elevated the walls and increased the number of gates as a means of entering the city less than a decade before the Ottoman conquest, Sultan Mehmed II (r. 1444-46, 1451-81) ordered the removal of the upper section of the walls following his fifty-three-day siege. Some travellers observed how the area was partitioned internally into three sections with residents from a particular religious affiliation congregating in their own quarters within those divisions: “E’ questa città di Pera fondata parte nel piano & parte nella pendice d’un colle, di circuito poco meno di trè miglia, ed è separate dalle mura in trè partimenti: nell’uno de’ quali habita no i veri Perotti, nell’altro i Greci, e nel terzo i Turchi (che n’hanno il governo interamente) e alcuni Giudei.”23 The geographical stretch of Galata was exaggerated considerably in earlier historical accounts such as that of Evliya Çelebī who placed the boundaries up to Kağithane and thus, inaccurately encapsulated the northern shore of the .24 The landmark Genoese watch tower (Ğalaṭa külesi), the construction of which was completed in 1348, was built to replace another Byzantine tower referred to as the Great Tower (Megalos Pyrgos) which had been built on a different site and was destroyed during the (1202–1204).25 However, the district was actually quite small; geographically, it was bordered to the north by today’s Tünel-Galatasaray and to the west by the neighbourhoods of Kasımpaşa, to the east by and to the south by the shores of the Golden Horn. Until the fifteenth century, the area surrounded by walls for fortification (intra muros) was known as Pera which

21 Afife Batur, “Galata and Pera 1: A Short History, Urban Development, Architecture and Today,” ARI The Bulletin of the İstanbul Technical University 55/1, (2007): 1. 22 Cyril Mango, “Galata,” in The Oxford Dictionary of , ed. Alexander P. Kazhdan (Oxford: , 1991), 2:815. 23 English translation: “It is this city of Pera, founded partly on the plane and partly on the slope of a hill, of circuit just under three miles, and is separated by walls into three parts: in one of which the true Perots reside, in the other the , and in the third the Turks (who are entirely governed by the state), and some Jews.”Nicolas de Nicolay, La navigationi et viaggi nella Turchia di Nocolo de’ Nicolai, trans. Francesco Flori (: Presso Francesco Ziletti, 1580), 67. 24 Evliya Çelebī, Seyaḥatnāme (Istanbul: İkdam Matbaası, 1896), 1: 426. 25 Mango, “Galata,” 2:815.

3 included Byzantine Galata. As the population began to grow, urbanisation of the section outside of the walls was an inevitable consequence with the formation of new quarters such as Fındıklı, Cihangir and Kasımpaşa as the area around Galata began to expand towards Tophane and the Golden Horn in the seventeenth century.26 Galata had a total of twelve doors (sing. kapı, pl. kapılar) dotted along its walls which were closed at night: Azapkapı, Balıkpazarıkapısı, Büyükkule kapı, Demirkapı, Karaköykapısı, Kireçkapısı, Kurşunlumahzenkapısı, Küçükkule, Kürkçükapı, Meyyitkapısı, Tophanekapısı, and Yağkapanıkapısı.27 Regardless of its size, it was perceived to be a European haven in a predominantly Turkish Muslim city: “On goûte dans Galata une espece de liberté, qui ne se trouve gueres ailleurs dans l’Empire Othoman. Galata est comme une ville Chrétienne au milieu de la Turquie, où les cabarets sont permis, & où les Turcs même vienent boire du vin: il y a des auberges à Galata pour les Francs, on y fait bonne chere.”28 The district of Galata was one of the three administrative-judicial (idārī-ʿadlī) districts into which Istanbul was divided known as “the three cities” (bilād-i selāse), the others being Eyüp and Üsküdar. All three were independent in their municipal and judicial administration from that of Istanbul proper. The authority of the Islamic judge (ḳāżī) and his deputies covered an area stretching from Hasköy and the Bosphorus to Yeniköy, thereby encapsulating the northern of the Golden Horn and the European banks of the Bosphorus.29 In the late seventeenth century, the French writer and historian Jean Dumont Baron de Carlscroon (d. 1727) noted the geographical and architectural separation of the district of Galata as well as its European character during a visit to the area:

“Nous entrâmes dans la Ville par la Porte de Galata la plus proche du Serail, que nous laissames à main gauche, & fumes nous rendre dans une espece de Halle, ou quartier de la Ville separé, & renfermé par ses Portes & ses murailles, dans lequel tous les Marchans ont leurs boutiques, & ce lieu s’apele le Besestin, cet endroit est bien le plus beau & le mieux ordonné de tout Constantinople &, ressemble affés aux lieux de Foires que nous avons en Europe, qui sont bâtis comme seroit celui de Saint Germain à Paris, les ruës y sont distinctes tout de la même maniere, & couvertes au dessus par des planches cousuës ensemble sur des chevrons, qui forment

26 Metin Tuncel, “İstanbul,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi [hereafter ], (Istanbul: İSAM, 2001), 23:227. 27 İlber Ortaylı, “Galata”, DİA, (Istanbul: İSAM, 1996), 13:304. 28 Tournefort, Relation, 507. 29 Ortaylı, Galata, 304.

4

un toit capable de metre à l’abri de toutes les injures du tems, on y laisse pourtant des ouvertures d’espace en espace, pour donner autant de jour qu’il en est besoin dans un semblable lieu […]”30

b. Pera: The leafy district of Pera, famed for its vineyards and beautiful gardens, lay up the hill from the district of Galata situated on an elevated ridge of a high promontory between the and the Golden Horn at an altitude of one hundred and ten meters above sea level. The origins of the name came from the Byzantine appellation Peran en Sykais (the opposite fig field), Peran being translated as “opposite”, “beyond” or “far away” and was called such because it was distant geographically due to its location on the other side of the Golden Horn.31 Politically, it was a semi-autonomous Genoese colony which was not under Byzantine control. The hill on which Pera was located behind Galata was called Beyoğlu. Various attributions have been presented for the reasons behind the name. The first is that it was named after Alexis, the son of the last Emperor of , Ioannis Comnenos, who resided there. Thus, bey-oğlu was translated as son of the prince. The second possible reason is that it was due to the presence of western diplomats who kept summer houses in the area, thus the word was derived from bey yolu meaning the “road of the gentleman”. Thirdly, it was said to be named after Alvise Gritti (d. 1534), the son of the Venetian bailo Andrea Gritti (d. 1538) who was born in Istanbul and owned a mansion in north Beyoğlu, with the Venetian Palace housing the bailo further south from the early sixteenth century, therefore being translated more literally as “son of a gentleman”.32 The district was famed for its vineyards, orchards and gardens. During the sixteenth century, a new settlement appeared in the area between today’s Galatasaray and Tünel.33 Subsequently, in the seventeenth century, the foreign embassies began to relocate there and the district became renowned as a diplomatic centre.34 The French ambassador Jean-François de

30 Jean Dumont, Nouveau voyage du Levant: contenant ce qu'il a vû de plus remarquable en Allemagne, France, Italie, Malthe, & Turquie: où l'on voit aussi les Brigues secretes de Mr. de Chateau-neuf, Ambassadeur de France à la Cour ottomane, & plusieurs histoires galantes (The Hague: Chez Etienne Foulque, 1694), 170-171. 31 Mantran, Istanbul, 77. 32Joseph von Hammer, Vedia Dökmeci and Hale Çıracı, Tarihsel Gelişim Sürecinde Beyoğlu (Istanbul: Türkiye Turing ve Otomobil Kurumu, 1990), 9. 33 A popular folklore song was even written about the quarter titled “Beyoğlu’nda gezerken” (While Visiting Beyoğlu), with nostalgic overtones of bygone days, as well as novels such as Ah Beyoğlu Vah Beyoğlu (Oh Beyoğlu Woe Beyoğlu) written and published in Istanbul in 1981 by Salah Birsel. 34 During his travels to the Levant, Jean Quiclet’s only description of Pera is that “qui sert de demeure à tous les Ambassadeurs”. Quiclet, Les Voyages, 165.

5

Gontaut Biron, baron de Salignac (from 1607-1611), noted how houses with gardens covered the area separated by the long road called Grand Rue de Péra and known today as Istiklal Caddesi (Independence Street), “Lesquelles ont esté arrachées et remplies de maisons et jardinages par les Pérots et gens de qualité chrestiens qui y ont fait leur demeure; comme font aussi les ambassadeurs chrestiens de France, Angleterre, Venise, Flandres et autres, pour ester ce cartier eslevé, merveilleusemant plaisant et agréable. Y ayant une très longue et droite rue depuis la Porte de Buyuc Coulla Capy jusques au lieu appellé le cimetière des Grecs, qui dure un mille, y ayant maisons de tous costés avec très beaux jardinages.”35 Travellers’ descriptions of the residential areas of Istanbul’s European quarters could contrast quite starkly with their depiction of the rest of the city such as that of the English clergyman and traveller George Wheler (d. 1724): “[T]he Streets are narrow, dark, and steep, composed of small, low, and ill built houses, consisting of wood, earth, or at the best, but rough or unhewen stone. The private houses are but mean and beggarly […]”.36 Likewise, the English dramatist Hill (d. 1750) discussed his disappointment upon seeing Constantinople close up: “I, instead of an expected heaven, was amaz’d to find a hell of darkness; narrow streets, with dirty causeways on each broken side, the windows hanging over, almost meeting in a dark conjunction; low mud cottages, and wide divisions, all o’er-grown with grass or bushes, and unpleasant prospects of dead walls and crooked lanes, no glass in any of their windows, but instead thereof, old rotten lettices [sic], half stuff’d with dirty rags of various colours, and half cover’d over with a sort of thick, white, pasted paper.”37 Pera was mainly populated by Greek and Latin merchants and wealthy Levantine families, the former of whose houses were often commented on: “Les maisons de tout ce Faubourg sont belles & bien bâties, & la plûpart de pierre; aussi est-ce le quartier des honnêtes gens, des Negocians francs, & des Grecs de consideration.”38 While the foreign ambassadors

35 Jean de Gontaut Biron, Ambassade en Turquie de Jean de Gontaut Biron Baron de Salignac: 1605- 1610 Voyage a Constantinople – Séjour en Turquie (Paris: Honoré Champion, 1883-89), 1:90-91. 36 Wheler, A Journey, 179. 37 Aaron Hill, A Full and Just Account of the Present State of the Ottoman Empire in All its Branches: with the Government, and Policy, , Customs, and Way of Living of the Turks in General (London: J. Mayo, 1710), 137. 38 d’Arvieux, Memoires du chevalier d'Arvieux, 492. Robert Mantran noted the lack of original and profound descriptions of Pera by European travellers of the seventeenth century with numerous travellers copying each other’s accounts, Robert Mantran, “Images de Galata au XVIIe siècle,” Varia Turcica IV (1987): 198. For example, d’Arvieux’s account resembles that of de Thévenot which was written earlier: “The houses of Pera are handsome, and hardly anybody lives there but Greeks of quality”, from Thévenot, Travels, 27. Another criticism of European travellers’ accounts was their focus on the European features of the district of Galata to the exclusion of mentioning the Muslim

6 had originally established themselves in Galata between 1630 and 1646, they moved to Pera in the seventeenth century. The French ambassador Antoine Escalin des Aimars, baron de la Garde (from 1541-1547), relocated his embassy to Pera after receiving imperial permission in 1545.39 The Venetian embassy (bailate) then relocated to Galata following the Ottoman conquest in 1453 only to move to Pera following the fourth Ottoman-Venetian War (1570- 1573) where it established a property there which had originally been used as a summer residence by the bailos.40 Embassies of other foreign powers located in Galata and the adjacent areas such as the British embassy in Tophane joined the Venetians in Pera in 1596. The diplomats continued their re-location until the end of the eighteenth century with the Polish, Dutch and Swiss ambassadors following suit. The ambassadors would even sign their letters from “the vineyards of Pera.” Contributing factors in the relocation included safety from the plagues that ravaged the area as well as greater freedom of movement at all hours thus facilitating activities such as assisting escaped slaves, unlike in Galata which shut its gates at night.41 Furthermore, this prevented complaints from local Muslim residents due to the noise and lifestyle of the ambassador’s household as well as the merchants who frequented the complex. In an area with an ever-increasing Muslim demographic, the latter complaint is not unlikely. It should be remembered that the embassies served not just as the residence and centre of operations of the ambassador and his staff but was the focal point of a whole nation. As Eric Dursteler has pointed out in relation to the bailate, “If the embassy was at the geographical center of the Venetian community, it’s human focus was the bailo”.42 Pera remained primarily a diplomatic centre because foreign Christian merchants who already had residences in Pera did not, however, follow their protectors to the leafy heights, preferring instead to keep their businesses close to the commercial centre and near those of other foreign nations. Nevertheless, as Galata expanded commercially to lower Galata (present- day Karaköy) residents gave up their properties to businesses which found it hard to establish themselves on the slopes of Pera, thus causing the re-establishment of Galata’s old inhabitants in nearby Pera.43 Foreign travellers to Istanbul noted how the ambassadors and their dragomans

neighbourhoods and . Edhem Eldem, “Galata’nın Etnik Yapısı,” Biannual Istanbul 1 (1992): 59. 39 Alain Borie, “Istanbul”, Bulletin d’Informations Architecturales 115 (1987): 14. 40 Eric R. Dursteler, Venetians in Constantinople: Nation, Identity, and Coexistence in the Early Modern Mediterranean (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006), 26. 41 Ibid. 42 Ibid., 28. 43 Mantran, Istanbul, 77-78.

7 had settled themselves in Pera which had the most beautiful views of the sea and the Ottoman Palace, “comme ce lieu est haut la demeure en est saine, & la veue tres-belle, decouvrant la mer & tout le Serrail du Grand Seigneur.”44 By the late seventeenth century, travellers noted the size and significance of Pera and the surrounding districts of Galata, Kasımpaşa and Tophane.45 Galata was not only a place of trade and commerce, it had also acquired a reputation among the Muslim Turks as a notorious place of entertainment and pleasure. Its numerous taverns were a particularly disreputable feature among Muslim travellers such as Evliya Çelebī who describes the debauchery he witnessed there in the following terms:

“As for drinks, in the taverns – named Taş Nerdüben (‘Stone Steps’), Kefeli, Manyalı, Mihalaki, Kaşkaval, Sünbüllü, Kostanti, and Saranda – are sold various notorious forbidden ruby-dripping wines, including misket (from Bulgaria) and wines from Ancona, Syracuse, Mudanya, Erdemit and Bozcaada (). When I pass through that wicked locale and see hundreds of downtrodden tavern-slaves lying in the highway, bareheaded and barefooted, and inquire about their wretched state, some put forth this verse: I am so drunk I do not know What is worldly or divine. Who am I? Who is the cupbearer? What is the crimson wine?”46

3. The demographic composition of Roman Catholics in Galata & Pera In his Riḥla, Ibn Battuta described the city of Constantinople as follows: “Most of the inhabitants of the city are monks, devotees, and priests, and its churches are numerous beyond

44 Vincent de Stochove, Voyage du sieur de Stochove, faict es années 1630. 1631. 1632. 1633 (Brussels: Hubert Anthoine Velpius, 1643), 102. 45 Dumont, Nouveau voyage, 167. 46 Translation from Dankoff, Ottoman Traveller, 20. Original Ottoman Turkish: Meşrūbātdan bāde-i gūnāgūnlarının memdūhu harābātīler arasında meşhūr olan Taş Nerdebān meyhānesinde, Kefeli’de, Manyalı’da, Mihalaki’de, Kaşkaval’da, Sünbüllü’de, Kostantin’de, Saranda nām meyhānecilerdeki lal- gūn katresi ḥarām dürlü dürlü misket şarābları, Ankona, Sirakuza, Mudanya, Edremid, Bozca Ada şarāb-ı nābları vardır ki ol rāh-ı gümrāhdan ubūr etdiğimizde şāhrāh üzere ser berehne, pā berehne yüz humhāne esīrleri pāymāl olub yatdıklarını görürüz. Hāl-i perīşānlarını suāl etdiğimizde şu beyitlerle cevāb verirler: Öyle sermestim ki idrāk etmezim dünyā nedir/ Ben kimim sākī olan kimdir mey-i sahbā nedir. Evliya, Seyaḥatnāme, 1: 431-432.

8 computation.”47 Before his travels, Constantinople had been known as the “Second Jerusalem” which had encouraged the prolific construction of churches and monasteries.48 had also been revived following the re-establishment of the Greek Empire in 1261 after the rule of the of Constantinople (1204-1261) in combination with wider efforts to reconstruct the city by Michael VIII Paeleologos (1261-1283) so that it would correspond visually to its status as the capital of the East .49 The area of Galata, located on the northern shore of the Golden Horn, covering the whole hill on either side of the to the shores of the Bospherous, was the location of the Latin Catholic churches in the city which served the Catholic community of the immediate district and wider city. The Latin Catholics of Galata were dominated by the Venetians before 1204 and was one of the largest foreign nations in Constantinople being described as a “little republic”.50 The Genoese then took their place after 1261.51 Following the Ottoman conquest, the Venetian colony was forced to move across the Golden Horn to the suburb of Galata which was traditionally the historic centre of the Genoese. Therefore, soon after the conquest, Galata’s identity experienced a transformation from a predominantly Genoese hub to one of a more international and diverse character. Nonetheless, the families that predominated were primarily of Genoese origin and included Draperis, Fornetti, Fortis, Galante, Grillo, Navoni, Negri, Olivieri, Orlandi, Perone, Salvago, Silvestri, and Testa, among others.52 According to Dalleggio d’Alessio, there were a total of twelve Latin Catholic churches and chapels in Galata at the time of the Ottoman conquest which were St. Anne, St. Anthony, St. Benoît, St. Catherine, St. Clair, St. Francis, St. George, St. , St. Mary of Mercy, St. Michele, St. Paul, and St. Sebastian.53 Some of these had

47 Tim Mackintosh-Smith ed., The Travels of Ibn Battutah (London: Picador, 2003), 134. 48 Paul Magdalino, “Bir Dinin ve Imparatorluğun Başkenti Olarak İstanbul,” in Bizantion’dan İstanbul’a Bir Başkentin 8000 Yılı, ed. Doğan Kuban (Istanbul: Sakıp Sabancı Müzesi, 2010), 87. 49 Robert Ousterhout, “Churches and Monasteries,” in The Oxford Handbook of , eds. Robin Cormack, John F. Haldon, and Elizabeth Jeffreys (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 361. Numerous Orthodox churches which had been converted into Latin Catholic churches during the Latin rule of Constantinople were re-appropriated when the Orthodox resumed power. 50 Dursteler, Venetians in Constantinople, 23. 51 For more on the Latin Catholic colonies in Constantinople during the Byzantine era see Raymond Janin, Constantinople Byzantine: Développement Urbain et Répertoire Topographique (Paris: Institut Français D’Études Byzantines, 1950), 235-244. 52 Mihail - Dimitri Sturdza, Dictionnaire historique et gènéalogique des grandes familles de Grèce, d’Albanie et de Constantinople (Paris: M.-D. Sturdza, 1983), 564. 53 E. Dalleggio d’Alessio, “Recherches sur l’histoire de la Latinite de Constantinople,” Echos d’Orient 25, no. 141 (1926), 24-38. Charles Frazee places those at thirteen naming them as: St. Francis, St. Anne, St. Anthony, St. Benoît, St. Catherine, St. Clair, St. George, St. John the Baptist, St. Michael, St. Paul, St. Dominic, St. Nicholas, and St. Sebastian. Charles A. Frazee, Catholics and Sultans: The Church and the Ottoman Empire 1453-1923 (London: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 7. Whereas Celāl Esad

9 originally been Byzantine churches which had been transferred to Venetian possession following the Fourth Crusade (1202-1204) and, subsequently, into Genoese hands upon the reinstatement of Byzantine rule in 1261.54 However, by 1655 there were only five functioning churches all belonging to separate religious orders according to an account by the French traveller Jean de Thévenot (d.1667), “In Galata there are five Monasteries of religious Francks, to wit of the Cordeliers, and their Church is called St. Marie; of the Observatines or Conventual Cordeliers, and their Church is called St. Francis; of the Jacobins, who have St. Peters Church; of the Jesuits, who have St. Benet’s Church; and the Capuchins, who have the Church of St. George.”55 Only a few years later, the Ottoman historian and traveller Eremya Çelebi Kömürcüyan (d. 1695) documented only four churches during his visit to Galata.56 At that time, the Franciscan Observant church of St. Maria had already been confiscated in 1663 following a hasty and illegal reconstruction after its destruction in the conflagration of 1660.57 During a visit paid by the Dutch artist and traveller Cornelis de Bruijn (d.1727) to Galata in the early eighteenth century, he mentioned only five houses of religious orders in what he described as a large city, while emphasising the Greek presence, “Galata est une ville raisonnablement grande & affez jolie. Elle est ceinte d’une ancienne muraille; & Grecs dont la plus part gaignent leur vie à tenir auberge. C’est aussi la demeure ordinaire des Francs ou Chrêtiens d’Europe, leurs Ecclesiatiques y ont cinq Cloitres ou maisons où se fait le service de l’Eglise Romaine.”58 During that period, the nationals of the great Catholic powers were divided according to nation. In the majority, they were made up of the Genoese represented by the podestá, the Venetians represented by the bailo and the Pisans by a consul.59 The diverse nations,

Arseven, cites eleven Latin Catholic churches in Istanbul, two in Constantinople proper and nine in Galata, which he names as follows: “St. Francesco, St. Benedetto, St. Antonio, Ste. Anna, Ste. Maria, St. Giovani dell’ Ospedale, St. Giorgio, St. Bastiani, St. Petro.” Celāl Esad Arseven, Eski Galata ve Binaları (Istanbul: Çelik Gülersoy Vakfı, 1989). 54 Encyclopaedia of the Hellenic World, Constantinople, s.v. “Venetians in Constantinople,” accessed 12 July 2018, http://www.ehw.gr/l.aspx?id=11935. 55 Thévenot, Travels, 27. 56 He lists those as the Jesuit church of San Benedikto (St. Benoît), the Franciscan church of San Françiskos (St. Francis), the church of San Corci (St. George), and the Dominican church of San Petro (St. Peter). Kömürciyan, İstanbul Tarihi, 40. 57 When the Ottoman authorities realised that construction had taken place without the obtainment of imperial permission in the form of a firmān, the church was consequently demolished in 1663 and presumably converted into Kemankeş Kara Mustafa Paşa , forcing the Franciscan Observants to move uphill to Pera where they built a new church in 1678. Nevertheless, the exact origins of the mosque is debated, see footnote 792 of the current thesis. 58 Le Brun, Voyage au Levant, 52. 59 For information about the podesta in Byzantine times see: Robert Mantran, Histoire d’Istanbul (Paris: Librairie Arthème Fayard, 1996), 155.

10 predominantly Italian under initial Ottoman rule, expanded to have a visible French, English and Dutch presence by the sixteenth century. In terms of the status of the Latin Catholics, they were composed of permanent residents, including slaves and prisoners of war, manumitted or still captive, who were defined as subjects of the sultan as well as non-subjects who were temporary residents such as diplomats and their staff at the Italian and French embassies and also merchants, all of whom were described as Franks. Likewise, there was some confusion regarding the application of the expression “Frank”, with one traveller who visited Pera observing that, “on apele Francs tous ceux qui portent le chapeau, indirectement de quelques nations qu’ils soient.” 60 Nonetheless, categories were not always so well-defined as individuals would often deliberately place themselves under particular nations. For example, there was a presence of “White Venetians” in Constantinople during the Byzantine and Ottoman eras who were Greeks but officially categorised as Venetians according to the bailo as well as Jews would also adopt the guise of either Genoese or Venetian subjects.61 This overlap was made all the more complex by a lack of set language use. For example, in Istanbul, there were Greeks who spoke Ladino while there were Greek-speaking Jews who used the Hebrew alphabet to write Greek. The category of the Levantine (Ottoman Turkish: levanten) or Perot should be touched upon albeit briefly because it is a distinct but important identity adopted by the Latin Catholic Ottoman subjects of Galata and Pera. The former term comes from the French word “levere” meaning “the rise of the sun” whereas the latter is derived from the district of Pera. The terms, Levantine and Perot, were used interchangeably to refer to those from a distinct social class who were Ottoman subjects of European descent. The first Levantines in Istanbul were of Venetian, Genoese, Catalan, Maltese and Spanish origins and later included Germans, the Dutch and English. The majority of Levantines were Roman Catholic and chose to settle in the Ottoman capital, specifically in the districts of Galata and Pera, as well as in the city of . The Italian composer and author Pietro della Valle (d. 1652) commented on their uniqueness during his travels to Constantinople in 1614: “Però da’ Genovesi, in tempi a noi più vicini, è stata ò ristaurata, ò almen posseduta; & infin’ hora vi sono, delle reliquie loro, alcune famiglie, che, se ben d’habito e di costume grecheggiano, ritengono con tutto ciò infin’ hoggi il rito

60 Dumont, Nouveau voyage, 167. 61 Robert Mantran, “Foreign Merchants and the Minorities in Istanbul during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries,” in Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society, eds. Benjamin Braude & Bernard Lewis, (/London: Holmes & Meier Publishers, 1982), 1:127.

11

Latino nella religione, e la lingua Italiana, insieme con la Greca, e con la Turca, che quasi tutti sanno parlare: ma son ridotti a pochi […].”62 Members from influential Catholic Levantine families played important roles on behalf of Istanbul’s Latin Catholic communities, having assumed high positions as ambassadorial dragomans and other high positions within the civic and religous body of Galata’s Latin Catholic governing council. Notwithstanding their respectable place within society, they were deemed to be a watered-down version of the genuine Franks, being referred to as “sweet water Franks” (tatlısu frenki) in order to distinguish them from European zimmīs and müste‘mins who were ‘‘salt-water Franks’.63 Yet, as Edhem Eldem has highlighted, while the term is proudly used by Turkish Catholics today as an indicator of their identity, it did not always carry such positive connotations: “the word Levantine is used without much concern for the complexity hidden behind this catch-all and extremely tricky term. The sole fact that the term was never used by individuals and groups to describe themselves, but rather by others to them, often in a derogatory way, should be sufficient a warning against its use outside of its historical context.”64 While Galata and Pera were often portrayed as a Genoese hub, the inhabitants were comprised of a fair number of Greeks, Jews and Turks who were assigned to quarters within Galata itself. Opinions differed about the exact number of Catholics, both Ottoman subjects and foreign, in Galata. In a cadastral register (tahrir defteri) dated 1478, there were 332 Latin Catholic households in Galata compared with 535 Muslim, 592 Greek Orthodox and 62 Armenian households.65 By 1631, this figure had significantly diminished to 41 households in Galata.66 During a visit to Istanbul from October 1580 to 6 April 1581, Pietro Cedulini the of Nona on the Dalmatian coast, noted that from among the Catholics, there were 500 free subjects, 500 freed slaves, 2000 slaves, 600 foreigners from , and Venice and 100 employed at the foreign embassies; moreover of the 6000 slaves from Bosnia, and working at the and in the arsenals a portion were Catholic.67

62 della Valle, Il Pellegrino, 54. 63 Bernard Lewis, From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2004), 25. 64 Edhem Eldem, “Ottoman Galata and Pera between myth and reality,” in From «milieu de mémoire» to «lieu de mémoire»: The cultural memory of Istanbul in the 20th century, ed. Ulrike Tischler, Munich: Martin Meidenbauer, 2006, 27. 65 İnalcık 1991, p. 97. 66 From an account by the Apostolic Vicar Giovanni Mauri and Angelo Petricca da Sonnino, Georg Hofmann, Il Vicariato Apostólico di Costantinopoli 1453-1830, (Roma: Pont. Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1935), 19. 67 Ibid. 17.

12

According to Evliya Çelebi, by the mid-seventeenth century, Galata had seventeen Muslim districts, seventy Greek districts, three Latin districts, one Jewish district and two Armenian districts.68 The wealthy Latin Catholic and Greek ladies dressed in their richly adorned attire, were numerous enough to catch the attention of travellers in the sixteenth century: “Sono gli habiti delle donne, & donzelle Greche, e Perotte tanto ricchi & magnifici, che à chi non gli havesse veduti sarebbe incredibile. Perciò che nõ solo pongono ogni lor cura ad essere brave & ben parate, ma che è il peggio spesse fíate hanno addosso tutta la lora sostanza, e havere, andando per la terra, per le chiese, ò ne’bagni.”69 Regardless of the precision of numbers, a decrease in the Latin Catholic population can be noted from the mid-fourteenth century to the beginning of the seventeenth century. One attributing factor for the rapid change in demographics was the influx of Muslims from Granada as a result of the fall of the Emirate of Granada (1238-1492) and who subsequently settled in the area around a former Dominican church which had been converted into Galata Mosque and which Sultan Bayezid II (r. 1481-1512) later assigned to them.70 Following the fire of 1696, the numbers were further restricted through their concentration in particular quarters, the Catholics in Bereketzade, the Jews in Karaköy, and the Armenians and Greeks around the church of St. Benoît or in the immediate vicinity of the citadel.71 Furthermore, an imperial decree (firmān) was issued for the expulsion of non-Muslims living within the vicinity of the mosque Galata Yeni Cāmiʿ which had been converted from the former Conventual Franciscan church of St. Francis. This policy was justified on the basis that the presence of non-Muslims in the vicinity of mosques incurred the wrath of , which took the form of the fire of 1696, and that the only solution was their removal “from all the quarters and dwellings neighbouring our mescids72 and holy mosques where God Almighty is worshipped by true Muslims in order to impede any cause of fire in the future.”73 Although the

68 Evliya, Seyaḥatnāme, 1: 431-432. 69 English translation: “It is the habit of the women, and the damsels of the Greeks and Perots, so rich and magnificent, that it would be incredible to those who have not seen them. Therefore, not only do they place all their care on being good and well protected, but what is oftentimes worse is that they have put on all their apparel and are giving to going around the town, the churches, or to the baths.” Nicolay, Navigationi, 67. 70 See Thesis Part III.2.b 71 Eldem, French Trade, 152. 72 A mescid can be defined as a quarter mosque which is not used for congregational . 73 An imperial decree addressed to the ḳā’im-maḳām and ḳāżī of Galata ordering the removal of Christians and Jews from the vicinity of mosques in the area. Ibid, pp. 233, from Archives de la Mission des Capucins de Constantinople (hereafter AMCC), Series X: Documents ottomans, hüccet et commandements, doc. 13. Similar language was used in firmāns from court registers ruling on the seizure of Christians’ properties in Galata and its outskirts following the fire due to their presence

13 threat of expulsion was not carried through, during the construction of the mosque, the Christians’ houses, shops and inns located in its vicinity that had suffered damage in the conflagration were appropriated and their owners given due compensation.74 Attempts to flee the plague, immigration to Europe, assimilation into the larger Greek Orthodox and Muslim communities as well as conversion to Islam on a lesser scale are also estimated to be contributing factors for the dwindling Latin Catholic population.75 According to the Ottoman survey of 1455, the non-Muslim population of Galata consisted of four categories. The first category were the Genoese and Venetian merchants who were living in the city temporarily under capitulatory guarantees. As non-Muslims from dār- ü’l ḥarb, they had the status of müsteʾmins and, as such, they were not subject to the cizye.76 The second were the native Genoese who had accepted to become Ottoman subjects of the sultan and thus were given the status of zimmīs and were subject to cizye. The third category were the captives who were either manumitted upon payment or became mukāteb and the fourth category were the Greeks, Armenians and Jews who were settled in the town since the time of the Byzantines. Therefore, the Catholic community of Galata was essentially divided into Ottoman subjects who had the legal status of zimmīs, and non-subjects who were categorised as müsteʾmins, represented by one of the two great Catholic powers through their ambassadors.77

leading to “bad actions and scandalous situations” (efʿāl-i ḳabīḥa ve avżāʿ-i fażīʿalar). BOA, MD, 108/134/1592, Şevvāl 1107/May 1696; 108/144/1185, Şevvāl 1107/May 1696). 74 For more on the reasons for and consequences of the conversion of the Conventual Franciscan church of St. Francis in Galata into Ğalata Yeni Cāmiʿ, see Vanessa R. de Obaldía, “A Shared Space and Shared Functions: From a Latin Catholic Church to an Islamic Vakıf in Ottoman Galata,” Endowment Studies 2 (2) (2018): 133-162. 75 Eric R. Dursteler, “Latin-Rite Christians in Early Modern Istanbul,” in Osmanlı İstanbu Sempozyumu Bildirileri, 29 Mayıs – 1 Haziran 2013, İstanbul 29 Mayıs Üniversitesi, eds. Feridun M. Emecen and Emrah Safa Gürkan (Istanbul: İstanbul 29 Mayıs Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2014), 144. 76 The cizye was overturned by the Ottomans in 1691 and replaced with a new method of collection based on individual receipts which had to be renewed annually by every adult non-Muslim male. The motives for the reform are uncertain, but could be attributed to fiscal or religious reasons given that it took place during a long war with the and severe fiscal constraints. Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd ed. (1991), s.v. “Djizya.” 77 It is worth noting that the proportions of these two groups was not static, in the fifteenth century it is estimated that there were 1500 Latin Ottoman subjects and 400 foreign merchants in the following century, Frazee, Catholics and Sultans, 95. According to Rinaldo Marmara, forty-four percent of the Catholic community in the capital was composed of Latin Ottoman subjects. Rinaldo Marmara, Précis historique de la communité latin de Constantinople et de son église (Istanbul: Latin Katolik Ruhani Reisliği, 2003), 60. According to Robert Mantran, by 1680 the number of Genoese in Galata were so few that the post of resident to Istanbul was removed and the French considered taking them under their protection, Robert Mantran, Quotidienne a Constantinople au temps de soliman le magnifique et de ses successeurs (XVIe et XVIIe siecles) (France: Hachette, 1965), 167.

14

Nevertheless, as will be treated below, the division and thus the status of the Roman Catholics within the city was not so clear cut, especially since Catholics, both foreign and subjects, would often resort to the ambassadors to obtain protection or intervention for the resolution of a dispute with the Ottoman state rather than with the Ottoman courts.

4. The legal status of Roman Catholics in Constantinople/Istanbul a. Pre-conquest - Catholics as a semi-autonomous colony Galata enjoyed the status of a semi-autonomous colony under the Paleologi following the reoccupation of the city on 15 August 1261. The Venetian merchants, who had been the dominant maritime power, were exiled from the city due to their role during the Latin conquest which allowed the Genoese to have a monopoly on international trade.78 In exchange for military assistance consisting of a fleet of fifty ships against the Venetians, the Genoese enjoyed privileges and economic advantages under the rule of the Paleologi such as the Venetian properties in Constantinople which were regulated under the Treaty of concluded on 13 March 1261.79 Following the exile of the Genoese from the city to Marmara Ereğlisi () due to their collusion with King Manfred of Sicily (r. 1258-1266) in 1264, along with their readmission to Constantinople in 1267, they were conceded the quarter of Galata in which they permanently settled.80 Thus, Galata became the centre for the religious life of the Latin community. In the same year, Emperor Michael VIII Paeleologos (1261-1283) granted the Galatans the concession of semi-autonomy in order to counter any naval aggression on the part of the Venetians in the Aegean and the Greek Archipelago. This status was reconfirmed in the Statuti di Peyra (Statues of Pera) in 1304 which were documents and contracts concerning the Genoese settlers, both citizens and merchants.

78 The Emperor Michael VIII Paeleologos re-established relations with the Venetians and allowed them to return to the city in 1268 along with the Pisans. Donald M. Nicol, Byzantium and Venice. A Study in Diplomatic and Cultural Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 190-193. 79 For Genoese copies of the Latin version of the treaty, see Camillo Manfroni, “Le relazioni fra Genova, l’Impero Bizantino e i Turchi,” Atti della Societa Ligure di Storia Patria 28/3 (1898): 795. Immediate Genoese naval help to regain the city was the condition stipulated in the treaty for the transfer of property but the emperor took the city without their help. 80 It is common opinion that the Genoese were settled in Galata due to a combination of the constant wars with rival Italian colonies of the Venetians and Pisians and so prevent them from coming in direct contact with their two rivals. Moreover, Galata was located outside of Istanbul proper, a suitable place for a people whose allegiance had proven to be unreliable. Mantran, Histoire d’Istanbul, 154.

15

However, the Genoese began to behave as if they were independent of Byzantine rule, reflected through acts such as their removal of the Byzantine insignia from the Galatan coat of arms.81 The Genoese also ensured the protection of Galata through the reconstruction of the walls and towers in 1387, 1397 and 1404 which had been demolished by Emperor Michael when he gave the quarter to the Genoese. By the beginning of the fifteenth century, Galata was divided into four quarters separated by high walls with a few doors. All this, in addition to the urban development of high houses interspersed with gardens and vineyards, made the town have a distinct Western European character which distinguished it from the rest of Constantinople as well as resembling a citadel. The efforts by the Genoese to protect themselves was not limited to the physical but rather extended to their commercial activities which they guaranteed through the conclusion of a treaty with Murad I in June 1387.82

b. Post-conquest - Catholics as zimmīs Catholics, such as other Christian denominations, and Jews were attributed the wide juridical status of zimmīs as religious minorities under Ottoman rule.83 Although the noun zimma appears in the ,84 the practical application of this status was based on Islamic precedence, specifically, the practice of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of with whom he concluded the Pact of Najrān in 631. This was developed by the jurists, significantly during the Abbasid period.85 This pact was to determine the fundamental nature of all subsequent treaties with non-Muslim populations under Muslim rule, that is, people of the book and Zoroastrians.86 Certain stipulations were also the basis for the self-governance of

81 Vincenzo Promis, Statuti della Colonia Genovese di Pera (Turin, 1871), 28. 82 Mantran, Histoire d’Istanbul, 183. 83 Zimmīs in the Ottoman Empire were divided into Christians, Jews and Sābiīler, Yavuz Ercan, “Türkiye’de XV. ve XVI. Yüzyıllarda Gayrimüslimlerin Hukuki, İçtimai ve İktisadi Durumu”, Belleten 47, no. 188 (1983), 1125. 84 It is mentioned in two places within sūrat al-barāʿa as “promise of protection” (Qurʾān 9:8, 10) and “protection of non-Muslims living with the dār al-Islām” (Qurʾān 9:29). 85 Although it should be noted that the term zimmet, meaning guaranteeing security, appears as early as in the Constitution of Medina which is dated to the early seventh century. 86 The relevant part of the pact: “Najran and their followers have the protection of God and the zimmah of Muhammad the Prophet, the Messenger of God, for themselves, their community, their land, and their goods…and for their churches and services. No bishop will be removed from his episcopate and no monk from his monastic position and no church-warden from his church-wardship…On terms stated in this document, they have the protection of God and zimmah of the Prophet forever until God comes with His command, if they are loyal and perform their obligations well, not being burdened by wrong. For the original Arabic, see Abū Muḥammad Jamāl al-Dīn Ibn Hishām, Al-Sīrah al-nabawiyyah (: Mustafa al-Babi al-Ḥalabī, 1955), 3:112.

16

Christians under Muslim rule which was institutionalised by the Ottomans in the form of the system. The status was once again given concrete legal form in the Pact of ‘Umar issued by the Caliph ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb (636-44) to the Christians of Jerusalem in the ninth century and was the basis for the governance of non-Muslim subjects from the Abbasids until the Tanẓimāt, although the original pact was elaborated on with additions to or expansion on pre- existing restrictions. It guaranteed their lives, properties and freedom of worship of the zimmīs in return for the payment of the cizye and the promise not to assist the enemies of Islam. The institution of zimmet regulated the Ottoman Empire’s relations with religious minorities living within its domains. The concept of zimmet has its basis in the Qur’an87 and sünnet88 and has its inception from the Medinan years (622-632) following the emigration of Muhammad and his companions from Mecca and their establishment in the oasis town of Medina. In the early years, it regulated the relationship of the majority Muslim population with that of the minority Jewish tribes. In the early years of Islam, a Quranic injunction rendered the people of the book (Jews and Christians and occasionally Zoroastrians) to a subordinate status in society with the requirement of the payment of the cizye as a provision for their protection.89 In later periods, notably, during the Abbasid (750-1258), concepts were defined and their legal status systematised. As a result, religious minorities in territories conquered by Muslim armies were subjected to additional provisions complementary to their status as zimmīs defining their legal and social rights, domains of freedoms and services; they were often required to visually distinguish themselves from the Muslim population.90 Zimmīs in the Ottoman Empire were subject to similar laws which were formalised under Ottoman law, from dress to bathhouses.91 As mentioned above, foreign Catholics living in Galata were given the legal status of müsteʾmin, and as such, were conferred temporary protection by the sultan through imperial edicts.92

87 Qurʾān 9:8, 10. 88 The Ottoman Turkish word of the Arabic equivalent sunnah meaning the word, actions and tacit approvals of the Prophet Muhammed and his Companions. 89 Qurʾān 9:29. 90 Clifford E. Bosworth, “The Concept of Dhimma in Early Islam,” in Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society, ed. Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis (New York/London: Holmes & Meier Publishers, 1982), 1: 45-49. 91 Mantran, La vie quotidienne, 156; Betül İpşirli Argıt, “Clothing Habits, Regulations and Non- Muslims in the Ottoman Empire,” Akademik Araştırmalar Dergisi 24 (2005): 79-96; Ahmed Akgündüz, Osmanlı Kanûnnâmeleri ve Hukûkî Tahlilleri (Istanbul: Cihân Matbaası, 1996), 9:532. 92 This is based on the binary division of the world in Islamic law into the “abode of Islam” (dāru’l ḥarb) and the non-Muslim controlled lands of “abode of war” (dāru’l islām) in which a non-Muslim from the former who wishes to enter the realm of Islam in safety carry with them a safe conduct

17

The most important extant document regarding the status of the Latin Catholics immediately following the Ottoman conquest is the peace contract (ʿahdnāme),93 referred to by the Genoese as capituli (capitulations).94 Following the conquest of Constantinople, preference was given to creating a peace contract (ṣulḥ aḳdi) with those Genoese in Galata who had not fled. With the conclusion of the agreement, Galata was considered to have been taken peacefully (ṣulḥen). By it, the sultan conceded to the ancient Latin colony all of its commercial, juridical, social and religious rights. However, they were reduced to cizye paying subjects along with those in the rest of Ottoman territories and did not regain the autonomy enjoyed under the Byzantines. In their case however, the state did not appropriate the churches and convert them into mosques as detailed in the fifth point of the following ʿahdnāme contracted with the zimmīs of Galata which guaranteed their safety and meant that their lives and properties were protected although they remained under Muslim rule: “That they [the Genoese of Galata] keep their churches and perform their customary rites in them with the exception of ringing their church bells and semantrons (nāḳūs); that I do not take away from them their present churches and turn them into mosques, but that they also do not attempt to build new churches.”95 The contract was renewed four more times in 1613, 1617, 1624 and 1652.96 The tolerance towards and cooperation in dealing with church properties located in Constantinople following the Conquest of the city was systematised as a wider policy of the Ottoman state towards its

(amān). In legal doctrine it was possible for any adult Muslim of sound mind, of free or servile status, to grant a temporary security (amān) to any non-Muslim. 93 Halil İnalcık defines the ʿahdnāme as “a unilateral pledge or privilege granted to a submitted or friendly group”, Halil İnalcık, “Ottoman Galata 1453-1553,” in Première Rencontre Internationale sur l’Empire Ottoman et la Turquie Moderne, ed. Edhem Eldem (Istanbul/Paris: Éditions – Isis, 1991), 279- 80. Its legal origins are found in the ʿahd or amān. İnalcık describes the Ottoman dual approach as follows: “Just as ghaza-jihad was employed as a legitimizing principle or as an actual ideology to stir and move the Muslim masses to action, the Islamic principle of ta’lîf al-kulûb or istimâlet was used to induce non-Latin Christian population to accept the Ottoman rule.” Halil İnalcık, The Survey of Istanbul 1455: The Text, English Translation, Analysis of the Text, Documents (Istanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2012), 395. 94 E. Dalleggio d’Alessio, “Traité entre les Génois de Galata et Mehmed II (1er Juin 1453), versions et commentaires”, Échos d’Orient 39, no. 1 (1940): 162 note 3. It should be noted that treaties were contracted between the Ottoman Empire and the at an earlier date, for example the Genoese treaty with Bayezid in 1389 and that of the Venetians in early 1390 sent an ambassador to Bayezid to seek Ottoman of the treaties which had previously existed between and the rulers of Aydin and Menteşe. 95 Original Ottoman Turkish: “Ve kiliseleri ellerinde ola, okuyalar āyīnlerince. Ammā çān ve nāḳūs çalmayalar. Ve kiliselerin alıp mescid etmeyen. Bunlar daḫı yeni kilise yapmayalar.” Akgündüz, Osmanlı Kanunnâmeleri, 1: 477. 96 It is worth noting that there was no such contract with the Orthodox and Armenian communities, whose were created by Sultan Mehmed II as an administrative position to achieve political goals, rather than religious ones.

18 non-Muslim population. Those who had zimmī status should be allowed to continue practicing their own religious traditions overseen by the relevant religious authorities without interference by the state. This was a basic principle based of Islamic law and, for example, the Law for Metropolitans (Metropolit Kannunamesi), which applied to the Rumeli Eyāleti, upheld this principle and was based on it:97

“According to the Islamic law of the States, zimmīs, such as Christians and Jews, are in charge of their own contract and religious rites. The ḥadīs mentioned in the ḳānūnnāme is proof of this and also based on the legality of the ḳānūnnāme which is in accordance with the rule of the mentioned ḥadīs and law.”98

Therefore, the laws regulating the Latin Catholics and their places of worship within Ottoman Istanbul were a reflection of the Ottoman state’s relations with its non-Muslim subjects. These relations were regulated following the same principles at a later period with the Capitulations, as shall be seen below.

5. The legal status of Latin Catholic religious orders a. According to Ottoman law In May 1082, Roman Catholics established themselves in the city through the Venetians in one whole district bestowed upon them as a concession by Emperor Alexios I.

97 Ḳānūnnāme can be defined as a law book that was a compilation of ḳānūns (laws created and enacted at the command of the sultan). Ḳānūns first appeared in the late fifteenth century as a of the principles of the Ḳānūn-i Osmānī, which had been formulated a century before. Ḳānūns originated as firmāns which were in conformity with the şerīʿat. With the succession of each new ruler, both the predecessor’s ḳānūns were reconfirmed, as they were bound to the enactor, and additional ḳānūns were enacted by the ruling sultan. They encapsulated the areas of pubic law, state organisation, administration, taxes, and commerce. For more details see Halil İnalcık, “Kanunname”, TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, (Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 2001), 24:333-337. 98 Original Ottoman Turkish: “İslām devletler ḥuḳūḳuna göre hıristiyan ve yahūdiler gibi zimmīler, kendi aḳīde ve dīnī āyīnlerinde muḫtārdırlar. Ḳānūnnāmede zikredilen ḥadīs de bunun delīldir ve bu ḳānūnnāmenin meşrūiyet dayanağı da sözkonusu ḥadīs ve şerʿī hükümdür.” Akgündüz, Osmanlı Kanunnâmeleri, 1:406. For a copy of the kanunname see: Robert Anhegger and Halil İnalcık, Kanunname-i Sultani Ver Muceb-i Orf-i Osmani, (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1956).

19

This district grew into a successful commercial as well as religious center for the Roman Catholic orders. Following the recapture of Constantinople by the Byzantines, led by Emperor Michael VIII in 1261, the Latin was replaced. However, the Catholic orders remained in the city and were dominated by the Genoese in Galata, a situation which continued until 1453. Such religious orders came to be referred to as “Latin” or “Levanten” by the Ottomans although a distinction should be made between the foreign Levantine Roman Catholics and those who were Ottoman. How were the religious orders recognised within the Ottoman legal framework if the principle in Islamic law was to recognise only real persons resulting in non-Muslim entities not having legal identities. The exception to this in practice is the authorisation for the creation of non-Muslim vaḳıf, which will be dealt with in detail below. Furthermore, in the case of the Orthodox and Armenian churches, which were centralised through the authority of the respective patriarchs, they resembled other organised bodies which represented their members. While it has been shown that “the Ottoman state did not regard a Church [i.e. ] as an abstract juristic institution” and therefore in theory, did not grant it a legal identity, or more specifically a legal corporate status.99 The situation of the religious orders was distinct in that each religious order administered a different church and while they were under the authority of the local bishop (referred to as apostolic vicar in Istanbul out of respect for the Orthodox patriarch) they were often under the official protection of different Catholic powers.100 The Latin Catholic religious orders’ lack of recognition as a legal entity, directly affected their ownership rights. Therefore, properties donated to the religious orders were registered by the administrative council of the Latin Catholic community, the Magnifica Comunità di Pera, as being the property of such and such a religious order.101 However, when properties which were either donated or sold to the religious orders were registered at the local şerʿiyye courts they were placed under the names of real individuals, who included members of the Magnifica Comunità di Pera, Christian subjects of Galata and Pera, and ambassadors from the most prominent Catholic powers as well as their personnel, due to the fact that the communal ownership of the religious orders did not enjoy official legal recognition. Consequently, the

99 Ayşe Ozil, Orthodox Christians in the Late Ottoman Empire: A study of communal relations in (London/ New York: Routledge, 2013), 67-68. 100 For example, the Dominicans were under the protection of the Venetians, the Capuchins of the French and the Franciscan Observants of the Hapsburgs. 101 See the detailed examples of property donations to the Dominicans and Franciscan Observants in Part III of this thesis.

20 properties of the religious orders were left vulnerable and were often the subject to attempts at confiscation by those under whose name they were registered or to contestation by other religious orders of the same denomination.102 According to early Islamic practice, Christian religious heads were granted a certificate of investiture by the reigning caliph recognising their spiritual and temporal authority over the Christians of their respective denomination. This certificate was accompanied by a document of recommendation (waṣiyya) granted to Christian religious leaders during the Sultanate (1250-1517).103 During the Ottoman era these documents of recognition took the form of berāts which were issued to the Latin Catholic but not the heads (guardians/) of the religious orders.104 New arrivals from Europe to the religious orders would have received the status of müsteʾmin and were provided a contract of security was well as the immunities and privileges granted to the personnel of the representatives of the Catholic powers before the Sublime Porte. However, according to Islamic doctrine the contract of protection was only a temporary one lasting one lunar year; consequently, permanent residence in Ottoman lands required the transferal of status to zimmīs as Ottoman subject of the sultan.105 Therefore, it could be questioned how religious orders and resided in the Ottoman Empire for any length of time without infringing on this law since they were not automatically granted zimmī status when extending their residence.106 This was circumnavigated by their status as protected persons of the European Catholic powers as determined under the capitulatory agreements and as such they retained the status of “müsteʾmin.”107 While the Ottoman state granted the religious

102 See Part III for detailed case studies of three property disputes of Latin Catholic religious orders. Ayşe Ozil’s study on legal corporate status (“the ownership of property by a group of people as if they were one person”) of the Orthodox community in the late Ottoman empire reveals a similar situation in practice. Ozil, Orthodox Christians, 68-72. 103 Antoine Fattal, Le statut légal des non-Musulmans en pays d’Islam (: Imprimerie Catholique, 1958), 214-218. 104 See below for more on berāts. 105 Fattal, Le statut légal, 72. 106 Gilles Veinstein has argued that the distinction between the two categories of zimmīs and müsteʾmins is “fragile” since there is not a significant difference between the two, with the latter enjoying the privileges and rights of the former (albeit on a temporary basis) in addition to exemption from paying the cizye. Furthermore, he demonstrates how the flexible practical application of the notion of müsteʾmin was influenced by contemporary political and practical considerations. Gilles Veinstein, “Le Statut de Mustaʾmin, entre Droit et Politique,” in The Ottoman Empire Myths, Realities and ‘Black Holes’: Contributions in Honour of Colin Imber, eds. Eugenia Kermeli and Oktay Özel (Istanbul: The Isis Press, 2006), 189-201. 107 As demonstrated by the status of the Franciscan friars at the Holy Sites in Peri, Christianity under Islam, 59. Nationality was not a determinant factor since they were under the auspices of whichever European Catholic state was officially recognised as the protectors of Catholicism in Ottoman lands.

21 orders protection during their sojourn in Ottoman lands, they were required to maintain peace with the state and to respect the laws of the land, such as the prohibition on carrying out proselytisation among Ottoman Muslims. Religious orders appointed as chaplains to embassies and consulates received the status of protégés in their capacity as ambassadorial and consular personnel. Although under that status their privileges and rights to protection did not differ from those conferred on them by the capitulations and imperial edicts obtained by the representatives of the Catholic powers under whose protection they remained. Following the conclusion of the initial ʿahdnāme with the Genoese, which confirmed the legal status of Roman Catholics as well as the foreign and Christian character of Galata, there were many other legal documents that confirmed the legal status of the Catholics in Galata in the centuries that followed. These consisted of capitulations (ʿahdnāmes), law books (ḳānūnnāmes),108 regulations (niżāmnāmes), imperial decrees (firmāns)109 and court records (şerʿiyye sicils).110 In these Ottoman documents, the Roman Catholic religious orders were referred to by the following terms: frenk (Frank), efrenc/efrenç (Frank), frenk mezhebi (Frankish rite), zimmī (non-Muslim Ottoman subject), papāz (priest), rāhib (friar), ruhbān (monks), ecnebī rāhib (foreign monk), keşīş (monk), kefere ṭāʾifesi (infidel sect), ehlüʾz-zimme (the people of zimme).111 Their friaries, priories or houses appeared as papaz odaları (lit. the rooms of the priests), whereas houses of worship were referred to as kilise or more commonly as kenīse, however, no distinction was made between church and chapel. The existence of numerous Ottoman Turkish terms for religious orders, friars and monks is indicative that they had already made significant use of the Ottoman legal system for their own benefit and that of their properties and that that legal system gave them a certain degree of recognition. Many of these documents were repetitive and accumulative in nature since they were renewed by subsequent sultans. For example, Macit Kenanoğlu notes that there is no difference between the berāts issued to the Jerusalem Orthodox Patriarch in 862 AH by Sultan I (r. 1512-1520) and those given to the friars in Istanbul by Sultan Mehmed II. They contained

108 İnalcık, “Kanunname”, 333-337. 109 A firmān was the general name given to any order or edict of the sultan and more specifically to an imperial edict bearing the imperial cipher (ṭuğra). For more information see: Mübahat S. Kütükoğlu, “Ferman”, TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi (İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 1997), 12:400-406; Heyd, “Farmān- Ottoman Empire”, The Encyclopaedia of Islam New Edition, vol. II, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965, pp. 803-806; Nihal Somer, Osmanlı Fermanları (Ankara: Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi Dairesi, 1992). 110 Yunus Uğur, “Şerʾiyye Sicilleri”, TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi (Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 2010), 39:8-11. 111 A phrase which was usually used in the Ottoman Arab provinces.

22 general statements regarding permission to freely conduct rites and attend their houses of worship.112 Therefore, it can be assumed that the position of Sultan Mehmed II towards the Roman Catholic monks of Bosnia, as reflected in an imperial edict which he issued, resembled that of his policies towards the Roman Catholic monks in the capital of the Empire.113 The Bosnian imperial edicts, which opens with an exultation of the sultan’s munificence, contains general statements about the freedom of religious worship and the protection of the monks. Moreover, the sultan’s generosity extended to granting them exemption from the payment of the taxes of cizye, kâffe-i tekâlif-i şâkka and örfiye from the time of the conquest of Bosnia in 1451. The following is a renewed copy of the original:

I, Sultan Mehmed Han! Let it be known by everyone that I am beneficent towards the Bosnian monks and that I issue the following imperial edict: no one will hinder and bother the Bosnian monks and their churches. They can stay in my kingdom without any vigilance and those who flee can come to my kingdom and be resident in their churches without feeling any fear. And no one from among my , my and subjects will interfere and harass the above-mentioned. I solemnly swear in the name of God who created the earth and the sky, on the seven holy books, in the name of our Prophet, in the name of 124, 000 prophets and I swear by my sword that I gird on that their selves, their lives, their goods, their churches and those who come from foreign lands to my kingdom will be safe. Let it be known that no one will oppose that which I have ordered because they [these monks] obey my orders. Written by the ḳāżī of Bosnia on 28 of May.114

In spite of the restrictions imposed upon the Latin Catholic religious orders and their properties, in practice, they appeared to enjoy a fair amount of freedom in the conduct of their rituals and dress according to the French diplomat and traveller Aubry de La Motraye (d. 1743):

112 M. Macit Kenanoğlu, Osmanlı Millet Sistemi: Mit ve Gerçek (Istanbul: Klasik, 2007), 88. 113 The firmān was renewed in the years 1009/1600, 1097/1686 and 1209/1795. 114 C. ADL., nr. 1289, t. 18 Z 1245. Original Ottoman Turkish: “Ṣūret-i Ḫaṭṭ-ı Şerīf-i Ebü’l-Fetḥ Gāzī Sulṭān Meḥmed Ḫan ʿaleyhi raḥmeti ve’l-ğufrān. Ben ki Sulṭān Meḥmed Ḫan’ım! Cümle ʿavām havāssa maʿlūm ola ki işbu darendegān-ı fermān-ı hümāyūn Bosna rāhiblerine mezīd-i ʿināyetim ẓuhūra gelip buyurdum ki mezbūrlara ve kiliselerine kimse māniʿ ve müzāḥim olmayıp iḥtiyatsız memleketimde duralar ve kaçıp gidenler daḫī emn ü emān olalar, gelip bizim ḫaṣṣa memleketimize havfsiz sākin olup kiliselerine mütemekkin olalar ve yüce yüce hażretimden ve vezīrlerimden ve kullarımdan ve reʿāyalarımdan ve cemīʿ-i memleketim ḫalḳından kimse mezburlara daḫl ve taarruż edip incitmeyeler, kendülere ve cānlarına ve māllarına ve kiliselerine ve daḫī yābāndan ḫaṣṣa memleketimize ʿademler gelirler ise yemīn-i muğallaza ederin ki yeri göğü yaradan Perverdigār ḥaḳḳ içün ve yedi muṣḥaf ḥaḳḳ içün ve ulu Peygamberimiz ḥaḳḳ içün ve yüzyirmi dört bin peygamberler ḥaḳḳ içün ve kuşandığım kılıç için bu yazılanlara hiçbir ferd muḫālefet etmeye mādem ki bunlar benim emrime mutīʿ ve münkād olalar şöyle bilesiz, taḥrīren 28 Mayıs el- bi-medīneti Bosna.”

23

“The exercise of all is no where more free, or less disturb’d, than in Turkey. All these Religious Orders perform their functions, make their , sing their masses and , and wear their different habits, as publickly as at . They have their chappels for the slaves who are Roman Catholicks, even in the Bagno’s, as I’ve observ’d at Tripoli, (as have also the Greeks and Armenians, who are condemn’d to the oar for any crime that deserves it) and they confess them, and give them the , even on board the Grand Seignior’s Men of War and Gallies.”115 This situation was probably aided by the familiarity of the Muslim residents with the churches of Galata and Pera which attracted either those seeking a cure from the healing springs, and exorcism or crowds of the curious from the immediate and outlying districts.116 The inquisitiveness is even reported to have extended to the sultans with Mehmed II visiting and attending masses at the church and friary of St. Francis following the conquest as did Sultan Süleyman who even requested a mass be held in his presence.117 While foreigners may have visited mosques for curiosity’s sake or to report on their architectural or artistic features, it is unlikely that they would have been present during one of the five daily . This is corroborated by an account by George Wheler, when referring to attending the night prayer at one of Istanbul’s prominent mosques, Yeni Cāmiʿ: “But this is too dangerous an attempt, for a Christian curiosity to venture to see. Although at other times, by virtue of a small reward to the keeper, you may see any mosque there.”118

115 François Aubry de La Motraye, A. de La Motraye’s Travels through Europe, Asia, and into parts of : containing a great variety of geographical, topographical, and political observations on those parts of the world (London: printed for the author, 1723), 1:166. 116 There is however, no evidence for the reversal of this tradition with local Catholics visiting their former place of worship following its conversion. This assumption can be generalised based on an anecdote by one traveller who attributed this to a prohibition based on the impurity of non-Muslims: “…s’altri gli dice perche vogliono ch’à essi licito entrare nella nostre Chiese, e non à noi ne loro: Rispondono che loro mondi, lauati possono troppo bene entrare ne nostri Tempii immondi, ma noi immondi, non gia ne loro Tempii mondi.” Luigi Basanno, Costumi et i modi particolari della vita de' Turchi : ristampa fotomeccanica dell'edizione originale, ed. Franz Babinger (Monaco di Baviera: Casa editrice M. Hueber, 1963), 36. 117 Dursteler, Venetians in Constantinople, 65; Basanno, Costumi, 36. For other examples of Christian sanctuaries frequented by Muslims see: Frederick W. Hasluck, Under the Sultans (Istanbul: The Isis Press, 2000), 1: 96-103; Fiorenzo Falcini and Claudio Ceccherelli, La missione dei frati minori in Turchia e Grecia: numero unico nel cinquantesimo anniversario del passaggio alla provincia toscana (1930 - 1980); Istanbul - Kadikoy - Buyukada - Izmir e stazioni dipendenti - Bornova - Atene – Ankara (Firenze: Convento S. Francesco, 1986), 17, 19. 118 Wheler, A Journey, 188.

24

b. Compared to the status of Orthodox and Armenian churches and Jews in the capital Following the to the Ottomans, Sultan Mehmed II offered incentives to the Orthodox who had fled the city upon its imminent conquest to encourage their return and warned the Orthodox (rūm) Patriarch against abandoning the city. Their communal autonomy was secured by a recognised leader who was appointed to the institution of the by the sultan rather than being elected by a council of metropolitans and as had been the custom prior to the Ottoman conquest. This was soon to be followed by the establishment of an Armenian Patriarchate. Both appointments were chosen carefully with the intention of benefitting the sultan politically. As the English diplomat and historian Paul Rycaut (d. 1700) observed in his book written at the request of King Charles II, election to the Patriarch was “rather in the hand of the Turk than the Bishops.”119 The Sultan’s appointment of the eminent scholar George Scholarius, known as the monk Gennadios, to the patriarchate was also politically motivated. Scholarius was a strong opponent to the union of the Roman and Orthodox churches as well as being an unpopular figure among the Catholics. Through the Sultan’s patronage of the Orthodox church over the Latin Catholics, he encouraged the continuation of the rift and protected himself against a unified Christian opposition within his own territories and a potential new crusade for the liberation of the East against the Ottoman invader.120 Sultan Mehmed’s investiture of the Patriarch Gennadios on 6 January 1454 was followed by his at the Church of the Holy Apostles which would become his residence until 1456. He was given a berāt of formal appointment and an imperial edict signed by Sultan Mehmed II (ḫaṭṭ-ı humāyūn) securing his position.121 Therefore, the Ottoman Orthodox communities were ruled by a patriarch whose authority extended over religious, administrative, financial and civil judicial matters and was universal in nature. The restrictions on power were recognized by some: “The Patriarchs depend on the Grand Signior, both as to their spiritual

119 Paul Rycaut, The Present State of the Greek and Armenian Churches, Anno Christi, 1678 (The Mitre: London, 1679), 97. 120 Ottoman policy was similar upon the conquest of lands from Latin Catholic rule, maintaining peace with the Orthodox while remaining at war with the Franks. Halil İnalcık, Ottoman Policy and Administration in after the Conquest (Ankara: Ayyildiz Matbaası, 1969), 5. 121 According to the contemporary historian Phrantzes, the edict granted inviolability, freedom of movement, tax exemptions and security against deposition to the Patriarch as well as permission for his successors to inherit these rights. Steven Runciman, The in Captivity: A Study of the Patriarchate of Constantinople from the of the Turkish Conquest to the Greek War of Independence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 170.

25 and civil jurisdiction: for they are likewise judges in civil matters, between Christian and Christian. They buy this dignity dear and possess it with great hazard. Yet so ambitious are the Greek clergy of it, that the Bishops are always buying it over one anothers heads, from the Grand ; who desires no better sport, than to see them strive who shall bring most gifts to his mill.”122 Ottoman policy towards ecclesiastical properties of the Orthodox community was favourable to the extent that the sultan had customary law (örf) preside over the stricter jurisprudential rulings (fıkıh) on matters regarding the status of churches under Muslim rule.123 At the time of the conquest, numerous Byzantine churches and monasteries were transformed into either mosques, mescids or other buildings to serve the practical needs of the Muslim population.124 However, many churches were left in the possession of the Orthodox community to serve the religious needs of the Greek population which had chosen to remain following the Ottoman conquest and those Greeks who were to join them through Sultan Mehmed II’s resettlement policy. Nevertheless, the sultan’s policy favouring Orthodox churches was questioned by his successors and therefore transformations of churches into mosques in the Ottoman capital continued during the reigns of successive sultans, albeit on a less frequent basis. In one such case, the Hamza Paşa Mosque, the conversion of which had been overseen by the governor of (1682-83) of the same name, took place as late as the reign of Murad IV (r. 1623-1640).125 Another significant conversion some decades after the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople was that of the Pammakaristos Church which had been the seat of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate from 1456. Its conversion in 1587 into Fethiye Mosque during the reign of Murad III (r. 1574-1595) can be attributed to theological reasons, primarily, that the

122 Wheler, A Journey, 195. This is supported by Grelot’s account of the excessive payments by the Patriarchs made to the sultan for the securement of their office. Guillaume-Joseph Grelot, Relation nouvelle d’un voyage de Constantinople (Paris: En la boutique de Pierre Rocolet, 1680), 168. 123 This position was held to be in the best interests of the Muslim community as the presence of Greeks in the decimated city would assist in its reconstruction and prosperity. Halıl İnalcık, “The Policy of Mehmed II toward the Greek Population of Istanbul and the Byzantine Buildings of the City,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 23 (1969): 248. 124 For reasons behind these conversions and how such a practice reflected the nature of the Ottoman state’s relations with its Christian population, see Vanessa R. de Obaldía, “Relations between the Ottoman State and its Christian subjects in Istanbul as reflected in the conversion of Byzantine churches into Islamic waqfs”, in Leaving One’s Trace in Society: Individuals and the Institutionalization of their Networks in Society via their Foundations, ed. Randi Deguilhem (Leiden: Brill, 2019) (TBP). 125 For an overview of Byzantine churches and monasteries converted by such individuals see Süleyman Kırımtayıf, Converted Byzantine Churches in Istanbul: Their Transformation into Mosques and Masjids (Istanbul: Ege Yayınları, 2001).

26 conversion was based on the will (irāde) of the sultan since the area in which the church was located was taken by force at the time of the conquest.126 Therefore, in spite of the Sublime Porte’s recognition of a supreme leader of the Ottoman Orthodox community, Orthodox ecclesiastical properties remained vulnerable to confiscation. The traditional view that the Armenian Patriarchate was established in 1461 through the of powers by Sultan Mehmed II by imperial edict to Yovakim of has been refuted as being inaccurate. Rather, the patriarchate’s increase in authority and jurisdiction were the result of a historical process throughout the centuries beginning during Sultan Mehmed II’s reign with the separate recognition of individual Armenian communities headed by a bishop as opposed to a post-conquest universal patriarchate ruling the whole Ottoman Armenian community with its seat in Istanbul.127 On the other hand, an attempt was made by the Sultan to create the post in Constantinople in order to act as an opposition to the influence of the patriarchs in Echmiadzin and Cilicia.128 The weakness of the Armenian Patriarch has been supported by Paul Rycaut writing in 1678: “It is true, that at Constantinople, and at Jerusalem, there are those who are called Armenian Patriarchs, but they are titular only made to please and content the Turks: who have judged it necessary and agreeable to the Armenian , or rather to their own, that Patriarchs would remain in those places; and therefore have enjoined them to constitute under such a notion.”129 Therefore, while the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople had been sanctioned by Sultan Mehmed II, it was rather a vicariate with Armenian communities in other parts of the Empire “recognized as independent groups, distinguished by geographic or administrative division”.130 Kevork Bardakjian concludes that “the transformation of the seat of

126 Explained in detail in PART II of the present thesis. The confiscation and conversion of the Patriarchal church continued to cause indignation down the centuries, even to those who did not profess the Orthodox faith, as observed in the sentiments of George Wheler, “Phati-jame the Eighth, which was formerly a Christian Church, dedicated to the Apostles, and allowed the Patriarch for the Patriarchal Church, upon the taking of the city but was afterwards seized upon again by that Tyrant, and prophaned by the execrable Impiety of the Imposture, against God, and His Christ.” Wheler, A Journey, 188-189. 127 These were bishops of Constantinople, Bursa and Ankara and later Kuthya, Erzurum, Karaman, , Trabzon and . Kevork B. Bardakjian, “The Rise of the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople,” in Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society, eds. Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis (New York/London: Holmes & Meier Publishers, 1982), 1:91-93. 128 Benjamin Braude, “Foundation Myths of the Millet System”, in Ibid., 1: 81-82. 129 Rycaut, Greek and Armenian Churches, 391-392. 130 The Armenian Patriarch was not recognized as the sole representative of all the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire until 1863 with the of the Armenian Constitution. Bardakjian, “The Rise of the Armenian Patriarchate,” 96.

27

Constantinople from a vicariate into an universal patriarchate was due not to an explicit, or conscious Ottoman policy, but to an evolutionary historical process.”131 As regards Armenian churches, in the initial years after the Ottoman conquest, the building of new churches was permitted as well as the renovation of existing ones in order to serve the religious needs of the newly established Armenians in the capital who had been transferred, either voluntarily or compulsorily, from cities such as , Bursa, Kayseri and Tokat.132 New churches could only be established through imperial permission and thus the community depended on the influence of the Armenian notables who represented them at the Sublime Porte.133 Armenian churches were similarly as vulnerable as those of the Orthodox when their total destruction by natural disaster could entail the reversion of ecclesiastical land to the state treasury. In such a case, there was one of two outcomes: the land was either repurchased by the local Armenian community and the church, if proven to be ab antiquo, reconstructed following the obtainment of an imperial edict or the land remained in the possession of the authorities with the remains of the church being demolished to make way for new construction.134 Even when churches were only damaged by fire, they inevitably had to bring attention to their properties in the process of application for repair to the Sublime Porte which might be granted only to have the whole property seized at a later date.135

131 Bardakjian, “The Rise of the Armenian Patriarchate,” 97. 132 İnalcık notes the admiration of a contemporary observer of the accomplishments of the Christians soon after their transfer to the Ottoman capital: “within a short time, these new arrivals had constructed remarkable homes and churches.” Halil İnalcık, The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age 1300-1600 (London: , 1973), 217. 133 Permission was granted for the construction of new churches in many districts of Istanbul from the fifteenth until the nineteenth centuries. Ronald T. Marchese and Marlene R. Breu, “Intersection of Society, Culture, and Religion: The Constantinople Style and Armenian Identity,” in Armenian Constantinople, eds. Richard G. Hovannisian and Simon Payalian (California: Mazda Publishers, 2010), 109-111. 134 There appeared to be a lack of consistency in the implementation of law when imperial law (ḳānūn) took precedence over Islamic law (şerīʿat) insofar as it had contravened the latter’s stance on the issue of the construction of new churches. For example, the church of Hızıriliyas located in the district of Yenikapı belonged to the Iranian Armenians. It was totally destroyed in the conflagration of 1660 upon which the Iranian ambassador petitioned the Sublime Porte for an imperial edict for its reconstruction. It was discovered that the church had been constructed after the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople and, consequently, its reconstruction was not permissible as it was said to contravene Islamic law. Yet, ironically the initial construction of the new church had only been made possible through imperial pemission. İstanbul Müftülüğü, Şerʿiye Sicilleri Arşivi, İstanbul Şerʿiye Sicilleri (hereafter İŞS), register 23, fol. 10 b/2 (Receb 1108/ January 1697). 135 Two churches which had been damaged in the conflagration of 1660, Surp Nigoğos and Surp Sarkis located in the district of Kumkapı, were subsequently granted permission for repair only to be confiscated and demolished on the orders of the in 1661 and 1674 respectively. Kömürciyan, İstanbul Tarihi, nn. 84-85.

28

It has been argued that one of the reasons behind the creation of the Orthodox and Armenian patriarchates was to encourage the return of Christians who had fled Constantinople, especially the wealthy artisans and merchants in order to aid with the reconstruction and re- population of a city which had been in economic decline.136 Sultan Mehmed II, in a desire to rival the Roman Emperor, envisioned creating a city worthy of being the capital of a world Empire as demonstrated on the day of the Conquest when he announced that: “From now on Istanbul is my taht (throne)”.137 Likewise, both the Orthodox and Armenian patriarchs were granted legal, fiscal and administrative authorities which included autonomy to regulate the private and spiritual affairs of their respective communities as well as the institution of separate judicial courts. Other civil law, such as commercial cases, fell under the jurisdiction of their courts if both the claimant and defendant were of the same denomination, i.e. Orthodox vs. Orthodox or Armenian vs. Armenian.138 Nonetheless, the parties could take their case to the local şer‘ī courts if they were either dissatisfied with the judgement issued in their own court or even at the first instance if they thought that they could acquire a more favourable judgment. All criminal cases were dealt with by the Ottoman courts.139 While the Greeks (rūm) and Armenians (ermenī) counted on their titular patriarch (patriḳ), the Jews were granted a similar religious and civil head in the form of the Grand/Chief Rabi (ḫaḫam başı) who enjoyed both spiritual and temporal jurisdiction. The Ottoman Jewish community will be touched upon briefly, because they, like the Christians were attributed the status of zimmīs and, as such, their places of worship received a similar treatment.140 Following the conquest, Sultan Mehmed II chose to invest Rabbi Capsali (d. 1495), who had been the head of the community under the Byzantines, with the powers of Chief Rabbi (ḫāhām başı).141 In addition to religious autonomy, the community also enjoyed autonomy in terms of

136 İnalcık, “Greek Population,” 236. Christians as well as Jews were also persuaded to return through the offer of property and work. When an insufficient number accepted, a policy of forced resettlement began of Muslims, Christians and Jews from and Anatolia to the capital as observed in a series of firmāns issued by Sultan Mehmed II. Tursun Bey, The History of , eds. Halil İnalcık and Rhoads Murphey (Minneapolis/Chicago: Bibliotheca Islamic, 1978), 93. 137 Tursun Bey, Mehmed the Conqueror, fol. 52 b. Original Ottoman manuscript from the Ayasofya Library no. 3032. 138 Runciman, The Great Church in Captivity, 171. 139 Ibid., 172. 140 As can be observed in the court records (şerʿiye sicilleri), no lexical distinction was made between a church and a synagogue. Both were referred to as kenīse with the qualifying adjective Jewish (yahūdī) indicating the fact that it was a synagogue. 141 While the existence of the office of chief rabbi in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries has been questioned by Joseph R. Hacker due to the lack of the term ḫāhām başı in contemporary sources, his

29 its finances and administration, as evidenced by a “rabbi tax” (cizye-i rāv) imposed for the privilege of such independence.142 The community’s judicial independence was also recognized insofar as civil law cases were concerned.143 While the chief rabbi was the spiritual and political leader of the Ottoman Jewish community, his universal jurisdiction was believed to have come to an end during the early sixteenth century as well as his political power.144 During that period, his authority was no longer binding on other rabbis who independently headed communities in other provinces of the Empire. The political authority he once enjoyed was vested in the hands of a new rabbi who was in charge of the community’s fiscal and administrative matters; this continued with succeeding appointments to office until the nineteenth century.145 Yet the chief rabbi retained his spiritual and judicial authority and the Ottoman Jews continued to be recognized as an autonomous community by the Ottoman state. As regards their places of worship, during the resettlement and forced migration (sürgün) of Jews to Istanbul in the early days following the city’s conquest, permission was granted for some of the synagogues which had survived the fall to remain in the hands of the Jews and be used for their rites in spite of this being contrary to Islamic doctrine as seen above. Moreover, the restriction on the construction of new places of worship imposed on the Christians also

argument is refuted by Avigdor Levy who states that the term was not used until the nineteenth century with the expression rāv (rabbi) was commonly used among the Ottoman Jewish communities. See Joseph R. Hacker, “Ottoman Policy toward the Jews and Jewish Attitudes toward the Ottomans during the Fifteenth Century,” in Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society, eds. Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis (New York/London: Holmes & Meier Publishers, 1982), 1:119; Joseph R. Hacker, “The Institution of the ‘Chief Rabbinate’ in Constantinople in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries,” [in Hebrew], Sefunot, 17 (1981): 225-63; Avigdor Levy, “Introduction – III: The Structure of the Jewish Community,” The Jews of the Ottoman Empire, ed. Avigdor Levy (New Jersey: The Darwin Press, 1994), 54. 142 Mark A. Epstein, “The Leadership of the Ottoman Jews in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries” in Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society, eds. Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis (New York/London: Holmes & Meier Publishers, 1982), 1:103. 143 The Ottoman Jewish community would bring their legal affairs before two separate judicial systems: the autonomous Jewish law court (bet din) for religious and civil matters and the Muslim law court (şer‘ī maḥkemesi) in which commercial and criminal cases were heard. The latter court always held the jurisdiction for cases between Jews and non-Jews, for financial disputes and cases. This was especially the case for inheritance between Jews which would also be brought to such courts in search of a more favourable ruling. Aryeh Shmuelevitz, The Jews of the Ottoman Empire in the Late Fifteenth and the Sixteenth Centuries: Administrative, Economic, Legal and Social Relations as Reflected in the Responsa (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1984), 60-68; Amnon Cohen, Jewish Life under Islam: Jerusalem in the Sixteenth Century (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1984), 110- 119. 144 The universal nature of his jurisdiction has been debated in various studies. See Hacker, “Ottoman Policy toward the Jews,” 119. 145 Epstein, “The Leadership of the Ottoman Jews,” 104, 106-7; Shmuelevitz, The Jews of the Ottoman Empire, 22-23.

30 applied in theory to synagogues. In practice however, the Jewish community could and did acquire permission to build new synagogues on the foundations of houses in the capital by imperial decree from the period of Sultan Mehmed II in Salonica and other towns during the sixteenth century.146 Synagogues, like churches, suffered seizure by the state due to alterations in policies towards minorities often upon the enthronement of a new sultan147 and following their destruction by natural disasters and subsequent seizure of the land.148 The creation of a double patriarch, that of the Orthodox and that of the Armenians, left no room for a third, the Catholics. While Islamic legal doctrine did not distinguish between Christian denominations based on the principle that unbelief constituted one nation, the support of the sultan for the Orthodox Church was to ensure its strong presence in the city as a rival to the Catholics and through this support, prevent the unification of the churches.149 As István György Tóth notes regarding the situation in Ottoman Bosnia: “[T]he Turks also had an interest in provoking differences between Christians of the various denominations, especially the Catholics and the Orthodox. For this reason, they made no attempt to establish a lasting peace between the various churches and were also quite willing to adjudicate in church affairs. Bitter rancor among the non-Muslim populations reduced the likelihood of a united Christian uprising against Ottoman rule. A united stand by Christians that ignored denominational differences was a constant fear of the Turks. Events during the great wars at the end of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries proved that this fear was not without foundation.”150 Another reason suggested by Halil İnalcık relates to wider political alliances since the Latins and their churches were under the protectorate of the Venetians who were not on favourable diplomatic terms with the Ottomans

146 Stanford J. Shaw, The Jews of the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic (London: MacMillan, 1991), 29, 48-49; Levy, “Introduction,” 22. 147 The Jewish historian Elijah Capsali notes that Sultan Bayezit II ordered the closure of synagogues built after the Ottoman conquest of the city which contravened Islamic law, although these restrictions were lifted upon his death. Shmuelevitz, The Jews of the Ottoman Empire, 28-30. 148 An infamous case was the seizure of land on which synagogues and other Jewish properties had stood in the district of Eminünü following their destruction in the conflagration of 1660. They reverted to the state treasury as public land (arāżī-i mirīye) and were put up for public auction where they were purchased by Muslim endowments (evkāf) to benefit the construction of Hatice Turhan’s mosque complex. Marc David Baer, “The Great Fire of 1660 and the Islamization of Christian and Jewish Space in Istanbul,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 36, no. 2 (May 2004): 166-170. 149 This ruling is derived from the following Qurʿānic verse: “And those who disbelieved are allies of one another.” Qurʾān, 8:73 150 István György Tóth, “Between Islam and Catholicism: Bosnian Franciscan in Turkish Hungary, 1584-1716,” The Catholic Historical Review 89, no. 3 (July 2003): 411. For the Ottoman position on prolonged denominational conflicts between the Orthodox and Latin Catholics see Oded Peri’s chapter on “The Ottoman State and the Inter-Church Struggle Over the Holy Sites,” in Christianity under Islam, 97-160.

31 due to their allegiance with the Byzantines during the Ottoman siege of Constantinople. Indeed, the presence of their fleet in the Aegean continued to pose a menace to the new Ottoman capital which sought to win over the Orthodox for their own political interests: “[T]he Ottoman sultans were always careful to represent themselves as protectors of the Orthodox Church against the Latins. Documents dating from before the fall of Constantinople show that an Orthodox metropolitan or bishop in Ottoman territories was appointed by an official (berāt) of the Sultan and might even, like other Ottoman functionaries, be assigned a timār. It is thus easily understandable that, in the course of the Ottoman expansion, Orthodox priests frequently cooperated with the Ottomans against the Venetians.”151 Paul Rycaut supported the above-mentioned idea that it was in the interests of the Ottoman Empire but that these interests were military: “[I]n the time of common pestilence, or calamity, both the Greek and Armenian Patriarchs are enjoined by the Turks to assemble their people and pray against it. This permission of the Christian religion indulged by the Turks, is both agreeable to Mahomet’s doctrine, and the privileges granted by the Sultans, who in their conquests of the Grecian Empire judged that a of religion would much facilitate the entire subjection of that people.”152 A fourth contributing factor could be due to the financial benefit derived from these groups.153 Given the case of the Orthodox church, Tom Papademetriou explains, “By the middle of the sixteenth century, the ecclesiastical hierarchy of the Greek Orthodox Church in the Ottoman Empire became integrated into the fiscal administration of the Ottoman state. Beginning with the Patriarch and extending to local bishops, the hierarchy was considered by the Ottoman state to be tax farmers, submitting yearly tax payments for revenues produced by their ecclesiastical properties as well as for revenues collected from the Orthodox faithful.”154 A similar accommodation of the Armenians and Jews can be observed based on fiscal concerns. Therefore, the relationship of the Ottoman state and the Orthodox and Armenian churches as well as the Jews was one where the former sought to exert rule and derive a handsome income through the fiscalisation of the ecclesiastical administration.155

151 İnalcık, “Greek Population,” 236-7. 152 Rycaut, Greek and Armenian Churches, 21. 153 As with the Latin Catholic church, the other religious minorities’ main source of income was a combination of donations from the faithful and revenues from ecclesiastical properties, yet the main difference was the financial relationship of these groups with the Ottoman State. 154 Tom Papademetriou, Render unto the Sultan: Power, Authority, and the Greek Orthodox Church in the early Ottoman Centuries (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 66-67. 155 The central argument of Tom Papademetriou’s book, Ibid.

32

Another consideration is that the investiture of Patriarch Grennadios in 1454 was considered to be the inception of the Ottoman millet system which was expanded soon after to the Armenians. Therefore, the Catholics were never granted the status of a millet which the Greeks and Armenians enjoyed, albeit described as a ṭāʾife and cemaʿāt in the earlier period.156 The term millet was not mentioned in relation to Latin Catholics (katolik milleti) until the beginning of the Tanzimat era in 1839 along with the Jews (yahūdī milleti), in contrast to the Armenians (millet-i ermeniyan) for whom the term appears in the late seventeenth century and for the Greeks (millet-i rūm) in the mid-eighteenth century.157 Although the Catholics were self-defined as millet-i reʿāyā-i Latin on the seal of the chief of the chancery of the community, the Catholic church and denomination did not come to be known as a millet and thus officially recognised by the Ottoman Empire until 1830.158 In 1834 (1250 AH), the rank of bishop was transformed into that of patriarch.159 During this period, the Chaldean, Syriacs, Melchites and Maronites came under the jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic Patriarch. The Catholics also had the right to appoint their own autonomous Latin deputy (vekīl) to oversee the affairs of the Latin Catholic community. The Orthodox, Armenian and Jewish communities maintained their religious, financial, administrative and judicial autonomy and were represented by a religious head (patriarch or rabbi), who became their civil head, as a result of being governed by the millet system.160 Their congregations actively participated in commerce in the Ottoman capital monopolising the following areas: Greeks as shipowners, tavern-keepers, fur merchants and traders in jewels and dragomans; Jews as tax-farmers, bankers, money-changers, coin-minters, and satin and pearl merchants and physicians and Armenians, from the beginning of the seventeenth century, as

156 In a study by Daniel Goffman, he shows that these terms were specific to the community of Latins in Jerusalem, Daniel Goffman, “Ottoman Millets in the Early Seventeenth Century,” New Perspectives on Turkey 11 (1994): 139, n. 10. 157 Michael Ursinus, “Millet,” Encyclopedia of Islam (2nd Edition) VII (1990): 62. This refutes Benjamin Braude’s assertion that the term millet was not introduced until the late Ottoman period, with the phrase rūm milleti not appearing in the dictionaries until 1899. Braude, “Foundation Myths,” 73. 158 This date is disputed by M. Macit Kenanoğlu who argues that it was officially recognised in 1814/1815 according to the Ottoman imperial edict (ḫaṭṭ-ı hümāyūn) dated 1230 AH which mentions the appointment of a bishop (piskopos): “(…) rāhib-i mesfūrun Katoliklere piskopos naṣbı için iktiżā eden emīr ve ilānı için lāzım gelen ḫaftānı iksāsıyla icrāsına ibtidār olunsun.” Kenanoğlu, Osmanlı Millet, 120-121. 159 H.H., nr. 36316, t. 1250. 160 It is debated when exactly the term began to refer specifically to non-Muslims. Benjamin Braude argues that the term was not used before the nineteenth century when the millet system was introduced as law under the Tanzimat. Braude, “Foundation Myths,” 70-74.

33 traders in silk, Bursa tobacco, Ankara sheep and goat’s wool as well as money-changers and bankers in the following century.161 The Latin Catholics, however, did not have a religious head who was recognised by the Ottoman authorities and were therefore not accorded legal or political rights but were under the administration of the Magnifica Comunità di Pera as well as local Ottoman officials in Galata.162 The administration of the churches and synagogues also came under the jurisdiction of both. This point is brought up by Halil İnalcık: “The question of why the Ottoman Empire maintained the Churches, each to represent its own community, in a manner similar to that of other organized bodies, must be examined within the context of the peculiar social system of the Islamic empires, in which socio-economic and religious organizations were the units through which the authority of the state was often mediated to the individual…individuals were not considered citizens in the modern sense of the word; rather they were perceived as members of a community, which was the only type of entity officially recognized within the larger political framework of the Empire. This system was based on the sultan’s recognition, through a diploma, of the existence and limited authority of such communities.”163 Thus, the Ottoman administration dealt with the non-Muslim subject population as if they were a corporate body. Why were the Roman Catholics not legally, politically and administratively autonomous like their Orthodox and Armenian counterparts? Macit Kenanoğlu hypothesizes that this might be attributed to their low numbers.164 This is a possibility, as Eric Dursteler describes the Roman Catholic’s maintenance of a separate identity as a “struggle”. In spite of attempts at preservation of their identity through dress and support of ,165 assimilation could be noted in how they were identified by outsiders and through language:

Visitors to Pera acknowledged the hyphenated character of Perot identity, describing them as “Greek Genoeses,” “Greeks, of Genoese origins,” and “Greek Franks.” This process of assimilation is found also in the language of the community: while the Perots originally had spoken a Genoese variant of Italian, by the seventeenth century Greek had replaced it as the everyday language of the community, though Italian continued as its

161 Mantran, Foreign Merchants, 130, 133-134. 162 İnalcık, “Ottoman Galata,” 25-31. 163 Halil İnalcık, “The Status of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate under the Ottomans”, Turcica 21-23 (1991): 407-408, 420. 164 From a private conversation, which took place on 05/09/16 at İstanbul Şehir University in Istanbul. 165 In the form of the Jesuit and Capuchin schools in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Eric R. Dursteler, “Education and Identity in Constantinople’s Latin-rite Community, ca. 1600,” Studies 18 (2004): 287-303.

34

administrative idiom and the lingua franca of the Levant, and many, most notably the dragomans, were multilingual.166

Nevertheless, the Latin Catholic community did manage to maintain administrative control over their churches under the authority of the Magnifica Comunità di Pera. Disputes within the community, be it between religious persons or laymen, were ruled upon by the ambassador of the prominent Catholic power or his chargé d’affaires who had legal jurisdiction. Therefore, a form of self-governance was maintained in terms of temporal religious affairs, demonstrating the accommodation of legal pluralism in the Ottoman system.167

6. The representatives of Latin Catholic churches and ecclesiastical properties a. La Magnifica Comunità di Pera As part of the capitulatory concessions granted by Sultan Mehmed II to the Genoese of Galata in the form of the ʿahdnāme of 1 of June 1453, permission was granted for the appointment of an elder from the community who would be responsible for the administration of law, customs and the oversight of the fair conduct of commerce. Out of this was established the Magnifica Comunità di Pera which served as the governing council of the Latin Catholic subjects of the sultan in Galata. It was presided over by an annually elected prior whose job it was to represent the community before the Ottoman authorities at the Porte. The council also comprised a sub-prior and twelve councilors with approximately thirty members all of whom were Roman Catholics and natives of Istanbul or married to Ottoman subjects. The Magnifica Comunità replaced the pre-conquest office of the Genoese podestá and was organised into a religious and civil body, “Confraternita di Sant’Anna”, named after the chapel of St. Anne located in the grounds of the grandest of Galata’s Latin Catholic churches, St. Francis.168

166 Dursteler, Venetians in Constantinople, 143. 167 Legal pluralism is arguably based on the sultan’s self-perceived duty to ensure for all his subjects, regardless of religious adherence, conceptualised in the “Circle of Equity or Justice”. Linda T. Darling, A History of Social Justice and Political Power in the Middle East: The Circle of Justice From Mesopotamia to Globalization (New York: Routledge, 2013). 168 In some instances, it gave its deliberations in a public hearing whereas in others, the deliberations occurred in the of the Magnifica Comunità which was in the chapel of St. Anne. When the chapel had not been reconstructed following its destruction in the fire of 1660, the deliberations were held in a chapel in St. Benoît. Belin, Histoire, 167-168, 171.

35

Their responsibilities included overseeing the domestic affairs of the Roman Catholics of Galata such as the administration of the community’s properties, alms and taxes collected by the community. Significantly, they were also responsible to the Patriarchal Vicar of Constantinople for the temporal administration of the Latin Catholic churches in greater Constantinople. For example, their revenues and properties were under the control of the council which would revenue and necessary funds for the reconstruction and reparation of churches. It also had the exclusive right to designate the clergy to the numerous churches under its jurisdiction in Istanbul, a right which it claimed to have had since the time of the conquest in an act dated 18 November 1585.169 In this case, the authorisation of the Porte had to be sought in these appointments unlike the Ottoman provinces where it was determined by the Ottoman beys who received a generous offering.170 Moreover, the Magnifica Comunità did not enjoy legal, administrative or political autonomy like the other officially recognised Christian communities of the Orthodox and Armenians. Rather, it was placed directly under the political jurisdiction of Galata’s Islamic judge (ḳāżī) and district governor (voïvoda). Therefore, the legal status of both the Latin Catholic laymen and clergy of Galata were thus confirmed before the Ottoman authorities through this governing council. They were recognised as Ottoman subjects with distinct ethnic and religious qualities and as foreigners with special privileges. A detailed description of the functioning of the Comunità is given by P. Giovanni Mauri O.F.M. Conv. Ecco at the beginning of the seventeenth century: Hora questi tutti – i perotti o galatioti – in virtu delli privilege sopradetti eleggono ogni anno nelle feste del Natale un Priore di loro nella chiesa di S. Anna, luogo a questo destinato, et assieme con detto Priore, eleggono anco il sotto Priore e tutti li Procuratori di ciascheduna chiesa, quali hanno particular cura di tutti i beni d’esse, cosi stabili come mobili, di riscuotere, spendere, liticare, convenire, affittare, risarcire et fare insomma tutte quelle cose, che ridondano in beneficio delle chiese. Il che viene da essi con molta diligenza et carita affectuosamente eseguito, affaticandosi, come procuratori fedeli e zelanti, di riparare le chiese e loro intrate et diffenderle al possibile dale insidie e violenze dei malevoli, delle quali cose tutte, detti procuratori ne rendono conto distinto e reale alli Superiori, a chi s’aspetta, in presenz di detto Priore. Eleggono anco, secondo il bisogno, li cappellani per le chiese, che presentandoli al Vicario Patriarcal ene ricevono da esso la confirmatione, e finalmente cosi uniti in tutte le occasioni che bisognano, fanno consigli

169 E. Dalleggio d’Alessio, “Les origins dominicains du couvent de S. Pierre et Paul de Galata,” Echos d’Orient 29, no. 4 (1930), 459. 170 Such as in the case of Ottoman Hungary, Tóth, “Between Islam and Catholicism,” 423.

36

‘nel sopradetto luoco e determinano le cose spettanti allí loro publici affari e negotij osservando il modo de’ suffragij, secreti, con li loro libri et ogn’altra, in simili cose, necessaria circostanza. Nel rimanente poi sono astretti ad osservare le leggi del paese, quale benche avanti la presa di Constantinopoli si governasse secondo li statuti di Genova, essendo retto per mezzo de’ Prefetti, come d’uno se ne vede il sepolcro nella Chiesa di S. Francesco, hoggi nondimeno bien commandato dal Governatore e Giudice de’ turchi, de’ quali il primo si chiama Vaivoda e l’altro , avanti li quali si comparisce in tutte le cause, cosi civil come criminali amministrandosi la giustizia secondo lo stile turchesco, cioe speditamente con comparse in contradittorio, senza longhezza de’ processi, sebene finalmente ogni delitto per grave che sia, quietata la parte con denari, si rilassia et assolve. Usano anco, quando sia possibile, per evitare le spese et ogn’altra difficolta, compromettere le loro differenze in particolari persone, al giudizio delle quali se ne stanno, come sono Ambasciatori, Vicario Patriarcale e simili, quantunque, all’ultimo, se l’una parte non acconsente o non persevera nelle determitioni fatte, sono necessitati di fare nuovo ricorso alla giustitia turchesca per fare scritture valide in giuditio, secondo il costume delle loro leggi.171

The archives of SS. Peter and Paul demonstrate the important role that the Magnifica Comunità played in the purchase of properties on behalf of the Dominicans, mirroring the French ambassador and his employees for the Capuchins of Pera. It safeguarded the ecclesiastical properties and ensured necessary proprietary documents according to Ottoman law. Moreover, the chapel of St. Anne, located within the grounds of St. Francis, was the meeting place of the Confraternità di Sant’Anna, the council of the Magnifica Comunità di Pera, which brought together the elected functionaries of the Galatan community. It replaced the pre-conquest office of the Genoese podestá and had jurisdiction over the domestic affairs of the Latin Catholics of Galata and Pera and the temporal administration of the churches. Notable Latin Catholic families, such as the Piron and Testa, held important positions within the civic and religous body of the council which was frequently headed by a member of the latter family.172

171 Giovanni Mauri, Relatione dello stato della cristianita di Pera e Constantinopoli obediente al Sommo Pontefice Romano (Constantinople: Edizioni Rizzo & Son, 1925), 24-26. Mentioned in Gualberto Matteucci, La missione Francescana di Costantinopoli: la sua antica origine e primi secoli di storia (1217-1585) (Firenze: Biblioteca di Studi Francescani, 1971), 1:12-13. 172 Vesna Miović, “Diplomatic Relations between the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of ,” in The European Tributary States of the Ottoman Empire in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, eds. Gábor Kármán and Lovro Kunčević (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 194.

37

A high percentage of the Levantine families had a presence in the area prior to the time of the city’s fall to the Ottomans since they were descendents of the Genoese and Venetians who had settled there. However, others settled in Istanbul’s Frankish districts at a later period such as after the Ottoman conquest of in 1566.173 Eric Dursteler, underlines the influence of those families represented in the Magnifica Comunità due to their critical role “as mediators between the various European diplomatic missions and the Porte, both formally as dragomans, and informally in numerous other ways, particularly in the sixteenth and first half of the seventeenth centuries.”174 In view of being deeply integrated into the Ottoman central administration, the role of the dragoman families as mediator in legal issues arising between the Latin Catholic religious orders and the Ottoman state, was crucial in the preservation of the churches.175 Their presence in şerʿī courts was also a requirement for any legal cases arising against Franks due to their lack of fluency in Turkish.176 The Court of Rome also claimed a higher authority over the church properties. One such example is in 1636 when the Magnifica Comunità was asked to explain the sale of certain ecclesiastical goods to cover the costs of the reparation of different dilapidated churches for which it blamed the on account of the reduction made by it on the amount allocated to the upkeep of the churches.177 Some years later, in 1643, Urban VIII briefly excommunicated the community due to heightened tensions with the papacy.178 Nevertheless, after their reinstatement, the authority of the Magnifica Comunità had diminished and, by the late seventeenth century, its functions had been significantly restricted. It was dissolved in 1682 following the refusal by the Sublime Porte to grant the renewal of the berāt that accorded it legitimacy.

173 Interestingly, the Latin Catholics who emigrated from Chios were descendants of those residents of Galata who had fled to the island following the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople. E. Daleggio d’Alessio, “La communauté de Constantinople au lendemain de la conquête ottomane,” Échos d’orient 36 (1937): 312-3. 174 Dursteler, “Latin-Rite Christians,” 142. 175 Elisabetta Borromeo, “Les Catholiques à Constantinople. Galata et les églises de rite latin au XVIIe siècle,” Revue des mondes musulmans et de la Méditerranée 107-110 (Sep. 2005): 231-233. 176 Viorel Panaite, “French Capitulations and Consular Jurisdiction in Egypt and in the Late Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Century,” in Well-Connected Domains: towards an entangled Ottoman history, eds. Pascal W. Firges et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 82-83. For more on dragomans see Alexander H. de Groot, “Protection and Nationality. The Decline of the Dragomans,” in Istanbul et les langues orientales: Actes du colloque, Istanbul 29-31 mai 1995, ed. Frédéric Hitzel, 235-255 (Paris: L'Harmattan, c1997). 177 Belin, Histoire, 174. 178 Armand Trannoy, “La «nation latine» de Constantinople,” Echos d’orient 15, no. 94 (1912): 246- 56.

38

The Propaganda Fide removed the Magnifica Comunità from the administration of the ecclesiastical properties in a decree dated 17 October 1682. This can be attributed to the appearance of two new authoritative elements that had a transformative effect: firstly, the increase of the spiritual power of Rome and, secondly, the protectorate policy exercised by the Western powers.179 The former can be attributed to the general sentiment of the community which was robbed of its autonomy following the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople. Elisabetta Borromeo has highlighted the fact that the Magnifica Comunità’s decline was evident a decade before its dissolution since in spite of it already being burdened with debts, it acquired still more loans from the local Levantine community and pleaded with the bailo of Venice for assistance to cover the costs of the reconstruction and repair of the churches.180 The tensions created by the eagerness of the members of the Magnifica Comunità in their administration of the Latin Catholic churches of Galata and Pera is summed up perfectly by Eric Dursteler:

The Perots’ to superintend their churches often resulted in controversy with religious representatives sent from Rome, as well as with the resident Roman Catholic ambassadors who patronized and protected the churches. The fundamental issue centered on the question of who had legal authority over the churches. Despite its strong identification with the Roman church, the Magnifica Comunità traced its sovereignty over the Ottoman capital’s Latin-rite churches to Mehmed II. As Cristoforo Valier reported, the Perots claimed “absolute dominion over all the churches of Pera, donated, as was seen in their statutes, by Emperor Sultan Mehmed . . . to whom the Perots made voluntary submission of themselves in return for the privileges and other immunities that they still enjoy today.” This claim was contested both by Venice and Rome who heavily subsidized the churches and the community. As a Roman official wrote to the bailo in 1590, ‘‘You will do well not to give any authority here to the Perots over these places, nor over the monks, because unfortunately they usurp the authority of the Religious, and of the monasteries, to their damage.”181

The waning political influence of the Magnifica Comunità was evident following its difficulties in obtaining imperial permission for the reconstruction and repair of the churches that were damaged in the fire that swept through Galata in April 1660. Simultaneously, internal

179 Belin, Histoire, 173. 180 Borromeo, “Les Catholiques à Constantinople,” 233. 181 Dursteler, Venetians in Constantinople, 144.

39 cracks began to appear within the Magnifica Comunità in the form of dissension and slander resulting in appeals to the Sublime Porte and the Genoese Signoria.”182 Furthermore, just over a decade before the confiscation of the Conventual Franciscan properties of St. Francis in 1697, the authority of the Magnifica Comunità had diminished and its functions had been significantly restricted as a result of its removal from the administration of ecclesiastical properties by the Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide in a decree dated 1682, in addition to the Sublime Porte’s refusal to grant the renewal of the berāt that accorded it legitimacy in the same year.

b. La Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide While the legal status of the body representing the temporal affairs of the Latin Catholic churches of Galata before the Sublime Porte had been affirmed in the form of the Magnifica Comunità di Pera, the spiritual affairs were overseen by clergy dependent on a body, the Holy See of Rome, which was not recognised by the Ottoman Empire until the seventeenth century.183 Rather, the clergy sought protection from the representatives of the great Catholic powers to the Sublime Porte. Roman Catholic Ottoman subjects also came to enjoy the protection of the Catholic powers and would likewise seek the intervention of the ambassadors in their affairs against the Porte, as will be expanded on below. The Congregation for the Affairs of the Holy Faith and the Catholic Religion, founded by Pope Clement VIII in 1596 and headed by Cardinal Giulio Santori, was the predecessor of the above-mentioned body.184 Established on 14 January 1622 by Pope Gregory XV by the bull Inscrutabili Divinae, it was responsible for the spread of Catholicism and the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs in non-Catholic countries which lacked resident bishops. It also aimed to bring existing Christians in line with Roman Catholic doctrine and practice.185 Therefore, the Ottoman Empire, in its entirety, with the exception of the and , came under its jurisdiction. The fruits of its efforts could be observed in the increase of missionaries and with a new religious order supporting the old. Nevertheless, their strict liturgical practice

182 Mitler, Genoese, 91. 183 Borromeo, “Les Catholiques à Constantinople,” 232. 184 Frazee, Catholics and Sultans, 78. 185 Before this, in 1584, the Maronite College was founded in Rome to train seminarians from the Ottoman Arab lands to spread the Roman Catholic version of Christian .

40 such as forbidding the offering of mass in Orthodox churches led to unnecessary hardship on the Latin clergy and congregations, often Eastern converts to Catholicism.186 However, the Holy See was unable to provide them with effective protection in Turkey because it never maintained direct relations with the Sublime Porte since the Papacy had never accepted a peace settlement with the Ottomans. Regardless, even during the (1645- 1669), French missionaries were still allowed to unrestrictedly serve the religious needs of the Latin Catholic community of Galata and Pera and to carry out proselytisation under the protection of the capitulations, albeit of the diverse Christian communities as well as Jews and in the Empire.187 In the seventeenth century, Rome gained increasing confidence in its practices in the Ottoman Empire due to its “perception that the balance of military power in the eastern Mediterranean had shifted with France now in the ascendancy.”188 While the subject matter of a fair proportion of the legal documents emanating from the Propaganda Fide regarding the regulation of Catholicism in Ottoman lands centred on liturgical doctrine and practice,189 it also issued decrees sanctioning the instalment of individual religious orders in various parts of the Levant.190 In places where the of another religious order might cause religious contentions, decrees were issued authorising their establishment, ordering the presiding bishop to allow them free exercise in their mission and endorsing their engagement in particular activities.191 Such was the case for a decree issued on 22 of 1627 for the instalment of the Capuchin mission in Jerusalem and Bethlehem where the order of Franciscan Observants already had hospices established.192 Furthermore, they issued decrees dealing with extraordinary situations, including the resolution of disputes between religious orders, disciplinary action against superiors, the removal of incapable missionaries and the holding of liturgy in times of natural disasters and plagues.193 The patriarchal vicar who represented the Latin community was replaced by a in 1622 at the recommendation of the bishop of Thira, Pietro Demarchis. A titular

186 Frazee, Catholics and Sultans, 91. 187 There was an explicit prohibition on proselytisation among the Muslim Ottoman subjects and the penalty for the Muslim who willingly apostated from Islam was death. 188 Bruce Masters, Christians and Jews in the Ottoman (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 70. 189 Archives de la Mission des Capucins de Constantinople (hereafter AMCC), Series C: Décrets de la S. Congrégation; Authentiques; Ordes; Avertissements et défenses, docs. 11, 13, 15, 23, 25, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37-42, 44, 47, 50, 52, 54, 55, 57, 59, 61, 63-66. 190 Ibid., docs. 7, 30, 32, 51. 191 Ibid., docs. 9, 18. 192 Ibid., doc. 6. 193 Ibid., docs. 19, 20, 35, 48; Conventual archive of the Dominicans of Ss. Peter and Paul in Galata (hereafter CADG), no. 4.3.

41 bishop was elected who was a suffragan of the Latin patriarch of Constantinople. However, the opposition of the Magnifica Comunità di Pera which was concerned that the presence of a bishop would affect their patronage of the capital’s Latin Catholic churches meant that he was never based in Istanbul. Tensions between the two bodies continued when the Propaganda appointed a vicar to Istanbul in 1629 under whose jurisdiction the Galatan church administration was centralised. As a result, the functions of the Magnifica Comunità were restricted. Moreover, the Magnifica Comunità’s subsequent request, in 1671, to the Propaganda for the nomination of a Latin Patriarch in Constantinople was opposed. Charles Frazee aptly sums up the conclusion of the tensions over the administration of the Latin-rite ecclesiastical properties: “The final settlement of the dispute over church properties in the capital was made in 1682 during the tenure of Bishop Gasparo Gasparini. This had requested a decision from Rome on the ownership of the churches. Hardly surprisingly, the Congregation ruled in favour of the bishop by a decree in 17 October 1682. The Communita sought in vain to reverse this ruling, since its effect was to end the economic basis of its organization, but soon afterwards accepted the inevitable and was dissolved, only its spiritual association continuing to function as the of St. Anne. For Istanbul’s Catholics, a new era had begun which would see increasing control of the city’s ecclesiastical life exercised by Roman authorities.”194

c. The foreign Catholic powers The fact that the Holy See of Rome did not receive official recognition by the Ottoman Empire until the seventeenth century made the role of the Catholic powers to protect and Catholicism in Ottoman lands all the more significant. The Genoese and Venetians and, subsequently, the French, were the official protectors of Catholicism in the Ottoman Empire.195 The change in protectors took place during a period of strained diplomatic relations. The Genoese lost their diplomatic representation to the Sublime Porte in 1558 and were placed under French commercial privilege from the Capitulation of 1597 after losing the privilege to navigate under their own flag. Following the twenty-year peace agreement contracted with the

194 Belin, Histoire, 355. 195 The Genoese, the Venetians and the Pisans had traditionally been represented by the podesta, the bailo and consul respectively since Byzantine times, the French were officially represented after the sixteenth century.

42

Habsburgs, the mercantile and religious privileges of the capitulations were also extended to the Austrians.196 A similar situation occurred between Venice and the Porte during the seventeenth century, beginning with the twenty four-year War of Candia (1645-1669), also known as the Fifth Ottoman-Venetian War. This was followed less than two decades later by the Sixth Ottoman-Venetian War (1684-1699), as a result of which the church of St. Francis was placed under French protection.197 Notably, France was the only Catholic country at that time to have diplomatic representation at the Sublime Porte. As Gualberto Matteucci noted: “Ed è proprio l’ambasciatore francese Gabriele Giuseppe Guilleragues che in quelle difficili circostanze di lotta tra la repubblica veneta e la Sublime Porta, ottiene un Comandamento a favore del nostro S. Francesco di Galata, il quale va così a collocarsi sotto la protezione di Francia.”198 Consequently, the French ambassador sought to further French interests in the region through the Latin Catholic churches in Istanbul as well as through the French clergy and missions in other parts of the Ottoman Empire. The role of protector of a particular nation was irrefutably linked to the influence of the diplomatic representatives to the Sublime Porte. Venice had been the exception to this as they did not adopt such methods due to their having maintained a presence in Constantinople and in the Mediterranean ports for centuries. relying instead on paid agents and, when in need of intermediaries, on Jews.199 This in turn, depended on the favour of the foreign merchants of each nation whose companies influenced the nomination of the diplomatic representative until the seventeenth century when diplomats became paid state officials.200 Such relations were however, reciprocal because merchants often depended on the ambassadors in the resolution of their disputes to the extent that one traveller noted how they even chose to settle in close proximity to the ambassadors: “Tous les marchants francs, c’est-à-dire Français, Anglais, Hollandais, Vénitiens, Génois ou autres, habitent à Galata à cause du voisinage de leurs ambassadeurs, et que leurs vaisseaux abordent à cette échelle.”201

196 The Franciscan Observant church of St. Maria Draperis in Pera was the only Latin Catholic church among those located in Galata and Pera to be under the protection of the Habsburgs. 197 Venice had been the first country to have an ambassador appointed to Istanbul in 1453, Bartolomeo Marcello who remained in his post until 1456. 198 Gualberto Matteucci, Un glorioso convento francescano sulle rive del Bosforo; il S. Francesco di Galata in Constantinopoli, c. 1230-1697 (Firenze: Edizioni Studi Francescani, 1967), 272. 199 Mantran, Foreign Merchants, 131. 200 Mantran, Istanbul, 547. 201 François Pétis de , Voyages de Petis de La Croix (Paris: Ferra, 1810), 162.

43

The protectorate of the foreign Catholic powers must be taken on a case by case basis. While a Catholic power might receive official recognition by the Sublime Port for its status of protector over a particular Catholic church, in practice, the transfer of this recognition may have taken some time. For example, an imperial edict (firmān) was issued by Sultan (r. 1603-1617) in 1608 placing the church and friary of SS. Peter and Paul under the protection of the King of France. At the same time, the church continued to receive a yearly subsidy from the and only definitively came under the French flag in 1705 during the vicariate of R. P. Tommaso de Via of Chio (1702-1706).202 A foreign Catholic power could guarantee the protection of churches and clergy by means of three main methods: 1. Capitulations:203 capitulatory treatise granted to individual nations could ensure universal protection or particular concessions to individual churches.204 There were no previous articles on the subject of religion in the Capitulations until the article treating the right to repair churches in the Capitulation of 1706 granted to Venice; terms for the protection of , friars and churches at the Holy Sites were granted as imperial edicts.205 As noted above, it was later replaced as the vanguard of Catholicism in Ottoman lands by more influential Catholic nations. Nevertheless, there is evidence of the Venetian bailo issuing petitions in the seventeenth century in favour of the churches.206 The renewal of a Capitulation with the Hapsburgs, dated 1616, referred to the practice of religious rites, reading of the and administration of the churches without disturbance, with particular reference to the Jesuits.207 There were similar articles in the capitulations of

202 As argued by Belin, who highlighted that a feast was even given to celebrate the occasion. Belin, Histoire, 227. 203 The definition, general objectives, an overview of the capitulations granted to the French and an analysis of the individual articles granting privileges to the Latin Catholic religious, their churches, properties, institutions and activities will be given in Part IV. 204 Such as the new article 3 from the Capitulation of 1673 granted to the French for the rebuilding of the Capuchin church of St. George in Galata which was destroyed in the fire of 1660. Basile Homsy, Les Capitulations et la Protection des Chrétiens au Proche-Orient: aux XVIIe et XVIII siecles (Beirut: Saint Paul Press, 1956), 255. 205 Peri, Christianity under Islam, 60. 206 Elisabetta Borromeo, “Le clergé latin et son autorité dans l’Empire ottoman: Protégé des puissances de l’Europe catholique? (XVe -XVIIIe siècles)”, in L’autorité religieuse et ses limites en terres d’islam. Approches historiques et anthropologiques, eds. Nathalie Clayer et. al (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 100. 207 Article No. 7: “Ex populi sancti Jesu, qui Papae religionem sequuntur, sacerdotes, monachi, Jesuitae in nostriis regnis, sua templa exaedificent, et ritu suo divinum servitium peragant; evangeliam legant: nos omni gratia ipsos prosequamur, et contra jus ac leges nemo illos perturbet.” Gabriel Noradounghian, Recueil d'actes internationaux de l'Empire ottoman: traités, conventions, arrangements, déclarations, protocoles, procès-verbaux, firmans, bérats, lettres patentes et autres documents relatifs au droit public extérieur de la Turquie, 1300-1902 (Paris: F. Pichon, 1897), 117.

44

1649 and 1673. In a treaty negotiated with the Habsburgs in 1699, a general right was given for protection when practicing religious rites: “Lorsque l’Ambassadeur de l’Empereur viendra a Constaontinople, il aura le droit de me soumettre leurs demandes relatives aux affaires religieuses et aux lieux de pèlerinage sis a Jerusalem.”208 In the Capitulation of 1739, the Habsburgs gained an article favouring the Très Sainte Trinité de la Rédemption des captifs for the repair and renovation of their churches, the exercise of their function and their protection from molestation and extorsion. Furthermore, rights to repair churches appeared in the Capitulations of 1649, 1699, 1718 and 1739. Capitulations were not only granted to individual states but also to individual Latin Catholic friaries and inhabitants following the conquest of territories, such as that granted to the Franciscan friary of Fojnica in 1462 by Sultan Mehmed II and to Chios in 1567, the latter applying to all Christian inhabitants of the Aegean island regardless of denomination.209 2. Firmāns: the definition, style and content in addition to the legal weight and practical application of firmāns will be dealt with in detail in PART IV of the present thesis but suffice it is to say here that these imperial documents were sought by the ambassador on behalf of the religious orders for the construction, repair and re-opening of churches in addition to the reconstruction of churches destroyed in the numerous conflagrations which swept through the district and beyond. An account by a French traveller in the early seventeenth century reveals the vulnerability of ecclesiastical properties located in the traditionally Christian district of Galata, the churches of which had been secured by the Capitulation of 1453 granted to the Genoese: “Cette ville appartenoit autrefois à la Republique de Genes, & toute petite qu’elle soit, il y a encor [sic] plus de marques du Christianisme que dans Constantinople, la plus grande partie de ses habitans étant Chrestiens. Outre l’Eglise de S. Paul qui étoit grande, & dont les Turcs ont fait une mosquée, il y en a beaucoup d’autres. Celle de S. François estoit la residence du Vicaire Patriarchal de Rome devant qu’elle fuit brûlée il y à peu d’années. Les Cordeliere sont encor [sic] à sainte Marie, les Iacobins à Saint Pierre, & les Iesuittes à Saint Benoist, qui est une très iolie Eglise peinte de mosaïques plus riches que bien faites, & où ils tiennent escole pour les enfans des Armeniens & des Grecs, qui ont aussi des Eglises particulieres à Galata.”210 In relation to the legal documents here, firmāns would be sought to confirm privileges

208 Noradounghian, Recueil d’actes internationaux, 195. 209 Borromeo, “Le clergé latín,” 89-91. 210 Nicolas Du Loir, Voyage du sieur du Loir contenur en plusieurs lettres écrites du levant, auec plusieurs particularités qui n'ont point encore esté remarqueés touchant la Grece, & la domination du Grand Seigneur, la religion & les moeurs de ses suiets (Paris: Gervais Clouzier, 1654), 66-67.

45 contained within the capitulations as well as those contained within berāts, demonstrating that the categories were not mutually exclusive.211 3. Berāt: (pl. berevāt) was a legal document for the bestowal of appointments and was only valid during the reign of the sultan who had issued it, thus requiring its renewal upon the enthronement of a new sultan. It was usually issued by the Ottoman chancery as well as by other bureaucratic departments.212 The term was used interchangeably until the nineteenth century with biti, bitik, ḥüküm, misāl and nişān. The standard components (rükn, pl. erkān) of a berāt consisted of: 1. the invocation of God’s name; 2. the imperial cypher (ṭuğra); 3. the opening formula; 4. the narration and exposition of the case (naḳil ve iblāğ) in which the name and position of the appointee is mentioned; 5. the order or decision (emir, ḥüküm), including the authority, powers and any additional privileges granted; 6. a reiteration or threat (teʾkīd, teḥdīd); 7. the date (tārīḫ) and place it was written (maḥall-i taḥrīr).213 Additional items could be included according to the type of berāt. For example, consular berāts often restated numerous capitulatory articles. They had to be obtained for the political appointments of consuls and vice-consuls, for the religious appointment of bishops, for those who served both categories as dragomans and protégés.214 Dragomans, in their capacity of ambassadorial and consular officials, often employed from the local non-Muslim Ottoman subject population, were required to obtain approval from the Sublime Porte in the form of a berāt and, therefore, often received the designation berātlı. This legal document not only granted them permission for employment in that specific position, but also gave them privileges such as tax exemption and diplomatic immunity.215 This resulted in two problems. Firstly, the sale of berāts was commercialised since it proved to be a lucrative trade with high prices paid for the obtainment of the privileges and fiscal exemptions that they granted. Secondly, the system became open to abuse with the excessive sale of berāts to those not employed as dragomans, a situation which Sultan Selim III (r. 1789-1804) attempted to amend through regulations introduced in the late nineteenth

211 Van Den Boogert, Capitulations, 26. 212 Berāts were not only issued for appointments but also for the use of state property and lands or for their conversion into private property. 213 For more details on berāts see Mübahat S. Kütükoğlu, “”, Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi [hereafter DİA] (Istanbul: İSAM, 1992), 5:472-3. 214 Van Den Boogert classifies the protégés of the Levantine foreign communities into dragomans along with his sons and servants, warehousemen, brokers, moneychangers, and servants and personnel/staff of ambassadors and consuls. Van Den Boogert, Capitulations, 64-76. 215 Thomas Naff, “Reform and the Conduct of Ottoman Diplomacy in the Reign of Selim III, 1789- 1807”, Journal of the American Oriental Society 83, no. 3 (Aug. – Sep., 1963): 301.

46 century.216 Furthermore, the prices of these much sought after berāts varied according to country and the position and concessions offered were an impetus for their commercialisation. However, the intervention of the great Catholic protectors was not always sought for the resolution of individual affairs. Rather, contact would be made with the provincial officials for the renewal of berāts of archbishops.217

7. Conclusion Similar to the Ottoman Empire’s other religious minorities, the Latin Catholics of Galata and Pera maintained financial and administrative autonomy through the Magnifica Comunità di Pera and judicial independence in civil matters through the ambassador. The Latin Catholics had enjoyed a semi-autonomous status under the Byzantines and with the change of empire following the Ottoman conquest of 1453, they and their ecclesiastical properties acquired a new status within the framework of Ottoman law. Neverthless, this law alone would not determine the fortunes of the friars and their churches. Rather, their fate was influenced by the Ottoman Empire’s relations with Europe as the major Catholic powers sought to exert their influence through their representatives to the Sublime Porte who acted as mediators and protectors of the resident and foreign Roman Catholics in Istanbul, the religious order and churches. In spite not enjoying direct diplomatic relations with the Porte, the Propaganda Fide likewise managed to have its influence felt over the regulation of Catholicism in Ottoman lands through the religious orders and more directly over the capital’s Latin Catholic churches through the bishop.

216 Ibid., 301-2; Van Den Boogert, Capitulations, 76-92. 217 Elizabetta Borromeo, “Le clergé catholique face au pouvoir ottoman: les brevets de nomination (berât) des évêques et des archevêques (XVIIe siècle),” in Contacts and Controversies between Muslims, Jews and Christians in the Ottoman Empire and Pre-Modern Iran, eds. Camilla Adang and Sabine Schmidtke (Wuerzburg: Ergon-Verlag, 2019), 207-222.

47

PART II: The Ottoman Legal Position on Latin Catholic Church Properties and Land – Doctrine and Practice

1. Introduction This section does not attempt to create new theories on the subjects of Ottoman land and property law according to legal doctrine and practice since much has already been written on these areas in general.218 This is likewise the case for Ottoman doctrine and practice in relation to the land and property rights of minorities in the Ottoman Empire, especially in post-conquest lands.219 Rather, it has two purposes, the first is to present a structured and clear overview in order to give contextualisation and placement to the subsequent analysis of Latin Catholic ecclesiastical properties in Galata; the second is to explore already touched-upon primary sources from a new approach and established theories in relation to lands and properties in Galata and to substantiate them through the presentation of untouched Ottoman land-related documents. Subsequently, Ottoman policy towards lands in Galata will be determined according to different variables, i.e. its method of acquisition as well as Ottoman primary sources in the form of contemporary chronicles, the ʿahdnāme of 1453 and the Istanbul court records, which focus more specifically on Latin Catholic ecclesiastical properties. On the other hand, Ottoman policy towards ecclesiastical buildings is understood according to fetva rulings,

218 Baber Johansen, The Islamic Law on Land Tax and Rent: The Peasants' Loss of Property Rights as Interpreted in the Hanafite Legal Literature of the Mamluk and Ottoman Periods (London: Croom Helm, 1988); Stanford J. Shaw, "The Land Law of Ottoman Egypt (960/1553): A Contribution to the Study of Landholding in the Early Years of Ottoman Rule in Egypt", Der Islam 38, no. 1 (Oct. 1962): 106–137; Halil İnalcık, "Land Problems in Turkish History", The Muslim World, 14 (1955): 221-28; Bernard Lewis, "Ottoman Land Tenure and Taxation in ", Studia Islamica 50 (1979): 109-124; Tarif Khalidi, ed., Land Tenure and Social Transformation in the Middle East (Beirut: American University of Beirut, 1984); Halil Cin, Mirî Arazi ve Bu Arazinin Mülk Haline Dönüşümü (Ankara: Sevinç Matbaası, 1969); M. Tayyib Gökbilgin, XV. ve XVI. Asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı: Vakıflar, Mülkler, Mukataalar (Istanbul: Üçler Basımevi, 1952). 219 Josef Kabrda, Le système fiscal de l'Église orthodoxe dans l'Empire ottoman d'après les documents turcs (Brünn: Universita J. E. Pukyně, 1969); Molly Greene, A Shared World: Christians and Muslims in the Early Modern Mediterranean (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2000), 22-26, 83-87; İnalcık, Ottoman Policy and Administration in Cyprus; Bernard Lewis, “Nazareth in the Sixteenth Century according to the Ottoman Tapu Registers”, Arabic and Islamic Studies in Honor of Hamilton A. R. Gibb, ed. George Makdisi (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), 416-425; Gustav Bayerle, Ottoman Tributes in Hungary: According to Sixteenth Century Tapu Registers of Novigrad (The Hague: Mouton, 1973).

48 the mechanism of the will (irāde) of the sultan, and through the dichotomous policy of the destruction and reconstruction of Latin Catholic churches. Ottoman policy towards ecclesiastical properties was determined within the framework of Ottoman law which was comprised of a combination of two main components: şerīʿat and ḳānūn.220 The latter was of imperial origin and the former was perceived to be of divine origin insofar as it was based on jurisprudence from Islamic religious sources.221 This combination contributed to both its strength and versatility.222 While the Ottoman period gave way to the development of imperial edicts (firmāns) contributing to the ḳānūn and institutionalisation of customary law (ʿörfī ḥuḳūḳ), the law remained within the boundaries of Islamic law (şerīʿat).223 These two sets of laws did not act as competing legal systems, but rather complemented one another and, with the addition of customary law, contributed to the legal pluralism that was necessary for an empire which governed over such diverse territories, religions and peoples over a period of approximately six hundred years. Regardless of the precision and excruciating

220 Customary law (ʿörf) was a significant third component, as well as being one of the principles of jurisprudence from which laws were derived. During the Ottoman era, ʿörf in legal terminology referred to the authority of the sultan to manage and enforce. The term ʿörfī ḥuḳūḳ was also a name given to the law that was composed of sultanic orders and edicts. The term ʿörf also appeared in expressions such as şerʿ ve ʿörf or şerʿ ve ḳānūn as synonymous to ḳānūn, and ʿörf-i padışāhī and ʿörf-i sulṭānī as referring to the sultan’s orders. Likewise, the term ʿādet is also generally used synonymously with ʿörf as it was referred to in Ottomon legal texts using expressions such as ʿādet-i ḳadīme (ancient usage), ‘ādet üzere and ʿādeta (according to custom) as well as ḳānūn-ı ḳadīmdir (it is ancient law). ʿÖrf was essentially one of the two components of ḳānūn, yet it should not be considered a law with a secular structure countering the şerīʿat, nor as limitless sultanic power. Rather, it represented wide legal authority within the boundaries of necessity conceded to the sultan in certain areas which were not addressed by the şerīʿat. Mehmet Akman, “Örf: Osmanlı Devletinde”, DİA (Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 1997), 34:93; Koç, Yunus, “Early Ottoman Customary Law: The Genesis and Development of Ottoman Codification” in Shattering Tradition: Custom, Law and The Individual in the Muslim Mediterranean, eds. Walter Dostal and Wolfgang Kraus (London, New York: I.B. Tauris, 2005), 81. 221 This structure was characteristic of the legal systems in other Islamic states, such as the of Syria and Egypt and the tribal confederation of the Aḳ Ḳoyunlu in northern Mesopotamia. Joseph Schatch, An Introduction to Islamic Law (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1964), 91. 222 The importance of the legal system to the empire is emphasized by Mehmet Akif Aydın: “One of the greatest powers upon which the empire was based was, naturally, its legal system. Had it not established a legal system which was able to contain all of its subjects in unison, it would not have been possible for the Ottoman Empire, which spread over three continents, to gather the members of three religions, more than twenty religious , and the equivalent number of ethnic groups under its structure, and survive for approximately six hundred years. In this respect, it can be said that Ottoman law had an undeniable role in the long-term existence of the Ottoman Empire, which is one of the most remarkable states in world history, together with its imperial identity and structure.” M. Akif Aydın, “Istanbul’da Hukuk”, Antik Çağdan XXI. Yüzyıla Büyük İstanbul Tarihi Büyük İstanbul Tarihi, eds. M. Akif Aydın and Coşkun Yılmaz, Istanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Yayınları, 2016. 223 While the sultan was careful not to issue ḳānūn which contradicted or was seen to be abrogating rulings of the şeriʿat, there were also checks to the process in the persons of two representatives of Islamic law in the Imperial Chancery and the şeyhülislām. At the head of some ḳānnūnāmes the phrase “compatible with the noble şerīʿat (şer’ī şerīfe uygundur) was written.

49 attention to detail in the juridical texts, according to Ottoman legal practice, the sultan would ultimately choose that which was in the best interests (maṣlaḥat) of his Muslim subjects.

2. The legal status of land in Ottoman Galata Ottoman rulings on land ownership were based on early Islamic practice that had traces of Byzantine and Sassanid legacy.224 Upon the conquest of territories by the Ottomans, important details concerning the population and land type were recorded by specially appointed officials, the register steward (defter emīni)225 and provincial scribe (vilāyet kātibi), in registers (defterlar) such as in the cadastral survey registers (tapu taḥrīr defterleri). The land regime derived from Islamic jurisprudence was adopted by the Ottoman state, although rules altered from region to region. While the Ottoman provincial law codes (ḳānūnnāme)226were used as a general basis, specific ḳānūnnāmes were developed for the provinces (sancaks/ eyālets). Yet, the laws remained within the framework of Islamic law. Ownership of the land on which the ecclesiastical properties were built was to determine the legal position surrounding their construction, reparation, destruction, conversion and, most importantly, their endowment. The application of one set of laws to all Ottoman lands was not feasible given the diversity that existed within the empire’s territories, therefore, the application of customary law (ʿörf) was central. During the early years of the Ottoman Empire, territorial expansion to the south encapsulating Egypt, to the south-east, the provinces of Anatolia and the European provinces to the north-west led to the incorporation of existing legal traditions, be they Mamluk, Seljuk, Byzantine, Slavic or Venetian. For reasons of practicality and in order to retain the legal status quo, certain established local laws and judicial practices in these newly conquered territories, especially those related to tax, administration and private law, were

224 Abū Yūsuf Yaʿqūb ibn Ibrāhīm, Kitāb al-Kharāj, (Cairo: al-Maṭbaʿah al-Salafīyah wa-Maktabatuhā, 1927), 28-39. 225 Also known as emīn or müharrir. 226 Ḳānūnnāme can be described as a law book or statute and were collections of law within the authority of the sultan, essentially related to taxation, organisation of the court and army, as well as land law. The ḳānūnnāmes were systematised and codified during the period of Sultan Suleyman, thus he was given the title of “The Law Giver” (ḳānūnī). It was categorised into three general types: 1. General ḳānūnnāmes which were the basis of Ottoman ḳānūnnāmes and the constitution of ʿörfi ḥuḳūḳ; 2. ḳānūnnāmes of sancaks; 3. Ferman, Nişan ve Berat types of Kanun Hükümleri (also known as menşur, misal, biti, alamet-i şerife, berat, tevki’, ferman, hükm-i şerif); 4. Miri Arazi ve nizamına Ait Kanunlar; 5. Hususi Kanunnameler; 6. Adaletnameler; 7. Hususi Kanun Mecmuaları. As categorised by Ahmet Akgündüz in Osmanlı Kanunnâmeleri ve Hukuki Tahlilleri (Istanbul: Fey Vakfı, 1990), 1:87- 101.

50 retained and incorporated into the laws of those areas and was therefore classified as ʿörf. The integration of local customs into the main body of law was possible due to the ’s recognition of custom as a source of law in the instance of lack of rulings or only general rulings in certain areas of Islamic law.227 Customary practice which was sanctioned by state authority became ʿörf and thus, from the early years of the Ottoman Empire the legal system was made up of şerīʿat and ʿörf.228

a. Categorisation of land based on Land Codes a.i Mīrī, Mülk, Vaḳıf, Metrūk, Mevāt When treating the theme of Ottoman land law, mention should be given to the systematisation of principles which had been in practice before the works of the şeyhülisām Ebüssuʿūd Efendi (d. 1574), including the introduction in ḳānūnnāmes of the survey registers for Üsküb and Selanik in 1574, and the code for Budin in 1541 and fetvas.229 Furthermore, the Egyptian müftī Zayn al-ʿAbidīn Ibn Nujaym (d. 1563), in his treatise on land tenure titled al- Tuḥfa al-mardiyya fī al-arāḍī al-misriyya, provided Islamic justification for and systematization of land ownership by the Ottoman state, a system that the Ottomans were already implementing in newly-conquered Arab lands and which was being sytematised in the new law of 1553.230 In Ebüssuʿūd’s survey of the province of Budin (1546), in response to the Ottoman conquest of Hungray in 1541, movable properties and buildings, such as houses and shops, were to remain the freehold property (mülk) of the inhabitants as well as certain lands such as orchards and vinyards, were to be bought and sold and inherited in absolute ownership, whereas the fields were to be considered public property (mīrī).231 Ebüsuʿūd completed this Islamification and systematization of the land law. His division of lands comprised three fiscal categories: öshrī, ḫarācī and ʿarż-i mīrī. The former two

227 For ʿörf as a principle of Islamic jurisprudence see Mohammad Hashim Kamali, Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence (Cambridge: The Islamic Texs Society, 2003), 369-383. 228 Neşet Çağatay, İslam Hukukunun Ana Hatları ve Oslamlıların Bunun Bazı Kurallarını Değişik Ugulamaları (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1987), 630. 229 For a detailed discussion of the Skopje laws, see Halil İnalcık, “İslam arazi ve vergi sisteminin teşekkülü ve Osmanlı devrindeki şekilleriyle mukayesesi,” Islam Ilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, I (1959): 1-18. For both laws, see Ömer L. Barkan, XV ve XVIinci asırlarda Osmanlı imparatorluğunda zirai ekonominin hukuki ve mali esasları: I: Kanunlar (Istanbul: Bürhaneddin matbaası, 1943), 296-300. 230 Kenneth M. Cuno, “Was the Land of Miri or Milk? An Examination of Juridical Differences within the Hanafi School”, Studia Islamica, no. 81 (1995): 127-131. 231 Halil İnalcık, “Islamization of Ottoman Laws on Land and Land Tax,” in Essays in Ottoman History, ed. Halil İnalcık (Istanbul: Eren, 1998), 155-156.

51 included a small percentage of Ottoman holdings, being the original land systems in place from the time of the Arab conquests, while the third was the vast majority of land. He laid down in writing the practices which had been in place since the early days of the Ottoman conquests, with ownership (raḳabe) being entrusted to the state, i.e. the impermissibility of sale or alienation by the holder and the invalidity of conversion into an endowment (vaḳıf). The transfer of property rights, rather than outright ownership, was realised through a deed-like transfer certificate (tapu) which did not constitute a sale bur rather the transfer of the right to rent between successive holders. İnalcık has drawn a parallel between Ebüsuʿūd’s state land (arż-i mīrī) and the war spoils (feyʾ) described in the books of Islamic jurisprudence, although Ebüssuʿūd himself may not have done this.232 In summery, he considered land in towns to be freehold, arable and cultivated lands outside of cities and towns to be public. In 1673, the rulings on state/public lands which he stystematised by redefining the basic laws of land tenure and taxation through the harmonisation of şerīʿat and ḳānūn were incorporated into the Ḳānūn- i Cedīd, which was the official land code until the introduction of the Ottoman Land Code in 1858.233 As regards legal classification according to landholding, land had three different statuses: state (mīrī), freehold (mülk) and endowed (vaḳıf). Mīrī lands were in the possession of the state treasury, yet they could be sold by the sultan under certain conditions, i.e. primarily that it be in the public interest.234 Illegal sales of state land however, took place by the subjects of the sultan through a court document granting freehold rights on the land and by which conferring absolute ownership to the holder of the document, thus rendering their reversion to mīrī status impossible.235 Linguistically, the term refers to that belonging to the state or treasury, or the government’s property, and in the Ottoman era, it came to mean lands belonging to the state and the taxes derived from them.236 It is also known by the terms “lands of the state” (arażī-i

232 İnalcık, “Islam,” 10. 233 For more on şeyhülislâm Ebüssuûd Efendi’s role in harmonising land law, see: Abdullah Aydemir, Ebussuûd Efendi (Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı, 1986); Colin Imber, Ebu’S-Su’ud: The Islamic Legal Tradition (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1997); Bünyamin Punar, “Kanun and : Ottoman land law in Seyhulislam fatwas from kanunname of budin the Kanunname-i Cedid,” (MA diss., İstanbul Şehir University, 2015). 234 Ibn Nujaym’s article al-tuḥfa al-marḍiyah fī’l-arāḍī al-miṣriyah (The Pleasing Gift Related to Egyptian Lands) in Ibn Nujaym, Rasāʼil Ibn Nujaym al-iqtiṣādīyah: wa-al-musammāh, al-Rasāʼil al- zaynīyah fī madhhab al-Ḥanafīyah (Cairo: Dār al-Salām, 1998), 50-53. 235 This court document was later ruled to be “null and void” by Ebüssuʿūd, as was the practice of converting mīrī lands to vaḳıf, İnalcık, “Islamization,” 160-1. 236 M. Macit Kenanoğlu, “Mîrî Arazi”, DİA (Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 2005), 30:157.

52 memleket) or “lands of the treasury” (ʿarażī-i beytülmāl).237 The right of ownership of such lands was that of the state, whereas the possession and usufruct were given to the subjects who were therefore considered to be in the position of tenant (müsteʾcir). State lands could be dealt with according to the will (irāde) of the ruler; the land and buildings could even be given as freehold to individuals. After the conquest of Constantinople, all of the land became mīrī regardless of its location, whether in the city or countryside. Halil İnalcık estimates that by 1528, 87% of the lands under Ottoman rule were mīrī.238 The documents about land were rewritten every year, the last time for this was under the reign of Maḥmūd II.239 The types of taxes paid on such land include: tapu, muʿaccele and müʾeccele.240 On the other hand, mülk land was the land that was held by real or legal persons, this consisted of the land occupied by peoples' houses, gardens or small arable land in the villages, districts and urban areas. Since the benefits of any improvements accrued solely to the owner, there was every incentive to develop the land. Vaḳıf land was trust land the revenues of which went to the religious or charitable bodies or individuals indicated in the vaḳıf foundation charter. Some people such as travellers, as well as the ill and the elderly could benefit from vaḳıf properties in ways mentioned in the vaḳıf registers.241 For example, if a person, whether rich or not, was a traveller, his/her requirements such as shelter, food and health care were met for free by a vaḳıf’s revenues for a period up to three days and three nights. By means of this application of vaḳıf, everybody could travel more easily when pursuing, for example, possibilities of education and work in large centres.242 On the other hand, Ahmet Akgündüz divides mīrī land into the following four categories: 1. Lands that were not left to non-Muslims after conquest were retained by the treasury; 2. Land that was left to the state whose owners had no heirs or those who were intestate or in debt; 3. Land the owners of which were unknown and which was appropriated by the public

237 When mīrī land is mentioned alongside ʿöşür and ḫarāç it is referred to as arāżī-i sulṭāniye. The expression, arāżī-i sulṭāniye is a term for land which encapsulates the types: arāżī-i ʿöşriye, arāżī-i mīrīye and arāżī-i ḫarāciye. 238 Halil İnalcık, The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age: 1300-1600 (New York: Phoenix, 1973), 110. 239 Prebendalism was the basis upon which the Ottoman land regime was originally founded. 240 The latter of which includes ḥāsılāt ḫissesi, icāre-i zemīn, bedel-i öşür, mukāṭaʿa. There were additional types of land taxation, the main one being ḫarāç which was imposed in exchange for lands which had been taken by force (ʿanveten) left in the possession (taṣarruf) of the original non-Muslim residents. These were known as arāżī-i ḫāraciyye. 241 Encyclopedia of Islam (2000), s.v. “Wakf: Ottoman Empire up to 1914.” 242 Çataltepe, İslâm-Türk medeniyetinde vaḳıflar (Istanbul: Türkiye Milli Kültür Vakfı, 1991), 24.

53 treasury over time; 4. Undefined land the ownership of which was severed during the conquest or seized by the treasury.243 According to the traditional Ottoman laws, land in the Empire was divided into the following five categories: 1. ʿArāżī-i mīrīye (ʿarāżī-i memleket) as mentioned above, i.e. state land the usufruct of which could be designated to others. It was not possible for these lands to be transferred into another type without the sultan’s permission. State land was organised or placed in the possession of someone according to maṣlaḥat. It was land which had been conquered by force or the owner of which was unknown. Such land captured by force was described as endowments for Muslims (muslumanlara vaḳıf), which effectively meant that it was under the supervision of the state. Since the vast majority of lands were mīrī, the Ottoman land administration system was known as the mīrī land system. 2. Arāżī-i memlūke:244 was freehold with title ownership and could consist of residential developed land, orchards or arable land. It was divided into four categories: lands of villages and towns; lands given to the people over which they enjoy usufruct right (taṣarruf) as a public benefit; arāżī-i öşriyye: conquered lands owned by Muslims; arāżī-i ḫarāciye: lands which were left in the hands of non-Muslims following the conquest. 3. Arāżī-i metrūke: lands which could not be used and were therefore left to the wider benefit of public. They were divided into two categories: places whose usage rights belonged to everybody (roads, public square, fair ground, place of prayer etc.), places whose usage rights belonged to people of a particular village or district (pasture, summer pasture, pasture, watering place for animals etc.). 4. Arāżī-i mevḳūfe: land in trust (vaḳıf) the revenues of which were allocated to religious or charitable causes. These were divided into valid endowments (evḳāf-i ṣaḥīḥa) and invalid endowments (evḳāf-i ğayr-i ṣaḥīḥa), the latter of which were founded on mīrī land. 5. Arāżī-i mevāt: (lit. dead land) unusable land such as swamp and desert located far from residential areas; if used by those in need, it was done so free of charge.245

243 Ahmet Akgündüz, Islâm Hukukunda ve Osmanlı Tatbikatında Vakıf Müessesesi (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1988), 446-7. 244 These were usually lands left to the kingdoms which had participated in the Empire, whereas those which were retained by the state were termed arażī-i emriyye (ciplak mulkiyet, tasarruf and intifa decided by the state). Those confirmed by the sultan were called private (ḫāṣṣ). 245 Ömer Hilmi Efendi, İthaf-ül Ahlâf fi Ahkâm-il Evkaf (Ankara: Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü Yayınları, 1977), 12.

54

b. Categorisation of land according to conquest The means by which land came into the hands of the Muslims was the determining factor of its division into public and private from the aspect of the state’s possession (taṣarruf) and ownership (mülk). This was determined in four ways: land originally belonging to Muslims; land conquered peacefully; land conquered by force; lands of those people who were expelled or banished. As regards the first category, land originally belonging to Muslims, such as that in Medina and Yemen, was considered private land over which the state had no right of possession or ownership and from which it could only take öşür, thus, such lands were called arāżī-i öşriye.246 In relation to the above-mentioned fourth category, the Hanafi position states that it be decided by the head of state, that is, whether the land should be left in the hands of the non- Muslims or under the control of the state as state lands (arāżī-i mīrīye).247 What interests us here are the second and third categories as they are directly relevant to the lands of Constantinople. On a second level, land could be acquired in one of four ways: conquered by force, conquered peacefully through capitulation of its inhabitants, voluntary conversion of the inhabitants, or abandonment of the land by fleeing.

b.i. Land conquered peacefully (ṣulḥan) Lands, whether located in cities or in the countryside, which were taken peacefully were subjected to the terms of a peace contract (ṣulḥ aḳdi) which guaranteed the lives of those who were conquered and the non-confiscation of their properties. This peace contract also guaranteed their right to worship in exchange for the payment of property taxes called ḫarāç and thus the land became known as arāżī-i ḫāraciye. 248

b.ii. Land conquered by force (ʿanveten) One of the competences within the jurisdiction of the state authority (ülül-emre) was the determination of laws governing lands that were conquered by force, over which he had more

246 Abū Yusuf, Kitāb al-Kharāj, 68-69; Hālis Eşref, Külliyāt-ı Şerh-i Kanun-ı Arazi (Istanbul: Kütüphane-yi Cihan, 1898), 69-70. 247 The other three Sunni schools of law agree that the land would no longer be under the control of the original inhabitants; it would hitherto be classified as “an endowment for Muslims” (müslümanlara vaḳıf). Akgündüz, Vakıf Müessesesi, 428-429. 248 For Ottoman policy towards peacefully conquered cities see Traian Stoianovich, “Model and Mirror of the Premodern Balkan City,” in La Ville Balkanique, XVe – XIXe siècles, vol. 3 of Studia Balcanica (Sofia: Bulgarian of Sciences, 1970), 83-110.

55 than one optional right.249 Lands conquered by Muslim armies were considered to be the inalienable common property of the Islamic community (fey’ ül-muslimīn)250 which was under the control of the Islamic state. All money derived from such land was to go to the state treasury (beytü’l-māl).251 These territories were therefore classified as state lands and were to be dealt with by the ruler according to common public benefit (maṣlaḥat-i ʿāmm). Ownership of these lands could be divided into three categories: ownership (raḳāba) which was maintained by the state; possession (taṣarruf) and usufruct (istiğlāl), which were rights given to the subjects.252 For example, upon sale of land by the peasant, the sale consisted exclusively of tenancy rights (rights of possession and usufruct), likewise, the founder of a vaḳıf concedes its usufruct but retains its ownership. This last point is however, up for debate: most jurists agree that the ownership of a vaḳıf property (aṣl) which, in French, is called the nue-propriété, belongs to the vaḳıf. More accurately, this property does not really belong to the vaḳıf but rather it belongs to God. The person who ceded the property to her or his waqf or any other vaḳıf no longer owns that property. He or she is thereafter separated from that property and has no rights over it. These divisions allowed for complete state control of land and that which was built on it. This meant the state had the right to abrogate proprietary rights on freehold property.253 The best example of this is the of vaḳıfs by the Ottoman sultans which was justified by the fact that the state had inalienable ownership over the land, even when it belonged to a vaḳıf, and therefore any land that was endowed had to be done by imperial decree, with the tax revenues going to the sultan.254 There were three major incidents of the confiscation of vaḳıf property by the sultans. The first was during the reign of Sultan Mehmed II who ordered the

249 Akgündüz, Osmanlı Kanûnnâmeler, 1:77. Land conquered by force and everything on it became war spoils (ğanīmet). One fifth of it went to the state treasury, whereas the remaining fourth fifths was given according to the following: 1. It was divided among the soldiers who had participated in the conquest, 1/10 was taken by the state as ʿöşür; 2. It was left in the hands of the non-Muslims and ḫarāç was charged on it; 3. It was not left to the original inhabitants and nobody owned it, therefore, it goes to state treasury (çıplak mülkiyet olarak) which decides who possesses (taṣarruf) it and who derives benefit (intifāʿ) from it. The latter was the most commonly adopted by Ottoman sultans. 250 Based on the Qur’anic verse on fay’. Qur’an 59:6-7. 251 While this was a traditional Islamic position for lands conquered by the first Arab armies, İnalcık argues that for the Ottomans, land possession was a necessity given the ğāzī nature of the state. İnalcık, “Land Problems,” 221-2. 252 Halil İnalcık and Donald Quataert, An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300- 1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 106. See also Cin, Mirî Arazi, 99-100. 253 İnalcık and Quataert, An Economic and Social History, p. 104. 254 These vaḳıfs were known as ğayr-i ṣaḥīḥ or irṣādī. This act was, according to established jurisprudence, confiscation since vaḳıf owned property could not, a priori, be taken by the ruler.

56 widespread confiscation of properties that were defined as invalid (ğayr-ı ṣaḥīḥ), be they vaḳıf or mülk, and their transformation into fiefs (timārs) during 1486-1515.255 Such an action was legally justified by arguing that they had been founded on mīrī land and were thus invalid, but, in reality, the move was fiscally motivated due to the sultan’s efforts to increase the economic capital of the empire through timārs.256 Likewise, the confiscation of monastic properties also took place during the reigns of sultans Suleyman I and Selim II.257 “Thus, the principle of the first occupation did not establish ownership on land; it was the state’s dominium eminens (ownership) based on conquest and consequently its validation power that established ownership.”258 Regardless of theses categorisations, Halil İnalcık highlights the principle in Islamic law where freehold possession over land in conquered territories belonged to the state treasury irrespective of how it was acquired, i.e. by force of arms or peaceful contract.259 Three days before the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople, Sultan Mehmed II asserted his claim over the buildings by stating that upon the capture and sacking of the city for three days according to Islamic law, “The stones and buildings of the city are mine, the rest is the soldiers”.260 Moreover, when the Sultan entered the , he reprimanded a Turkish soldier who was destroying a section of marble pavement saying, “You have enough treasure and captives. The City’s buildings are mine.”261 It is worth noting that even before the pillage began, the city had already been significantly damaged by the siege and military onslaught, with one

255 Vaḳıfs, in terms of ownership (mulkiyet) were divided into ṣaḥīḥ, irṣād-ı ṣaḥīḥ and ğayr-i ṣaḥīḥ. Heath W. Lowry, “Privilege and Property in Ottoman Maçuka in the opening decades of the Tourkokratia: 1461-1553” in Continuity and Change in Late Byzantine and Early Ottoman Society papers given at a symposium at Dumbarton Oaks in May 1982, eds. Anthony Bryer and Heath Lowry, Birmingham: University of Birmingham Centre for Byzantine Studies, 1986, pp. 97-128, p. 119. Oktay Özel, “Limits of the Almighty: Mehmed II's 'Land Reform' Revisited,” Journal of Social and Economic History of the Orient 42, 2 (1999): 226-246. 256 As Stanford Shaw notes that as a result of the 1553 law on the confiscation of untitled vaḳıfs in Egypt, “some three hundred tax-producing muqata’as” were confiscated by the public treasury and the revenues increased “by over eighty per cent during the last years of the century”. Shaw, “Land Law of Ottoman Egypt,” 116. 257Alexandar Fotić, “The Official explanations for the confiscation and sale of monasteries (churches) and their estates at the time of Selim II,” Turcica 24 (1994): 33-54; Eugenia Kermeli, “The Confiscation and Repossession of Monastic Properties in and Patmos Monasteries, 1568-1570,” Bulgarian Historical Review 28, 3-4 (2000): 39-53. 258 Murat Çizakça, A History of Philanthropic Foundations: The Islamic World from the Seventh Century to the Present (Istanbul: Bogazici University Press, 2000), 74. 259 İnalcık, “Greek Population,” 231. 260 Halil İnalcık, “, Fetih ve İstanbul’un Yeniden İnşaası”, in Dünya Kenti İstanbul, ed. Afife Batur (Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 1996), 28. 261 , Decline and fall of Byzantium to the (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1975), 231.

57 eyewitness describing how many of Galata’s houses were damaged by the cannon balls aimed and fired at the ships in the harbour.262

b.iii The status of land in Galata following the Ottoman conquest Following the Ottoman Conquest of Constantinople, Sultan Mehmed II envisioned building a capital for the Empire that would rival the former capital of Eastern Rome. But the city with which he was left, following the three days of pillaging by his soldiers, was a derelict ruin, with many parts having been abandoned by its former inhabitants prior to and as a result of the advent of the Sultan’s forces. The Sultan knew that the rebuilding and transformation of the city into its prior glory would require manpower and expertise. Consequently, both Muslims and non-Muslims from other parts of the Empire were repopulated to the capital. This was achieved by two methods: through persuasion, with the offer of property and work, and through a policy of forced resettlement as detailed in firmāns issued by Mehmed II ordering the resettling of Muslims, Christians and Jews from Rumelia and Anatolia.263 It should be remembered that the offer of property was possible because property abandoned by those who left the city after the Conquest was appropriated by the state as mevḳūf properties which could not be reclaimed by the original owner. Two classes of people from territories which were already within the domains of the Ottoman Empire and others which were subsequently conquered by Mehmed II were forcibly resettled to the capital and outlying villages which provided the city with sustenance: these included the wealthy, artisans and merchants, and agricultural labourers described as “the sultan’s slaves” (ḫāṣṣ-kul).264 The repopulation required the provision of accommodation. Thus, to some of these persons, the sultan gave houses and to others, he gave land on which to build.

262 Decribed in a Letter by the Latin of Mytilene, Leonard of Chios, to , John R. Melville-Jones trans., The siege of Constantinople 1453: seven contemporary accounts (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1972), 23. 263 Forced resettlement in newly conquered lands was an Ottoman policy from the earliest times and was employed for different purposes, such as militarily during the earliest conquests and economic and urban following the conquest of Constantinople. Halil İnalcık, “Ottoman Methods of Conquest,” Studia Islamica, no. 2 (1954): 122-125. 264 For information about the dates and locations from which resettlement took place, see: Halil İnalcık, “Fatih Sultan Mehmed Tarafından İstanbul’un Yeniden İnşaası,” 19 Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 3-4 (1988-89): 217-218.

58

c. Ottoman policy towards Roman Catholic ecclesiastical lands in Galata c.i. According to the acquisition of the land A determination of the legal status of land in Galata necessarily requires the evaluation of whether the semi-autonomous district since Byzantine times had been conquered by force by the Ottoman army or had capitulated resulting in the contracting of a peace agreement. While there is consensus on the fact that Constantinople was conquered by a military campaign, there is difference of opinion regarding the manner in which the city was conquered, that is, peacefully (ṣulḥen) or by force of arms (ʿanveten). Halil İnalcık considers the area of Galata to have been taken peacefully, as evidence of Sultan Mehmed II’s contracting a peace contract (ʿahdnāme) with the resident Genoese265 which guaranteed their safety, protection of their properties and lives as well as limited rights of worship.266 However, Macit Kenanoğlu considers that the entire city was taken through force of arms and that Galata, as part of the capital under Byzantine rule, albeit semi-autonomous, was granted the ʿahdnāme as a means of encouraging the valuable merchant community to remain in the capital and thus contribute to the sultan’s vision of building an imperial Ottoman capital. Therefore, he argues that the ʿahdnāme was not a peace contract (ṣulḥ aḳdi) as such, because it had been contracted following the Ottoman conquest of the city and not before. An account of events by the Byzantine historian and imperial courtier George Sphrantzes (d. 1487), days before the conquest support this theory, describing how he had heard that the sultan had agreed to lift the siege and contract a peace treaty with Constantinople had he been unable to conquer the city.267 Since he conquered the city, this annulled the requirement of the creation of a peace treaty. Feridun Emecen has taken a middle position in which he presents the argument of the method of conquest varying district by district.268 He reinforces his position with an account from the sixteenth century historian Cenābī Muṣṭafa Efendi (d. 1590-91) and Ebüsuʿūd Efendi

265 According to the Ottoman census of 1455, the non-Muslim population of Galata consisted of three categories: 1. The Genoese and Venetian merchants who were living in the town temporarily, 2. The native Genoese who had accepted Ottoman nationality, 3. Greeks, Jews and Armenians who were settled in the town since the times of the Genoese. 266 As mentioned above, the fifth point of the ʿahdnāme guarantees the churches against appropriation and grants the rights to perform religious rites and rituals but forbids the public show or sound of worship, such as the ringing of bells. Akgündüz, Osmanlı Kanunnâmeleri, 1:477. 267 George Sphrantzes, The fall of the : a chronicle, trans. Marios Philippides (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1980), 73. 268 Feridun Emecen, “Hukuki Bir Tartışmanın Tarihi Zemini: İstanbul Nasıl Alındı?”, in Osmanlı İstanbulu, eds. Feridun Emercen and Emrah S. Gürkan (Istanbul: 29 Mayıs Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2014), 35-41.

59

(d. 1574), the prominent jurist who held the position of chief jurist (şeyhülislām) during the reign of Sultan Süleyman II (r. 1687-1691).269 Another important source on Ottoman history written in Latin and published in 1717 was Dimitrie Cantemir’s The History of the Growth and Decay of the Othman Empire in which he describes how, in the aftermath of the conquest, Sultan Mehmed II described his rights to church properties as based on the method of conquest to the Greeks of the city: “I promised you in our agreement, that if you chose to remain here, all the churches and monasteries should be untouch’d, and your religion suffer no damage. But since I have receiv’d half the city by force of arms, and half by surrender, I think it just, and accordingly order, that the religious houses and churches which stand in that part I have conquer’d, be converted into Jami [mosques], and the rest left entire to the Christians.”270 To come to a more definitive conclusion about the conquest, it is important to understand how to define the urban space of the city of Constantinople during that period and to remember that the whole city was not conquered simultaneously. Galata was geographically separate from Constantinople proper and when Constantinople had been successfully conquered by force, the Genoese chose to surrender their district out of fear that the town would likewise be sacked and enslaved. The municipal official (podestà) of the Genoese, Angelo Lomellino, sent an embassy bearing valuable gifts to the sultan in order to hand over the keys of the gates of Galata and request a peace treaty on 29 of May 1453. Some areas, such as Üsküdar, had fallen to the Ottoman forces before Istanbul proper. Furthermore, the fact that Latin Catholic churches were allowed to sell their properties in Galata, as was the case with the Church of SS. Peter and Paul which sold some of its properties in order to raise the necessary funds to contribute to the reopening of the complex of St. Francis which was closed between 1586 and 1593,271 is indicative of the fact that it was private property and not mīrī as would have been the case had the area of Galata been taken by force. According to Hanafi legal doctrine, church properties (land or buildings) could only be sold in territories conquered peacefully because a sale contract

269 Cenābī related that the areas towards Edirnekapı were taken by force (kılıçla) whereas those of Istanbul located towards the sea surrendered and, consequently, the churches from Aksaray to the Hagia Sophia were converted into mosques and mescids. Ebüsuʿūd, when presented with the question of whether Istanbul and its outlining villages were conquered by force by Sultan Mehmed II, answered in the affirmative but pointed to the existence of a compromise due to the continued existence of old churches (faḳaṭ eski kiliseleri mevcūt ḥalıyle bulunduğuna göre bu durum ṣulḥa delālet eder). For an evaluation of his fetva, see Ali Riza Sağman, İstanbul’un Fethi Hakkında Enteresan Bir Fetvâ (Istanbul: Ahmet Sait Matbaası, 1957) and for a detailed presentation of the topic of how Istanbul was conquered, see Ali Riza Sağman, Fatih İstanbul’u Ne Şekilde Aldı?, 2 vols. (Istanbul: Ahmet Sait Matbaası, 1948). 270 Dimitrie Cantemir, The History of the Growth and Decay of the Othman Empire, trans. Nicolas Tindal, John James and Paul Knapton, (London: printed for James, John, and Paul Knapton, 1734), 101. 271 E. Dalleggio d’Alessio, Le Couvent et L’Eglise des Saints-Pierre-et-Paul a Galata (Istanbul: Milli Nesriyat Yurdu, 1935), 15; Belin, Histoire, 221.

60 could not be restricted whereas it was impermissible in territories taken by force since the lands then became fay’, including the ecclesiastical properties.272 Nevertheless, according to Halil İnalcık, the flight of the Genoese following the conquest of Constantinople angered the sultan which made him treat Galata as “free (abandoned) land”, resulting in its classification as fay’ under Islamic land law and thus reverted to the state treasury.273 İnalcık reinforces his argument with his study of the 1455 survey of Galata which demonstrates how lands and houses were rented under the muḳātaʿa system, being state property.274 He classifies the payment of land rent into three categories:

First […] rent has been cancelled for houses owned and occupied by quls who are in the immediate service of the Porte; it remains in force, however, for houses owned by quls who have been granted a tīmār and thus have left the immediate service of the Porte, and for houses which have passed by sale or inheritance into the possession of others. Second, “in accordance with the precept of the sharīʿa,” rent has, in principle, been cancelled for houses which had been granted in freehold by mülknāme to private individuals before the endowment was made, but upon which rent had later been imposed; thus we find that rent has been cancelled for some houses by an “imperial document of cancellation” (refʿnāme-i hümāyūn), but for the great majority it has been confirmed. In the register of the vaqfs, each property has a separate note affirming its position. A third case is that of houses subject to rents which have been made over to the vaqf. These represent houses which had fallen into ruin and upon whose sites new houses or shops had been built: in this event, they were subject to rent only in respect of the land on which they stood in accordance with the principle “rent due on land does not lapse with the deterioration of the building upon it.275

cii. According to contemporary Ottoman chronicles The status of Istanbul’s land following the Ottoman conquest can also be ascertained from contemporary accounts by Ottoman historians who were eyewitnesses. The most significant of whom was the bureaucrat and historian, Tursun Bey, a close cousin of the governor of Bursa, Djübbe ‘Alī Bey, who had been appointed to conduct a survey of Istanbul

272 It Is worth noting that sale contracts in territories conquered peacefully were permissible as opposed to those lands taken by force. 273 İnalcık, Ottoman Galata, 286. 274 İnalcık, The Survey. 275 İnalcık, “Greek Population,” 246-7.

61 and Galata in 1455. Tursun Bey gives an account of the resettlement, consequent property and land allocation in Istanbul in his chapter titled Sultan Ebu ul-Fath’s construction of Constantinople in his chronical Ṭarīḫ-i Ebu’l-Fetḥ. Tursun Bey describes two important decrees declared by Sultan Mehmed II following the conquest of Constantinople:

He ordered that from the ’ alcoves and from vacant houses, public and private, whoever voluntarily comes and becomes a resident, becomes the owner of the house which he occupied. With this desire, destitute men poured in from every direction, they occupied houses and mansions….They were bestowed houses suitable to their stations/situations and were granted formal possession [of these properties]. High market halls, markets and bazaars were made for them as well as extensive caravanserais for travellers. Due to this desire, the population increased, they settled [there]; upon the issuing of the imperial decree, these houses were registered, in the circumstances, they became a spacious muḳataʿa.276

As seen above, the first gave permission for anyone who freely moved to the city to become the proprietor of the house in which he chose to reside which had been abandoned by its former non-Muslim resident, thus ensuring the repopulation of the city. The transplanted populations were assigned to different quarters which were named after them. This continued for many years; with each new conquest, new populations were established in Istanbul. Omer L. Barkan treats the subject of repopulation in relation to land by arguing that such population schemes to resettle and colonise in newly conquered regions required that the questions of ownership, usufruct and transfer of land be determined and institutionalised.277 The second was the registration and imposition of rent (muḳāṭaʿa) charges on all such houses compatible with the financial situation of their residents. The reason attributed to the above-mentioned survey concerns the property granted as freehold (tamlīk) with respect to the building whereas the land itself upon which the building was constructed belonged to the vaḳıf

276 Original Ottoman Turkish: “Ve buyurdı ki keferenün urūş-ı hāviyesinden ve dūr u büyūt-i ḫāliyesinden, ʿāmm ü ḫāṣ her kim iḫtiyārı ile gelüp sākin olur ise, tuttuklu tuttuğı ev mülki ola. Bu terğīb ile, beyʿ u yohsuldan, her ṭaraftan dökülüp geldiler, evler ve sarāylar tuttılar…Ḥāllerine münāsib evler iḥsān idüp [55b] temlīk itti; ve anlarun içün, ālī bezzāzistān ve çārsūlar ve bāzārgāhlar ve āyende vü revende içün vāsiʿ kārvānsarāylar yapturdı. Çün bu rağbet ile tavāyif-i enʿām mütekessir oldı, yerleşti; ḥükm-i kazā-muzī sādır oldı ki, bu evler yazılup, ḥāllü ḥālince muḳātaʿa vażʿ oluna. Tursun Bey, Mehmed the Conqueror, fols. 55b-56a. 277 Ömer. L. Barkan, “Osmanlı Imperatorluğunda kuruluş devrinin toprk meseleleri,” Ikinci Türk Tarih Kongresi-Istanbul, 20-25 (Sept. 1937): 1002-13; Ömer. L. Barkan, “Osmanlı Imparatorluğunda bir iskân ve kolonizasyon metodu olarak vaḳıflar ve temlikler,” Vakıflar Dergisi, 2 (1942): 279-386.

62 for the Ayasofya mosque. Therefore, the land on which the buildings stood had to be charged a rent to be paid to the vaḳıf. The survey itself was carried out comprehensively and with precision: “Going from house to house and visiting each room in all low and high buildings in the city; the houses, gardens and vineyards were written down and a rent for each was determined.”278 Tursun adds that the sultan gave an explanation for the survey and imposition of rent in that its purpose was not to collect revenues but rather to ensure that a large house be in the hands of a person of means who could carry out repairs and prevent the building from becoming dilapidated, describing how “many exchanges took place because of the rent” (muḳātaʿa sebebi ile çok tebeddülāt vākıʿ oldı).279 Therefore, what can be concluded from Tursun Bey’s account is that during the years immediately following the Ottoman conquest is that a survey of Galata was conducted with the objective of collecting data to impose a poll-tax (cizya) on the zimmī inhabitants and a rent (muḳāṭaʿa) on the buildings. As regards the status of the land and buildings, it can be understood that the buildings were freehold (tamlīk) while the land had originally belonged to the state treasury (mīrī) but was then given to the endowment (vaḳıf) of the Ayasofya and was therefore endowed property.

c.iii. According to the ʿahdnāme of 1453: The first capitulation or ʿahdnāme granted to a western Catholic power is considered to have been the result of the 1454 formal negotiations between the Ottoman Empire and Venice. Nonetheless, a unilateral treaty granting privileges and concessions without any reciprocity was that accorded to the Genoese of Galata by Sultan Mehmed II (r. 1444-46/1451-1481) the year before. The ʿahdnāme of 1453 was essentially a peace contract which had been contracted on the grounds of encouraging the merchants to remain in the city to help build the Sultan’s imperial vision. Although the authenticity of the ʿahdnāme of Cemāżiyülevvel 857/ June 1453 has been questioned, there is an Italian translation by Soderini, ’s envoy to the , who had been sent to the Signoria on 30 August 1453. It was recorded in the Great Book of Galata.280 It was likewise translated into Ottoman Turkish from the original Greek document and was presented as an independent document or as a section in subsequent

278 Tursun Bey, Mehmed the Conqueror, fol. 53b. 279 Ibid., ff. 54b-55b. 280 Soderini made no mention in his letter of a Greek version of the treaty so it can be assumed that it was translated from the original Ottoman Turkish copy. Mauri, Relatione, 26.

63 capitulations which were granted to the Genoese in 1613, 1617, 1624 and 1652, renewing and extending the initial privileges.281 The exact date of the ʿahdnāme, signed in the town of Andrinople, is debated although the 1 June 1453 is assumed as the most probable.282 The capitulation of 1453 lays down the legal status of the Latin Catholic church in Galata and the rights of worship. This would become the juridical basis for articles in subsequent capitulations relating to Catholicism in Ottoman lands, in general, and rights of individual churches, such as those of the holy sites in Jerusalem, in particular. Two sections from this capitulation are of interest. The first details the ownership of possessions by the Christians of Galata.283 The first is as follows: “Therefore, I ordered that their money, provisions, properties, warehouses, vineyards, mills, ships and boats, in short, all of their possessions as well as their wives, sons and slaves, of both sexes, be left in their hands as before and that nothing be done contrary thereof nor to molest them.”284 This clause presents a list of particulars of tangible possessions and then qualifies the particulars with a general clause of “all their possessions” before adding the human element which comprises immediate family members and slaves. The words mülkleri (their possessions) can be understood as referring to both land and real estate whereas words such as maḫzanları (their storehouses), bağları (their vineyards) and dekermenleri (their mills) referred to particular types of properties, and are mentioned because they are real estate and land from which an income would have been derived. The second section pertains to places of worship and rites performed therein: “[T]hat they keep their churches and perform their customary rites in them with the exception of ringing their church bells and semantrons (nāḳūs); that I do not take away from them their present churches and turn them into mosques but that they also do not attempt to build new churches…”285 This element of the ʿahdnāme lays down the boundaries of the rights of

281 For information on the variations between the Ottoman Turkish, Greek and Italian versions of the treaties, see d’Alessio, “Traité,” 163-167, 170-174. Halil İnalcık pointed out that while both Dalleggio d’Alessio and Elizabeth Zachariadou held the opinion that the document was written in Ottoman Turkish, he substantiates the fact that the Turkish is a direct translation from the Greek, the latter being the language of diplomatic correspondence. Halil İnalcık, “Ottoman Galata, 1453-1553,” in Essays in Ottoman History, ed. Halil İnalcık (Istanbul: Eren Yayıncılık, 1998), 277-279. 282 d’Alessio, “Traité,” 165-167. 283 These conditions applied to the Genoese of Galata as well as the Greeks, Armenians and Jews of Galata. 284 Original Ottoman Turkish: “Buyurdum ki kendilerin māleri ve rizḳleri ve mülkleri ve maḫzanları ve bağları ve dekermenleri ve gemīleri ve sandalları ve bil-cümle sanāʿatları ve ʿavretleri ve oğlancıklarlı ve ḳuları ve cāriyeleri kendilerinin ellerinde muḳarrir ol muteʿāriż olmayım.” Akgündüz, Osmanlı Kanunnâmeleri, 477. 285 Ibid.

64 religious worship within the Ottoman domain. While the possession of properties is secured and remains under the administration of their original owners and the powers that protected them, that right remains within the boundaries of Ottoman law. These boundaries consist of restrictions on the right of worship and the provision of new places of worship through their construction. This prohibition on the building of new churches encapsulates the transformation or use of existing structures for religious rites. In spite of the peace treaty with the Genoese, it did not guarantee their ecclesiastical properties, in spite of the clause in the treaty stating otherwise. The Orthodox church experienced a similar situation with many of their churches falling to a similar fate. This included their patriarchate Pammakaristos which was transformed into Fethiye Mosque in 1597 despite the church being under the jurisdiction of Patriach Gennadius, having been granted a decree by Sultan Mehmed II which contained the rights of the Orthodox community which included the protection of their churches from conversion.286 This leads one to the conclusion that such a policy was not so much related to the status of the buildings as it was to the laws governing post-conquest cities.

c.iv. According to rulings in Istanbul court records (1660 & 1697) The following analysis is based on entries from the court records (ḳāżī sicilleri or şerʿiyye sicilleri) for the years 1660 and 1697. The oldest extant Ottoman court registers date from the fifteenth century from Bursa and Kayseri although by the following century they were already compiled in large cities.287 Court registers do not only comprise cases of litigation that might be related to bequest partition or more serious criminal issues like murder, rape and theft. Most of the time they contain records of transactions documented at the local courts such as sales, loans and divorce agreements, as well as many vaḳıf-related issues. These registers also include probate inventories as well as imperial orders sent from Istanbul to the local judge concerning matters under his jurisdiction. Large Ottoman cities such as Cairo, Aleppo, Edirne and Bursa had books which separately registered documents related to inheritance issues and imperial orders.288 Non-Muslims were not obliged to take their affairs before the şerʿiyye courts.

286 The second and third privileges consisted of the guarantee of their church rites without interference and that they be allowed to publically celebrate the three feast days. Runciman, The Great Church in Captivity, 170. 287 Suraiya N. Faroqhi “Sidjill: 3. In Ottoman administrative usage,” in Encyclopedia of Islam 2nd ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 9:540. 288 Ibid., 542.

65

Nevertheless, the frequency with which non-Muslim names appear in the court records is indicative that they found it useful to do so.289 The best evidence of the implementation of legal rulings regarding the status of the land on which ecclesiastical buildings were constructed is from the court records documenting the struggles for possession of the land following the destruction of the property by fire.290 All of the documents mention that following the destruction of the church properties, the land reverted to mīrī status. This resulted in the land being put up for public sale and subsequent rapid efforts by the friars to raise enough funds to buy back their confiscated property usually by a Catholic person from the Galatan community. Once the land was in the safe hands of the Catholic community again, reconstruction began. However, permission was given by the authorities only for the building of houses and not the reconstruction of the churches themselves. On this very topic, there are a total of nine separate court records, seven for the year 1660 and two for the year 1697. Fire was a constant torment for the population of Istanbul. The outbreak of fires can be attributed to a variety of reasons. One of the main causes was carelessness or negligence in the use of materials used for cooking, heating and lighting and, occasionally, arson by disgruntled facilitated by the presence of gunpowder deposits.291 Other attributing factors were the high-density population and urban design of the city. Wooden houses predominated the urban of Istanbul, wood being a readily available and cheaper form of construction material which could be obtained around Istanbul or from Anatolia. As noted by one European diplomat in the mid-sixteenth century, “Truly, one may say that it is almost entirely built of wood.”292

289 Ronald Jennings, ‘Zimmis (non-Muslims) in Early 17th Century Ottoman Judicial Records: the Sharia Court of Anatolian Kayseri’, JESHO 21, 3 (1978): 225-93. 290 Accounts of the destruction to churches by fire in Galata can be found in Silahdar Fındıklılı Mehmed Ağa, Silahdar Tarihi (Istanbul: Türk Tarih Encümeni Külliyatı, 1928), 1:182; Hande Nalan Özkasap,“Tarih-i Nihâdî (152b-233a)” (MA diss., Marmara Üniversitesi, 2004), 46; Kevork Pamukciyan, “Eremya Çelebi Kömürciyan’ın 1660 İstanbul Yangını Hakkındaki Eseri,” in İstanbul Yazıları, ed. Osman Köker (Istanbul: Aras Yay., 2002), 102-103; Vahit Çabuk, “XVII. Yüzyılda İstanbul Yangınları ve Kâtip-zâde’nin 1070 (1660) Yangını Hakkında Manzum Bir Tarihi,” Türk Kültürü 11, no. 125 (1973): 28-34; Evliya, Seyaḥatnāme, 1: 183, according to which five Latin Catholic churches were destroyed. 291 For more on the causes of fires and preventative measures, see Kenan Yıldız, “1660 İstanbul Yangınının Sosyo-Ekonomik Tahlili,” (PhD diss., Marmara University, 2012), 18-23, 27-36. 292 Minna Rozen and Benjamin Arbel, “Great Fire in the : The Case of the Istanbul Conflagration of 1569 and its Description by Marcantonio Barbaro” in Mamluk and Ottoman Societies: Studies in Honor of Michael Winter, eds. David Wasserstein and Ami Ayalon (New York: Routledge, 2005), 155.

66

Natural factors such as the strong winds which came from the Bospherous helped propel fires.293 The state attempted to take preventative measures to minimise the re-occurrence of fires such as the prohibition on smoking and the execution of smokers and drinkers following the fire in 1633.294 In the seventeenth century alone, numerous fires were documented for Galata: in addition to those in 1660 and 1697 discussed below, there was the fire in 1639 in which the church of St. Francis was damaged, the fire in 1642 in which several churches were damaged, the one in October 1681 in which many houses and shops were destroyed, the fire in March 1683 in which a leaded storehouse was set on fire and the caulking materials within it burned for fifteen days, among others.295 Soon after the fire in May 1696, the Sublime Porte decided to introduce preventative measures consisting of a refusal to issue permits for the use of wood and shingles (pedavra) in construction, enforcing instead the use of baked brick (kāşī), lime (kireç) and clay (çamur).296 The destructive effect of fire in Galata was documented more generally by the French botanist and traveler Joseph Pitton de Tournefort in the early eighteenth century as a consequence of the choice of building materials and how that subsequently changed:

Les maisons de Galata où nous débarquâmes sont basses, bâties la plûpart de bois & de bouë, ainsi le feu en consomme des milliers en un jour: les soldats dans le dessein de piller, ou les Turcs en fumant dans leurs lits, y mettent quelquefois le feu: on se consoleroit si l’on n’y perdoit que la maison, car on y bâtit à fort marché, & les côtes de la mer Noire sont capables de fournir du bois pour rebâtir tous les ans Constantinople s’il étoit necessaire: mais la plûpart des familles sont entierement ruinées dans ces incendies, par la perte de leurs marchandises. C’est peu de chose quand on ne parle que de 2 ou 3 mille maisons brûlées: on a souvent le chagrin de voir abbatre & piller la sienne, quoique le feu n’en soit qu’à 200 pas, sur tout quand le nord-est que les Turcs appellent le vent noir est en furie: on n’a pas trouvé d’autre remede pour l’empêcher de dévorer toute la ville, que de faire de grands abbatis, autrement l’incendie deviendroit generale. Les marchands étrangers se sont avisez fort sagement depuis quelques années, de faire bâtir à Galata des magasins trés-solides de pierre de taille, isolez, & qui ne reçoivent le jour que par des

293 Cabī Ömer Efendi, Cabī tarīḫi (tarih-i Sultan Selim-i Salis ve Mahmud-i Sani) (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu 2003), 2:899-900. 294 Yaron Ayalon, Natural Disasters in the Ottoman Empire: Plague, Famine, and Other Misfortunes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 90. 295 Raşīd ed-Din Ṭabīb, Cāmiʿ et-Tavārīḫ, ed. Ahmed Ateş (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1957), 1: 177; Rāşid Mehmed Efendi, Tārih-i Rāşid (Istanbul: Matbaa-i Amire, 1865), 1: 377, 391. 296 Imperial edict dated June 1696, Ahmet Refik, Hicrî Onikinci Asırda İstanbul Hayatı (1000-1100) (Istanbul: Enderun Kitabevi, 1988), 21.

67

fenêtres absolument necessaires, dont les volets aussi bien que les portes sont garnies de tole.297

The churches, however, were restricted in their choices of building material since, as will be detailed below, one of the conditions for re-construction of non-Muslim houses following destruction or damage by fire was that they be built with the same materials as the original building. The effects of fire on Galata and Pera was something that was also documented by the French ambassadors in their correspondence.298

1070/1660 The fire in 1660 in Galata is often confused with another fire which occurred during the same year in Istanbul and is known as the “Great Fire”, although it should be remembered that this was a term given to large fires as evidenced in the historical sources.299 However, the former fire took place in the month of April 1660 (şaʿbān 1070) breaking out at the Karaköy gate, whereas the “Great Fire” of Istanbul followed shortly after at either one of two gates (Odunkapısı or Ayazmakapısı) on 24 of July 1660 (16 zi’l-kaʿde 1070) and lasted until the afternoon of 26 July and was considered to be one of the biggest fires seen in Istanbul.300 According to one Ottoman chronicler, in the conflagration, eleven churches were destroyed as well as three-fourths of the district.301 Another author observed how the fire began at a shop at the gate (kapı) of Karaköy and completely destroyed many properties leaving approximately three quarters of Galata damaged.302 Similarly Galata’s churches suffered greatly in the fire,

297 Tournefort, Relation, 469-470. 298 Correspondence from the French Ambassador in Istanbul Jean de La Haye-Vantelet to Colbert, Archives Nationals, A. E., B1 376, fol. 47; letter from Châteauneuf to Pontchartrain dated 9 May 1696, Archives Nationals, A.E. B1 382, fol. 129 in Raïa Zaïmova, Correspondance Consulaire des Ambassadeurs de France a Constantinople 1668-1708 (Paris: Centre Historique des Archives Nationales, 1999), 28. 299 The term ḥarīḳ-i kebīr was used interchangeably with iḥrāḳ-ı kebīr and ḥarīḳ-i ekber, ḥarīḳ-i ğālib, iḥrāḳ-ı ʿazīm. By the time the Great Fire of Galata broke out in 1660, Selānikī Mustafa Efendi had mentioned seventeen separate fires from the year 1563. Mention of the fire in the following Ottoman accounts: Selânikî Mustafa Efendi, Tarih-i Selâniki, ed. Mehmet İpşirli (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1999), 1: 183-185 and 2: 349-350; Ahmed Vāsıf Efendi, Mehāsinü’l-Āsār ve Hakāikü’l-Ahbār, ed. Mücteba İlgürel (Istanbul: Edebiyat Fakültesi Basımevi, 1978) 179-180; Naʿima Muṣṭafa Efendi, Naîmâ Târihi (Istanbul: Bahar Matbaası, 1968), 3:1216-1218. 300 Pamukciyan, “Eremya Çelebi,” 89. 301 Naʿima Muṣṭafa Efendi, Naîmâ Târihi (Istanbul: Bahar Matbaası, 1968), 3:457. 302 Silahdar, Silahdar Tarihi, 182.

68 with the Ottoman historian and traveller Eremya Çelebi Kömürciyan recording how seven Latin Catholic churches and four Orthodox churches were destroyed.303 Following the Great Fire of Istanbul, it can be observed that land belonging to churches considered ab antiquo (ḳadīme) that burnt down in the fire was appropriated by the state and sold to either Muslims or came under the ownership (temlīk) of Turhan Valide Sultan.304 Some of these churches were acquired by the Valide Sultan through a process of exchange (istibdāl) which was made possible through a fetva which pronounced that “the lands of old churches burned down, the owner and builder of which are unknown, are transferred to the state treasury (muḥteriḳ olan kenīse-i ḳadīmelerinin ʿarsasının māliki ve bānīsi maʿlūm olmamağla cānib-i mīrīye ʿāid olduğuna).305 However, the fate of the churches in Galata was similar insofar as the land obtained mīrī status, yet differed in who bought it. The lands were put up for public sale and were purchased by local Christians on the condition that they not rebuild the places of worship. The following information can be extracted from the court record dealing with the Dominican church and priory of SS. Peter and Paul. Georgo, son of Lazari, s zimmī who is described as the translator (tercümān Georgo veled-i Lazari), came before the court to submit a claim on the property. The court record begins by specifying the name and location of the church in question. The name ascribed to the church is Aya Petro, a Turkish corruption of the Greek word for saint hagia combined with the shortened Italian name for the church of SS. Peter and Paul, in contrast to the name Sān Petro which appears more commonly in the documents researched for this thesis. The qualification of the location in Galata’s neighbourhood of Bereketzade in addition to the description of it as “one of the Frankish churches” (efrenc kenīselerinden) dispels any risk of confusion with a Greek Orthodox church, the names of which were likewise preceded with aya in Ottoman documents. From the court record, one learns that the church was delimited on five sides with properties belonging to the local Christian community, a church and a public road. This is specified as follows: on two sides it is bordered by the lands of the zimmīs Frankish Rakub and Turmaz, son of Levni, on

303 Kömürciyan, İstanbul Tarihi, 234, footnote 31. 304 Turhan Valide Sultan had initiated the construction of an imperial mosque in Eminünü, Yenicami and a tower (külliye) which came to a halt following the Great Fire of Istanbul in 1660. Lands in the vicinity of the mosque were used as income for the vaḳıf which would ensure the upkeep of the building and salaries of employees. For more information on the Turhan Sultan Vaḳıf, see İstanbul Yenicami ve Hünkar Kasrı (Istanbul: Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü, 1944). 305 Substitution of Muslim as well as Christian vaḳıfs took place. Yıldız, “1660 İstanbul,” 171-177. For fetvas, see İŞS, 9, 273a/1 (1 B 1072/20 Şubat 1662); İŞS, 10, 53a/3 (20 N 1072/9 Mayıs 1662), 82b/1 (17 L 1072/3 Ağustos 1662).

69 the third side by an unburned church, by the above-mentioned Georgo’s garden on the fourth side and finally by a dead-end public road leading to a vacant plot. The church, having been destroyed in its entirety by the conflagration (ḥarīḳte bil-küliye muḥteriḳ olup), was returned to the state treasury because it did not have an owner (ṣāḥibi olmayup şerʿan ṭaraf-ı mīrī-yi ʿāide olmağın). As a result, it was put up for auction among the local community, from among whom the translator Georgo bought the plot on the condition of building a residential house on the land, providing the explicit reassurance that “if I in some way build a church may you confiscate it from my possession and seize it for the state treasury once again” (bir ṭarīḳ ile kenīse edersem yedimden nez‘ olunup yine cānib-i mīrīden żabṭ olunsun). Having presented the market price of sixty thousand aḳçes306 and with no higher offer, a trustee was sent to sell and hand over the land to Georgo and receive the said amount for the state treasury. To acknowledge Georgo as the purchased possessor of the land (mülk-ı muştarā), a document with an imperial seal and cypher (mühürlü ve nişanlu) was produced in the form of an imperial rūznāme (receipt or expenditure book). It is interesting to note that once the exchange of money and land had taken place, he was granted permission for his proprietorship as he wishes and choses (kayfamā yashāʿ ve yaḫtār mütesarrif olsun), albeit with the above-mentioned prohibition of re-building the church. While the court record only makes mention of the church, the fire in Galata in April 1660 caused the partial destruction of the priory and of the twenty adjacent houses which comprised of all the church properties, of which only seven remained unscathed. The refectory, which survived the fire, was transformed into a chapel. As seen above, seizure of ecclesiastical lands by the state for the state treasuries was an ever-present possibility although the intention was not for it to remain within the possession of the state but rather for it to be its auctioned back to the community as a means of acquiring income for the state treasury. In the case of the land of SS. Peter and Paul in Galata, the land was re-classified as mīrī on two bases: upon the destruction of any buildings constructed on the land due to the lack of a proprietor307 and the second upon the re-construction of the church on the site of the destroyed church. Therefore, ownership of the land could be said to belong to the state whereas possession was in the hands of the purchaser, in this case, the French ambassador’s dragoman Georgo. Nevertheless, the recovery of the land was not achieved without generous donations to the ağa

306 1 kuruş = 120 aḳçe. Şevket Pamuk, A Monetary History of the Ottoman Empire (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 160. 307 The issue of possession and ownership of church properties will be dealt with in Part III of the thesis.

70 of the janissaries (yenīçeris), the neighborhood headman (muḫtār-başı), and the district governor (voïvoda) of Galata, among others, as well as the distribution of 10,000 aspres to diverse people through the successful local French merchant and the French ambassador’s chargé d’affaires Jean-François Roboly.308 The property was eventually placed in the name of the dragoman of England, Demetrasco Timoni.

1108/1697: The huge fire that started in a bakery of savoury pastries (börekçi) and swept through Galata on 2 Şevvāl 1107/ 4 May 1696 caused extensive damage to the four Latin Catholic churches and their affiliated properties located in Galata in close vicinity to one another: the Capuchin church of St. George, the Jesuit church of St. Benoît, the Conventual Franciscan complex of St. Francis, in addition to the Dominican church of St. Peter as mentioned above.309 While individual petitions were made on behalf of the two latter churches, the firmān of 1108/1697310 demonstrates how the properties of the two former religious orders were dealt with on the part of the judicial authorities as one entity, with one overriding imperial order being applied to both equally. Petitions for the reconstruction and repair of churches would be raised to the Sublime Porte for more than one church simultaneously if they were under the protection of the same foreign Catholic power. Therefore, the court records of 1697 include both the Capuchin church of St. George and the Jesuit church of St. Benoît. The churches are referred to by a corrupted version of the names of the religious orders that administered them rather than their proper names (Cezvīde ve Kapūçe nām iki kilise/ Cesuit ve Capuçīn kiliseleri demekle maʿrūf). The entry dated 18 Receb 1108/ 10 February 1697 is one of the most comprehensive court records regarding details of the process necessary for reconstruction and repair of churches following a fire as well as the intricate details of the parameters of the plots on which the churches were built and the exact destruction caused to the buildings.311 It reveals

308 Jean-François de Roboly (1623-1689) lived in Istanbul and acted as an agent of France’s affairs in Istanbul upon receiving instructions from Louis XVI. Belin, Histoire, 225. 309 In a letter by Châteauneuf to Pontchartrain dated 29 May 1696, he describes how the Grand Vizier refused to grant Fonton an order for the restauration of the houses of the French friars in Galata. Archives Nationals, A.E. B1 382, fol. 135. In another letter dated 20 of June of that same year Châteauneuf describes how efforts for the reconstruction of St. Francis have failed due to the sultan’s intension to have it converted into a mosque, A.E. B1 382, fol. 147. However, he comments in a letter dated 30 August 1697 how the reparation of the remaining ones was finally achieved, A.E. B1 382, fol. 309. In Zaïmova, Correspondance Consulaire, 28. 310 AMCC, Series R: Commandements impériaux; firmans; barats; lettres de recommandation, doc. 31. 311 İŞS, 23, 27 (1697)

71 information about the application of standard procedures on the part of the authorities after non-Muslim houses of worship were razed to the ground by fire. It is directed to the ḳāżī of Galata, Mehmed Efendi, and refers to two Latin-rite churches located in Galata. Their names are given as Jesuit and Capuchin churches from which we can infer that they were the churches of St. Benoît and St. George which were in the hands of those religious orders respectively. Seven architects were sent by the court to the churches to take measurements and register the boundaries of the plots. The French ambassador to the Porte had named the head translator, Georgo son of Constani, and two other translators as procurators (vekīls) who confirmed that the two churches had been protected by the imperial peace contract and had been in the possession of the Latin Catholic friars since the time of the Ottoman conquest of the city (iki ʿaded kiliseler Cesuīt ve Kapuçīn nām franca ruhbānlerinin ʿahdnāmeye hümāyūnda mestūr olduğu üzere fetḥ-i ḫāḳānīdan yedlerinde). The record gives a summary of the destruction caused to each church before entering into minute detail later on: the roof garden and one wall of St. Benoît was destroyed and the door, windows and friary were burned down; as for St. George, a portion of the roof tiles were broken and the friary had burned down. In view of this, the French ambassador made a petition for the reconstruction of the churches according to their previous design. The court record also reveals the process to determine the previous condition and architecture of the churches (vażʿ-i ḳadīm). As detailed in the document, local Muslim residents are questioned about the veracity of the church register and court document detailing possession (sicil ve ḥüccet). Another issue arose and which is mentioned albeit briefly in the court records, i.e. the instance of reconstruction of churches in contravention of the conditions imposed by the edicts of permission. These primarily refer to the impermissibility of expanding the boundaries of the building’s original design or adding extensions to its width or height. Similarly, the building materials used in reconstruction and repair had to be identical to those of the original structure. As mentioned above, local authorities carried out two inspections, an initial one before the issuing of the imperial edict granting or withholding permission and the second one after reconstruction took place. It can be observed that the officials were diligent in carrying out the second inspection and would occasionally discover that a church had indeed made illegal extensions. When such a contravention of the law was discovered: “sections had not been altered from its old design in absolute and after repair, they were surveyed according to the concise agreement” (baʿżen rusūm-ı ḳadīmesine ḳaṭʿan muğāyīr olmayıp ve baʿde’t-taʿmīr yine

72 mücmele-yi ittifāḳla yoḳlanır).312 Whereas, if the church was rebuilt prior to the receipt of permission, the building would be demolished and the land confiscated and placed in the possession of the imperial treasury. Such was the fate of the Capuchin church and friary of St. George in the aftermath of the conflagration of 1660. The community, after rebuying the land, took the decision to construct a large warehouse with some friars’ cells above it that same year before receiving the edict. Nevertheless, even the subtlety of this building did not escape the attention of the Ottoman authorities who seized and confiscated the land and building soon after. One of the perplexing explanations given in the court records for the appropriation of ecclesiastical lands by the state and the transferal of its status to mīrī is the lack of knowledge about who built the church or owned the land on which the church was built. The lack of a proprietor seemed to imply that it immediately became the possession of the state as indicated in the following court record: “since the owner and builder of an incinerated ab antiquo church is unknown, it reverts to the state treasury (muḥteriḳ olan kenīse-i ḳadīmelerinin arsasının māliki ve bānīsı maʿlūm olmamağla cānib-i mīrīye ʿāid olduğuna).313 Finally, the English diplomat and historian Paul Rycaut (d. 1700) observed with precision the delicate balance for the preservation of ecclesiastical properties, primarily churches, in the face of the area’s constant fires:

The Mahometan religion tolerates Christian churches and houses of devotion, in places where they have been anciently founded, but admits not of holy buildings on new foundations; they may repair the old coverings and roofs, but cannot lay a stone in a new place consecrated to divine service; nor if fire, or any accident destroy the superstructure, may a new strength be added to the foundation, wherewith to under-prop it for another building; so that at last the Christian churches in those dominions must necessarily come to ruine, as many already have submitted to the common fate of time. And as it happened in the great and notable fires of Galata first, and then of Constantinople, in the year 1660, that many of the Christian churches and chappels were brought to ashes; and afterwards by the piety and zeal of Christians scarce re-edified, before by publick order they were thrown down again into their former heaps, being adjudged contrary to the Turkish law, to

312 İŞŞ, 23.60a (Şa‘bān 1108/ April 1697). 313 İŞS, 9, 273a/1 (1 B 1072/20 Şubat 1662); İŞS, 10, 82b/1 (17 L 1072/3 Ağustos 1662).

73

permit churches again to be restored, of which no more remained than the meer foundation.”314

3. The legal status of buildings in Istanbul. Kritovoulos gave an account of the distribution of property by the Sultan in the aftermath of the conquest: “Then he donated to all the grandees, and to those of his household, the magnificent homes of the rich, with gardens and fields and vineyards inside of the city. And to some of them he even gave beautiful churches as their private residences.” He also favoured the Christian of the city by granting them houses and lands as well as the slaves to whom he gave back their own houses or those of others.315 According to the Venetian physician Marco Barbaro (d.1494) who witnessed the fall of the city, the sultan issued a proclamation promising to assign houses to the original inhabitants in order to have them come forward to execute them as happened in the case of the Venetian bailo, Jeruolemo Minoto.316 ʿĀşıḳpaşazāde’s account gives details of the different stages of Ottoman policy towards properties in Istanbul following the conquest beginning with the granting of property as freehold to all who voluntarily moved to Istanbul in order to re-settle the city: “And he sent officers to all his lands to announce that whomever wished should come and take possession in Istanbul, as freehold, of houses and orchards and gardens, and to whoever came, these were given.”317 Shortly after, a land rent318 was place on the distributed properties (bu verdikleri oluru muḳāṭaʿaya verdiler), this tax not only ensured that each individual would take a property suitable to their means, but also guaranteed a large sum of annual revenue for the treasury. As highlighted by the historian and şeyhülislüm Kemalpaşazāde (d. 1536), the treasury received a

314 Paul Rycaut, The Present State of the Ottoman Empire: Containing the maxims of the Turkish policy, the most material points of the Mahometan religion, their sects and heresies, their convents and religious votaries. Their military discipline, with an exact computation of their forces by land and sea (London: John Starkey, 1670), 103. 315 Michael Kritovoulos, History of Mehmed the Conqueror, trans. Charles T. Riggs (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1954), 83. 316 Nicolò Barbaro, Diary of the Siege of Constantinople 1453, trans. J. R. Jones (New York: Exposition Press, 1969), 77. 317 Original Ottoman Turkish: “Ve cemiʿ vilāyatına kavlleri gönderdi, “ḫāṭra olanlar gelsin olur, bāğlar, bāğçeler, mülkler verelim” dediler, ve her kim geldise verdiler, bu şehrı maʿmūr oldu.” ʿĀshiqpashazādeh, ʻĀshiqpashazādeh taʼrīkhī: a history of the Ottoman Empire to A.H. 883 (AD 1478), ed. Ālī Bey, (Farnborough, Eng.: Gregg International, 1970), 142. 318 In Ottoman state finances, in general, the term muḳāṭaʿa means the leasing or farming out to an individual - after agreement on the sum which the individual will pay - of a source of state revenue.

74 yearly sum of one hundred thousand filori after which the land tax was abolished (yirmi kez yüz bin filori māl-ı senevī mukarrer oldukdan sonra emr-i sulṭāniyle yeni refʿ olundu).319 Yet, the decision was contested by the prominent military commander and second vizier in the Imperial Council, Ḫādım Şihābeddīn Paşa (d. 1453), as not having been the policy introduced by Mehmed II’s forefathers upon the conquest of lands (ātānın dedinin nice memleketer fetḥ etti, hiç binine muḳāṭaʿa vażʿ etmedi). This argument, along with the protests of the new residents, led Sultan Mehmed II to consequently abolish the tax around 1456, ordering that mülknāmes should be given for the houses confirming its freehold possession (maktūbleri verdiler kim mülkleri ole). Halıl İnalcık describes the process of registration of properties as follows:

The procedure was that each immigrant, after choosing the house he wanted, went to the city and received from him a note of recommendation; he took this note to the Porte - we recall here that real estate belonged legally to the Sultan and was therefore within his gift- applied there for a freehold deed, a mülknâme. Some of these documents have come to light in the archives of Topkapı Sarayı. The mülknâme’s are of various dates, the oldest I have found being of Ramaḍân 861, that is to say, July 1457. They grant full freehold tenure of real estate, according to the principles of the sharî‘a, so that they read: “It is to be in his possession; he may, as he wishes, sell it, or give it away, or make it vaqf; in short, he may enjoy it as freehold however he wishes.” (There is a distinction here between this and real estate which remained mîrî, i.e., state property: the freehold of the latter belonged to the state, and the holder who enjoyed it could not sell it, give it away, or make it vaqf).320

Therefore, after the conquest, the houses which had survived the conquest and looting were granted as freehold and their owners were given mülknāmes so as to guarantee their possession.321 Soon after however, beginning in 1457 and continuing during subsequent years, the status of some of the buildings was altered as they were given over to the Aya Sofia vaḳıf:

“In A. H. 861 (29 November 1456-20 October 1457) many of the houses surviving from the Byzantine period were, we find, made over by the Sultan to the vaqf of the mosque of Aya

319 İbn Kemāl, Tevārih-i Al-i Osman, ed. Şerafettin Turan (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1954), 95. 320 İnalcık, “Greek Population,” 241. 321 Here, we refer to properties granted to private individuals since the sultan’s slaves (ḳul) were exempted from paying rent.

75

Sofya, the income arising therefrom as rent accruing to the vaqf. At various times further properties were made over as vaqf to the mosque; and these vaqf properties were inspected and checked twice during the reign of Mehmed II (once by the qadi'asker Kebelti-zade Muhyieddin Mehmed, and then by the qadiasker Fenari-zade 'Alaeddin 'Ali). In an inspection and survey made in 1490, during the next reign," it is noted that some of the houses had been given to the vaqf in 861 (1456/7). According to this survey, in 1490 the real estate in Istanbul, Galata, and Uskiidar that belonged to the vaqf of the mosque consisted of 2,350 shops bringing in an annual rent of 458, 578 aspers; four caravansaries, various "rooms" (hujardt, odalar), two baths, thirty shops selling millet beer (boza), twenty-two sheep-head shops bringing in a rent of 174,175 aspers; and 987 houses let at a total rent of 85,668 aspers.”322

Muḳātaʿa323 was a type of contract for the payment of rent in perpetuity on land belonging to a vaḳıf. On this land the tenant had the right to construct buildings and plant orchards which were his/her absolute property based on the judicial principle of joint property, and by the gains of which the annual payment on the land could be made. This type of land rent also enabled the leaseholder to assign the right to administer the vaḳıf land to another while still retaining the usufruct on the vaḳıf land, thus emerged the double rent contract (icāreteyn).324 Accordingly, rent would be paid on a yearly basis and an imperial order was necessary for the validation of the contract. İnalcık’s observations are supported by a series of receipts written in Ottoman Turkish detailing how the land of some of Galata’s Latin Catholic churches had likewise been made over by the sultan to the vaḳıf of the Aya Sofia Mosque; St. George and St. Francis were those mentioned.325 The former, described as sān yorkī located in the district of Bereketzāde, made yearly payments from 1173/1759 to 1187/1773 of 150 aḳçe to the vaḳıf of the Aya Sofya mosque (ayasofya-i kebīr)326 of a land tax (muḳātaʿa-i zemīn) and

322 İnalcık, “Greek Population,” 243. 323 The term was used synonymously with muḳātaʿa-i zemīn, icāre-i zemīn and muḳātaʿalı and had numerous meanings in relation to endowments in the Ottoman Empire. However, here we will look soley at the meaning that applies to the documents in question. Nazif Öztürk, “Mukātaalı Vakıf,” DİA (Istanbul: TDV, 2006) 31:132. 324 Evgeni Radushev, Svetlana Ivanova and Rumen Kovachev, Inventory of Ottoman Turkish Documents about Waqf Preserved in the Oriental Department at the St. Cyril and Methodius National Library. Part 1 – Registers, trans. Rossitsa Gradeva (Sofia: IMIR 2003), 328-329. 325 The receipts were written in siyāḳat script, which was the traditional script for documents of a financial nature. 326 The mosque was also known as cāmīʿ-i kebīr-i ʿatīḳ. The name of the mosque is qualified by the adjective “large” (kebīr) so as to distringuish it from its smaller namesake Küçük Ayasofya Cāmıʿ located in the district of Fatih. The Little Ayasofya Mosque was the result of the conversion of the Byzantine Orthodox church of SS. Sergius and Bacchus by the chief black of the Imperial Harem, Huseyin Aga during the reign of Bayezid II (r. 1481-1512).

76 was therefore endowed to the mosque.327 The amount of land tax required as payment remained constant throught the period of years shown on the individual receipts. In can therefore be concluded that a significant portion if not all of the land in Galata was given over to the Ayasofya vaḳıf and were therefore subject to muḳāṭaʿalı contracts. This was not an unusual situation as Bahaeddin Yediyildiz highlights: “Aux premiers siècles de l’Empire ottoman, le contrat de muqâṭaʿa était très répandu. La raison en était la suivante: au début de l’Empire, après la conquête d’une ville, les Turcs arrivaient en masse pour s’y installer. Cela faisait monter les prix des terrains à bâtir. C’est pourquoi les fonctionnaires d’État, les membres de l’armée, et tous ceux qui arrivaient les premiers dans la ville en question s’appropriaient toutes les terres potentiellement intéressantes au développement ultérieur de la ville. Ils en transformaient ensuite une grand partie en waqf.”328 In his study on vaḳıf in Jerusalem in the mid-nineteenth century, Sroor concludes that “the majority of the religious and charitable institutions of the non-Muslim communities were built on land belonging to the Muslim vaḳıfs of Jerusalem by muḳātaʿa contract.”329 ʿĀşıḳpaşazāde describes how once again in 1471, the rents which had previously been abolished was reinstated by the Grand Vizier, Rūm Mehmed Paşa (in office 1466-69). While he attributes the motivations of the Vizier, who favoured the cessation of rebuilding and the abandonment of the city due to the heavy tax burden– only to be repossessed by its former inhabitants (bu ḥaḳ daḫī mülkleri yapmıyalar, bu şehr yine ḫarāb yüz ṭute āḫarīna bizim ṭāifemiz alındı) due to the fact that he was of Greek origin. The more likely reasons behind the Vizier’s advice were financial given the measures he had to take in order to cover the high expenditures caused by the siege of Karaman followed by its invasion by the ruler of the Turkmen Aḳ Ḳoyunlu , Uzun Hasan (d. 1478).330 This is supported by a firmān dated Rebīʿu’l-evvel 889/April 1484 issued by Sultan Bayezid II in which he affirms that rent is not demanded from those individual directely in the service of the state but are from other subjects residing in the areas of Galata and Istanbul the lands of which belong to the vaḳıf Aya Sofya Mosque.331

327 AMCC, Series T: Bougourdis, passeports, quittances, obligations, écrits d’affranchissement..., doc. 27. 328 Bahaeddin Yediyildiz, Institution du vaqf au XVIIIe siècle en Turquie: étude socio-historique (Ankara: Imprimerie de la Société turque d’histoire, 1985), 137. 329 Ibid., 140-141. 330 Halıl İnalcık, “Mehmed II,” in DİA (Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 2003), 28:400-401. 331 İnalcık, “Greek Population,” 245-6.

77

a. Categorisation of buildings in Ottoman Galata Among the classification given to houses in the survey of 1455, the extant parts of those properties which were endowments (vaḳıf), concern the central and eastern parts of Galata whether inhabited (mütemekkin, sākin), uninhabited (ḫālī) or in ruins (ḫarāb). It can be understood that those categorised as vaḳıf were properties endowed to a church or synagogue. Therefore, from the early period after the Ottoman conquest of the capital, recognition was granted to properties endowed by religious minorities, specifically, property endowed to the church. The survey mentions 31 houses in total as being endowed to churches. Those which were transferred to the state treasury were then leased to anyone who could afford to pay the rent. As demonstrated in the survey, the land belonged to the state, and as such, was rented to individuals under the muḳāṭaʿa system. As for properties, they were divided into three categories: state-owned (emiriye), freehold (mülk), leasehold - that is to say when one is obliged to pay rent for property owned by the state (mukata’a-i ard-i emiri) the former of which consisted of a land tax. The properties of those who had been captured on the day of the conquest, those who had not returned to the city after fleeing (approximately 8% of the population) or proprietors who had no heirs, were seized by the state treasury. The percentage of people who lost properties due to these reasons was small yet it should be remembered that the sultan gave properties to individuals of his retinue, as mentioned in Tursun Bey’s account as follows: “…the Sultan, out of his favours, granted the rent to his kuls and subjects and ordered that certificates adorned with his cypher be given to them free from any charge of rent.”332 One example given in the survey about the confiscation of Latin ecclesiastical properties and their reversion to the state is that of the residence of the monk Francesco along with two shops and two storehouses although this was not delivered into the hands of the Muslims but rather rented to an Armenian.333

332 This is confirmed in the Greek chronicler Kritovoulos’ account of the conquest in which he narrates how Sultan Mehemd “donated to all the grandees, and to those of his household, the magnificent homes of the rich with gardens and fields and vineyards inside of the city. To some of them he even gave beautiful churches as their private residences.” Kritovoulos, History,” 76. 333 İnalcık, Ottoman Galata, 299.

78

a.i. Mülk During this period, it would also be possible to transact a house sale without making recourse to the courts. According to Islamic law, two adult male Muslims with good reputations would be sufficient to prove the transaction’s validity. This rule also applied to the non-Muslim inhabitants.334 However, the parties would still need to acquire the official certificate of the sale (ḥüccet-i beyʿ) from the court. Another concern regarding the sale records is raised by Suraiya Faroqhi who notes that there was no obligation for non-Muslims to bring affairs before the local ḳāżī and when they did, the rules of Islamic law were also applicable to them in matter such as inheritance.335 One question is whether non-Muslims were faced with any institutional barriers in acquiring property. As far as regards property rights on residential lands, non- Muslims had the same entitlements as Muslims. Transactions for the sale of properties among non-Muslims also followed similar procedures. One such is detailed in the Galata court records of 1604 of the sale of a house which took place between the outgoing French ambassador François Savary de Brèves (from 1589-1607), who was called Francesko Beyzāde in the record and his successor Covan veled- i Baronbar (Jean-François de Gontaut-Biron, baron Salignac, from 1607-1611). The former when selling a house in Galata for 600,000 aḳçes to the latter sought to have it confirmed, registered and issued with a document from the court guaranteeing its validity.336 From this entry in the court records we can derive the conclusion that Muslims and non-Muslims alike chose to register their property transactions at the local şerʿī court in order to be have in their possession an official Ottoman document recognised by the state and by which helped to protect it against seizure by the local authorities or by other individuals from the local community, be they Muslims or zimmīs.337

334 Suraiya Faroqhi, Men of modest substance: House owners and house property in seventeenth-century Ankara and Kayseri (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 10. 335 Ibid., 154. A study demonstrates that this was a similar situation for non-Muslims, Gürer Karagedikli and Coşkun Tunçer, “The people next door: Housing and neighbourhood in Ottoman Edirne, 1734- 1814” (Economic History Society Annual Conference March 2016): 15. 336 İŞŞ, 27, 23b. Mentioned in Kuran, Mahkeme Kayıtları Işığında Sosyo-Ekonomik Yaşam, (Istanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2010), 1:801-802, no. 416. 337 Examples of such methods of property secural can be seen in AMCC, Series R.

79

a.ii. Vaḳıf It has been established above that the land in Galata was classified as mīrī. Vaḳıfs founded on mīrī lands were known as irsādī which linguistically means to survey and prepare and, in legal terminology, it refers to a foundation for public benefit of which the usufruct, the possession or both is owned (raḳabe) by the public treasury. They are also referred to as taḥsīsāt ḳābilinden vaḳıflar or ğayr-i saḥīḥ vaḳıflar (invalid vaḳıfs). Legally, their status was invalid since vaḳıfs could only be endowed from property which was in the full ownership of the founder. Although the income from possession right (taṣarruf) or taxes such as öşür, ḫarāç, etc, from the mīrī lands that were endowed as vaḳıfs was to be used for public good, there was no full ownership of the land and the usufruct or possession right of the land remained with the founder. It can be questioned whether this classification of vaḳıf was a legal term which was subsequently created to justify the endowment of mīrī lands. The advantage of vaḳıf was that, like temlīk, it was a permanent legal tenure with fiscal immunities. Non-Muslim vaḳıfs were established with imperial edicts which was necessary as they could not, in themselves, acquire land or immovable assets and, as a result, did not have a grantor or a statute. One of the main difficulties in establishing new vaḳıfs was the predominance of mīrī land, including agricultural lands, which could not generally be allocated to non-Muslim foundations with the exception of landed monasteries which had already secured permission through imperial edicts. It has been argued that the requirement of imperial permission for the allocation of mīrī land to non-Muslim vaḳıfs served as a means of control.338 These properties were often registered under the name of a member of the local community (a pseudonym) or the name of a saint (a fictitious name). This could cause problems when the authorities wished to appropriate the land or real estate, they could argue that the registration was carried out collusively and that the land or real estate did not have any owner.339 Many of Istanbul’s Latin-rite churches and properties had been established prior to the Ottoman conquest of the city. Those that had been appropriated following the conquest became either private or endowed property. The religious orders which managed to establish themselves elsewhere in Galata following the confiscation of their churches and monasteries

338 Dilek Kurban and Kezban Hatemi, Bir Yabancı’laştırma Hikâyesi: Türkiye’de Gayrımüslim Cemaatlerin Vakıf ve Taşınmaz Mülkiyet Sorunu (Istanbul: TESEV, 2009), 9. 339 The legal existence of non-Muslim foundations was recognised in 1912 under the “Provisional Law on the Possession of Immovables by Legal Entities”, the legal person of non-Muslim foundations was recognised and included under “affiliated endowments” (mülḥaḳ). Therefore, those endowments registered under pseudonyms and fictitious names could be re-registered. The law determined that if any natural person or inheritors in whose name such immovable was registered declared that such immovable belonged to that foundation, it had to be re-registered to that foundation.

80 did so through the acquisition of new lots and buildings or the same properties which were either purchased by Christians from the community or given to the friars of a particular religious order as a or endowment by the Christian faithful. These included monetary donations and donations in kind such as chapels, houses, orchards and vineyards. However, if the properties and land fell into Muslim possession following the conquest and were later bought by Christians, it was not permissible for churches to be rebuilt on the land. This was confirmed by the following fetva: “Is it permissible for a church, which belonged to the Muslims following the conquest, to be bought by the Christians and re-made into a church? The answer: they cannot, it is not permissible.”340 This policy was put into practice when those Christians who repurchased ecclesiastical land that had been appropriated by the state promised to build homes instead of rebuilding the destroyed original properties (churches/convents). Christian buyers even went as far as confirming their intentions with promises at the time of purchase. For example, following the fire of 1660 and the consequent destruction of various Catholic churches and friaries in Galata, the Orthodox Christian dragoman Georgi, son of Lazari and Constantine, son of Andrea, purchased church properties, making the pledge that “if by some means I build a church, let the state treasury again seize [the property] and take it out of my possession.”341 Properties and land that were endowed to the churches were issued with court documents detailing possession (ḥüccets) recognising their validity by the court and mitigating any possible future disputes over ownership.342 It is interesting to note that these legal documents were not vaḳfiyes. Regarding the status of the ecclesiastical structures of the respective communities, Paolo Girardelli describes them as “an integral part of Ottoman urban societies” whereas the Catholics maintained the status quo of their churches and chapels by “negotiation, diplomatic agreements, and international power balances”.343 Nevertheless, some Catholic churches of Galata also provided for the religious needs of the other religious communities of the capital. Notably, the Muslim population would frequent them openly as places of and for

340 Original Ottoman Turkish: “Bir kilise ḥīn-i fetḥte müslümanlar mālik olduktan sonra, naṣāra iştirā edip geri kilise eylemeğe ḳādir olurlar mı? El-cevāb: Olmazlar, mümkün değildir.” Mehmet Ertuğrul Düzdağ, Şeyhülislm Ebüssuʿūd Efendi Fetvaları Işığında 16. Asır Türk Hayatı, (Istanbul: Enderun Kitabevi, 1983), 104. 341 Original Ottoman Turkish: “…bir ṭarīḳ ile kenīse edersem yedimden nezʿ olunup yine cānib-i mīrīden żabṭ olunsun…”, İŞS, 9, fol. 96a, August 1661. 342 A dispute arose over the ownership of SS. Peter and Paul in spite of the existence of a donation deed. 343 Paolo Girardelli, “Architecture, Identity and Liminality: On the use and meaning of Catholic Spaces in Late Ottoman Istanbul,” Maqarnas: An Annual on the Visual Culture of the Islamic World 22, (2005): 239.

81 the benefits of healing. For example, according to a report by the French Capuchin friar François Leclerc du Tremblay (d. 1638), also known as Père Joseph, on the status of Catholics in the Ottoman Empire in 1623, he recounts having witnessed several healings of Muslims when a Franciscan priest placed the of St. John on the heads of the sick344 or secretly participating in their rites, such as baptizing their children in the that some otherworldly benefit must be derived from the .345 Not to mention the curious crowds of local Muslims who were drawn to the Catholic churches of Galata to observe the masses, especially during religious feasts and even attended bearing gifts of flowers and alms as one observer noted: Many of them [Muslims] come inside our churches, particularly San Francesco, out of curiosity to see the manner of our devotions, and they come here many times when masses are celebrated, and are amazed at the ceremonies….At Easter time, as they know it is our most solemn feast, at my sermon, I saw more than 200 of them between the ambassador’s janissaries, who are there for protection, and others on Friday, which among them is like Sunday. Most women and youths come from Constantinople on a stroll, out of curiosity sparked by those who other times have been there, and they ask to hear the organ, and then when they leave they give alms or a tip.346

a. iii. Mīrī During the survey of Galata conducted in 1455 by the governor of Bursa, Djübbe ‘Alī Bey, lists of the inhabitants of Galata and inventories of the properties in Galata are carried out. According to the Byzantine historian Doukas (d. 1463), when Sultan Mehmed had visited Galata five days after entering the city, he ordered a census to be taken of the inhabitants and an inventory of the properties. Observing that many of the houses had been bolted since their owners had fled the city, he decreed that the properties of those who had fled and did not return within three months would be transferred to the state treasury; if they returned, they could repossess them.347 This is confirmed by an eyewitness account by the Latin archbishop of Mytilene, Leonard of Chios who had been brought to Constantinople to assist in the union

344 Pacifique de Provins, Le Voyage de Perse et brève relation du voyage de l’Amérique, ed. Godefrey de Paris and Hilaire de Wingene (Assisi: Collegio S. Lorenzo da , 1939), 28. 345 Frazee, Catholics and Sultans. 346 Mauri, Relatione, 42. 347 Doukas, Decline, 240.

82 between the Greek and Roman churches348 in which he describes how Sultan Mehmed dealt with the inhabitants and buildings of Galata after its submission: “A terror-stricken embassy was sent from Pera to the sultan to offer him the keys of the gates. He received this evidence of their lack of power with pleasure and accepted them as his allies or rather as his slaves. A Turkish governor was appointed and all the property of those who had escaped was annexed to his treasury.”349 This account reveals both the status of the district’s inhabitants as subjects of the sultan (kul, lit. slaves of the sultan) and the status of abandoned dwellings which reverted to the state. The municipal official (podestà) of Pera, Angelo Giovanni Lomellino, likewise describes his efforts to secure his people’s immovable properties after Sultan Mehmed’s ultimatum: “He has also had lists made of all the property belonging to the merchants and citizens who have left here, saying, ‘If they return, they shall have them back, and if not, it will all belong to me.’ Because of this, we arranged for a message to be sent to Chios, to tell all the merchants and citizens who had left here that they could come back; and if they did, they would have their property.” 350 More generally, other significant property laws which non-Muslims had to contend with were general restrictions placed on their housing. Firstly, according to Ottoman law, minorities could not build houses more than two stories high, although in practice it was breached with frequency. This prohibition was based on the Islamic doctrinal ruling that houses of zimmīs could not be taller than that of their Muslim neighbours’, although if a zimmī were to buy a house from a Muslim which is higher than that of the Muslim neighbours then he/she would not be under a legal obligation to make structural repairs to reduce the height of the building. Although in practice, the authorities did not take these juridical nuances into consideration.351 Secondly, was the prohibition on non-Muslims of living near mosques and quarter mosques, (mescids), tombs (türbes) and other Islamic holy or sacred spaces. This ruling was supported in Ottoman lands by fetvas throughout the centuries such as the following one given by Çatalcalı Ali Efendi (d. 1692): “In a town Zeyd let rooms located next to a noble mosque to infidels, and if they are the reason for a reduction in the congregation [of the mosque]

348 Presented in a letter by the Latin archbishop of Mytilene, Leonard of Chios, to Pope Nicholas V in Tome, Melville-Jones, The siege of Constantinople 1453,” 23. 349 In the same letter, Ibid. 350 A letter by the ex-Podestà of Pera, Angelo Giovanni Lomellino, to his , Melville-Jones, The siege of Constantinople 1453, 133. 351 Fattal, Le statut légal, 144-145.

83 can the judge to remove the infidels from those rooms and say to Zeyd, “After today rent to Muslims”? The answer: Yes.”352 One of the first imperial orders to be sent in relation this matter was to the ḳāżī on 28 May 1566 ordering the removal of all non-Muslims residing adjacent to the tomb of Eyyūbü’l- Ensārī (d. 674) located near the bay of the Golden Horn in a district named after him.353 The former prohibition led to significant tensions, especially in traditionally non-Muslim areas such as Galata, where an increasing number of new mosques appeared, significantly that of Galata Yeni Cāmıʿ which in 1697 was constructed on the ruins of the most important Latin Catholic church in the district, the Franciscan Conventual church of St. Francis. This policy was supported by imperial decrees. In 1700 a decree was issued stating that the purchase or renting of houses near a mosque had resulted in a decrease in numbers of the Muslim congregation, and therefore ordering that the residents of the said district be prohibited from renting or selling their houses to Christians.354 Another decree dated 1726, ordered both the removal of Jews from the proximity of Yeni Cāmıʿ in Eminönü on the ground that they were causing “many abominable situations near the mosque” and the sale of these properties to Muslims at a fair market price.355 Furthermore, changes in attitudes towards cohabitation between Muslims and Christians in mixed neighbourhoods, which had been prevalent during the early Ottoman era, began to change from the late seventeenth century onwards.356 Contemporary internal and external political realities played a significant part in influencing the Sublime Porte’s relations with and consequently policies towards Christians within the empire’s borders, be they subjects or foreigners. As regards the former, there was an increase in orthodox Sunni sentiment during

352 Original Ottoman Turkish: “Zeyd bir beldede cāmiʿ-i şerīf ḳurbunda olan odalarını kefereye icār edüp taḳlīl-i cemaʿāta sebeb olsa ḥākim kefereyi ol odalardan iḫrāc edüp Zeyd’e “Baʿde’l-yevm müslimīne icār eyle” demeğe ḳādir olur mu? El-cevāb: Olur.” Salih b. Ahmed el-Kefevī, Fetāvā Ali Efendi (Istanbul: Matbaa-i Âmire, 1311/1839), 1: 174. 353 Refik, Hicri Onikinci, 75. Spelt Abu Ayyub al-Anṣārī, he was one of the close Companions of the Prophet Muhammed. He participated in one of Muawiya’s battles against the Byzantines, he fell ill while on campaign, died and was buried under the outer wall of Constantinople. His grave was said to be discovered during Sultan Mehmed II’s seige of Constantinople, which encouraged his soldiers to maintain their positions. Subsequently, upon the conquest of the city, a tomb was built above his grave and a mosque, Eyüp Sulṭān Cāmīʿ was built next to the tomb in 1458 and is the first mosque to be built by the Ottomans in Istanbul. Feridun M. Emecen, Fetih ve Kıyamet 1453 (Istanbul: Timaş Yayınları, 2012), 336-337. 354 Refik, Hicri Onikinci, 30-31. 355 Ibid. pp. 88-89. 356 See footnote no. 16 for examples in Rossitsa Gradeva, “Orthodox Christians and the Ottoman Authoriy in Late Seventeenth-Century Crete,” in Frontiers of Ottoman Space, Frontiers in Ottoman Society, ed. Rossitsa Gradeva (Istanbul: The Isis Press, 2014), 61.

84 the resign of Sultan Mehmed IV (1648-1687) which had been fulled in the previous century by internal socio-reglious tendencies displaying apocalyptic expectations along with orthodox Islamic fervour.357 In relation to the latter, relations between the Ottoman Empire and the majory Catholic powers, in particular, deteriorated during the late seventeenth century as a result of the Austro-Ottoman War (1683-97) which ended in significant territorial loss for the Ottomans with the Treaty of Karlowitz on 26 of January 1699. Moreover, the activities of the Venetians in the Mediterranean encouraged the Sublim Porte’s trust in its Catholic subjects.

b. Ottoman policy towards Roman Catholic ecclesiastical properties in Galata When comparing Ottoman policy in the Catholic centre of Galata with other Catholic areas conquered by the Ottomans, one can ascertain the difference. Upon the Ottoman conquest of the Venetian-ruled island of Candia after a twenty-one-year siege (1648-1669), fourteen large monastery churches located within the citadel were converted into mosques for Sultan Mehmed IV, the Valide Sultan Hatice Turhan, the Grand Vizier Fazil Ahmed Paşa and for other Ottoman officials. In addition, seventy-four other churches were converted into mosques by making certain structural alterations and interior aesthetic changes.358

b.ii. In the light of fetva rulings Fetva The word fetva is the Ottoman Turkish of the Arabic fatwā (pl. fatāwā). It is derived from the three root letters f-t-y. Linguistically, it denotes “a strong response which describes the judgment of an event or the judgment laid down that solves difficulties”. Derivatives of the noun include muftī who is the individual who issues the fatwā, futyā or iftaʾ, which is the act of giving a legal opinion, and the nouns futyā, futwa and fatwa which denote that about which the jurisconsult gives his legal opinion.359 In legal terminology, a fetva is defined as the

357 Cornell H. Fleischer, “The Lawgiver as Messiah: The Making of the Imperial Image in the Reign of Süleyman,” in Soliman le Magnifıque et son Temps, ed. Giles Veinstein (Paris: Documentation française, 1992), 162-164. 358 Silahdar, Silahdar Tarihi, 525. 359 Abu al-Faḍl Ibn Manẓūr, “fatwa,” Lisān al-ʿArab (Beirut: Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-ʿArabī, 1997), 10:183.

85 response of a jurisconsult to a question of legal content.360 Traditionally, it was the written response by a müfti to questions on religious/legal issues in compliance with the precepts of his school of Islamic jurisprudence.361 The word has its religious basis in the Qur’an, where it appears in nine verses and refers generally to the request for or clarification of an opinion.362 Moreover, the recurring appearance of the verb yastaftunaka in the Qur’an, such as “When they ask you concerning…say…”, influenced the adoption of this terminology.363 It also appeared in ḥadīs literature, although more so in its derived forms of futyā and iftaʾ.364 It made an appearance in the texts of jurisprudence at a later period such as in the Hanafi jurist Ḥāfiẓ al-Dīn al-Nasafī’s (d. 1142) Kanz al-Daqāʾiq.365 In practice, the issuing of juridical opinions based on reason began in the early years of Islam, initially being practiced by Muhammad and his Companions366 and a set of rules and conditions developed on the validity of a fetva and on the eligibility on the issuer of a fetva.367 By the middle of the tenth century, fetva collections began to be compiled especially by notable jurists such as Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ (d. 1245), which is an indication of their increased significance.368 The title began to be used in an official capacity after the reign of Sultan Murad II (r. 1421-44, 1446-51). During the first half of the sixteenth century during the end of the reigns of Bayezid II (r. 1481-1512) and Yavuz Sultan Selim (r. 1512-20), the responsibilities of the office of şeyhülislām increased. Special procedures and organisation were developed in the form of the fetva department (fetvakhane/fetva kalemi) under the direction of the fetva emīni

360 The institution resembled that of the Roman institution of jus respondendi in various aspects. Encyclopaedia of Islam (1965), s.v. “Fatwa”. 361 On the subject of fetvas and müftīs more generally, see Muhammad Khalid Masud, Brinkley Messick, and David Powers, “Muftis, Fatwas, and Islamic Legal Interpretation,” in Islamic Legal Interpretation: Muftis and their Fatwas, ed. Muhammad K. Masud et al (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 3-32. 362 Al- 4:127, 176; Yusuf 12:41, 43, 46; Al-Kahf 18:22, Al-Naml 27:32; Al-Safat 37:11, 149. 363 Masud, Messick, and Powers, “Muftis”, 5-6. 364 Veysel Nargül, “Fatwa”, Islam: A Worldwide Encyclopedia, ed. Cenap Çakmak (California : ABC-CLIO, 2017), 2:472. 365 For more on the incorporation of Islamic responsa into substantive law, see Wael B. Hallaq, “From Fatwas to Furuʿ: Growth and Change in Islamic Substantive Law,” Islamic Law and Society 1, no. 1 (1994): 39-57. 366 For more on the institution of futyā during this period, the fatwas issued by Muhammad, the Companions and Successors and the debates surrounding the permissibility of the use of ictihād by the Prophet, see Tarīkh al-fatwā fī’l-islām wa aḥkāmuha al-sharʿiyyah (: Dār al-Rashīd, 1996), 65-104. Seven Companions issued the most number of Islamic responsa: Caliphs ‘Umar and Ali, Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, Abdullah ibn ‘Umar, Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas, Zeyd ibn Sabit and Ayishah. Fahrettin Atar, “Fetva”, DİA (Istanbul: Türkiey Diyanet Vakfı, 1995), 12:489. 367 Most importantly, in order to issue an authorised fetva using reasoning, the müfti must meet the standards of being a muctahid according to both Sunni and Shi‘a Islam. 368 Hallaq, “Fatwas to Furuʿ,” 31.

86 which was affiliated to the meşīḫat maḳāmı. This bureaucratisation of the office was considered necessary to maximise efficiency in the production of fetvas in order to deal with the increased demand for the şeyhülislām’s services since the sources of questions presented to the müftis ranged from central government and provincial judges to the common people. Due to a fetva’s general applicability, it had a written formula that corresponded to this while omitting particulars such as place names and the names of the individuals concerned. The existence of numerous fetva collections is attributed to the fact that they were preserved for bureaucratic reasons in order to maintain proof of previous rulings and to serve as authoritative examples for subsequent rulings.369 As a result, fetvas demonstrated a specific formula. Fetvas have four main pillars: an invocation (daʿvet), which usually follows particular formulas; a question (suʾāl) which is a concise summary omitting any superfluous details; an answer (cevāb) which is often given as a one word affirmative (olūr) or negative (olmāz); the signature (imzā) of the müfti himself or, in some cases, a seal (mühür) is stamped in place of a signature.370 In greater detail, fetvas were comprised of ten parts. 1. Supplications and invocations; 2. Beginning of the question; 3. Question; 4. Request and petition/imploration; 5. The answer to the question, starting with the expression “the answer” (el-cevāb) and ending with the expression Allahu aʾlem (God knows best); 6. The answer, which was often a brief olūr or olmāz, without making reference to any authoritative texts in support of it; 7. The name of the issuer; 8. A signature accompanied by an expression of modesty such as “the lowly” or “the poor” ( el-ḥaḳīr, el-faḳīr); 9. An exhortation for God’s forgiveness; 10. The source on which the fetva was based which was rare. The above format remained unchanged from the fifteenth to early twentieth centuries.371

The legal weight of Ottoman fetvas Fetvas, like imperial decrees (firmāns),372 were issued according to need, addressed specific circumstances and did not make reference to broad legal principles. Rather, answers

369 For examples of fetva collections, see Uriel Heyd, “Some Aspects of the Ottoman Fetva,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 32, no. 1 (1969): 35-37, for ’s fetva collections, see Ahmet İnanır, İbn Kemal’in Fetvaları Işığında Osmanlı’da İslâm Hukuku (Ankara: Gece Kitaplığı, 2014), 15-20. 370 Mübahat S. Kütükoğlu, Osmanlı Belgelerinin Dili (Diplomatik) (Istanbul: Kubbealtı Akademisi Kültür ve Sanat Vakfı, 1994), 342-343. 371 Heyd, “Ottoman Fetva,” 37; for a detailed description of their form, see 37-46. 372 For a comprehensive definition, components, legal weight and practical application of the firmān, see Part IV.3 of the present thesis.

87 were based on the particulars of the texts of jurisprudence. The legal weight of a fetva was authoritative but not binding and, therefore, the każı was not obliged to base his rulings on such. However, studies have indicated that in the majority of cases, the ḳāżī’s ruling corresponded to the fetva issued by the müftī373 and other studies demonstrate that they were viewed with “reverence” by the ḳāżīs albeit to maintain good relations with an individual who could influence their scholarly career favourably.374 It has been suggested that piety was an attributing factor since the müftī was an impartial issuer of a legal judgement which adhered to the şerīʿat having not been exposed to all the details and had no relation with the litigating parties, yet ties between the fetva issuer and circles of power were present nonetheless.375 Since it was not an executive decree, it had to be executed by an authority with executive power, namely a ruler or judge. The legal weight of fetvas was also linked to the influence and office held by the müfti who issued them. The duties and functions of the office of the müfti were somewhat modest with low pay until the mid-sixteenth century when the position became fully integrated into the scholarly/religious hierarchy (ʿilmiye) which charged them with the administrative responsibility of giving judicial appointments at high offices. Nevertheless, the position was one of prestige, created in order to have a state official who would embody the authority of and grant legitimacy to and sanction the ruler’s actions.376 The müfti of Istanbul, who was the head of the ʿilmiye, was designated the title of şeyhülislām.377 The term first appeared in official documents at the beginning of the fourteenth century and was used interchangeably with the expression müfti.378 Their judicial functions did not extend to the court, as was the case with all müftis, although the results of their primary function, their fetvas,

373 Haim Gerber, State, Society, and Law in Islam: Ottoman Law in Comparative Perspective (New York: State University of New York Press, 1994), 94. 374 Ibid., 81. 375 Atar, “Fetva”, 488. 376 The Encyclopaedia of Islam (1997), s.v. “Shaykh al-Islām: In the Ottoman Empire.” For more on the networks and influence of the religious hierarchy (ʿilmiye) see Madeline C. Zilfi, The Politics of Piety: the Ottoman ulema in the Postclassical Age (1600 - 1800), Minneapolis: Bibliotheca Islamica, 1988. 377 In the Ottoman Empire, şeyhülislām was a title of office unlike its use during the Fatimid period when it was used as a title of honour, such as in Syria and Egypt. While they undertook various duties, such as acting as personal and religious advisors to the sultan and engaging in teaching at the medrasas (theological schools), their official function was to issue fetvas, which they wrote and delivered personally until the time of Ebüsu’ud (d. 1574). The Encyclopaedia of Islam (1997), s.v. “Shaykh al- Islām.” 378 Mustafa Akdağ, Türkiye’nin iktisadî ve ictimaî tarihi, C. II 1453-1559 (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1971), 62; İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Devletinin İlmiye Teşkilâtı (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1965), 174.

88 were often presented in court.379 The şeyhülislām’s position was of such influence that he had to be consulted by the sultan in the event of an alteration in legal policy.380 Since the şeyhülislāms were part of the inner circles of government, their fetvas can be used as a reflection of the politics and ideology of the period in which they practiced. Fetvas usually addressed real-life questions relating to Islamic dogma as well as private and public law, although theoretical issues were also dealt with.381 Questions would range in degree from the simplest of matters, usually presented by those who wished to settle out of court, to more complicated matters which would take a few days to answer. Answers were issued within the framework of Ottoman law, in accordance with both the şerīʿat and ḳānūn, the latter being based on imperial firmāns, particularly, in instances where there was a disagreement of legal opinion.382 Fetvas were arguably a reflection of living law, the “legal universe of the…court” and, as such, divergent from and innovative of the rulings laid down in the classical texts of jurisprudence as well as a heavy reliance on ḳānūn.383 Therefore, it can be concluded that the widely-used fetva was a mirror of judicial reality that reflected the use of both the şerīʿat and ḳānūn.

The Impact of Fetvas on Christian institutions While general rules regarding the properties of minorities had been laid down in texts of jurisprudence, supporting juridical rulings which were primarily fetvas proved to have had an overwhelming influence on these in practice. They were legal opinions that both supported and clarified contemporary juridical positions but they could also deviate from them significantly.

379 Ronald C. Jennings, “Kadi, Court, and Legal Procedure in 17th C. Ottoman Kayseri: The Kadi and the Legal System,” Studia Islamica, no. 48 (1978), 133-172. 380 Gerber, State, 95. 381 Kātib Çelebi, Mizān al-ḥaqq fī ikhtiyār al-aḥaqq (Istanbul: Ali Riza Efendi Matbaasi, 2009), 11-12, 136-7. 382 ḳānūn had been used since the establishment of the Ottoman state and had been borrowed from other legal systems of Turkish Islamic states in Middle Asia, the Mamluks in Syria and Egypt and the Al- Koyunlu in northern Mesopotamia such as the ḳāżīs (każılkuzat and każıleşker) of the Anatolian Selcuk Empire on which the Ottoman were modelled. İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Devleti Teşkilatına Medhal (Istanbul: Maarif Matbaası, 1941), 132. Ḳānūn was essentially a body of state legislation which was made up of sultanic and customary law based on the legal tradition in which the ruler had the authority to rule on matters not dealt with in the şeriat. Although the sultan was careful not to issue ḳānūn contradicting or abrogating rulings from the şeriʿat, there were also checks to the process in the persons of two representatives of Islamic law in the Imperial Chancery and the şeyhülislām. At the head of some imperial law books (ḳānnūnāmes) was written the phrase “compatible with the noble şeriʿat” (şerʿ-i şerīfe uygundur). Halil İnalcık, “Kanun”, DİA (Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 2001), 24:323-327. 383 Gerber, State, 95, 97-100. Ronald Jennings also notes the recurrent presence of fetvas in the Kayseri court records which uphold ḳānūn, Jennings, “Kadi,” 140.

89

Fetvas were also used to delimit space and control population movements through the construction or destruction of places of worship. The location of a place of worship in a certain district could encourage the settlement of a population adhering to the respective belief in the surrounding areas since it would often form the religious and social focal point of a community. Therefore, in the later period, şeyhülislām Yahya Efendi Minkarizāde (in office 1662-73) ruled that a new church could be demolished if it had been constructed in the area of Muslim residents and a mosque. Yet, he maintained the traditional stance of permitting the renewal and rebuilding of existing churches upon necessity.384 As regards the status of lands and buildings in newly conquered territories, fetvas would reiterate the established jurisprudence on the possession and ownership of lands and buildings as well as confirm fetvas by Ebūssuʿūd, such as the following one by şeyhülislām Menteşzāde Abdürrahim Efendi (in office 1715-1716): “Upon the conquest by force of a region in the abode of war (dāru’l-ḥarb), a survey was carried out on the lands in the hands of the Christian flock (reʿāyā). If the cizye was imposed on the people and the ḫarāç on the lands, is the rest of the real property of the Christian flock absolute freehold? The answer: Yes.”385 Fetvas also reinforced decisions taken at a local court level regarding Christian properties. As noted above, fires were a perpetual menace to places of worship and affiliated ecclesiastical properties such as convents, therefore legal opinions supporting the reconstruction and repair of such damaged buildings were of great significance to their preservation. Şeyhülislām Yenişehirli ʿAbdullah Efendi (in office 1718-1730) addresses this issue with a legal opinion at the beginning of the eighteenth century “If friars’ cells in an inner courtyard of a church located ab antiquo in a town which was conquered peacefully were burned down in a fire, can the friars be prevented from rebuilding these rooms/cells in accordance with their former state? The answer: No.”386 With regard to the endowment of churches, fetvas had the ability to justify the continued practice of an institution that ran contrary to juridical doctrine through the simple alteration of

384 Minkarizāde Yahya b. Ömer, Fetāvā-i Minkarizade Efendi, Süleymaniye Yazma Eser Kütübhanesi, MS. Hamdiye 610, fols. 37a-b. 385 Original Ottoman Turkish: “Dāru’l-ḥarbden bir diyār ʿanveten fetḥ olundukda reʿāyāsı yedlerinde olan arāżīsinde taḳrīr olunub ruʾūslarına cizye, arāżīlerine ḫarāç vażʿ olunsa ol arāżī ol reʿāyānın sāir emlāki gibi mülk-i ṣarīḥleri olur mu? El-cevāb: Olur.” Şeyhülislām Menteşzāde Abdürrahim Efendi, Fetava-yı Abdurrahim (Istanbul: Daru’t-tibaʿati’l-maʿmureti’s-sultaniyye, 1827) 1: 68. 386 Original Ottoman Turkish: “Ṣulḥan fetḥolunan bir beldede vāḳiʿ kenīse-i ḳadīmenin avlusu daḫilinde olan ruhbān odaları ḥarīḳte muḥteriḳ olsa ruhbānlar ol odaları vażʿ-ı ḳadīmi üzere bināʾdan menʿ olunurlar mı. El-cevāb: Olmazlar.” Şeyhülislām Yenişehirli ʿAbdullah Efendi, Behcetü’l-fetāvā (Istanbul: Matbaa-i Amire, 1872), 165.

90 the wording of the fetva. Rather than endowments being expressed as being for a church, they would be worded as being “for the poor of the church”.387 Nevertheless, it appears that in spite of the attention to wording, properties that were said to be endowed to the church for the benefit of its monks were valid upon the condition that they were all poor. As the following fetva demonstrates, the condition of endowment for the benefit of Christian , such as reading the Bible, was invalid, however, the poor religious of the church as opposed to the generic poor were valid as direct beneficiaries:

Question: If a Christian woman endows her house and vineyard that she possessed when she was alive to the monks of a church in order to read the Bible and delivered it to the trustee (mütevellī) and legally registered it, it is written as an endowment? Following this, can her inheritors, who are from elsewhere, appear ten years later, disclaim the endowment and overturn it? The answer: If all of the monks are poor, then the endowment is valid for them. The condition of reading the Bible is abrogated. If they are not poor, then it is invalid, even the registration is illegal. The inheritors can overturn it [endowment] and portion it.388

Although endowments made of public property were legally invalid, they nevertheless existed in practice for the specific purpose of allowing the revenues to go towards the public good, thus, the private encroached into the public sphere.389 Therefore, when dealing with juridical issues surrounding non-Muslim endowments, a careful balance had to be made between respecting private property interests of non-Muslims and the wider interests of the Muslim polity. In another of Ebüsuʿūd’s fetvas, we once again see an expression such as “for the monks of a church” (kilisenin rāhiblerine) resulting in approval of its validity whereas “for the church” (kiliseye) automatically invalidates it: “If a zimmī endows some real estate to the monks of a church, after registering it [the endowment] in the law court, are his inheritors able to disclaim

387 According to Colin Imber, Ebüssuʿūd had to issue special instructions to his fetva clerks regarding the wording of fetvas referring to ecclesiastical vaḳıfs. Imber, Ebu’s-Su’ud, 160. 388 Original Ottoman Turkish: ‘Mes’ele: Hind-i naṣrāniye ṣıḥḥatinde mülk evini ve bağını, İncīl ḳıra’ati için bir kilise rāhiblerine vaḳf edip, teslīm-i mütevellī ve tescīl-i şerʾī edip, vaḳfiyesi yazılıp, ʿamel olunurken, on yıl sonra āhar yerde olan veresesi gelip vaḳfı kabūl etmeyip bozmağa ḳādir olurlar mı? El-cevāp: Rāhibler cemīʾan faḳīr ise anlara vaḳıf ṣaḥīḥtir. İncīl okumak şartı lağvdır. Eğer faḳīr değiller ise ṣaḥīḥ değildir, tescīl dahi nameşrūʾdur. Veresesi bozarlar, kısmet ederler.” Ertuğrul Düzdağ, Kanunî Devri Şeyhülislâmı Ebussuud Efendi Fetvaları (Istanbul: Kapı Yayınları, 2012), 127. 389 According to Islamic legal doctrine, only private (mülk) property could be used as vaḳıf assets although a title deed (tapu senedi) on a state (mīrī) property, for example, allows for its transformation into such an asset.

91 it upon his death? The answer: If it was completely valid upon its legal registration, they cannot. If it was [endowed] to the church, they can.”390 The two above-mentioned fetvas, while discussing the validity of church endowments, both contain the expression “legal registration” (tescīl-i şerʾī) which is curious considering that had the original endowment been registered in the courts, it would have been presumed to be valid or its invalidity would have been noted and thus its registration annulled. Regardless, were the şeyhülislām to issue a fetva with an opinion contrary to that of a previous ruling or to an earlier fetva given by a mufti, his fetva would take precedence due to his position within the scholarly hierarchy, thus invalidating a registration considered to be valid at the date of the action. Continuing on the theme of validity, in one quite dramatically expressed fetva, the acknowledgement by a Muslim of the validity of a church endowment is sufficient to render his religious adherence questionable, and thus require a renewal of the proclamation of his faith: “Question: Are the oaths of Muslims acceptable who say about waste land that was transferred from mīrī to tapu status by Zeyd that “it is the endowment of such and such a church, we swear, it is the right of the monks.” The answer: God forbid! It is feared that they blasphemed and it is preferable that they renew their faith as a precaution.”391

Another Ottoman scholar, Vānī Mehmed Efendi, who was the imperial preacher (hünkār vāʿiẓi) and leader of the Kadızadeli movement392 was also able to substantiate his position towards church properties by means of legal argumentation, through the issuing of fetvas as a

390 Original Ottoman Turkish: “Mes’ele: Zeyd-i zimmī bir kilisenin rāhiblerine baʾḍı emlākini vaḳf eylese, tescīl ettikten sonra mürd oldukta, veresesi kabūl etmemeğe ḳādir olur mu? Elcevāp: Tamām ṣıḥḥat üzerine tescīl-i şerʾī oldu ise olmazlar. Kiliseye ise olurlar.” Düzdağ, Kanunî Devri, 127; Velî b. Yusuf, Mecmûatü’l-fetâvâ, İstanbul Müftülüğü Kütüphanesi, fols. 78b-79a. 391 Original Ottoman Turkish: “Mesʾele: Zeyd, mirīden tapuya aldığı ḫālī yerleri “filān kilisenin vaḳfıdır, biz şehādet ederiz, ḥaḳ keşīşlerindir” diyen muslimlerin şehādetleri maḳbūl olur mu? El-cevāb: Neʾuzübillah, küfür olmak ḫavfı vārdır ve iḥtiyāṭen tecdīd-i imān etmek evlādır.” Düzdağ, Kanunî Devri, 131. 392 A movement which took its name from Kadızade Mehmed Efendi (d. 1635), a student of the renowned scholar Birgivi Mehmed Efendi (d. 1573), emerged in seventeenth century Istanbul which advocated a puritanical interpretation of and sought to eliminate all innovations. See Semiramis Çavuşoğlu, “The Kadızadeli movement: An attempt of şeri’at-minded reform in the Ottoman Empire” (PhD diss., Princeton University, 1990); Necati Öztürk, “Islamic among the Ottoman in the Seventeenth Century with Special Reference to the Qadi-zade Movement” (PhD diss., University of Edinburgh, 1981); Madeline C. Zilfi, “The Kadizadelis: Discordant Revivalism in Seventeenth-Century Istanbul,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 45, 4 (1986): 251-269.

92 qualified mufti, which carried significant weight despite not having obtained the position of şeyhülislām.393 The following fetva is of particular interest:

Question: A church belonging to an invalid religion was destroyed. If Muslims transform it into a mosque with imperial permission and there are infidels’ graves around and inside the said church, is it permissible according to the şerīʿat to exhume the remains of the bones of the buried infidels and remove them? Answer: Yes. There was a graveyard that belonged to the polytheists and they wanted to turn it into a cemetery for Muslims. Abu Qasim said, if their remains were visible, there is nothing wrong with that and if their bones remained, it is alright to exhume them and for the Muslims to use it [the cemetery]. The location of the mosque of the messenger of God (may the peace and blessing of God be upon him) was a graveyard of the polytheists and it was exhumed and appropriated as a mosque.394

While the above-mentioned fetva treating the issue of ecclesiastical property in the form of a cemetery is notable because Vānī Mehmed Efendi does not make a distinction in it between people of the book and polytheists.395 Rather, he categorises the former as polytheist (muşrikīn) which would have notable legal consequences on their status and therefore legal rights within the Ottoman domain.396 The question refers specifically to a non-Muslim cemetery on the ground of and within the vicinity of a church,397 a fact that is derived from the use of the

393 The three extant fetva collections of Vānī Mehmed Efendi are as follows: 1. Vānī Mehmed Efendi, Fetâvâ-yı Bistâmî, İstanbul Üniversitesi Nadir Eserler Kütüphanesi, T 989, 1b-254a; 2. Vānī Mehmed Efendi, Mecmûa-i Fetâvâ, Erzurum İl Halk Kütüphanesi, 23906, 1b-188b; 3. Vānī Mehmed Efendi, Fetâvâ, Milli Kütüphane, İl Halk Kütüphanesi, 322, 1b-190b. The first collection has been referenced since it contains the most number of fetvas on vaḳıfs in the section titled kitâbu’l-vakf. 394 Original Ottoman Turkish: “Bir kilise-i bāṭil li-dīn [?] eden munḳariż olup sulṭān-i muslimīn emriyle cāmiʿ eyleseler kilisesi mezbūrun eṭrāfinde ve içinde meḳābir-i kefere olup bi-ḥasabi’ş-şerʿ medfūn olan keferenin ʿaẓām bāḳiye ... tebşīr olup iḫrāc eyleseleri cāiz olur mu? El-cevāb: Olur. Maqbara kanat lil-muşriqīn arādu an yajʿaluhā maqbara lil-muslimīn, qāla Abū Qāsim in kānā athāruhum qad aththarat la baʾs bī dhālika wa in kānā ʿuẓāmuhum baqiyat la baʾs bī an tabshīrhā wa taʾrīfuhā al-muslimūn fa inna muda’ masjid rasūl Allah ṣala Allahu ʿalayhim wa salam kānat maqbara li’l-mushrikīn fanabashat wa itakhadhat masjidan.” Qāḍī Muḥammad fī kitāb al-waqf fī faṣl al-maqābir wa al-rabāt. Vānī Mehmed Efendi, Fetâvâ-yı Bistâmî, İstanbul Üniversitesi Nadir Eserler Kütüphanesi, T 989, fols. 115a- 115b. 395 People of the book comprise Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians, the latter of which were categorised along with the monotheistic traditions for the purposes of Islamic law. 396 For more on Muslim-Christian relations and the legal status and rights of non-Muslims and their respective religious leaders in the Ottoman Empire, see M. Macit Kenanoğlu, “Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Dinlerarası İlişkiler (14-20. Yüzyıllar),” Milel ve Nihal 6, no. 2 (August 2009): 103- 164. 397 Ottoman court records do not make a distinction between church and synagogue so they use the term kilise for both although later eighteenth and nineteenth century court registers from Damascus and

93 adjective kefere (infidel; noun: kāfir) as opposed to muşrikīn. As such, those living within the Ottoman domain would have enjoyed the status of ẓimmīs and have been granted limited rights of worship and protection for their ecclesiastical properties. Vānī Mehmed Efendi was aware of the doctrinal and legal implications of the distinction as demonstrated during a conversation with the English consul Thomas Baines. The latter put to him the following question: “What people might be suffer’d to live amongst Turkes?” To which the scholar answered: “None but Jewes and Christians; all other are to be put to death.”398 Thereby, he legally justified his harsher legal ruling towards the non-Muslim population and their ecclesiastical properties. The fetva endorses the removal of both the religious and physical traces of non-Muslims from an area in which they predominated and their replacement with an Islamic symbol in the form of a mosque and cemetery. This legal theory was implemented with the replacement of the biggest Latin-rite church of St. Francis with an imperial mosque at a time when Vānī Mehmed Efendi was at the peak of his power in the capital.

b.ii. According to the irāde of the sultan It is important to distinguish at this point between irāde and maṣlaḥat. The former is a mechanism, whereas the latter is a concept. Based on the concept of maṣlaḥat, the Sultan had the prerogative to confiscate lands, convert, destroy or to allow Christian places of worship to retain their original function if the Muslim subjects had no need of them.399 According to Islamic legal doctrine, all lands and subjects within the Ottoman Empire belonged to the sultan. In this capacity of absolute authority, all rights essentially derived from his will (irāde). Thus, the provision of title deeds, land holding, property rights and the transfer of land status was only possible through imperial decrees and certificates. Fetva literature seems to indicate that the sultan’s will could override the rulings of Islamic jurisprudence in certain instances related to the creation of churches: “The question: A group of infidels on an island whose people are zimmīs, have resided there with the sultan’s permission (izn-i sulṭānī). If they desire to build a church on the said island, is it possible to prevent them according to

Aleppo make a distinction. The place of worship has not been clarified because the general term of kefere (infidel) is used, rather than Christian or Jewish. 398 John Covel, Early Voyages and Travels in the Levant (Surrey: Hakluyt Society, 2010), 120. 399 For a practical application of maṣlaḥat see Engin Deniz Akarlı, “Maslaha: From ‘Common Good’ to ‘Raison d’état’ in the Experience of Istanbul Artisans, 1730-1840ö” ın Hoca, 'Allame, Puits De Science: Essays in Honor of Kemal Karpat, eds. Kaan Durukan, Robert and A. Zorlu-Durukan (Istanbul: The Isis Press, 2010), 63-79.

94 the law (şerʿan)? The answer: No.”400 In this instance, the provision of a place of worship for the non-Muslim inhabitants which the sultan had relocated there took precedence over the Islamic prohibition on the creation of new churches in lands conquered by Muslim armies. Such was put into practice in the Ottoman capital following the Ottoman conquest of the Genoese colony of Caffa in June 1475. Sultan Bayezid II (r. 1481-1512) ordered that its Latin Catholic inhabitants be relocated to Istanbul where they established a quarter named after them, Kefeli Mahalle (Caffariotes = Kefeli). They were granted permission to use one of the dilapidated Byzantine buildings in the area as a church and share it with the Armenians and thus two alters were fitted there although its upkeep was overseen by four Latin Catholic families. It became known as the church of St. Nicholas and under the officiation of the Dominicans.401 Yet, the sultan’s prerogative could also work to detriment of the churches. In lands conquered by Muslim armies which had not peacefully surrendered and were therefore not subject to a peace treaty, churches were automatically confiscated and those which were left untouched could later be taken by force and converted according to the will of the sultan. “After a church, which is located in a town that had been conquered by force, had been transformed into a mosque by the Muslims with the permission of the ruler (izn-i imām), is it permissible for the ẕimmīs of that town to reclaim the mosque saying “it is our old church”? The answer: No.”402 The above-mentioned Dominican church of St. Nicholas was subjected to such a fate when permission for its seizure was granted by Sultan Murad IV (r. 1623-1640) in 1630 and it was converted into a mescid by the Grand Vizier Receb (d. 1632) and became known as Kefeli Mescidi, thus ironically retaining the denominational name of the Latin Catholics whom it had ritually served. Notwithstanding how lands came into the Muslims’ possession, it was the sultan’s prerogative to seize and destroy church property upon his will as perceived to be of benefit to the Muslim community: “If a church located in a town was demolished upon the order of the

400 Original Ottoman Turkish: “Ahālisi zimmīler olan bir cezīrede kefereden bir tāiʾfe izn-i sulṭānī ile sākin oldukları cezīre-i mezbūrede kenīse iḥdās etmek murād eyleseler şerʿan menʿ olunurlar mı? El- cevāb: Olunmazlar.” el-Kefevī, Fetāvā, 170. 401 Benedetto Palazzo, Deux Anciennes Églises Dominicaines a Stamboul: Odalar Djami et Kefeli Mesdjidi (Istanbul: Imprimerie Guler, 1951), 13, 38. 402 Original Ottoman Turkish: “ʿAnveten fetḥolunan beldede vāḳiʿ kenīseyi müslimīn izn-i imām ile mescid ittihāz ettiklerinden sonra ol belde zimmīleri “Ḳadīmī kenīsemiz idi” diye ol mescide taarruż etmeğe ḳādir olurlar mı? el-Cebab: Olmazlar. Seyhulislam Yenisehirli Adullah Efendi, Behcetu’l-fetava (Istanbul: Matbaa-i Amire, 1289/1872), 166.

95 ruler, can the owners of the said church rebuild it? The answer: No.”403 Such was the case of the Dominican’s church located in Galata which had negotiated a peace contract following the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople and was transformed into a mosque by Sultan Mehmed II (r. 1444-46; 1451-1481) between 1476 and 1478.404 Following this theme, the use of a church as a Muslim place of prayer had to be sanctioned by the sultan: “If zimmīs leave a fortress and after building houses in the provinces and countryside, can congregational prayer be held in the churches which were [located] there ab antiquo with the permission of the sultan? The answer: Yes, the church will remain empty.”405 Factors influencing the sultan’s irāde in relation to Christian vaḳıfs and ecclesiastical properties included a change in demographics in an area around a church, be it a district in a city or an entire village. If the area became predominantly Muslim, then it was permissible to transform the church and/or convent into a mosque or structure directly benefiting the Muslim population. This is supported by the following fetva: “Is it permissible according to the şeriat for Zeyd, a man of goodwill, to build a mescid on the land of a church which gradually became derelict in a village, the previously non-Muslim residents of which gradually converted to Islam? The answer: Yes”.406 The weight of the mechanism of the irāde of the sultan can particularly be seen in its application to lands which were conquered peacefully. For example, in the instance where there were considered to be sufficient churches and monasteries to serve the resident Christian population, it was possible to appropriate one of the churches and transform it for Muslim use. In such a case, the Christians had no recourse to justice based on the argument that it was situated on land that had not been taken by force of arms. “In a town, there were seven to eight churches and the Muslims did not have a mosque at all. When the provincial judge raised a petition at the Muslims’ request to turn one of the churches into a mosque due to the increased need, an order was issued by the sultan to convert one of the churches into a mosque. One of the said churches was taken and after the required prayers were performed in it, is it possible

403 Original Ottoman Turkish: “Bir beldede vākıʿa kenīse emr-i imamla münhedim olunsa erbabı kenīse- i mezbūreyi iādeye ḳādir olurlar mı? El-cevāb: Olmazlar.” Şeyhülislām Mekkīzāde Mustafa Āsım Efendi, Beyāz Sīpāre, İstanbul Müftülügü Kütübhanesi, fol. 64a. 404 A detailed history of the Dominican churches in Galata will be given in Part III. 405 Original Ottoman Turkish: “Bu surette zikrolunan zimmīler ḥisārdan çıkıp taşrasında evler binā eyledikden sonra ḳadīmden olan kenīselerde izn-i sulṭānī ile iḳāmet-i ṣalāt cāiz olur mu? El-cevāb: Olur, kenīse ḫālī kalıcak.” Velī b. Yusuf, Mecmūatü’l fetāvā, İstanbul Müftülüğü Kütüphanesi, 178, fol. 78a. 406 Original Ottoman Turkish: “Muḳaddema ahālisi ğayr-i müslim olan bir ḳaryede vāḳiʿ kenīsanın ahālisi tedrīc ile İslām’a gelmeğin kenīsa ḫarāb ve arża oldukda aşhāb-ı ḫayrattan Zeyd ol kenīsa yerine izn-i ḥākim ile bir mescid binā itmeğe şerʿan ḳādir olur mu? El-cevāb: Olur.” Ketebehu Yaḥya el- merḥūm.

96 for them to turn the above-mentioned mosque into the church once again by saying, “The said city was taken peacefully, it is our property, we did not consent to it becoming a mosque”. The answer: No.”407 Where does that leave the legal significance of the original ʿahdnāme contracted with the resident Christian populations which guaranteed the immunity of their places of worship and properties from confiscation? It is worth noting that there was no such contract with the Orthodox and Armenian communities. Likewise, the Armenian patriarch was created as an administrative position to achieve political goals, rather than religious ones. While there is a lack of primary information about which carried more legal weight, either the ʿahdnāme or the sultan’s irāde, the latter was stronger than the former during the lifetime of the sultan. However, upon the sultan’s death, an ʿahdnāme was often renewed and in this case, took precedence over the irāde of the deceased sultan.

b.iii. In relation to the Ottoman policy of destruction-reconstruction Ownership of the land on which the ecclesiastical properties were built was to determine the legal position surrounding their construction, reparation, destruction, conversion and, most importantly, their endowment. As seen above, according to the Hanafi legal doctrine, the rules governing the status of churches and monasteries in territories that had been the object of a Muslim military conquest was dependent on whether the territory was taken by force (ʿanveten) or surrendered peacefully (ṣulḥen). These two factors determined the permissibility of the construction, conversion, restoration and destruction of church properties. As regards their destruction and conversion, according to the dominant Hanafi position, in territories that were taken by force, it was required that such buildings remain undestroyed but instead be converted into residences and their use for purposes of was prohibited.408

407 Original Ottoman Turkish: Bir kasabada keferenin yedi sekiz kenīsesi olup ve müslimīnin aṣla mescidi olmayıp ziyāde iḥtiyāçları olduğu ecilden müslümanların ṭalebleriyle kenīsenin birisi mescid olmak içün vilāyet każısı ʿarż ettikde padişāh ṭarafından kenīsenin birisi mescid olmak içün emir vārid olup mūcebince kenīsenin birini mescid kılıp nice zamān içinde edā-i ṣalavāt-ı mefrūza olundukdan sonra kefere ṭāʾifesi “Şehr-i mezbūr ṣulḥen alınmışdır, kendi mülkümüzdür, mescid olmasına rıżamız yokdur” diye mescid-i merkūmi ke’l-evvel yine kenīse etmeğe ḳādir olurlar mı? El-Cevab: Olmazlar. Şeyhülislām Esad Efendi, Fetāvā-yı Es‘adiyye, İstanbul Müftülüğü Kütübhanesi, 157, vol. I, ff. 75b- 76a. 408 Badr al-Dīn Al-‘Aynī, Al-Bināya Sharḥ al-Hidāya, ed. Ayman Ṣāliḥ Sha‘bān (Beirut: Dār al- Kubub al-ʿIlmiyya, 2000), 7:255-6; Ibn Nujaym, Al-Sharḥ al-Baḥr al-Rā’iq (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al- ‘Ilmiyya, 1997), 5:190; Kamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad Ibn al-Humām, Sharḥ Fatḥ al-Qadīr, ed. ʿAbd al- Razzāq Ghālib al-Mahdī (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya, 1995), 5:300; Muḥammad Amīn Ibn

97

In territories that surrendered peacefully, which resulted in the making of a peace treaty, churches and monasteries were left untouched as based on the practices of the Prophet Muhammad, such as the contract with the Christians of Najrān.409 While they were permitted to engage in the requirements of their worship such as liturgy, the ringing of bells, etc., a public show of religion was not permissible. Rather, all rituals were to be practiced within the privacy of the church.410 In instances where the contract (ʿahd) was broken with the non-Muslims under a contract of protection (ehlü’z-zimmet), it was permissible for the state to appropriate the churches.411 Even the Christian communities whose churches and monasteries were appropriated and converted for Muslim use did not possess the right of reclamation insofar as structural conversion had taken place with the permission of the ruler.412 This contractual understanding concerning Christian places of worship continued under similar terms through treaties concluded with the first Caliphs, although in practical application deviated considerably from these treaties. 413 As noted above, there was some difference of opinion among historians in relation to the method used to conquer Galata, be it peacefully or by force. İnalcık argued that the conquet was peaceful based on the peace contract with the Genoese, Kenanoğlu disputes this since peace was contracted following the conquest of the entire city by force of arms. Emecen argues that the mode of conquest depended on the district, Galata being one of those districts conquered by peacefully. What mattered in the appropriation of an ecclesiastical property and its transformation into a Muslim place of worship was that it be carried out with the explicit permission of the ruler as emphasised by a fetva by Ebüssuʿūd on this topic: If there is a church in the middle of a Muslim district in a city conquered by force, are the Muslims able to demolish the said church

‘Ābidīn, Ḥāshiyat Radd al-Muḥtār ‘alā Durr al-Mukhtār, ed. Humaaddin b. Muaḥmmad Sālih Farfur (Damascus: Ma’had Jamat al-Fath al-Islāmī, 2000), 3:263. 409 It should be noted that lands conquered through a peace contract were categorised as belonging to the Muslims on which the zimmīs paid the cizye (tax on non-Muslim permanent residents), and land which belonged to the zimmīs was that on which they pay the ḫarāç (tax on agricultural land) to the state. In both cases, the rules regarding the destruction of church properties depend on the terms of the agreement Al-ʿAynī, Al-Bināya, 255-6; Ibn Nujaym, al-Baḥr al-Rā’iq, 190-91. 410 Ibn ʿĀbidīn, Radd al-Muḥtār, 3:272. 411 Ehlü’z-zimme or zimmīs were non-Muslim subjects of a state governed in accordance with Islamic law to whom a contract of protection was given. This contract guaranteed the preservation of their rights, life and property and it was a duty upon the Muslim authorities to implement it. For more on the laws of ehlü’z-zimme, see Abdul Karīm Zaydān, Aḥkām al-Ẓimmiyyīn wa’l Musta’minīn fī Dār al-Islām (: Maktabat al-Quds, 1982) 412 In practice, however, there were exceptions to the rule, for example, the Church of St. Lazaros at Larnaka in Cyrus had been converted into a mosque and was re-purchased by the Christians. 413 Fattal, Le statut légal, 179-203.

98 and build in its place a mosque? The answer: They can take it with the permission of the sultan upon confirming by the şeriat that it was conquered by force.414 Regarding the legal position on the re-construction and renovation of churches and monasteries, the approach taken is similar in both traditional Islamic law and Ottoman legal doctrine. The traditional texts of jurisprudence and Ottoman legal doctrine distinguish between renovation and re-construction of ecclesiastical properties determinant on their partial or full destruction. According to the relied-upon Hanafi position in Islamic jurisprudence, the re- construction of churches that have been destroyed or delapitated by other than order of the imām (ruler),415 is permissible on the condition that reconstruction be done according to the original dimensions and by using the same materials, with no further additions or extensions.416 According to majority opinion, renovation is likewise permissible because prohibiting their renovation would inevitably lead to structural delapidation which is impermissible.417 Ottoman legal practice followed the Hanafi legal doctrine in this regard. This is supported by the following fetva by Şeyhülislām Menteşzāde Abdürrahim Efendi: “When a church located in a village ab antiquo becomes delapidated, can its owners restore it in conformity with its old design? The answer: Yes.”418 Yet those that had succumbed to complete destruction were not allowed to be rebuilt and the state had the authority to take possession of the land on which the building had stood and put it up for public sale. This happened with the Catholic churches of SS. Peter and Paul, St. Francis and its affiliated chapel of St. Anne, St. George and St. Sebastian.419 An additional factor in the confiscation of the church and friary of St. Maria Draperis was the fact that reconstruction had taken place without official imperial permission. It appears that location was instrumental in the final ruling. Had this unofficial reconstruction been carried out in a rural area, the property’s fate would have been different: After an old church located in a village has been destroyed are the said infidels able to rebuild

414 Original Ottoman Turkish: “ʿAnveten fetḥolunan şehirde müslümanlar maḥallesi ortasında bir kenīse olsa müslümanlar kenīse-i mezbūreyi yıktırıp yerine mescid binā ettirmeğe ḳādir olurlar mı? el-Cevāb: ʿAnveten fetḥolunduğu şerʿle sabit olıcak izni sulṭānī alırlar.” Velī b. Yusuf, Mecmūatü’l fetāvā, fol. 77b. 415 This can include destruction as a result of natural disasters or even at the hands of the Christians themselves, Ibn ‘Ābidīn, Ḥāshiyat, 272. 416 Ibid., 272-273. 417 Ibid., 272. 418 Original Ottoman Turkish: “Bir ḳaryede vāḳiʿ kenīse-i ḳadīme ḫarāb oldukta erbābi vaż-i ḳadīmi üzere iʿādeye ḳādir olurlar mı? El-Cevāb: Olurlar.” Menteşzāde, Fetava, 1: 79. 419 İŞS 9, fol. 96a, August 1661; fol. 247a, January 1662; fol. 96b, August 1661; fol. 96b, August 1661 respectively.

99 the church without permission? The answer: They can if it is not near a city.420 Later fetvas of Ebüssuʿūd Efendi help to clarify the legal position of the authorities following the conquest towards ecclesiastical properties in which they were non confiscated by the state since the Catholics had helped the Ottomans against the Byzantines during the conquest.421 Likewise, fetvas of şeyḫülislām Yahya Efendi Minkarizāde (d. 1677) confirmed and reinforced the previous legal position regarding newly built churches and/or monasteries as well as old churches and/or monasteries that had been completely destroyed and those that had been damaged.422 Based on these legal non-binding opinions, during Sultan Süleyman I’s reign, new churches were to be destroyed and old churches that had been damaged were rebuilt. When it came to the appropriation of church land, the courts sought to justify their rulings through fetvas as well as unjustified claims that the owner of the church land was “unknown” or non-existent and therefore the property was to be given to the state treasury.423 Other justification was made through claims that the Catholics had broken their side of the agreement not to rebuild churches on land where a church once stood, rather to only build houses and not to use the houses for worship. This position is supported by legal opinions of the şeyhülislām. Where ẕimmīs live in a village, if in the same above-mentioned village, they gather in Nikola’s house and one of them reads the Bible and does not announce it, what should happen to the said [ẕimmīs] according to the şeriʿat? The answer: If they use it as a church they must be prevented.”424 It was the imperial decrees ordering the confiscation that carried the most legal weight. Following the Great Fire of Galata of 1660, an imperial decree was issued in 1662 stating that “after some churches of the infidels, polytheists and those who go astray burned in Constantinople, the abode of the exalted caliph, the protected city of Constantinople, during

420 Original Ottoman Turkish text: “Bir karyede olan kadīmī kenīse harab olduktan sonra, kefere mezbūre kenīseyi emirsiz taʿmīr etmeğe ḳādir olurlar mı? el-Cevab: Şehir ḳurbunda değilse olurlar.” By şeyhülislām Ebussuūd in Velī b. Yusuf, Mecmūatü’l fetāvā, fol. 78a. 421 Mehmet Ertuğrul Düzdağ, Şeyhülislam Ebussu’ud Efendi’nin Fetvalarına Göre Kanunî Devrinde Osmanlı Hayatı: Fetava-yi Ebussu’ud Efendi (Istanbul: Sule Yayınları, 1998), 165. 422 Minkarizāde, Fetava, fols. 37a-b. 423 İŞS, 9, fol. 52a, July 1661 (Ḥarīḳ olan kenīse-yi ḳadīmelerini arsesinin mālikī olmamakla cānib-i mirī-yi ḳayd olduğuna; kenīse arsesi refʿ-i fetva-yi şerīfe mücebince cānib-i mirī-ye ait olmağın); Ibid., fol. 86a, August 1661. 424 Original Ottoman Turkish: “Bir karye zimmīleri yine karye-i mezbūrede Nikola’nın evinde cem‘ olup içlerinden biri İncil kırāat eylese i‘lān etmeyicek mezbūrlara şer‘an ne lazim olur? el-cevab: Kenīse ittihaz ettiler ise menʿleri lazımdır.” Esad Efendi, Fetāvā-yı Es‘adiyye, fol. 76a.

100 the great conflagration of Saturday, 16 Ẕilḳade 1070/24 July 1660 the public treasury seized them since according to canonical law they were not to be restored”.425 While the re-construction of totally destroyed or dilapidated church properties were allowed on the basis that buildings are not eternal and sucumb to destruction by natural disasters and the elements, the construction of new churches in Muslim cities was not doctrinally permissible. Likewise, in Ottoman law according to consensus opinion, it was impermissible to build a new church or monastery on Muslim lands. In the event that such construction was carried out, it could be destroyed by the permission of the ḳāżī.426 This even incorporated the extension of ecclesiastical properties for purposes such as housing the monks as is demonstrated in the following fetva: “If some new rooms in churches of the infidels in a city were constructed to house monks, is it permissible for the Muslims to demolish them with the ḳāżī’s knowledge? The answer: it is permissible if they [the rooms] are joined to the church.427 Regardless of the harsh doctrinal position, it is important to note that Ottoman legal practice did not follow such a strict interpretation as demonstrated by Rossitsa Gradeva and Michiel Kiel it was influenced by political, economic, migratory variables.428 Even in the

425 Original Ottoman Turkish: “Dār ül-ḫilafāt ül-‘āliyye Konstantiniye-i maḥmiyede kafara ve muşrikīn ve ḫāsirīnin baż-i kenāıs bin yetmiş senesin ẕilü’l-ḳadesinin on altinci yawm-i sebtinde vākī ḥarīk-i kabīrde muḥteriḳ olduktan sonra şeran iādeti lazim gelmemekle ol kenāıs taraf-i mīrīden żabṭ...” İŞS 10, fol. 106b, May 1662. 426 Many examples of this policy exist, see Muammer Demirel, “Construction of Churches in Ottoman Provinces”, Frontiers of Ottoman Studies: State, Province, and the West, eds. Colin Imber et al (London & New York: I.B. Tauris, 2005), 2:212; Yavuz Ercan, Osmanlı Yönetiminde Gayrimüslimler, Kuruluştan Tanzimat’a Kadar Sosyal, Ekonomik ve Hukuki Durumları (Ankara: Turhan Kitabevi, 2001), 233; Ercan, “XV. ve XVI. Yüzyıllarda,” 1123; 427 Original Ottoman Turkish: “Bir şehirde kefere kiliselerinde, evvelden yok iken, keşişler sâkin olacak ba’zı odalar ihdâs eyleseler, müslümanlar ma’rifet-i hâkim ile yıktırmağa kâdir olurlar mı? El-cevāb: Olurlar, kiliseye muttasıl ise.” Düzdağ, Şeyhülislm, 106. 428 Rossitsa Gradeva, “Ottoman Policy towards Christian Church Buildings,” Études balkaniques, no. 4 (1994): 14-36; Rossitsa Gradeva, “On Zimmis and Church Buildings: Four Cases from Rumeli,” in The Ottoman Empire: Myths, Realities and ‘Black Holes’. Contributions in Honour of Colin Imber, eds. Eugenia Kermeli and Oktay Özel (Istanbul: The Isis Press, 2006), 203-237; Rossitsa Gradeva, “From the Bottom Up and Back Again until Who Knows When: Church Restoration Procedures in the Ottoman Empire, Seventeenth-Eighteenth Centuries (Preliminary Notes),” in Political Initiatives “From the Bottom Up” in the Ottoman Empire, ed. Antonis Anastasopoulos (Rethymno: Crete University Press, 2012), 135-163. For the restoration of church properties in Crete during Ottoman rule see Rossitsa Gradeva, “Orthodox Christians and the Ottoman Authoriy in Late Seventeenth-Century Crete,” in Frontiers of Ottoman Space, Frontiers in Ottoman Society, ed. Rossitsa Gradeva (Istanbul: The ISIS Press, 2014), 75-83; Machiel Kiel, Art and Society of Bulgaria in the Turkish Period: A sketch of the economic, juridical, and artistic preconditions of Bulgarian post- and its place in the development of the art of the Christian , 1360-1700: A new interpretation (The Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1985), 192-205; Machiel Kiel, “Central Greece in the Suleymanic Age. Preliminary Notes on Population Growth, Economic Expansion and its Influence on the Spread of Greek ,” in Soliman le Magnifique et son Temps, Actes du Colloque de Paris Galaries Nationales du

101 capital of the Ottoman Empire, a Catholic chapel was built in 1581 subsequent to the Ottoman conquest. It was dedicated to Saint Louis des Français (St. Louis of the French) and was located within the grounds of the French Embassy.429 Churches could be confiscated on other grounds; influencing variables included urban factors, both national and international politics and economics. Three difference reasons, which directly affected the churches of Galata can be given here: their prior use as mosques by the Muslim community, their presence too close to a mosque, and the occurence of some unnacceptable behaviour within the grounds of the house of worship. As regards the first reason, such was the case of the Dominican church and prior of St. Paul of Galata the seizure and confiscation of which was jusfitied in part on the basis of the tradition that the edifice had originally been a mosque built during the Arab siege of Constantinople (717-718).430 As regards the second reason, the location of churches, as well as residences inhabited by non- Muslims and inns, were prohibited according to Islamic law, as they were considered a potiential harmful influence on the congregation of worshipers at the mosque as well as their presence despoiling a sacred space. The traditionally non-Muslim space of Galata did not escape this rule, with the increae in the number of mosques in the area, the sulan issued a firman in 1701 prohibiting Christians from residing within the proximity of the district’s mosques.431 In Islamic fetva literature, a reduction in the congregation of a mosque was often attributed to the presence of non-Muslims in its vicinity.432 The third reason, of inappropriate behaviour was attributed by European contemporaries to the seizure in 1697 of land of the Conventual Franciscan complex of St. Francis, which was Galata’s most important church and seat of the council of the Magnifica Comunità di Pera, The French botanist and traveller, Joseph Pitton de Tournefort (d. 1708), claimed that the confiscation of St. Francis’ land following the destruction of the church by the conflagration

Grand Palaise 7-10 Mars 1990, ed. Gilles Veinstein (Paris: La Documentation Française, 1992), 399- 424. 429 The chapel, its affiliated religious order, as well as its properties and disputes around them will be examined in detail in Part III of this thesis. 430 For a similar argument for the attempted confiscation of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem see Peri, Christianity under Islam, 70-73. 431 Ahmet Refik, 16. Asırda İstanbul hayatı (Istanbul, 1935), 30. 432 Reference. Objection to the presence of non-Muslim places of worship was also a concern for the Jewish community as it resulted in the confiscation of their synagogues in the 1588, such as in the case of the in Ottoman Jerusalem the proximity of which to the ʿUmarī mosque disturbed the Muslim worshipers, Cohen, Jewish Life, 81-86. In the Ottoman Capital, a similar firmān was issued in 1726 ordering the removal of Jewish residences and businesses from the proximity of the imperial mosque of Vālide-i Cedīd (i.e. Yeni Cāmīʿ) in Eminönü because it was considered disliked conditions (ḥālāt-ı müstekrehe), Refik, Hicrî Onikinci, 88-89.

102 of 1696 was a direct result of the Italian ’ error in selling alcohol on the site, which incurred the wrath of the authorities: “Cette Église n’a été perduë que par la faute des Religieux Italiens, dont la vie n’étoit pas réguliere; on vendoit chez eux du vin et de l’eau de vie: c’est le negoce que les Turcs abhorrent le plus. Ils ont affecté de mettre dans les lettres patentes de fondation, qu’ils avoiene converti un lieu de scandale et d’abomination, en une maison du Seigneur.”433 Moreover, the Muslim residents of Galata filed a complaint against the friars’ activities at the Sublime Porte (Bāb-ı Āli) according to an account by the French explorer and diplomat, Aubry de La Mottraye, (d. 1743) during his travels to Istanbul in the early eighteenth century, while the mosque was still under construction:

The of this [Franciscan] order had a very large and pretty handsome one, dedicated to their patron St. Francis, which was, as it were, the Parish Church for the Roman Catholicks of Gallata for some ages; but this being destroy’d by fire, and the Turks of Gallata having remonstrated to the Port that these monks had made a tavern of their convent, which was join’d to and burnt with it, by selling there wine and brandy, the ground was taken possession of to build a mosque upon, which was not yet finish’d when I arriv’d there; and word was sent to the monks by the interpreter, who complain’d of the injustice done them, that the fire having destroy’d and purify’d a place of scandal and abomination, the Porte wou’d raise upon it a building of purity and piety. 434

While the latter account confirms the former, de La Mottraye may have been inclined to embellish the local Ottoman version of the story due to his religious affiliation to . It is most unlikely that the Conventual Franciscan friars chose to establish a tavern on the land where their only church once stood in the neighbourhood of Galata. Rather, it can be speculated that they may have used the land for storage until they had raised enough funds to re-construct their complex, and that some of the goods stored included wine.435 Oded Peri asserts that “Muslims, from the outset, chose to respond to the religious challenge posed by the Christian holy sites with a competitive act rather than with violence and destruction, or expropriation and functional conversion.”436 Consequently, differing policy in the same place can be observed. For example, both the Conventual Franciscan complex of St.

433 Tournefort, Relation, 506. 434 Aubry de La Mottraye, Travels through Europe, Asia, and into part of Africa (London: Printed for the author, 1723), 1:166. 435 For an analysis of other factors contributing to the seizure of the St. Francis complex see de Obaldía, “A Shared Space”, 133-162. 436 Peri, Christianity under Islam, 74.

103

Francis and the Capuchin church of St. George located in Galata were both destroyed in the fire of May 1696. The properties of the former were seized, as seen above, whereas the latter was able to obtain permissiont to reconstruct the church on the condition that it be carried out with the same materials and according to the same dimensions of the previous church (şarṭıyla vaẓʿ-ı ḳadīmī üzere binā ve taʿmīri).437 As can be appreciated in the above-mentioned examples, reasons other than the sutlanic will based on public benefit were sought to sanction the confiscation of ecclesiatical properties from the time of the conquest.

4. Conclusion Following the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople, the Genoese of Galata negotiated a peace contract with the sultan which would ensure the preservation of their properties including their churches. Nonetheless, in practice, full property rights only extended over the buildings and not the land on which they were built since they were essentially in the sultan’s possession and were later given over the the vaḳıf of the Aya Sofya Mosque. Furthermore, one cannot speak of a specific state policy towards Latin Catholic churches and church properties, be they endowments or otherwise. Instances of the confiscation of such properties, such as the cases of confiscation or destruction of the churches of St. Paul (1476), St. Nicholas (1630), St. Mary of Constantinople (1636), St. Anthony (1642), St. Francis and St. Anne (1696) and properties endowed to them, were balanced out by the construction and endowment of new churches and chapels such as SS. Peter and Paul, St. Maria Draperis (1584), St. Louis of the French (1581), the chapel of the baths of Beşiktaş (1664), the chapels of St. Anthony and St. Paul in the bath of Kassim Paşa (1664), and St. Anthony of (1724) throughout the period following the Ottoman conquest of the city. Rather, there existed a dichotomy – appropriation and destruction vs. acquisition and construction. A fetva’s influence in turn derived from that of the müfti or şeyhülislām who issued it, thus authoritative and influential religious scholars such as Ebüssuʿūd Efendi and Mehmed Vānī Efendi ensured that their legal opinions were implemented. While the former müfti demonstrated the accommodation of ecclesiastical properties into the legal system and

437 İŞŞ, 23, 60a (Mach 1697). The land on which St. George stood was subject to the same above- mentioned processes of churches destroyed by the fires of 1660 and 1697. The land was seized and reverted to the state treasury, it was then auctioned and re-bought on behalf of the Capuchin order. The only variation was that there was no conditional prohibition on the reconstruction of a church on the land.

104 facilitated their inclusion into the Islamic polity, albeit sometimes exceeding the bounds of the Islamic juridical framework, the latter primarily emphasised Islam’s superiority over other religious traditions. In his study on the transformation of Latin Catholic properties in Jerusalem into Islamic endowments, Johannes Pahlitzsch comes to a similar conclusion: “As the Crusaders had done a century earlier, Saladin seems to have followed a policy of the smoothest possible transition in the administration of real property. Thus, thus affiliation of some plots of real estate to their former institutions remained untouched if this fit in well with the concept of creating a more or less uniform property…On the other hand, old affiliations were dissolved without further ado if this served the same purpose.”438

438 Johannes Pahlitzsch, “The Transformation of Latin Religious Institutions into Islamic Endowments by Saladin in Jerusalem,” in Governing the Holy City: The Interaction of Social Groups in Jerusalem between the Fatimid and the Ottoman Period, eds. Lorenz Korn and Johannes Pahlitzsch (: Reichert Verlag Wiesbaden, 2004), 58-59.

105

PART III: ECCLESIATICAL PROPERTIES OF THE DOMINICANS AND CAPUCHINS – DISPUTES AND VAḲIFS

1. Introduction In the third section of this thesis, a detailed examination of three property disputes in addition to the conceptual and practical implications of the Latin Catholic ecclesiastical vaḳıf will be presented. The first dispute centers on two claims by a vaḳıf trustee (mütevellī) brought against a Levantine merchant who had purchased a stone storehouse on behalf of the Dominican friars on a plot of land which had originally belonged to them. The second property dispute treats the claim of the Capuchin against a dragoman employed at the French embassy regarding a land contract in his possession, whereas the third involves the contestation of the same religious order against the Jesuits’ claim to a right of way over their land. All three cases were brought before the relevant judicial authorities, the former falling within Ottoman jurisdiction and the latter two within the judicial authority of the French ambassador to the Sublime Porte and, in his absence, the chargé d’affaires. Each legal case is preceded by a short history about the establishment in Istanbul of the religious order in question and the church to which it was affiliated, as well as an overview of their respective properties including methods of acquisition and loss. The section on property disputes is followed by an overview of the Christian vaḳıf in general, in terms of Ottoman legal practice and doctrine and an understanding of the Latin Catholic ecclesiastical vaḳıf in specific, through the properties of the Dominican and Capuchin religious orders. Although the initial intention had been to present a thorough study of Latin Catholic causa (pl. piae causae), and vaḳıf (pl. avḳāf) in Istanbul through the detailed analysis of Ottoman documents, the lack of relevant extant documents within the conventual archives of the Dominicans and Capuchins as well as a fruitless wider search for the missing documents within the provincial archives of the respective orders and Ottoman archive rendered this aim infeasible. Therefore, only a general overview as well as a limited presentation of case studies on Latin Catholic vaḳıf was achievable in the current study. The case studies presented here reveal more unusual difficulties than those often encountered by Latin Catholic religious orders, whose properties were subjected to intermittent confiscation by the Ottoman state. Rather, we find that they were neither the result of Ottoman

106 state interference nor always dependant on Ottoman judicial intervention. Therefore, it is through an analysis of the friars’ property disputes that we come to understand the types of their properties, the methods of acquisition, by whom they were coveted and which legal avenues they used in order to confirm their possession and ward off false claims over their properties. Furthermore, a series of fetvas from the conventual archive of St. Louis of the French demonstrates that the religious orders actively sought to obtain and employ Islamic legal opinions in their favour when presenting their legal cases before either the Ottoman authorties or the French ambassador.

2. The Dominicans of SS. Peter and Paul: The origins of the Church of SS. Peter and Paul during the pre-Ottoman conquest of Constantinople and a refutation of the traditions that have grown up around it will be presented in the initial section. After this, the transferal of private property to the Dominicans and its conversion into a religious foundation will be presented along with the donation deed and conditions of the foundation. During the post-Ottoman conquest period from 1453, the history of the church, its properties and religious order can be divided into two stages, the first chartering the history of the old church before its conversion into Galata Mosque (also known as the Great Mosque) by Sultan Mehmed II (r. 1444-46/1451-81), and the second examines the Dominican church of SS. Peter and Paul founded following the confiscation of the old one, which was located on the same grounds as today’s nineteenth century reconstruction.439

a. Establishment of the Dominicans in the Ottoman Capital Friars of the Orders of Preachers arrived in Constantinople in the same period as the Franciscans around 1219 during the short-lived suzerainty of the Latin Empire of Constantinople (1204-1261). Yet, they only began their apostolic mission some years later. The identity of the founder of the Dominican mission in Constantinople remains a contested point. While Belin postulates that it was St. Giacinto (d. 1257),440 d’Alessio claims that the founder

439 The current church of SS. Peter and Paul was constructed between 1841 and 1843 by the Swiss- Italian brothers Gaspare and Giuseppe Fossati. d’Alessio, Le Couvent p. 12. 440 Belin maintains that St. Giacinto’s date of arrival in Constantinople was 1232. Belin, Histoire, 77- 78.

107 could have been Fr. Giacomo de Iurono of Milano who arrived in the city in 1235.441 However, Violante contests both views; the former by claiming that St. Giaomo’s arrival could only have been after 1240, and therefore, he was not the founder of the priory since it was already in existence some years prior to the said date according to Palazzo.442 He refutes the latter by arguing that the length of his brief stay in Constantinope did not permit the founding of a priory, based on the biographical dates given in an earlier study on Giacomo de Iurono by Loenertz.443 From the beginning, the Dominicans served as a bridge between the Vatican and the East. “Les missionnaires dominiains en Orient fuerent… des intermediares privilegies entre Rome et Byzance du debut du XIVe siecle jusqu’au concile de Florence. Les Precheurs de Constantinople jouerent, dans le cadre de ces relations un role important, qui fut de recevoir les legats pontificaux, de les loger, mais aussi parfois de les preesenter aux officiel de la cour.”444 Yet, following the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople, it was the Empire’s relations with the Vatican and European Catholic powers which was a determinant factor in the treatment of the Dominicans within the territories of the Ottoman Empire, particularly close to the seat of power in the capital. To provide just one example, the documents of the archive of SS. Peter and Paul describe the sorrowful circumstances of the friars as a result of the conflagration of 1660. Two of the friars, Domenico Marengo and Vincenzo Anagidiani, were imprisoned for having rennovated the refractory and transformed it into a chapel without obtaining the required imperial permission in the form of a firmān and therefore had to pay 200 aḳçes for their release. To cover the costs of the repurchase of the land and eventual reconstruction, they were even obliged to sell their silverware for 24,000 aspri, they obtained alms from the Residente Cesareo for 4,500 and acquired another 94,000 through a loan from an unspecified individual. In order to secure the land against further confiscation, it was registered in the name of an English merchant called Andrea. 445

441 E. Dalleggio d’Alessio, La Pietre Sepolcrali di Arab Giamí (Anitica Chiesa di S. Paolo a Galata) (Genova: Società Ligure di Storia patria, 1942), 8-9. 442 Tommaso M. Violante, La Provincia Domenicana di Grecia (Rome: Instituto Storico Domenicano, 1999), 70, refering to Benedetto Palazzo, L’Arap-Djami ou Église Saint-Paul à Galata (Istanbul: Hachette, 1945), 59-60. 443 Violante, La Provincia, 71, refering to Raymond-Joseph Loenertz, “Frère Jacques de missionnaire en Orient au XIIIe siècle”, in Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, no. 8 (1938): 274-284. 444 Claudine Delacroix-Besnier, Les Dominicains et la Chrétienté Grecque aux XIVe et XVe Siècles (Rome: École Française de Rome, 1997), 193. 445 Registration of Latin Catholic ecclesiastical properties in the names of Christian merchants, members of the Magnifica Communità and employees of either the French or Venetian embassies in particular, was common practice due to the prohibition on property possession among men of religion. Such an arrangement provided security against confiscation and provided flexibility for the sale, substitution or

108

b. A Short History of the Church and Priory of SS. Peter and Paul b.i. Pre-1453 Ottoman Conquest During the sixth century, a church, possibly dedicated to Saint Irene, was built in the location of the current Arap Mosque, yet only part of the wall survives of the original building.446 The tradition which affirms that a mosque was built on this site during the Second Arab Siege of Constantinople (717–18) by the Umayyad prince and general Maslama ibn ʿAbd al-Mālik (716-717) whose army remained there for seven years, is an Ottoman-era legend. Furthermore, a mosque that was said to have been built by Emperor Michael II for Maslama was located within the near the Forum of .447 Rather, it is deemed to be a later Ottoman tradition. This theory is supported by Benedetto Palazzo, who argues that it cannot be confirmed whether the Arab armies entered Galata, and if they did, it is questionable how they could achieve the construction of a mosque during a conquest that lasted for less then ten months from August 717 to June 718.448 He comes to four conclusions regarding the church: firstly, that the building was not of Byzantine origin evident from its Gothic architectural style;449 secondly, that the church was built on the foundations of the church of St. Irene; thirdly, that its foundation did not surpass the first years of the fourteenth century; fourthly, that the church was built by the Dominicans.450 Likewise, a tradition attributing St. Hyacinthe (d. 1257), the of St. Dominic, as the founder of the Dominican mission of Constantinople, and as the establisher of their church and priory, has been rejected by Raymond Janin. Rather, the building in which they first established themselves was probably a church dedicated to St. Irene.451 The church’s Turkish equivalent, Aya Eirene, was mentioned in the Ottoman capitulations.452 In 1260, during the

endowment of such properties, as will be seen below. For more on the Dominican mission in the Orient see Raymond-Joseph Loenertz, “Les Missiones Dominicaines en Orient au XIVe siècle et la Société de Frères Pérégrinants pour le Christ,” in Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, (1932): 1-83. 446 Wolfgang Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon zur Topographie : Byzantion, Konstantinupolis, Istanbul bis zum Beginn d. 17 Jh (Tübingen: Wasmuth, 1977), 79. 447 Machiel Kiel estimates that this mosque existed until the Latin conquest of Constantinople in 1204. Kiel, Art and Society, 176. 448 Palazzo, L’Arap-Djami, 24-26. See also Marius Carnard, “Les expéditions des Arabes contre Constantinople dans l’historie et dans la légende,” Journal Asiatique, no. 208 (1926): 61-121. 449 Palazzo, L’Arap-Djami, 47-48. 450 For his detailed argument see Palazzo, L’Arap-Djami, 49-68. Yet, the historian Hammer considers it impossible to determine whether the building was originally a Byzantine church, Joseph von Hammer, Constantinopolis und der Bosporos, ([]Pesth: Hartleben's Verlag, 1822), 2:83. 451 Raymond Janin, La Géographie Ecclésiastique de l'Empire Byzantin. 1. Part: Le Siège de Constantinople et le Patriarcat Oecuménique, vol 3.: Les Églises et les Monastères (Paris: Institut Français d'Etudes Byzantines, 1953), 591. 452 d’Alessio, “Recherches sur l’histoire,” 24-25.

109

Latin Empire of Constantinople (1204–1261) founded after the Fourth Crusade, the church of St. Irene was replaced with a small Latin chapel, dedicated to Saint Paul.453 The oldest gravestone found at the church, which was later relocated to the Archeological Museum, was dated 1260, which would indicate that it had been a Latin Catholic sanctuary at the time of the Latin empire.454 Between 1297 and 1298 the Dominican friar Guillaume Bernard de Sévérac bought a house near the church in which he then established a priory of the required number of twelve friars.455 Another influential figure, Fr. Guillaume Bernard de Gaillac, of the religious province of Provence arrived in Constantinople at the end of 1299.456 As a result of his activities being seen with suspicion by Patriarch Atanasio I (1304-1310) and the Greek clergy, the Dominicans were expelled from Constantinople by the Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II Palaeologus and consequently sought refuge in the Genoese suburb of Galata in 1307.457 A new, much larger church was built near or above the chapel of San Paolo in 1323 or 1325 by friars of the .458 Thereafter, the church was officially dedicated to St. Dominic.459 While both names are found in Ottoman documents (ʿAzīz Dominik katedrali and ʿAzīz Pavlus şapeli), the former alone was used in official documents.460 On 29 August 1407, Pope Gregory XII conceded to the faithful who visited the church and priory of St. Paul as a source for the upkeep and maintenance of the buildings.461

453 This date comes from a tombstone found in San Domenico and almost certainly brought here from the Chapel of San Paolo. Janin, La Géographie Ecclésiastique, 591. d’Alessio estimates the date at 1228 in d’Alessio, “Recherches sur l’histoire,” 26, and no. 2. For a comprehensive presentation of the tombstones of the old church of St. Paolo see d’Alessio, La Pietre Sepolcrali. 454 d’Alessio, La Pietre Sepolcrali, 27. 455 This was the lowest number of friars necessary to establish a regular priory for the religious order, Janin, La Géographie Ecclésiastique, 591. 456 Palazzo, L’Arap-Djami, 65. 457 d’Alessio, La Pietre Sepolcrali, 12. 458 This date comes from several contemporary documents and from dates inscribed on tombstones. E. Dalleggio d’Alessio, “Une inscription inédite d’Arab-Djami,” Échos d’Orient 28, no. 156 (1929): 407- 413. 459 , Petite Guide à travers les Monuments Byzantins et Turcs (Istanbul: Istanbul Matbaası, 1955), 102. 460 This is argued by Raymond-Joseph Loenertz, “Les établissements dominicains de Péra- Constantinople (Origines et fondations)”, Échos d’Orient 34, no. 179 (1935): 336-339. Whereas d’Alessio argues that the name St. Paul never stopped being used to refer to the church, especially by travelers who could only use the local vocabulary, E. Dalleggio d’Alessio, “L’établissement dominicain de Péra (Galata),” Échos d’Orient 35, no. 181 (1936): 83-86. 461 Loenertz, “Les établissements dominicains,” 337.

110

b.ii. Post-1453 Ottoman Conquest Stage 1 Immediately following the conquest of Constantinople, according to the Ottoman ʿahdnāme of 1453 that was granted to the , the church and priory of St. Paul, which by that time was known by the Ottomans as Domeniko Kilisesi, remained in Genoese hands.462 However, the friars were expelled from the priory in June 1476, a firmān was issued for its use as a Muslim place of worship and between 1476 and 1478, it was transformed into a mosque by Sultan Mehmed II (r. 1444-46; 1451-1481). In order to cover the costs of the upkeep of the building and the salaries of its employees, the Sultan incorporated it into the larger vaḳıf of the Ayasofya in 1479-1481, rather than allocate it a separate endowment.463 It became known as Galata Mosque (Ğalaṭa Cāmiʿ) or the Great Mosque (Cāmiʿ-i Kebīr) due to it being the largest mosque in the district at the time of its conversion. The former name alone appears in the said endowment charter (vaḳfiye).464 Following the fall of the Emirate of Granada (1238-1492), which was also known as the Nasrid Kingdom of Granada, the Arab Muslims began to migrate to Istanbul. Sultan Bayezid II (r. 1481-1512) assigned the building to those Muslims who had settled in the area around Galata Mosque.465 It is possible that the place chosen in Galata for their relocation was influenced by this tradition, an area adjacent to where the Arab conquerors had once built a mosque. Therefore, the mosque came to have its present name Arab Mosque (ʿArab Cāmiʿ).466 It’s conversion and permanent appellation was noted by the French botanist Joseph Pitton de Tournefort (d. 1708) during his travels to Istanbul at the beginning of the eighteenth century:

462 , The Tourists' Istanbul (Istanbul: Çituri Biraderler Basımevi, 1953), 319. 463 Fort the significance of the socio-economic role of vaḳıf in the Ottoman Empire see Randi Deguilhem, “Les documents de waqf pour comprendre l’histoire socio-économique de l’Empire ottoman,” Actes du VII e congrès du CIEPO à Peçs (Hongrie) en 1986, 35-41 (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1994). 464 The conversion of St. Paul, as well as St. Francis in 1697 into mosques which were subsequently provided with an endowment demonstrates the signifiance of vaḳıfs in shaping and perpetuating the Islamic urban design of the capital of the Ottoman Empire. For more on the impact on urban organisation and role played in urban infrastructure see Randi Deguilhem, “The waqf in the city”, in The City in the Islamic World, ed. Salma K. Jayyusi et al (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 923-950, especially 934- 937. 465 An interesting account of the Morisco community that settled in Galata after their expulsion from the Iberian Peninsula between 1609 and 1614 is given by Tijana Krstić, “Moriscos in Ottoman Galata, 1609-” in The Expulsion of the Moriscos from Spain: A Mediterranean , eds. Mercedes García-Arenal and Gerard Wiegers (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 269-285. 466 Semavi Eyice, “Arap Camii”, DİA, (Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 1991), 3:326.

111

La mosquée des Arabes étoit une église de Dominicains, bâtie du temps et par les soins de Saint Hyacinthe, qui avoit aussi contribué à l’établissement d’une Eglise de son ordre à Constantinople: mais on n’y voit plus que deux colonnes de marbre d’environ 15 pieds de haut, qui forment la porte de la maison d’un Turc: la mosquée des Arabes fut confisquée sur les Dominicains, il y a environ 100 ans, pour server aux Mahometans Granadins: on n’y a fait aucun changement; les vîtres et les inscriptions gothiques sont encore sur les portes; le clocher qui es tune tour quarrée, leur sert de minarêt.467

The conversion of the Dominican church into a mosque just a couple of decades after the Ottoman conquest of the Constantinople can be attributed to a combination of factors: 1. The imperial reversal of policy towards the Church of St. Paul in particular, as opposed to any of the other Latin Catholic churches in Galata, could be attributed to the Islamic tradition of appropriating the most magnificent church following the conquest of a region and transforming it into a building for Muslim use, often with a foundation.468 2. In June 1475, the Ottoman armies under the leadership of General Gedik Ahmed Paşa conquered the colony of Caffa in the Crimea resulting in the relocation of its Latin Catholic inhabitants (“Caffariotes” or, in Tukish “Kefeli”) to the capital of the empire. They settled in Istanbul establishing their own quarter, Kefeli Mahalle, and were allocated the church of St. Nicholas which was to be officiated by the Dominicans.469 Therefore, it can be assumed that this influx of non-Muslims into the capital led them to desire to emphasise once again the Islamic character of the capital and the triumph of Islam over Christianity by converting one of the most important of the Latin Catholic churches located in the heart of Christian Galata into a symbol of Islam.470 3. The choice of building was also determined by the fact that the Muslim refugees from Granada felt a strong dislike for the Dominicans due to the central role they played in the Spanish established in 1478. Therefore, it was a significant gesture on the part of Sultan Beyazid II to assign them the property of the former pursuers of the Moriscos.471

467 Tournefort, Relation, 506-7. 468 Semavi Eyice, “Arap Camii,” Istanbul Ansiklopedisi (Istanbul: Turkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarihi Vakfi, 1993), 1:294-295. For other examples of the transformation of Roman Catholic buildings into Islamic foundations see Pahlitzsch, “The Transformation,” 47-69. 469 Franz Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror and his Time (Princeton: University Press, 1978), 343-345. 470 See Hammer, Constantinopolis, 51-53 and Hasluck, Christianity and Islam, 1: 162 for information about decree from Mehmed II about not tolerating infidels in their midst. 471 Kiel, Art and Society, 175-6.

112

4. The structural conversion was ultimately justified through legend. The tradition that the mosque had been built during the Arab siege (717-718) emerged during the time of the settlement of the Moriscos in Galata. This legend was encouraged by its foreign architecture, especially since the square belfry resembled the minarets of the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus.472 The tradition is likewise mentioned by Ayvansarāyī in Ḥadīḳatü’l-Cevāmiʿ as is the fact that the Arab general Maslama died in Syria in 121 AH. However, what interests us in this entry is Ayvansarāyī’s description of the mosque and its location as well as the conditions of the vaḳfiye. It is also interesting to note that he does not make mention of the church from which it was converted. He lists it under the name “Arab Cāmiʿi” but also makes mention of its prior two names as follows:

Because this congregational mosque is the largest of the blessed mosques of Galata, it is also called the Great Mosque (Cāmiʿ-i Kebīr). It has an imperial tribune, a atop a single column, a caller to prayer’s tribune, galleries for the congregation and a şadırvan.473 The court of justice of Galata is opposite this mosque. When Saliha Sultan, the mother of the Paradise-dwelling Sultan Mahmud Khan the First, built a public fountain and fountain with an upper-story school and various other pious works of this sort inside the Azab Kapi, she also renovated and enlarged this blessed mosque. She established a vaḳf to supplement the salaries of the [mosque’s] servants and to provide for the reading of the blessed Mevlid and the parts of the blessed Qur’an. [34] This is the chronomgram inscribed around the şadırvan: “Every person admired [the renovation] and pronounced the date of its completion. The mother of the sultan enlarged this most beautiful mosque,” 1147 [1734-35].474

472 For details of the architectural transformations of the mosque during the Byzantine and Ottoman era see H. Sabri Işık, Arap Camii ve Galata (Ekram Matbaası, Istanbul: 2000), 47-48. 473 A large fountain built in the courtyard of a mosque, inns and theological schools for the provision of water for ritual ablutions and for drinking. 474 Original Ottoman Turkish: “Bu cāmiʿ-i şerīf Ğalaṭa Cāmiʿ-i şerīflerinin cümlesinin büyüğü olduğundan cāmiʿ-i kebīr daḫı derler. Mahfil-i hümāyūn ve bir sütūn üzere minber ve müʾezzin maḥfili ile cemāʿat maḥfilleri ve şādurvānı vardır. Ğalaṭa maḥkemesi bu cāmiʿ-i şerīfin muḳābilindedir. Ve cennet-mekān Sulṭān Maḥmūd Ḫān-ı Evvel’in vālideleri Ṣāliḥa Sulṭān, Azebkapusı dāḫilinde sebīl ve çeşme ve fevḳinde mekteb ve daḫı bu misillü baʿżı āsār-ı ḫayriyye binā etdikleri sırada, bu cāmiʿ-i şerīfi daḫı tecdīd ve tevsīʿ eyleyüb, ḫademe maʿāşlarına zamm ile mevlid-i şerīf ve eczāʾ-i şerīf kırāʾati [34] içün vaḳf taʿyīn eylemişdir. Şādurvānı eṭrāfında bu tārīḫ taḥrīr olunmuşdur: Didiler her biri taḥsīn idüb tārīḫ-i itmāmın/ Bu aḥsen cāmiʿi tevsīʿ kıldı Vālide Sulṭān. 1147 (1734). Cāmiʿ-i mezbūr 1222 cümāʿde’l-ūslāsının sekizinci günü vukūʿ bulan ḥarīḳde muḥteriḳ olmağla, tekrār cānib-i ḥaremeynden tecdīd olundu. Maḥallesi vardır.” Hüseyin Ayvansarayî, Hadîkâtü’l-Cevâmiʿ: İstanbul Câmileri ve Diğer Dînî-Sivil Mi‘mârî Yapılar, ed. Ahmed Nezih Galitekin (Istanbul: İşaret Yayınları, 2001), 424- 427.

113

Mention of the Sultan’s construction of many mosques and mescids in the city so as to benefit him on the Day of Judgment is indicative of the fact that the incentive for the construction of such buildings was as an investment in the afterlife.475

The Conversion In the vaḳfiye of the Ayasofya, Galata Mosque is mentioned along with the names of seven other mosques, four of which had had previously been churches and were converted into buildings appropriate for Muslim use immediately after the conquest and the remaining three were mosques built and endowed by Sultan Mehmed II: “…each one of these buildings which are good deeds are places of worship of the obedient. After reaching a stage of completion, the previously mentioned shelter of the rich and poor Ayasofya Mosque, Molla Zeyrek Mosque, Galata Mosque and Silivri Mosque,476 and [along with these] joyful orders for the construction of the New Mosque, el-Şeyh Vafāzāde Mosque and Rūmili Fortress477 Mosque.478 The mention of the mosques was followed immediately by an explanation of their purpose with an emphasis on worship, which is given legal and religious justification through the insertion of Qurʾānic verses.479 The section of the vaḳfiye specific to Galata Mosque details the salaries allocated to the employees of the mosque, who were comprised of a preacher, imam, five memorisers of the Qurʾān (ḥāfiẓs) to recite chapters of the Qur’an on Fridays, two callers to prayer (müezzins), two custodians, a wise teacher (muʿarrif-i ʿārife) and a caretaker whose responsibility it was to

475 Qurʾān, verse 32. 476 Also known as Cāmi‘-i Kal‘a-i Silivri as mentioned in Ayasofya Vakfiyesi, T. C. Başbakanlık Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü, f. 357. 477 Also known as Cāmi‘-i Kulle-i cedīde as mentioned in Ayasofya Vakfiyesi, T. C. Başbakanlık Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü, f. 357. On the location of , there had been a Roman fortification in the past, which was used as a prison by the Byzantines and Genoese. Later on, a monastery was built there. There was a small mosque, endowed by the Sultan at the time of construction. 478 Original Ottoman Turkish: “[…] bu ebniye-i ḫayrāt ki her biri maʿbed-i ehl-i tāʿatdür vāṣıl-ı mertebe- i temām oldukdan sonra ol ẓıll-i Hudā melāz-ı bay ü gedā zikri sebk iden Ayasofya cāmiʿi ve Molla Zeyrek cāmiʿi ve Ğalaṭa cāmiʿi ve Silivri cāmi‘i ve kendüler sa‘ādet ile binā buyurdukları Cāmiʿ-i cedīd ve eş-Şeyh Vafāzāde cāmiʿi ve Rūmili ḥiṣārı cāmiʿini [...].” Ayasofya Vakfiyesi, T. C. Başbakanlık Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü, fol. 57. 479 Ibid. fols. 57-59. Original Ottoman Turkish: “[...] bu yedi aded mesācid cevāmiʿ ve maʿābid ve savāmi‘i kāffe-i [58] ehl-i İslām ve āmme-i ʿibād-ı ʿubbād-ı Rabbü’l-enāma ki mefhūmı ile her biri maʿrūfu’l-ittisāmdur ikāmet-i cem‘u cemāʿāt ve edā-yı nevāfil ve ferāiz u vācibāt ve müdāvemet-i salavāt-ı mektūbe ve muvāzabet-i ibādāt-ı mergūbe itmeleri içün vaḳf [59] buyurup āmme-i nāsa teslīm buyurdılar.”

114 light the lamps. Similarly, it mentions the amount of money to be allocated for the oil and carpets of the mosque.480

Stage 2 Following the conversion of the church of St. Paul into Galata Mosque, the Dominican friars moved two hundred meters east, below the Galata Tower ın 1476, to a house with land owned by a Genoese nobleman, Angelo Zacharia.481 A small chapel was originally enclosed in the building and later a priory was established and dedicated to the Saints Peter and Paul, the latter appellation being an addition of the Dominicans in memory of their appropriated church. The tradition that the priory was housing sisters of Saint Catherine482 has been rejected by Janin: “Il est certain que l’église était dédiée aux saints apôtres Pierre et Paul. Or il existait à Péra, au moins depuis 1413, une chapelle sous ce vocable, fondée par Gianotto da Bistriccia, bourgeois de la ville. Le 19 janvier 1414, le pape Jean XXIII accordait une de trois ans et trois quarantaines aux fidèles qui la visiteraient à certains jours et contribueraient à son entretien. La chapelle était donc sous le régime du patronat. Elle passa à la famille des que exerçait encore ce droit en 1535.”483 Rather, it was probably founded in the fourteenth century. Loenertz likewise rejects the tradition on the basis that there would have been no reason for the Dominicans to change the name of the saint to which the church was dedicated, particularly as it was St. Catherine. Rather, he maintains that they occupied the church of SS. Apostles Peter and Paul of the Pisans, which

480 Original Ottoman Turkish: “Veẓāifü’l-cāmiʿu’ş-şerīf bi dāri’l-fetḥ Ğalata Ve ol ʿālī-ḥimmet pādişāh-ı milk ü millet şarṭ buyurdılar ki Ğalata’da vāḳiʿ cāmiʿ-i şerīfleri içün bir ḫatīb-i kāmil ʿālim-i ʿāmil taʿyīn olunup edā-yı ḫizmet-i lāzime itdükden sonra vaḳf-ı şerīfden külle yevm beş aḳçe vaẓīfeye mutaṣarrıf ola ve bir imām-ı sālih taʿyīn olunup mukābele-i ḫizemette vaḳf-ı şerīfden külle yevm beş aḳçe vaẓīfeye mutaṣarrıf [319] ola ve beş nefer ḥāfıẓ taʿyīn olunup bunlar daḫı kemā merre mirāren eyyām-ı cumʿada ḳable ṣalāti’l-cumʿa Ḳurʾān-ı kerīmden bir cüzʾ-i şerīf tilāveti ile cāmiʿ-i şerīfi teşrīf ve āzān-ı sāmīʿni teşnīf eyleyüp vaḳf-ı mübāreklerinden reʾīslerine külle yevm üç aḳçe bāḳī dört nefer ḥāfıẓa yevmī ikişer aḳçeden mecmūʿına külle yevm on bir aḳçe vaẓīfe virile ve iki nefer müeʾzzin-i ṣāliḥa her birine birer aḳçeden iki nefere külle yevm iki aḳçe vaẓīfe virile ve iki ḳayyım-ı ṣāliḥa külle yevm her birine iki aḳçeden iki ḳayyıma yevmī dört [320] aḳçe vaẓīfe virile ve bir muʿarrif-i ʿārife külle yevm iki aḳçe vaẓīfe virile ve işʿāl-i kanādīl ḫidmetin edā iden ḳayyıma külle yevm iki aḳçe vaẓīfe virile ve vaḳf-ı şerīfün dühn ve hasīrına külle yevm bir aḳçe taʿyīn buyurdılar.” Ibid., fols. 318-320. 481 d’Alessio, Le Couvent, 9. 482 The name could only refer to St. Catherine of (d. 305), rather than of Sienne (d. 1380) who was not canonised by Pope Pio II before 1461. 483 Janin, La Géographie Ecclésiastique, 593. Among those who mention this tradition are Belin, Histoire, 213-214 and Dalleggio d’Alessio, who confirms the tradition but debates the opinion that the friars’ advent saw the departure of the St. Catherine community of , rather stating that is was most probable that they departed on the Genoese ships during the siege of 1453. d’Alessio, “Les origins dominicains,” 468.

115 was founded in 1414 by Giannotto da Bisticcia.484 The priory was a victim of a fire which broke out on 20 March 1497. The Dominican friars were forced to cover the costs of its reconstruction by taking a debt of eight thousand aspres from Pietro Zacharia, the father of Angelo Zacharia, after it was deemed by the of the Order that the of one of the friars, Zaneti de Pesauro, had caused the fire.485 The following year in 1498, the Chapter General of the Order of Preachers, celebrated in Ferrara, confirmed the acceptance of the new location among their properties in the city of Istanbul.486 This rapid decision was probably the result of the money paid for the reconstruction of the priory in 1497, which could only be covered by a debt.487 On 20 April 1535, the old Zacharia ceded the house to the Dominicans. The act of donation is preceded by the following text, which is a summary of the deed:

Li Frati di S. Domenico habitanti in S. Pietro di Pera sono liberi possessori del detto convento et chieza senza alcuna dependenza per conto dell’ antico ius patronato; solo restano obligati di dare nella candelora alla casa dell’ Magnifico Signor Lazzarotto Drapperis successore di quelli che havevano la chiesa per ius patronato una candela di mezz’ ocha et l’obligo della messa che si dice nella retrofania resta in vigore tanto ho saputo io infrascritto dall’ Illustrissimo et Reverendissiomo Visitatore Apostolico Vescovo di Tino et in memoria di cio ho scritto questo 8 Righe questo di 9 d’aprile 1626 nel detto S. Pietro. Jo Fra Gregorio di Tino humile Vicario Generale et servo dell’ Ordine di S. Dominico per il Levante affermo quanto di sopra manu propia.488

c. Properties In the sixteenth century, following the donation of 1535, the properties of SS. Peter and Paul consisted of the church, a cemetery located to the right, the priory to the left, and a few wooden houses along the side of the street. In addition to this, there was a large garden which extended from the corner of Galata Tower. The friars derived an income from these properties

484 Loenertz, “Les établissements,” 340. 485 d’Alessio, Le Couvent, 10. 486 Raymond-Joseph Loenertz, Byzantina et Franco-Graeca: articles parus de 1935 à 1966 (Roma: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1970), 221. 487 Ibid. 488 As presented in the original Italian in d’Alessio, “Les origins dominicains,” 462.

116 in addition to subsidies granted them by Venice and alms donated by the faithful.489 Nevertheless, some of these properties went up for sale in order to raise the necessary funds to contribute to the reopening of the Conventual Franciscan church of St. Francis, which had been closed by the Ottoman authorities between 1586 and 1593 due to an increase in hostilities towards Christians provoked by millenarian tendencies and apocalyptic warnings, which were encouraged by the superspitious Sultan Murad III.490 Approximately seven years later, the church was opened once again by Murat III through the mediation of the ambassador of the French monarch Henri IV, Savary de Brèves.491 Both of the other churches in Istanbul which were administered by the Dominicans were lost in close succession: St. Nicholas, which was closed in 1629 and St. Mary of Constantinople, which disappeared in 1640.492 They were located in close proximity to one another in Caffa Mahalle in Istanbul, and were identified as having been transformed into Muslim places of worship named Odalar Cāmiʿ and Kefeli Mescid respectively.493 Regardless of this significant loss, the Church of SS. Peter and Paul continued to increase in importance when it became the parish church for the whole region soon after. Following the Great Fire of Galata in April 1660, the church burned down with the exception of the iron doors, part of the convent was destroyed, and of the twenty adjacent houses, which comprised all of the church properties, only seven remained unscathed, its archives likewise disappeared.494 The refectory, which survived the fire unscathed, was transformed into a chapel. The endowed church and its affiliated properties, which had existed without contestation by the authorities (there is no archival evidence to the contrary), were seized by the Ottoman authorities and one of its plots was granted to a Muslim Ottoman subject in recompense for land near the former Dominican church taken to serve the imperial vaḳıf of the mosque which was built in its place. Since the church had been completely destroyed, the

489 d’Alessio, Le Couvent, 14. 490 Ibid., p. 15; Belin, Histoire, 221. 491 Matteucci, Un glorioso convento, 125-128. 492 A declaration dated 27 October 1675 from the Magniifica Comunità di Pera stated that the church of St. Nicholas was officiated by the Dominicans of SS Peter and Paul. Conventual archive of the Dominicans of SS Peter and Paul in Galata (hereafter CADG), no. 37.1.2. 493 Palazzo, Deux Anciennes Églises. 494 A total of eleven churches were affected in the fire of 1660, in addition to St. Francis, the other Latin- rite churches that succumbed to damage were SS. Peter and Paul, St. George, St. Sebastian and St. Mary Drapiers. In the Great Fire of Galata in 1660, six of the seven Catholic churches in Galata succumbed to damage. A total of eleven churches were affected in the fire of 1660. The other Latin-rite churches that succumbed to damage were St. Francis, St. George, St. Sebastian and St. Mary Drapiers and SS. Peter and Paul. Mustafa Cezar, Osmanlı Devrinde İstanbul Yapılarında Tahribat Yapan Yagınlar ve Tabii Afetler (Istanbul: Berksoy Matbaası, 1963), 17.

117 grounds were considered mīrī and so put up for public sale and soon a storehouse was built on the land.495 Notwithstanding, the friars soon repurchased it for 1,000 reals and the property was placed in the name of the dragoman of England, Demetrasco Timoni. The recovery of the land was not achieved without generous donations to the ağa of the janissaries (yenīçeris), the neighborhood headman (muḫtār-başı) in addition to the distribution of 10,000 aspres to diverse officials by the French chargé d’affaires, Roboly. The aforementioned followed a payment of 12,000 aspres to the district governor (voïvoda) of Galata because the church had been re- opened without the necessary permission.496 Recourse was also made to the court of Galata to obtain a ḥüccet dated 1662 verifying property possession497 and once again, due to the mediation of the French ambassador, Savary de Brèves, the required firmān was obtained in order to rebuild the church together with its priory in 1663-1664.498 The total costs of reconstruction were between 70,000 and 100,000 aspres.499 These funds were raised from the generous donations of the ambassadors of the Catholic powers, especially the French, and the local community of Levantines and foreign Catholic merchants.500 Conflagrations continued to wreck havoc on the Dominican’s properties when, in 1700, the house owned by the Dominicans in Dört Yol in Pera was destroyed and in the fire of 1731, the priory and church of SS. Peter and Paul were the victims, as with it the Dominican archives, as the friars were to later confirm.501 Yet on both occasions, the properties were reconstructed, although not without difficulty and lengthy processes as attested in a letter written almost a decade after the fire: “Les religieux Dominicains ont, à Galata, une église sous le titre de Saint Pierre qui est la paroisse des Francs dans cette ville. Cette église est dans l’interieur de leur couvent. Il y en a une sure la rüe dont le toit étoit démoli et détruit. On a achevé d’en mettre les à bas cette

495 St. Francis underwent a similar process following the fire of 1660 in which its land was put up for auction and was repurchased by the Italians in 1662 for 4,500 pezzos. For more on the fate of St. Francis’ properties see de Obaldía, “A Shared Space,” 133-162. 496 Belin, Histoire, 225. 497 Belin mentions a ḥüccet dated 1072/1662 which was obtained from the Galata Ottoman court, Ibid. 498 Ignace Baron de Testa, Recueil des traités de la Porte Ottomane avec les puissance étrangères depuis le premier traité conclu, en 1536, entre Suléyman I et François I, jusqu’à nos jours (Paris: Amyot, 1864), 331. 499 The amount of 70,000 is mentioned in Benedetto Palazzo and A. Raineri, La Chiesa Di S. Pietro in Galata (Istanbul: Harti ve Şki Basımevi, 1943), 14, whereas the higher figure of 100,000 aspres was mentioned in Belin, Histoire, 226. 500 Although the Latin Catholic churches were no longer officially under the protection of the Republic of Genoa, they still continued to offer their support. 501 Antoine Galland, Journal d’Antoine Galland pendant son Séjour a Constantiople (1672-1673) (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1881), 1:278.

118 année cy pour y construire un magasin à feu.”502 In spite of this, the friars resorted to selling their house on Dört Yol in order to pay off debts incurred in the reconstruction of the latter. While the Dominicans suffered severe property losses as a result of seizures by the Ottoman authorities, financial constraints and natural disasters, they also acquired new properties, which were donations from faithful laypeople. In 1629, the former prior of the Magnifica Communità, Edouard da Gagliano ( Daggagliano), gave the friars a vineyard located in Saint Dimitri, which cost 24,000 aspres to sell;503 two properties donated by the ambassador of Genoa, the Marquis Agostino Durazzo, in 1666 and May 1667; Lady Giustina Drapéris donated a total of eighty talari both during her life in 1671 and as a testamentary donation; George Drapéris likewise donated 100 talari in 1672 and in 1673; and Fonton donated a house he owned on Dört Yol.504

d. Property Disputes A series of documents from the conventual archive of SS. Peter and Paul allows one to trace the history of the ecclesiastical land on which the Dominican church and priory stood following the fire of 1660, a plot of which was subsequently subject to dispute. The dragoman Giorgio Draperis (Giorgo veled-i Lazarī) initially makes an offer of 60,000 silver aḳçes for the land in a public auction upon its reversion to the state (ṭaraf-i mīrīye ʿāyıde) as due process for ecclesiastical land which is claimed to have no owner following the complete destruction in a conflagration of the buildings which stood on it (ḥarīḳte bil külliye muḥteriḳa olup ḳadīme olmağla ṣāḥibi olmayıp) as is documented in a court order dated 17 August 1661 by the ḳāżı of Istanbul, Abdulrahman. Giorgio was also the owner of a garden (bāğçe) adjoining the land on one side; on the other sides stood a church which was described as not having been burnt down (possibly that of St. George), two plots of land belonging to zimmīs Rafure and Thomas, and a public road leading to an empty plot. With no other bidders at a higher price, upon the delivery of the said amount, Giogio is given a copy of the financial transaction containing a seal and monogram (mühürlü ve nişanlı) in order to obtain the title deed (temessük) upon his promise that he would construct on the land “a house for residing and if in any manner I were to build a church let it

502 Letter dated 12 June 1739 from a certain Peyssonnel who was the agent of de Caumont, Parlamentary President of Aix. Galland, Journal, 1:277. 503 Current day Kurtuluş. Belin, Histoire, 224. 504 See also d’Alessio, Le Couvent, 18.

119

[the land] be seized from my possession by the state treasury once again.”505 The non-Muslim in question here insists upon the fact that the property was for personal use and that in the case where a church was built, then he would renounce ownership and the property would revert to the state – in accordance with the Ottoman legal prohibition on building churches. A couple of years later in 1665, a certain Kadjé bought a plot at the bottom of the land on which the ecclesiastical properties had stood. The court order describes how a section of the land of the former Dominican church of St. Paul had paid muḳāṭaʿa to the vaḳıf of the deceased Süleyman Ağa. In recompense following the church’s conversion into an imperial mosque which became known as Arab Cāmiʿ, a firmān was issued in May 1660 (1070 AH) granting the Süleyman Ağa vaḳıf the land at the bottom of the Dominicans’ burnt down church in the quarter of Bereketzāde adjoined by the above-mentioned plots and public road. It was abandoned (arāżī-i mevāt) and therefore put up for public sale on the condition that a non- Muslim place of worship not be constructed on it. It was sold to the said Kadje who paid a yearly sum of two aḳçes as muḳāṭaʿa and an immediate payment of forty aḳçes. Kadjé proceeded to build a storehouse with walls of stone506 with two marble columns on either side of the door and previously existing fountain of marble was renovated in 1080/1669, with imperial permission in the form of a firmān. For the said building, as mentioned above, a yearly payment of two aḳçes was made as muḳāṭaʿa. In 1670, the said Kadjé sold the building to Mustafa, the son of Mehmed. In 1682, the said Mustafa sold the storehouse to Dimitracco, the son of Domenico.507 On the 30 of February 1682, the Venetian bailo, Tomason Haon, bought the land through the mediation of an English merchant called Montagu Hort, who was renting out the said storehouse, having obtained it through the disbursement of one thousand reals of his own money. Yet for convenience’s sake, the said disbursement was carried out by the dragoman of England, Demetrio Timone, whose name consequently appears on the title deed registered in October of that year and which was written at the chancellery of the Venetian embassy. The amount was reimbursed by the dragoman through donations from various lay people from the immediate community. The property was implied to have been purchased on behalf of the

505 Original Ottoman Turkish: “Sākin olmak için üzerinde menzil binā edup bir ṭarīḳ ile kenīse edersem yedimden nezʿ olunup yine cānib-i mīrīden żabṭ olunsun.” Istanbul, CADG, no. 37.2.1, fol. 1. 506 The term used in the document was kārgir, also written kāgir, which I’ve chose to translate as stone but also carries the meaning of brick and mud. Metin Sözen and Uğur Tanyeli, Sanat Kavram ve Terimleri Sözlügü (Istanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 1986), 120. 507 Detailed in a translation of a court record written by Mehmed Efendi, the procurator of the muḳāṭaʿa dated the first ten days of January 1666 (evāil-i receb 1076) and two additional undated records addressed to the local kadi. CADG, no. 37.2.2, fols. 1-3.

120

Dominicans of St. Peter in perpetuo.508 The heirs of Demetrio Timone presented a written declaration dated 24 June 1706 which was registered in the chancellery of the Venetian embassy. It corroborates the details above regarding the registration of the title in the name of Demetrio Timone and confirms the transferral of this purchase to the names of his children Giorgi, Emanuel, Elisabetta, Orsula and Laradi.509 Upon the transfer of possession, the trustee (mütevellī) of the Süleyman Efendi Vaḳıf, Mustafa Ağa, sought to increase the daily rent on the land paid to the vaḳıf.510 At that period, the plot of land with the stone storehouse with two marble columns at the door and a marble fountain was bordered on one side by the garden of an unnamed zimmī, on two sides by the cells of the friars and on the fourth side by a public road. The property was in the possession of the children of Demetrio Timone listed as Giorgi, Emanuel, Laradi, Elizabetta and Orsula. A daily payment of two aḳçes was made to the vaḳıf. Yet, this was deemed too small an amount by the trustee who proceeded to acquire an imperial command (firmān) with the purpose of increasing the rent. As a result of legal considerations in the presence of the imperial inspector of endowments (müfettiş efendi), including comparisons with the payments of other storehouses, an increase of two aḳçes was demanded giving a total daily payment of four aḳçes from the proprietors. In order to include these details in the document of possession, a new document was drawn up recording the details in the registers of the vaḳıf after which the trustee allowed them to take possession of the storehouse once again.511 The successor trustee of the Süleyman Efendi vaḳıf, Salih Efendi, registers the proprietors of the storehouse in subsequent years as follows: upon the death of the abovementioned Domenico around 1707, his elder brother Gorgi purchased it for 50 piastres the following year and registered it in 1220/1708; upon the death of Gorgi, it passed to his daughters Allexandrachi, Petrachi and Sultana and was registered in 1130/1718; upon the death of Petrachi and Sultana, having no heirs, the property reverted to the possession of the vaḳıf which subsequently put it up for sale at public auction where it was bought by Domenico Pisani for 100 piastres in 1134/1722.512 Demetri Timone’s daughters, Elizabetta and Orsula, renounced

508 CADG, no. 37.2.3, fols. 1-3. 509 CADG, no. 37.2.3, fols. 4-7. 510 Detailed in a document of possession (temessük) dated 17 April 1706 (4 Muḥarrem 1118). CADG, no. 37.2.3, fols. 8-11. 511 The imperial inspector of endowments saw fit to increase the agreed-upon price during his visit, which would have been common occurrence were the properties in question deemed to be worth more. 512 At this point in the document narrative no more mention is made of Allexandrachi nor is information provided about what happened to her inheritance. Is it unknown whether she keep her part of the inheritance and only the parts belonging to her sisters, Petrachi and Sultana, were sold.

121 their portion of the property to Domenico Pisani which was registered in his possession in 1134/1722; upon the death of Demetri Timone’s son, Monol, his share passed to Nicolechi, Andonachi, Anghiele and his daughter Caghura and was registered in 1723 (1134 AH); Domenico Pisani renounced the property his ownership of the property with its daily land rent of 4 aḳçes, ceding it to the merchant David Maggi into whose possession it came on 9 ẕi’l- ḥicce 1151/19 March 1739.513 The French ambassador Louis Sauveur, Marquis de Villeneuve (in office 1728-1741), raises a petition (ʿarż-ı ḥāl) addressed to the imperial architect (miʿmār ağa) on behalf of the merchant David Maggi requesting permission for the construction of a stone storehouse on the vaḳıf land after the existing one had been destroyed in a fire. The request was answered in a one-line imperial order referring the request to the imperial architect whereupon the chief of the imperial architects, el-Ḥāc Mehmed, duly raised the issue recognising the building right and granting a license to David Maggi to construct on the burnt land a storehouse of the same dimensions as the previous one, before raising it to a higher level for confirmation. It should be remembered that the aṣl of vaḳıf land could not, in principle, be sold, however, the right to construct buildings and plant orchards, with absolute ownership and usufruct given to the individual who did so, was authorised by Islamic law according to the aḥkāmu’l-avḳāf. The final answer in the chain of correspondence comes once again in the form of a one-line firmān ordering that its construction, as based on its pervious conditions, not be prevented (vażʿ-i ḳadīmī üzere bināsına mümānʿāt olunmaya deyu).514 Consequently, a new storehouse was built corresponding to the dimensions of the old one, yet this action boded the initiation of a property dispute. On 24 April 1738, the trustee of the Süleyman Ağa vaḳıf, Ṣāliḥ Efendi, issued a document of possession (temessük)515 stating that all the storehouses built on the land of the burned down church would be freehold (mülk) and the land would be rented (muḳāṭaʿa) from the vaḳıf.516 He claimed that after the building, which was originally bought outright by David Maggi, son of Agustus, for 120 aḳçes, burned down, David Maggi had no desire to immediately reconstruct the storehouse. Thus, for many a year, the land, which was bordered on one side by the garden belonging to a Christian called Lakuris and on two other sides by friars’ cells and, on the fourth side, by a public road. In his

513 CADG, no. 37.2.3, fols. 11-12. 514 CADG, no. 37.2.5. 515 In the past it was used by vaḳıf employees and trustees for arāżī-i emīriyye documents given to owners of timārs and zeʿāmets within the context of vaḳıf actions. 516 Muḳāṭaʿa can be defined as rent paid to places which are in the possession of a vaḳıf or the state by private persons or foundations for the construction of buildings or planting of gardens.

122 capacity as trustee, Ṣāliḥ Efendi granted Maggi the right to rebuild on the land upon which the building became his freehold property (mülk), by paying an additional one aḳçe daily and 1,800 aḳçe yearly as muḳāṭaʿa.517 In conclusion, Maggi rebuilt the storehouse and the terms of status of the building and land were defined.518

d.i. Vaḳıf Trustee Ṣāliḥ Efendi v. French Merchant David Maggi The documents providing information on this case are eight as follows: three identical documents (ḥüccets), two containing both a court order (iʿlām) and the original petition (ʿarż- ı ḥāl), and one containing only a court order dated 4 February 1740;519 their respective translation into Italian;520 a document (ḥüccet) containing a petition (ʿarż-ı ḥāl) and an order of a high official (buyuruldu) dated 13 March 1743;521 a receipt acknowledging a debt dated 22 March 1742;522 a petition (ʿarż-ı ḥāl) from David Maggi’s son containing no date or seal;523 an undated factum with instructions in Italian;524 and a court order (iʿlām) dated 10 May 1743.525

d.i.i. Parties The Dominican friars of SS. Peter and Paul represented by the local French Levantine merchant David Maggi526 and Ṣāliḥ Efendi ibn Muṣṭafa, the trustee (mütevellī) of the Süleymān Ağa vaḳıf.527

517 In this document, the term muḳāṭaʿa-i zemīn is used, but it is synonymous with icāre-i zemīn and muḳāṭaʿalı. Nazif Öztürk, “Mukataalı Vakıf,” DİA (Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 2006), 31:133. 518 CADG, no. 37.2.6, dated 15 Muḥarrem 1152. 519 Ibid., no. 37.2.8, fols. 1, 2 & 7 respectively, dated 6 ẕi’l-ḳa‘de 1152. 520 Ibid., no. 37.2.8, fol. 3. 521 Ibid., no. 37.2.8, fol. 4, dated 17 muḥarrem 1156. 522 Ibid., no. 37.2.8, fol. 6, dated 15 muḥarrem 1155. 523 Ibid., no. 37.2.8, fol. 8. 524 Ibid., no. 37.2.8, fol. 9. 525 Ibid., no. 37.2.7. 526 David Maggi was a Levantine of French origin residing in Istanbul. In addition to his relations with the Dominicans through purchasing property on their behalf, he also had close dealing with the Capuchin friars of Pera for whom he had acted as trustee in property transactions. AMCC, Series U: Hodgets; Ecrits des Mutevelye etc…, doc. 57. 527 Ṣāliḥ Efendi describes the founder of the vaḳıf of the deceased Süleyman Ağa as being his forefather (cedde). A descendant of the founder having been placed in the position of trustee indicates that it may have been a family vaḳıf (vaḳf-ı ahlī) rather than a charitable one (vaḳf-ı ḫayrī).

123

d.i.ii. Subject of litigation A storehouse with stone walls, two marble columns at the door and a marble fountain. The plot on which it had been constructed was a section at the bottom of ecclesiastical land in the quarter of Bereketzāde on which once stood the ecclesiastical properties of SS. Peter and Paul which was destroyed in the fire of 1660.

d.i.iii. Details of the case The trustee of Süleymān Ağa’s vaḳıf, Ṣāliḥ Efendi, submitted a petition (ʿarż-ı ḥāl) to the Sublime Porte in which he presented two claims against David Maggi. The first, concerned financial wrongdoing towards the vaḳıf by Maggi due to an exchange (istibdāl) of the vaḳıf storehouse in the quarter of Bereketzāde on which he paid four aḳçes of rent (icāre-i müʾeccele) with seven other properties (ḫāne) (six located in Cospli and the seventh in Galata) with a rent of twenty aḳçes. The second claim was that the exchange took place without the trustee’s permission. The Dominican’s land reverted to the state treasury as public land (arāżī-i mīrīye) after the conflagration of 1660 because it was claimed to have no owner (ḥarīḳte bil külliye muḥteriḳa olup ḳadīme olmağla ṣāḥibi olmayıp) and sold at public auction. The land of the former Dominican church belonged to the as vaḳıf of the deceased Süleyman Ağa. Upon the former church’s conversion into an imperial mosque, the vaḳıf was granted the plot of land in the district of Bereketzāde, where a stone storehouse was built. The land was endowed (vaḳıf) and the building was freehold (mülk) but later became endowed. The property passed through various hands of the Christian community before it was purchased by the Levantine merchant David Maggi in the 1730s for 120 aḳçes. The property was implied to have been purchased on behalf of the Dominicans of St. Peter in perpetuo. The storehouse was destroyed in a fire. The French ambassador requested permission from the imperial architect (miʿmār ağa) to build a new storehouse of the same dimensions. The building was freehold (mülk), then endowed (vaḳıf) and the land rented (muḳāṭaʿa) from the Süleyman Ağa was vaḳıf. David Maggi exchanged (istibdāl) the stone storehouse in Bereketzāde with seven other buildings located in different parts of Istanbul. Prior to the exchange, the stone storehouse had freehold status as was the case for all other buildings for that purpose constructed there.528 However, at some unspecified point, the

528 Stated in a title deed (temessük) dated 1738. CADG, register 37.2.6.

124 storehouse changed its status to an endowment (vaḳıf).529 Throughout the period, land possessed the status of belonging to the Süleymān Ağa vaḳıf which would impose a land rent (muḳāṭaʿa-zemīn) on the proprietor of the building.530

d.i.iv. A case for the claimant In a petition (ʿarż-ı ḥāl) dated 3 February 1740 which was submitted by the trustee if Süleymān Ağa’s vaḳıf, Ṣāliḥ Efendi, to the Sublime Porte, the trustee sought an imperial edict to uphold his demand for rent at the going market rate (ecr-i misil).531 The first reason for the petition was the alleged financial wrongdoing towards the vaḳıf by David Maggi due to an exchange (istibdāl) of the vaḳıf storehouse on which he paid four aḳçes of rent (icāre-i müʾeccele) with seven other properties (ḫāne) with a rent of twenty aḳçes. The second reason was that the property exchange took place without his permission. Likewise, Ṣāliḥ Efendi sought to lend Islamic justification to the validity of his claim by mentioning that he had in his possession two fetvas.532 One of these was issued by Müftī Atāullah and was in relation to renting at the market price: “How can the going market rate (ecr-i misil) be known? The answer: With the advice of the experts.”533 This case is demonstrative of the extent of the authoritativeness of these non-binding legal opinions in their practical application, having been sought by claimants and defendants in cases tried by both foreign and local jurisdictions.534

529 Detailed in a court decree (iʿlām) dated 1152/1739. Neither the original Ottoman Turkish document nor the Italian translation documented in the archive catalogue are extant. CADG, register 37.2.4. 530 Ibid., no. 37.2.6. 531 Ibid., no. 37.2.8, fols. 1 & 2, dated 6 ẕi’l-ḳa‘de 1152/3 February 1740. 532 The archive of St. Louis of the French contains a series of fourteen Islamic responsa (fevtas) treating issues relating to the gift, possession, sale and destruction of church property. AMCC, Series V: Billets et fetfas de divers muphtis; letters de caratch, doc. 2-14. Documents 1, 15 and 16 will not be included because they are not fetvas and relate to the church and lands of the Church of St. Roch on Chios, the appointment of a testamentary executor by the Capuchins’ neighbour in Pera, Mrs. Cocona Bon, and thirteen ḫarāc letters dating from 1753 to 1757, respectively, all of which are outside the temporal and thematic boundaries of this study. One of the fetvas presented by Ṣāliḥ Efendi appears in the collection of fetvas in Series V, but the second of which is not included within the petition or elsewhere in the archive. 533 Original Ottoman Turkish: “Ecr-i misil ne ile mʿalūm olur? El-cevāb: bi-ğaraż ehl-i vuḳūfun iḫbārlarıyla.” AMCC, Series V: doc. 2. 534 Kate Fleet has shown how disputes came under different jurisdictions depending on the parties involved. Firstly, disputes between Latins would be resolved by the consul. Secondly, when disputes arose between Turks and Latins, it was resolved under Turkish jurisdiction if the injured party was Latin and the injuring party Turkish. Thirdly, in the opposite case where the injured party was Turkish, it would be referred to Latin jurisdiction through the consul, or resolved through a joint judgment by the

125

d.i.v. A case for the defendant The merchant David Maggi passed away and left the stone storehouse to his children.535 The trusteeship of the Süleymān Ağa vaḳıf also change hands with the name Muṣṭafā appearing in Ṣāliḥ Efendi’s place in the document from 1742 onwards.536 This suggests that a remedy to the property was not achieved during David Maggi’s time but only attained resolution by 1743. The Maggi children present various pieces of evidence in their favour including a receipt from the trustee, two petitions, a court order and an imperial edict as follows: 1. A receipt by the trustee (müvekkil) Muṣṭafā acknowledging the existence of a financial transaction between himself and Maggi’s son, Jan Batista and Maggi’s other children and its finalisation on 22 March 1742 (15 muḥarrem 1155). It confirms that there was not a “penny” left owing (bir aḳçe ve bir ḥabbe alacağim kalmayıp), grants absolution and discharge (ibrāʾ ve isḳāṭ) 537 to the debtor, and verifies that this absolution of the bill of debt was given to them in writing.538 2. A petition (ʿarż-ı ḥāl) and an order of a high official (buyuruldu) dated 13 March 1743 (17 muḥarram 1156) both contained within one document (ḥüccet).539 The petition was made to the imperial inspector of endowments by the merchant Maggis requesting permission for the exchange of a property in Galata’s Bereketzāde district. Since the land belonged to the vaḳıf of Süleymān Ağa, a rent of five aḳçes was paid whereas the freehold houses located in Istanbul with which the storehouse was to be exchanged paid six aḳçes. The trustee Muṣṭafā emphasises that such an exchange would be more profitable (enfaʿ) for the vaḳıf and that it be realised with the knowledge of the trustee and within the means of the sacred law (bā izn-i mütevellī ve bā maʿrifet-i şerʿ-i şerīf ). The contents of the response, in the form of an order of a high official (buyuruldu), are intriguing. Rather than directly treating the issue of exchange, it questions the permissibility a non-Muslim residing in the house in view of a firmān which was issued in the past prohibiting infidels (kefere) from residing in the said quarter.540 While the date is

consul and deputy judge (nāʾib). Kate Fleet, “Turkish-Latin Diplomatic Relations in the Fourteenth Century: The Case of the Consul,” Oriente Moderno 22, no. 3, (2003): 605-611. 535 The exact date is unknown. 536 Details about who Muṣṭafā is or why he was appointed are not given in the document. It is not however, improbable that Muṣṭafā is Ṣāliḥ Efendi’s son since the latter’s full name is Ṣāliḥ Efendi’s ibn Muṣṭafā and in view of the frequent custom of a son being named after his grandfather. 537 By which the trustee absolved the trust’s financial rights established in Maggi’s liability to fulfill his financial obligation. 538 CADG, no. 37.2.8, fol. 6, dated 15 muḥarrem 1155. 539 Ibid., no. 37.2.8, fol. 4ii, dated 17 muḥarrem 1156. 540 Original Ottoman Turkish: “…ḫaṭṭ-u hümāyūn ve bā firmān-ı ʿālī maḥalle-i mezkūrede kefere sākin olmamak üzere manʿ olunān menzil bu menzil midir değil midir?” Ibid., no. 37.2.8, fol. 4ii.

126 unspecified, the abovementioned decree probably refers to the one issued in 1697 following a devastating conflagration which consumed the area.541 The Latin residents of the quarter of Bereketzāde were faced with expulsion and the loss of their houses and warehouses based on the justification to remove the presence of non-Muslims from the vicinity of the new imperial mosque which was to be built on the grounds of the Conventual Franciscan complex of St. Francis, which had been severely damaged in the fire.542 3. A petition (ʿarż-ı ḥāl) was submitted to the inspector of endowments (müfettiş-i evkāf) by David Maggi’s son requesting an imperial edict in support of their defence.543 Although it contains no date, it can be supposed that it was requested around the late 1730s prior to the issuing of the final judgment by the imperial inspector of endowments in February 1740. His petition describes the basic details of the property dispute including the means by which his father “the merchant David Maggi constructed a building with his own money on vacant/dead land from the endowment of the deceased Suleyman Efendi in the district of Bereketzāde in Galata.”544 The son’s defence is centred on a fetva issued by the şeyḫülislām (not given in document), which contradicts the claim of the trustee, Muṣṭafā, that the building is vaḳıf. He concludes the petition by re-emphasising the significance of Ottoman law which informed the

541 “The houses, streets and quarters [of Muslims], formally all pure and holy dwellings, have unfortunately fallen into the hands of Jews, Christians and other infidels who have transformed these holy dwellings into places of profanation, impiety, superstition, idolatry and adultery. The frequent assemblies of all these debauched infidels who have abandoned themselves to the brutal passions have at last attracted the wrath of God Almighty equally on the true Muslims as well as on these infidels absorbed in their debauchery and forbidden games. This wrath had been felt previously through several and different calamities which should have forced the true Muslims to look back upon themselves and upon this pernicious mixture of infidels with Muslim believers in the very streets neighboring the mosques in which God Almighty, Whose great apostle and prophet is Muhammed, is worshipped by Muslims. The men of such a sublime Law, the kadis, judges and muftis and other zealous men should have opposed such an infamous and public disorder which their political dissimulation and sordid interests tolerated, but God Almighty willing to put an end to all these abominations at last made His anger burst into a general fire which I and our zealous observants of the Law regard as a warning of God which inspires horror and hatred for the pernicious abominations and damned maxims of all these Christians and infidels whom we should remove from all the quarters and dwellings neighboring our chapels and holy mosques where God Almighty is worshipped by true Muslims, in order to impede any cause of fire in the future through this removal of infidels.” AMCC, Series X, doc, 13. Translation from Eldem, French Trade, 232-233. 541 Ibid., 233. 542 For more on the conversion of the complex and the mosque, see de Obaldía, “A Shared Space,” 133- 162. 543 CADG, no. 37.2.8, fol. 8. 544 Ibid., original Ottoman Turkish: “Ğalaṭa’da Bereketzāde maḥalesinde vaḳʿ merḥūm Süleymān Efendi vaḳfindan babamiz bazergān David Maggi ʿarse-yi ḫaliyye üzerine kendi mālıyla eylediği binā […]”

127 legal case in question by referencing the law of God (şerʿle) with which the inspector’s decision would be in accordance. This petition is an interesting insight into the approach used by non-Muslims when maneuvering within the Ottoman judicial system. Maggi’s son’s employment of an Islamic legal tool such as a fetva and use of language referencing the şerīʿat was indicative of the ease and confidence with which non-Muslims presented their cases as either claimant or defendant under Ottoman law.545 The possible contributing factors for the presentation of fetvas in court cases was to speed up the judiciary process, and to protect their case and the favourable court decision from the opposition of local Muslim authorities. Fetvas were also sought at higher levels by Christian diplomats from the şeyḫülislām on their own behalf or for a community under their protection in order to, among other reasons, gain Islamic sanction for their diplomatic and political decisions, to legitamise merchantile status and priviledges, give weight to petitions and help resolve legal disputes.546

545 Not only did non-Muslims employ Islamic legal documents but also actively sought to use the Islamic legal institutions when it was seen to be in their favour. Mohamed Afifi’s study reveals how Egyptian Copts made recourse to ḳāzı courts in order to circumnavigate their own canonical laws in matters relating to and divorce, “Reflections on the Personal Laws of Egyptian Copts” in Women, the Family, and Divorce Laws in Islamic History, ed. Amira El Azhary Sonbol (Syracuse University Press, 1996), 202-215. For more on the use of the Islamic court systems by non-Muslims for family law and inheritance cases, see Imen Ben Jemia, “Les femmes de la ville de Hama au XVIIe siècle: vies privées/vies publiques en Syrie ottomane à travers les registres des cadis” (PhD diss., University of Provence -now Aix-Marseille University-, 2009); Ronald C. Jennings, “Women in Early 17th Century Ottoman Judicial Records - the Sharia Court of Anatolian Kayseri,” JESHO, 18 (1975): 53-113; Fariba Zarinebaf-Shahr, “Ottoman Women and the Tradition of Seeking Justice in the Eighteenth Century,” in Women in the Ottoman Empire. Middle Eastern Women in the Early Modern Era, ed. Madeline C. Zilfi (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 253-263. For reasons behind the use and lack of use of such courts by non-Muslims, see Christian Roth, “Aspects of Juridical Integration of Non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire: Observations in the Eighteenth-Century Urban and Rural Aegean,” in Well- Connected Domains: towards an entangled Ottoman history, eds. Pascal W. Firges et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 150-163. Najwa al-Qattan also reveals the reasons behind the prevelent use of these courts by zimmīs who appeared in a variety of capacities in the registers from 1775 to 1860 in Najwa Al-Qattan, “ in the Muslim Court: Legal Autonomy and Religious Discrimination,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 31, no. 3 (1999): 429-444; and on the infrequent use of such courts for the district of Sofia see Rossitsa Gradeva, “A kadi court in the Balkans: Sofia in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries”, in The Ottoman World, ed. Christine Woodhead (London: Routledge, 2012), 62; Gradeva, “On the Judicial Functions of Kadi Courts: Glimpses from Sofia in the Seventeetnh Century, in War and Peace in Rumeli: 15th to beginning of 19th century, ed. Sinan Kuneralp and Gül Tökay (Istanbul: The İsis Press), 101-151; Fatma M. Göçek, “The Legal Recourse of Minorities in History: Eighteenth Century Appeals to the Islamic Court of Galata,” Minorities in the Ottoman Empire, ed. Molly Greene (Princeton: Markus Wiener, 2005), 47-69. 546 Viorel Panaite, “Western Merchants and Ottoman Law: The Legal Section of the Turkish Manuscript No. 130 from the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris,” Revue des Études Sud-Est Européennes 45 (2007): 45-62. Also see Joshua White’s study on fetvas as tools for -confessional diplomatic mediation Joshua M. White, “Fetva Diplomacy: The Ottoman Şeyhülislam as Trans-Imperial Intermediary” Journal of early modern history 19 (2015): 199-221, especially 207-221.

128

4. A fetva given by the şeyḫülislām as a means of justifying the order according to the şerīʿat. The inclusion of the legal opinion is in keeping with the judicial process whereby, if deemed necessary, the opinion of a şeyḫülislām would have been sought on a particular matter prior to the issuing of an imperial edict. Furthermore, due to the length of this particular fetva, to which seven lines is allocated in this twenty-line firmān, it serves as a clarifying example for the legal case in question. The fetva is as follows:

A vaḳıf building burns down and is in the possession of Zeyd, who pays a down- payment and four aḳçes of daily rent (icāre-i müʾecelle), and with the permission of the trustee spends his own money to build stone rooms on the land for the vaḳıf. When Zeyd pays a daily rent of four aḳçes for each, can the trustee compel Zeyd saying “give me so much more daily rent for the stone rooms you built”? The answer: No.”547

Once again, the defendant supports his claim with a fetva, but this time against a Turkish Muslim claimant in a case where the verdict was granted by the imperial inspector of endowments (müfettiş-i evḳāf) and enforced by the local şerʽī court. 5. An undated factum written in Italian by Maggi di Luki and addressed to the vizier accompanied by a payment of 100 dinars.548 It contains six points as follows: first, proof that the dispute was won from the iʿlām and a ḥüccet and a declaration that the building is mülk and the land muḳāṭaʿa; second, that the document contain a clause that the church and priory be constructed without a license; third, that the documents be translated; fourth, the amounts of money to be given to each official for the required documents and judicial process; fifth, the legitimisation in writing from the office of the müftī - the ruling of the new inspector of endowments; sixth, the difficulties in obtaining reconciliation between the friars and a Levantine called Carlo, about whom no further information is provided.

547 Original Ottoman Turkish: “Naẓār olundukta ʿarṣa ve bināsı vaḳıf olan odalar muḥteriḳ olup arsesine icāre-i muʿacelle ve yevmi dört aḳçe ücret-i müecelle ile muteṣarrif olan Zeyd arse-yi mezbūre üzerine izni mütevallī ile masrṣfu ücret-i muʿaccelesine maḥsūb olmak üzere kendi mālından ḳadr-i maʿrūfu şu kadar aḳçe ṣarf edüp vaḳıf için kārgīr odalar binā ile ḥala Zeyd masrūfu istifā etmediğin yevmī dörder aḳçeyi verir iken mütevelli Zeyde vechi muḥarer üzere binā etiğin kārgīr odalar için daḫı yevmī şu kadār aḳçe müʾecelle ver deyu cebre ḳādir olur mu deyu ḥala şeyḫ-i meşāyiḫ ul-islām ḥażretlerinden istiftā olundukta cevāb bā sevāblerin olmaz.” Contained within the judicial decree in writing (iʿlām) dated 4 February 1740, CADG, no. 37.2.8, fols. 1, 2 & 7, dated 6 ẕi’l-ḳaʿde 1152/ 4 February 1740. 548 CADG, no. 37.2.8, fol. 9.

129

d.i.vi. Judgement Unlike the two case studies concerning the Capuchin friars, which will be studied in detail below, the legal problem did not fall under the jurisdiction of the French ambassador who was the protector of the Dominicans before the Porte. Rather, it was dealt with solely within the Ottoman juridical process because the claim was being made by a Muslim Ottoman subject against a Christian merchant, who would have come under the status of a müsteʾmin, unless he was an Ottoman subject, in which case he was a zimmī.549 On the subject of the demand for payment of the rent at the going market rate (ecr-i misil) due to the accusation of wrongdoing with respect to the Süleymān Ağa vaḳıf, the verdict came in the form of a judicial decree in writing (iʿlām) dated 4 February 1740 written by the imperial inspector of endowments (müfettiş-i evḳāf), obtained in direct response to the trustee’s petition.550 It lays down the facts of how the trustee of the Dominican’s property, seven stone storehouses, which he built with his own money on the land where the original stone storehouse with a marble fountain and two columns were located and on which a daily rent of four aḳçes was paid. Since a daily rent of four aḳçes was given for the seven stone storehouses, this was considered below the market price. David Maggi’s procurator, Izariye, son of Sehrab (Izariye veled-i Sehrāb) presents the abovementioned fetva. The imperial inspector of endowments rules that based on the fetva, the trustee of the said vaḳıf is forbidden from asking for an increase in daily rent (ber müceb-i fetva-yi şerīfe mütevellī-yi vakf-i mezbūr daḫī ziyāde müʾeccele ṭalebinden manʿ…). On the subject of exchange (istibdāl) raised a couple of years later by the trustee Muṣṭafā, the verdict is given in two related legal documents. Firstly, an imperial order was issued in March 1743 (muḥarram 1156) addressed to the ḳāżī of Galata. The order responded to a petition by Giorgi Maggi and his siblings who sought to liberate the storehouse on land adjoining the priory of St. Peter in Bereketzāde from its status as vaḳıf. The sultan commands the ḳāżī to assist the Maggi siblings with the process of exchange of the storehouse with seven houses, six located in Cospli and the seventh in Galata. Permission for this proprietary process was granted

549 In a fascinating study, Kate Fleet demonstrates how the Genoese of the Ottoman Empire were under the four types of jurisdiction depending who the claimant and defendant were in the legal case: the consul for disputes between Latins; Genoese courts in Chios for Turkish-Latin disputes; şerʽī courts for Latin-Turkish disputes and finally mixed courts adjudicated by the consul and deputy judge (nāib). Fleet, “Turkish-Latin Diplomatic Relations,” 605-611. 550 CADG, register 37.2.8, fols. 1, 2 & 7, dated 6 ẕi’l-ḳa‘de 1152.

130 on the condition and guarantee that it would not be incorporated into the Dominicans’ properties with the passage of time.551 As due judicial process, a court order was issued by the ḳāżī of Galata, Muṣṭafā, two months after the imperial order, which was accepted by the Imperial treasury.552 At that time, the boundaries of the plot of land holding the stone storehouse were defined on one side by the zimmī Serano’s garden, on the second side by the friars’ cells, on the third side by a church courtyard, and on the fourth side by a public road. The rent had increased to a daily rate of five aḳçes. The deceased (hālik olan) David Maggi is succeeded by his eight children, four boys - Janiki, Gorzafa, Aughustoniye and Anton, and four girls - Masline, Margarite, Katrina and Ananiya. Ḳāżı Muṣṭafā grants permission for the exchange (istibdāl)553 of David Maggi’s abovementioned storehouse with seven other buildings (menāzil) located in different quarters of Istanbul, thus releasing the stone storehouse from its status as vaḳıf – owned property. Due to the fact that the document treats the subject of property transfers, it expresses, in great detail, the location, boundaries and characteristics of each building. The said storehouse in the quarter of Bereketzāde was comprised of two floors. On the first floor (fevḳānī), there were four stone rooms (dort bāb kārgīr oda) and an entrance hall (dehlīz) all made of stone, and on the ground floor (taḥtānī) there were four stone rooms, a cistern (ṣahrıc/ṣarnıç), a pantry made of wood (aḫşābtan bir kīlār), an entrance hall and a door. The land measured 286 zirāʿ. Prior to the granting of the exchange, it was necessary to confirm the boundaries and income of the said properties. Therefore, in compliance with the law, an official called Hāşim Mehmed Efendi and two imperial architects (ḫāṣṣa miʿmārlar) Ustaz Ḥüseyin ḫalīfe and Ḫalīl ḫalīfe were sent to the vaḳıf property located in the quarter of Bereketzāde, and the freehold properties in the quarters of Ordek Kasab, Ṭarsūs, Hatice Sultān, Akşemsettin, Cibadiye all located in

551 While the original Ottoman Turkish document is missing from the archives, a summary of the contents of the document is found in its place. CADG, register 37.2.8, fol. 4i, dated the last ten days of muḥarrem 1156. 552 CADG, register 37.2.7 dated 17 rābiʽu’l-evvel 1156 (10 May 1743). 553 Istibdāl comes from the Arabic three-root verb badala. Linguistically, it means placing something in the place of something else. Ibn Manẓūr, “badala”, Lisān, 2:39. According to the jurisconsults, the word istibdāl possesses an identical linguistic meaning to ibdāl. Ibn ‘Ābidīn, Ḥāshiyat, 2 :21. Whereas such terms in relation to vaḳıf can be defined as “sell” and “exchange” (ibdāl- istibdāl) respectively. The former case refers to the instance of the founder (vākıf) selling the corpus of the vaḳıf for cash (ibdāl), whereas the latter is where the corpus is exchanged for another property (istibdāl). Yet, it is interesting to note that in Ottoman documents, istibdāl can most often refer to both the sale and exchange of the corpus and, on occasion, the word taḥvīl is used in the place of tebdīl. Akgündüz, İslâm Hukukunda, 195.

131

Istanbul and the quarter of Şehsuvār in Galata Okçu Mūsa Mahalle to register and confirm the names on the property deed under the oversight of the ḳāżī of Istanbul. Following the legal investigation, estimation and confirmation (muʿāyene ve muşāhede ve mesāḥa), and before istibdāl was granted by imperial decree, the needs of the Muslims who benefited from the said vaḳıf were reviewed. As a condition for exchange to be granted, both of the above-mentioned properties had to be either of a similar asset or of an equivalent value. The exchange was ruled permissible on the condition that the freehold buildings were greater and dearer in terms of value, desirability, noble location, and spaciousness than the endowed building (vaḳıf olan menzilden mülk olan menāzil-i mezkūre kiymet ve rağbet ve maḥal-i şeref ve vusaʿt cihetlerinden ezyad ve evfar). Therefore, the verdict recognises the validity of the exchange of the stone storehouse for seven other freehold properties belonging to the Maggi siblings on the condition that the exchange be more beneficial and be for the good of the vaḳıf and that the seven freehold buildings be greater and more valuable and bigger as regards the aspects of land, value, price, nobility, spaciousness and desirability (yedi bāb mülk menzil vaḳıf olan menzil-i mezkūrda arża ve ḳiymet ve ücret ve şeref ve vusaʽt ve maḥal-i rağbet cihetlerinden azyad ve evfar ve aksar olmağla istibdāli ṭaraf-i vaḳfe her vechiyle enfaʿ ve ḫayr-ı maḥż). It can be observed that the exchange carried out under Ottoman law was only permissible (cāiz) through the obtainment of official permission from the sultan in the form of an imperial decree, which was addressed to and overseen by the ḳāżī. Furthermore, the permission of the judge (izn-i ḥākim) was a preferred condition, with the trustee’s opinion (rey-i mütevellī) holding weight in the event that he could find other properties for replacement.554 Yet, reference is also made to the Islamic jurisprudentail texts (kütüb-ü muʿteberāt-i fiḳhiye) for the validity (ṣiḥḥet) and permissibility (cevāz) of the exchange.

e. Conclusion While the Dominicans had successfully maintained a presence in Constantinople/Istanbul since the thirteenth century, the religious order had to learn how to negotiate a completely different legal system with the advent of Ottoman rule, one which could prove disadvantageous to them. Yet, once familiar with the new laws, the friars navigated the system with additional support from their Catholic protector before the Sublime Porte, the French ambassador. The

554 Hilmi, Ahkâm-il Evkaf, 115.

132 above-mentioned dispute reveals two important aspects of the practical application of property law during the seventeenth and early eighteenth century in Ottoman Istanbul. Firstly, the fluidity of property possession and property status in the Ottoman capital. In a time period of less than ninety years, the single plot of land had gone through five changes in status from being ecclesiastical property housing a church and priory, state land (mīrī) with the burnt remains of buildings, vaḳıf land with a freehold (mülk) stone storehouse which subsequently became endowed (vaḳıf) then exchanged to freehold. Secondly, the accessibility to non- Muslims to certain property processes which were realised within the Ottoman legal framework. Exchange (istibdāl), consisting of the replacement of vaḳıf property for another property, was questionable under Hanafi doctrine insofar as it went against the principles of perpetuity and irrevocability of vaḳıf, but in practice provided the essential flexibility to respond to changing conditions.

3. The Capuchins of St. Louis of the French a. Establishment of the Capuchins in the Ottoman Capital The Church of St. Louis of the French is inextricably linked to the history of the Order of Friars Minor Capuchin in Istanbul, which was the third branch of the Franciscan order established in 1525.555 The Capuchins arrived in Istanbul in 1587, at the request of the French ambassador, Jacques Savary de Lanscome (served 1585-1589). In order to provide them with diplomatic protection and corresponding freedoms, they were considered official members of the ambassador’s staff and housed next to him. Their original number of four soon dwindled to two as a result of the death of two of the friars from the plague. Yet, their presence in the Ottoman capital was not prolonged as the remaining two friars were arrested and eventually expelled from the Empire by the authorities. The founder of the Capuchin missions in the Levant, Père Pacifique, saw the potential of a mission in the Levant during a voyage to the Ottoman Empire from 1621 to 1623. His assessment in addition to the insistence of the confidant of Richelieu, François Leclerc du Tremblay, also known as Père Joseph, the Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide decided to found a mission in Constantinople in 1624.556 While visiting the capital not only did Père

555 The other two branches are the Conventuals and Observants, also known as the Friars Minor. Establishment took place with the support of papal bulls by Clement VII, Paul III and Pius IV between 1528 and 1560. 556 Born into a noble family by the name of Joseph le Clerc du Tremblay, he was also known as “the Grey Eminience”. While Père Joseph had embraced the Duke of Nevers, Charles de Gonzague’s crusade

133

Pacifique receive the protection of the French, but he also obtained two firmāns from Murad IV (r. 1623-1640), one concerning the foundation of a mission in Aleppo and the second regarding the protection of the Capuchin religious throughout the whole Ottoman Empire.557 A Capuchin mission was once again sent out to Istanbul on 5 February 1626 in an effort to advance Christianity in the Orient through the provision of Capuchin missionaries under the guidance of the Prefect of the Missions, Père Joseph.558 It consisted of four members and was headed by the Archange of Fosses, who was a relative of the French ambassador Philippe de Harlay, comte de Césy (served 1620-1631).559 They had with them a letter of permission to establish themselves in Constantinople from the French Capuchin priest and politician François Leclerc du Tremblay (d.1638), known by his religious name as Giuseppe da Parigi.560 In addition, they counted on the contractual protection of the capitulation of 1604 granted to the French and on royal protection in the form of the French king’s representative to the Sublime Porte, Ambassador Philippe de Harlay who was likewise charged with assisting the friars in the establishment of a church and friary. Upon their arrival, five months after their departure from Paris, on 7 July 1626, the ambassador installed them at the Church of St. George located in Galata, which was not in use at that time and which they had preferred over the option of St. John. There they established their first friary in a house adjacent to the church. A provision for the friar’s daily living was provided to them by the French ambassador, yet they rejected the Magnifica Comunità di Pera’s offers of financial assistance since they preferred to remain

projects encouraged by a dream about arousing Europe to another crusade against the Turks, its failure saw it replaced with an apostolic drive. He envisioned a spiritual conquest of the Orient led by France and specifically the Capuchin missionaries. By the time of his death in 1638, he had contributed towards the establishment of ten Capuchin missions in Ottoman lands: Istanbul, Smyrna (Izmir), Scio (Chios), Naxos, Beirut, , Baghdad, Aleppo, Cairo, and Tripoli. “Joseph, Father (François Leclerc du Tremblay),” Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911), 15:515–516; Aldous Huxley, Grey Eminence (London: Vintage, 1941). 557 Translations into French of both imperial edicts are provided in Le Père Pacifique, Relation du Voyage de Perse (Paris: L’Imprimerie de Pierre de Rache, 1631), 399-408. 558 Pope Gregory XV (1621-1623) conferred on him the title of “Prefect of the Missions of the Orient” and the duty of providing Capuchin missionaries for England and Scotland as well as for Istanbul and other locations in the East. King Louis XIII and Richelieu appointed him to oversee the Capuchin missions in the Levant. 559 These were in addition to the Archange of Fossés, Raphaël de Villeneuve-le-Roi, Léonard de La Tour and Evangéliste de Reims. Their numbers were increased when the Propaganda Fide designated another eight friars to their mission on 21 February 1627. B.N., n.a. 4.134. 560 Ex relationibus PP. Leonardi et Iosephi Parisien. annotare libuit Capuccinos in urbe Constantipol. bene exceptos fuisse a Graecis catholicis et schismaticis, eorumque ecclesiam a Turcis frequentari; Magnum Turcam eis obviam factum signa humanitatis offendisse, et Oratores Anglum et Hollandum licet, haereticos, eos victum mittere pro uno die in qualibet hebdomada. Acta S. C., 22 feb. 1627, in Clemente da Terzorio, Le missioni del minori cappuccino: Sunto Storico (Roma: Cooperative Tipografica Manuzio, 1914), 2: 191.

134 faithful to their vows of poverty.561 Upon the Capuchin’s arrival, ambassador Philippe de Harlay conveys his initial perceptions in a letter, “La semaine de leur arrivée, je les ai placés dans l’église Saint-Georges au plus bel endroit de Galata au milan des chrétiens où je m’assure que leur vie exemplaire sera même estimée des turcs…”.562 As a gesture of support and encouragement for the Capuchin mission in Istanbul, on 13 March 1626, King Louis XIII (r. 1610-1643) declared the French Capuchins to be under his personal protection and offered to contribute 4,000 gold franks annually to the friars. Following their arrival, the Capuchins began their mission by visiting the civil and ecclesiastical authorities, which included the bailo of Venice, the English ambassador, the Apostolic Vicar and the Magnifica Comunità di Pera. The Capuchin’s role increased in importance in Istanbul. In addition to the Church of St. George, they were chosen to serve as ambassadorial and consular chaplains as well as administering to the needs of the Christian slaves at the two chapels located in the big and small bagnes. Their mission targeted not only the local Latin Catholics but also Christians of other denominations, such as the Armenians of the Apostolic Church and the Greek Orthodox. The scope of the mission is shown in the following document: “Galata, prima casa dei Cappuccini a Costantinopoli è intitolata a S. Giorgio. Ella è situata nel sobborgo di tal nome, ove risiedono tutti i mercanti francesi ed europei, come gli agenti e gli artigiani delle differenti nazioni. É là che approdano le navi mercantili, e di là partono. I Cappucini amministrano i soccorsi spirituali agli Armeni (chi disse venti, chi quarantamila senza chiesa), ai Francesi ed agli altri Europei: essi predicano e confessano nelle lingue particolari di ciascuna nazione, in greco, in turco ed armeno.”563 They also diversified their mission through the creation of a school in which they taught the children of local Latin Catholic and Greek families a variety of subjects including French, Italian, Latin, Greek and arithmetic. In addition, they founded a college called “Jeans de Langues” for the instruction of aspiring French dragomans wishing to work as interpreters in the consulates of the Levant. These educational initiatives were supported by France both financially and in terms of candidates. On 18 November 1665, a decree by the Royal Council of commerce prescribed on it the status of college and ordered that the Marseille Chamber of Commerce provide funding for the students; four years later, it sent six youths to the college.564

561 Ibid., 2:27. 562 Letter to Monsieur de Marillac dated 26 of July 1626. B.N., F.F. 16.158, fols. 334-336. 563 Terzorio, Le missioni, 2:51. Originally from Etat du Clerge du department de la Marine en 1782 (Paris: Ministry of the Navy), 1:213. 564 An old house was rented out from Signora Subrana for twenty piasters per year to better accommodate the school which opened in 1629 there as opposed to at St. Georges.

135

The significance of their institute was noted by Joseph Pitton de Tournefort during a visit to the French Embassy:” Nous avons parlé ci-devant du Palais de France, c’est une belle maison, ’t la chapelle est déservie par les Capucins François, qui sont les curez de la nation: ils sont aussi les maîtres des enfans de langue: c’est ainsi qu’on appelle quelques jeunes gens que le Roy fait élever à Constantinople, pour y être instruits par ces Peres dan les langues Turque, Arabe & Gréque; afin que dans la suite ils puissent servir d’interpretes aux Consuls François dans les échelles du Levant.”565 Personnel at the French embassy, such as the chargé d’affaires, Jean François Roboly, were eager to have their children admitted into the language school, which distrubuted the emerging dragomans to all corners of the Levant.566 Their role in the provision of medicine to the residents of Galata and the outlying districts, regardless of religion, should not be overlooked, with the creation of an official hospital taking place after the death of Ambassador Pierre de Girardin in 1689 by his widow and Monsieur l’abbé de Girardin.567 Both the provision of education and medicine facilitated profound and long-lasting contact between the Capuchins and the local population. The placement of the Capuchin friars as the preferential choice for chaplains in the French embassy and consular chapels, gradually replacing the Franciscans and the Jesuits, was authorised in a letter of protection from the French king dated 22 July 1628, in which he recognised that choice.568 The following year, in June 1629, Ambassador de Césy installed them as chaplains at the French embassy in Pera.569 There, they resided in the mansion of a local Levantine lady called Sobrano, to whom they paid a yearly rent of 20 piasters which was provided for by Ambassador de Césy and then by Ambassador de Marcheville, who replaced the former in 1631. In 1627, the Capuchins were chosen as chaplains at the consul in Smyrne, thus replacing the Jesuits.570 Other consuls followed suit. A letter patent signed by King Louis

565 Tournefort, Relation, 508. 566Letter by Girardin dated 18 Feburary 1686 intervening on behalf of Roboly’s sons for their admission into the school. Paris, Archives Nationals, A. E. B1 379, fol. 283. 567 A firmān issued by Sultan Ahmed III dated 1707 and 1712 also regosnised their role in the provision of medicine and care to the Muslim and Christian poor. Geneviève Thibault, “Les Archives de Saint Louis de Péra XVIIème et XVIIIème siècles: contributions à l'histoire de la mission capucine au Levant” (PhD diss., University, 2010), 2:180-181. 568 The Conventual Franciscan friars were housed in a house with a chapel on the premises of the French embassy following the destruction of their church, St. Francis in Galata in the conflagration of 1696. They remained there until the construction of their new church St. Anthony of Padua in 1724. 569 They served the spiritual needs of not only the ambassador but all of his household and therefore there are registers registering , weddings, funerals, and abjurations of those converting to Catholicsm, etc. from as early as 1646. 570 The placement of consular chaplains in Smirne to serve the spiritual needs of the French consul and his staff aided French ambitions to have precedence over the Venetians in the creation of a Latin

136

XIV (r. 1643-1715) dated 6 September 1655 invited the French consuls to employ the Capuchin priests as chaplains, thus ceding the recognition of royal chaplains on them.571 The chapel within the embassy grounds did not remain without services for long because, in 1628, the ambassador installed the Capuchins in the chapel next door. In 1631, the subsequent ambassador, Henri de Gournay, Comte de Marcheville, acquired a site for the Capuchins in Pera. In 1638, land adjacent to the embassy was acquired by the ambassador for the religious order’s use. They were the first of the religious orders to establish themselves in Pera following the Ottoman conquest of the city, and consequently their church of St. Louis was the oldest Latin-rite church in that area. Neverthelss, they still struggled to obtain permission for the construction of their own chapel. Regardless, Ambassador de Nointel had resolved to get a chapel built in the garden of the Capuchins, where his brother Charle Henry Olier de Nointel was buried in 1673.572 For other issues, such as free movement, the religious order acquired permission with relative ease. In 1627, Sultan Murat IV (r. 1623-1640) issued a firmān permitting the Capuchin missionaries the right to travel unhindered throughout the Ottoman Empire. A total of ten separate firmāns were issued between 1640 and 1700 concerning their free movement throughout Ottoman lands. The role played by Ambassador Philippe de Harlay, Comte de Césy, was instrumental in the establishment and growth of the Capuchin mission in Istanbul, a role also credited to him by Père Pacifique.573 Significantly, he attended to the material needs of the friars in the form of accommodation and stipends upon their initial arrival in the Ottoman capital, the allocation of a church and house upon their establishment which he described in a letter to the French nobleman Jean-Louis de Marillac (d. 1632) as being “…une Esglise très jolye et que d’un vieux manoir nous ayons fait six chambers, un beau réfectoire, une galerie, une cuysine et un petit magazin…”.574 The ambassador’s concern for and consideration towards their material needs is likewise observed in another letter addressed to Père Joseph in which he requests some alms for the purchase of a small house with a garden next to the church of St. George in order to

Catholic Church in the city. The first consular chapel in Smyrne was opened by the French console Sanson Wapoullon in 1623. 571 Cited by P. Furey in 1655. AMCC, Series A: Letters patentes du Roi; Lettres des Rois aux ambassadeurs…, doc. 3. 572 Galland, Journal, 2:38. 573 Gérard Tongas, Les Relations de la France avec l’Empire Ottoman durant la première motié du XVIIe siècle et l’Ambassade a Constrantinople de Philippe de Harlay, Comte de Césy (1619-1640) (Toulouse: Imprimerie F. Boisseau, 1942), 79-85, 244. 574 Letter to Jean-Louis de Marillac, comte de Beaumont-le-Roger, dated 4 october 1626, B.N., F.F. 16.158, p. 336.

137 extend their properties.575 His effective protection also ensured the continuation of their activities, such as securing the release and a commuted sentence in 1631 of two Capuchin friars who had been imprisoned in the capital and were condemned to be burned alive as a punishment for their successful proselytisation activities, although he was unable to prevent their subsequent expulsion from the Empire. 576 Through his diplomatic efforts before the Sublime Porte, Ambassador de Césy succeeded in expanding their mission to other parts of the Ottoman Empire by installing Capuchin friars in Circassia and Caffa in 1626 and, in Aleppo, the following year. Their establishment on the Aegean islands took place firstly on Chios in 1627/8, and some years later on the islands of Syros, Andros, Naxos, Paros and Candia (Crete) by 1637. For the ambassador, the establishment of the Capuchins in the Ottoman capital was a clear indication of their protectorate over the religious order throughout the Empire. Therefore, when the Venetian bailo sought to introduce Italian Capuchins to Istanbul, it was met with unwavering opposition by the French ambassador as it represented a contestation by the Venetians to France’s religious protectorate in these lands. Opposition arose to the extent that when the Italian Capuchin friars arrived in the capital in 1629, upon Richelieu’s command, Ambassador de Césy ordered them to re-embark, which they duly did.577 Thus was cemented the suzerainty of France over the Latin Catholic religious orders in Ottoman lands, regardless of their nationality. Moreover, the incident of non-substitution allowed for the implementation of French national as well as religious interests in the region. The Capuchins continued to receive direct support from the French monarch for their role as ambassadorial and consular chaplains. Letters patent granted recognition of their capacity in the role in general in addition to appointment to the position in specific consulates in cities throughout the Ottoman Empire.578 A rchives reveal that French support for the religious order continued when Ambassador Charles Marie François Olier, marquis de Nointel (served 1670-1679), received a written order dated 17 May 1675 by King Louis XIV (r. 1643- 1715) to preserve the chaplaincies in the Levant for the Capuchin friars. The King recognised

575 Letter to Père Joseph dated 14 December 1626, B.N., F.F., 16.158, p. 152. 576 Tongas, Les Relations, 77. 577 Gustave Fagniez, Le Père Joseph et Richelieu (1577-1638) (Paris: Hachette, 1894), 1:350. 578 Such as their appointment by letter patent dated May 1644 as chaplains at the consulate in Sidon, in present day . AMCC, Series A, doc. 3. Nevertheless, this appointment was overruled by another letter patent just a year later on 19 October 1645, which reinstated the Jesuits as consular chaplains: Ibid. doc. 4.

138 his previous appointment through letters patent for Fench Jesuit chaplains in the Levant, as the first religious order to administer over the French chaplaincies. Nonetheless, he perceived the preservation of the Capuchin priests in their chaplaincy posts in the Ottoman capital and other cities to be in the interests of the French ambassador and consuls in the Levant, since they had already been serving in that capacity for some time. While the Jesuits maintained their influence among the missions and maintained contact with the consuls as and when needed, they recognised the rights of the Capuchins by declaring that they had no pretentions over the chaplaincies where the Capuchins were instituted. Rather, they would retain their functions as chaplains at designated consulates.579 Royal support for the Capuchin friars in the Levant extended beyond chaplaincy appointments to monetary assistance in the form of a royal pension580 as well as authorisation of payments paid directly to Capuchin missions in different parts of the Empire to cover the costs of their accommodation.581

b. A Short History of the Chapel of St. Louis of the French The pinnacle of French influence in the Ottoman capital was the construction of a new Latin Catholic church in Istanbul, the first church to be established in Ottoman Istanbul in the name of the French King.582 From the early seventeenth century, the embassies began to locate themselves in the leafy district of Pera which today comprises the section of İstiklal Street between Tunnel and and was renowned for its vineyards. This coincided with an increase in houses built in the area, which housed ambassadorial staff and provided accommodation for those wishing to live under the protection of the embassies. In 1581, the French ambassador, Jacques de Germigny (served 1579-1585), considered Galata to be over-crowded and therefore, chose to construct a palace among the vines of Pera.583 From 1626, prior to the existence of an official church, masses were held at the French embassy for the ambassador. On 14 of July 1628, two Capuchin friars replaced two Jesuit priests as chaplains who had been sheltered by the French ambassador after being chased from the church of St. Benoît in Karaköy. The priests of the two orders were residing in Büyükdere at the time

579 Ibid., doc. 13. 580 Ibid., docs. 5, 6, 12, 19, 21, 22. 581Ibid., docs. 18, 21, 24. 582 In Ottoman sources he was referred to as melik-i efrenc. 583 For more on the French Embassy see Jean-Michel Casa Le Palais de France à Istanbul: un demi- millénaire d'alliance entre la Turquie et la France / Istanbul'da bir Fransiz Sarayı: Fransa ile Tiïrkiye arasinda 500 ydlik ittifak (Istanbul, Yapi Kredi, 1995).

139 with Ambassador Philippe de Harlay at the time in order to escape the worst effects of the plague. When they returned to Pera, the Jesuits resumed their place at their former church and the Capuchins assumed the functions of ambassadorial chaplains. As observed in Part II of this thesis, the Ottoman policy on the construction of churches was governed doctrinally by Hanafi jurisprudence and supported by fetva literature. While the ʿahdnāme of 1453 had guaranteed the protection of the churches of Galata, there was no provision for the construction of new churches on sites where there had been no pre-existing Christian places of worship. Regardless, the capitulatory agreement granted to the Genoese was confined to the area of Galata and did not extend to the whole of the Ottoman capital. Even in subsequent Ottoman capitulations granted to France beginning in 1536,584 the right to build new churches was never mentioned among the few capitulatory articles which secured certain religious freedoms and privileges for the Latin Catholic religious orders and their properties. Rather, such permission could be obtained, although rarely, in the form of an imperial edict (firmān) which often contained a fetva from the şeḫülislām providing the imperial decision with an Islamic justification.585 The first provision of land for the Capuchin friars who would be affiliated to St. Louis of the French was donated to them by Ambassador Philippe de Harlay; the land adjoined the French embassy and was accessible from its garden. The French ambassador Henry de Gournay, Marquis de Marcheville (served 1631-1634), expanded the property and registered it at the court of Kasımpaşa under his own name.586 The same property was expanded between 1651 and 1652 with the purchase of other lots, including that on which the Chapel of St. Louis currently stands.587 A church was constructed beside the French embassy to replace the

584 See Part IV of this thesis for a detailed analysis of the capitulatory articles concerning the Latin Catholic religion and all those affiliated with it. 585 Plans for the construction of a new church would often be accompanied by either swapping or strengthening allegiances with the most influential of the Catholic Powers of the day at the Porte, such as when the general minister of the Conventual Franciscans sought official acceptance of French protection in 1721 in order to facilitate the building of their new church in Pera. Girardelli “Architecture, Identity and Liminality,” 248. 586 The ḥüccet registered the property (mülk), which was located six hours from Galata in the district of Serai (Galata-serai), in the name of the ambassador of France, Henri, son of Renaut, in 1651 (1031 AH). Notably, the property is registered as having been purchased from Cocona, daughter of Djiban, to Louis, the French dragoman. In another ḥüccet dated 1661 (1056 AH), the same name appears as the owner from whom property was purchased by the residents of Pera, but this time as Cocona daughter of Politi, see Rocco da Cesinale, Storia delle missioni dei Cappucini (Rome: Tipografia Barbèra, 1873), 3:98. 587These plots of land are described by Belin as forming an enclosure due to their location below the Dutch legation, to the right of the French embassy’s main courtyard when coming from the main street of Pera. Belin, Histoire, 305. Subsequent property purchases were made in 1659, 1672 and 1721, Ibid., 307.

140 function of Benoît which had been designated at the time as a school. Nevertheless, it was demolished in 1634 on the accusation by the then commander-in-chief of the (kaptan-ı deryā), Gazi Hüseyin Pasha, that it was visible from the sea. The private chapel was subsequently demolished and the French were fined 40,000 aḳçes.588 The ambassador also oversaw the construction of two chapels inside the embassy, one for public use and one for private use. As of February 1642, mass was held for the ambassador in a specially designated room adjoining the embassy within the grounds of the French Palace. In 1653, another adjoining plot of land was purchased after it had been subject to a dispute between the Capuchin friars and the French dragoman.589 Following the damage to which the church of St. George succumbed in the conflagration of 1660, the number of Capuchin friars increased from two to five. Taking advantage of this situation, a church structure was gradually transformed and enlarged. It was constructed within the premises of the French embassy and was dedicated to St. Louis, being named Saint-Louis des Français. The chapel was consecrated on the 25 of August 1673 and later declared to be a “ministerial chapel” upon the granting of permission by the Porte. On the 24 of March 1685, the custodian of the church, Père Urbain, requested royal permission for the burial of ambassadors, ecclesiatics and other individuals of distinction within the grounds. An imperial firmān dated 1686 (1097) addressed to the ḳāżī of Galata obtained by Ambassador Pierre de Girardin (from 1686 to 1689) which allowed the Capuchins to do so.590 In 1702, the Propaganda Fide recognised the entitlement of the Capuchins to administer Easter communion and the other to the ambassadorial staff in compensation for a rejected request by Ambassador Charles de Ferriol (served 1692 to 1711) in 1702 for it to be granted the status of a parish.591 Two years later, the role and functions of the chapel were noted

588 Frederic Hitzel, Enfants de Langue et Drogmans, Diloğlanları ve Tercümanlar (Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 1995), 19. 589 See PART III, 3.d.i. of the current thesis. 590 Permission for the ambassador to use a small piece of land near his chapel to bury those of his household, be they priests or personnel was listed in an undated document along with various other imperial orders to be obtained from the Sublime Porte in favour of the Capuchins. AMCC, Series G: Gouvernement temporel de Saint-Louis; chapellenie, paroisse; Revenus; Sépultures; difficultés, doc. 31, fol. 1. 591 Ambassador de Ferriol’s memorandum was dated 3 October 1702 and addressed to Cardinal de Janson. AMCC, Ibid., doc. 6. The request had been met by opposition from both the Conventual and Obsrvant Franciscans and the priest of St. Marc, Ibid, docs. 9, 10, 11. On the 18 September 1710 the Propagande Fide eventually ruled not to concede such a status to the chapel stating eight different reasons for the decision incuding that there were not a sufficient number of worshipers attending the chapel for it to warrant becoming a parish especially given the fact that there had already been three parishes, of the Dominicans, Conventual and Reform Franciscans, serving the needs of the parishoners of Galata and Pera. Ibid., doc, 17.ii, fols. 1-3

141 during an apostolic visit to the church on the 26 of January 1704: “In detta chiesa si fanno tutte le funtioni della Settimana Santa, si cantano le Messe nelle maggiori solennità dell’anno e li vespri in tutte le Domeniche e feste di precetto. Nell’ottava del Corpus Domini si fa la processione nel palazzo di S. E. alla quale interviene S. E. col Signor Bailo Veneto e gran concorso di tutte le nationi e delli Regolari.”592 On 31 December 1729, the friars exchanged a section of their garden for various buildings and dependencies which Viscount d’Andressel had built in and four years later, they bought land with buildings in the same area.593 During an Apostolic visit in March 1721, Fr. Pier Battista Mauri described the interior of the church as follows: “Sono in questa chiesa quatro altari, il maggiore dedicato al medesimo S. Ludovico, che alla destra ha un altro dedicato al Santo Re David, et alla sinistra altro dedicato a S. Felice Capuccino, e fuori della cancellata è una capella dedicata alla Santissima Vergine. Contiguo alla chiesa è un ampio ospizio de medesimi Religiosi, in cui habitano cinque Padri missionari, et un laico [...].”594 The responsibilities of the Capuchins expanded from the spiritual and apostolic, as ambassadorial chaplains, to educational with the opening of two schools, one for children and the other for youths. The establishment of a school for the instruction and edification of local children was made possible through the donation of a freehold building by King Louis XIII (r. 1610-1643) with the aim of supporting their fruitful mission in Istanbul. The building was also used as the friars’ accommodation. The property was located in the compound of the French embassy in Pera and was transferred to the friars by a royal patent letter dated 14 July 1637: “…le Roy, en considération des fruits retirés de la mission des Capucins, et pour leur donner le moyen de contribuer encore davantage à l’instruction et à l’édification du prochain, par l’ouverture d’une eschole où l’on enseignerait à la jeunesse ce qui est de la piété et de la doctrine chrétienne, accorda aux Capucins, et leur fit don d’un logement, qui est derrière un bastiment nommé Château-Gaillard, en la Maison de France, audit Constaninople, lequel logement aurait été employé ci-devant pour servir aux-dits Capucins; et qui depuis, aurait été employé à d’autres usages, pour estre dorénavant et à toujours ledit logement habité par lesdits Capucins.”595 Likewise, the Capuchin’s establishment of the College of Languages for [French] Youth for the instruction of dragomans was done in a small house which had previously been donated

592 Hofmann, Il Vicariato, 87. 593 Belin, Histoire, 307. 594 Hofmann, Il Vicariato, 99. 595 AMCC, Series F, doc. 3.

142 to them by the widow Bon.596 This in turn resulted in the increment of the Capuchin’s properties through royal donations to accommodate the students of the educational institutions which took the name of College of the Capuchin Fathers of St. Louis.597 During an apostolic visit in January 1704 their presence was noted: “Nel sudetto ospitio vi dimorano ancora alcuni giovani francesi che vengono mandati con la permissione del Re Christianissimo per imparar le lingue e habilitarsi ad esser turcimani della natione per mantenimento de quali di vitto, vestito, e maestri S. M. dà alli sudetti Padri Cappuccini cento piastre l’anno per ciascun giovane che per ordinario sono 10 di numero.”598

c. Properties As mentioned above, while a detailed exposition of the properties of St. Louis of the French was rendered impossible due to the lack of extant documents in the Constantinople archive of the Archives of the Capuchin Fraternity of the Paris Region, what shall be presented is an overview of those documents based on the catalogue that initially registered the documents.599 From the summaries of these documents, the type of properties, the origins and names of donors can be ascertained.

c.i. Acquisition of properties 1. Indirect royal donations: one of the most common methods of property acquisition on behalf of the friars by the French nation was realised through a purchase by the French ambassador or the chargé d’affaires.600 According to secondary sources, the first provision of land was donated to the friars by Ambassador Philippe de Harlay (served 1620-1631); the land adjoined the French embassy and was accessible from its garden. At the beginning of his ambassadorship in 1632, Ambassador Henri de Gournay, Comte de Marcheville (served 1631–

596 AMCC, Series F: Titres de propriété; achats; contrats; testaments; donations; comptes; dépôts; affaires contentieuses, doc. 27. 597 It also signified an increase in income for the Capuchins since the French ambassador received subsidies for the education and training of those youth, although they did pass through financial hardship. Archives Nationals, A. E., B 376, fols. 222, 289, 435. 598 Hofmann, Il Vicariato, 87. 599AMCC, Series Fç 600 Insight into the cost of properties bought for the Capuchin friars in the area of Pera in addition to expenses following purchase is provided in a list of expenses for the purchase of a house belonging to Cocona Bon located adjacent to the French embassy on 11 June 1664. Ibid., doc. 50, fols. 1-2.

143

1639) obtained a a declaration in writing from a local Levantine resident, Giacomo Partaxi, of the sale of a small plot of land used as his garden. It was located next to the French embassy and was purchased at a price of four thousand aspres.601 Subsequently, ambassador Henry de Gournay, Marquis de Marcheville (served 1631-1634), expanded the property donated to the Capuchins and registered it at the court of Kasımpaşa under his own name. Subsequent property purchases were made in 1659, 1672 and 1721. While funds for the purchase of properties came from donations and alms, ambassadors are also observed to have made personal donations for the support of the missions such as Ambassador de Nointel’s generous donation of ornaments, silverware and paintings “to adorn and serve” the chapel.602 2. Direct royal donations: The most significant properties which were gifted to the friars came from the French monarch. The allocation of these properties would take place by means of a letter patent signed by the monarch, such as the donation to the Capuchins of a house located behind the Château-Gaillard at the French embassy by King Louis XIII (r. 1610- 1643).603 These donations were recognised by and registered with the Magnifica Communità, however they were not registered as such in the Ottoman courts. Rather, they were registered under the names of ambassadorial employees or Levantines or Christian merchants from the local community. The friars’ establishment in the said house on 20 December 1637 was overseen by the French ambassador in a confirmation signed by Philippe de Harlay.604 The following year, the same French monarch made another donation through a sealed letter patent which lays out the joint objective of the donation: to provide lodgings for the Capuchins as well as rooms for a school with the ambassador once again being assigned with a role in the process to ensure the legalisation of its registration. 3. Private donations from the local lay community: the friars also benefited from proprietary as well as monetary donations from faithful lay men and women. These can be categorized as donations during the lifetime of the donor and testamentary donations. The former consisted of buildings, gardens and plots of land as well as donations of houses for specific use by the friars, be it accommodation or education.605 As regards the latter, the Capuchin friars and their chapel could either be mentioned expressly in the wills or not, with the gift being shared with other churches. Such was the case with the will of Delphine Bruiti

601 Ibid., doc. 1, date 15 October 1632. 602 Among them were included six alter ornaments, , a large silver lamp and a wooden carving of the King’s arms. Ibid., doc 57, fols. 1-3, dated 9 February 1680. 603 Ibid., doc. 3, letter patent dated 14 July 1637. 604 Ibid., doc. 4, letter patent dated 14 July 1637. 605 Ibid., doc. 27.

144 which specified that an annual amount of 140 toleri be distributed equally among three Latin Catholic churches.606 Such donations could be made by Levantine men and women alike with Italian, French and even Greek affiliations, the marriage of Latin Catholic Levantines to Greek women not being unusual.607 Properties were also rented to the friars by the local Christian community. Rent was paid on the friars’ behalf by an employee of the French embassy from the alms or money designated to the religious order by the French ambassador.608 Money for the purchase of properties or rent by those affiliated to the embassy would also be given to them by the friars themselves, the source of this money often coming from abroad.609 Alteration of the status or owner of the property, be it via endowment, exchange, sale or transfer, as well as renting property would be carried out officially through the Ottoman legal system. The Capuchin archives are filled with such documents which testify to the process, such as ḥüccets and firmāns, and documents in the ḳāżı sicils, which are listed in the catalogue entries according to type.610 Yet, these methods of acquiring property employed by the friars and their French protectors could often backfire since the temptation of retaining property for those individuals who had purchased it on the friars’ behalf could be overwhelming. Therefore, property disputes arising between the Capuchin friars and members of the local lay community or even different religious orders which administered other Latin Catholic churches in Galata and Pera were not unheard of. The two following case studies of Capuchin property disputes display numerous similarities in terms of location, the parties to the defence and the individual issuing the final judgement.

606 Ibid., doc. 7, fol. 1, dated 19 July 1640. 607 Ibid., doc. 26, fols. 1-2, dated 7 March 1652; doc. 37, fol. 1, dated 26 April 1661. 608 Such as the case of a ḥüccet dated 1663 (1074) detailing the rental from the widow Bon by the dragoman Roboly for 360 days at 4 aspres per day. AMCC, Series U, doc. 34. 609 Such a document registering the receipt of payment of the French dragoman Dimitraki of 227 piastres from a Fr. Thomas of Paris and the expected receipt of the same amount from Fr. Hyacinthe of Paris. AMCC, Ibid., doc. 60. 610 One such example is an imperial order (firmān) dated 1673 (1184) relating to an exchange of land situated in Galata. AMCC, Series R: Commandements impériaux; firmans; Barats; lettres de recommandation, doc. 21.

145

d. Property Disputes d.i. Religious order v. ambassadorial employee In 1661, a dispute arose between the Capuchin friars and a French dragoman over a piece of land which he had bought on behalf of the Capuchins but which he subsequently sought to retain by refusing to hand over the document (ḥüccet) to them. The case was brought by the Capuchins before the French ambassador Denis de la Haye-Vautelet (in office 1665–1670). This process is conveyed in a series of seventeen documents concerning the details of the initial lawsuit, petitions brought by the claimants, responses by the defendant, witnesses’ testimonies, etc., up to the final sentence given by the ambassador.611 The documents reveal the legal recourse sought by the friars in the remedying of their proprietary dispute, the subsequent judicial process and proceedings. Due to the large number of documents in this case, a narrative of the contents of the document will be presented as opposed to each document individually.

d.i.i. Parties The claimants were priests from the religious order of Friars Minor Capuchin who presided over the Church of St. George in Galata and were chaplains at the French embassy in Pera, residing there at a hospice established by the French monarch. On 23 October 1651, the Capuchins elected Jean Scaick, a French merchant residing in Pera, as a procurator who would act on their behalf. The ambassador rendered a judgement empowering Scaick to bring legal proceedings against the defendant Fouzibée on behalf of the Capuchin priest, reassuring “that all that is done with him shall be valid, as if they had acted themselves.”612 The defendant was Louis Fouzibée, son of René, who was the second dragoman of the household of the French ambassador in Pera.

d.i.ii. Subject of litigation A small plot of land consisting of a section of garden located between the house of the Capuchin friars and the corner of the wall of the French embassy as well as half of a path serving as a passageway from the house of a Levantine neighbour, Mrs. Cocona Veufue.

611 AMCC, Series F, docs. 8-24 and Ibid., Series U, docs. 8, 15-20, 22 & 24. 612 Ibid., Series F., doc. 24.

146

d.i.iii. Details of the case The claim concerned a plot of land purchased from Cocona Veufue by dragoman Fouzibée on behalf of the friars and which had been placed in his name. The Capuchins had charged the former of acquiring the property for the benefit of their friary which consisted of a single house. However, Fouzibée attempted to benefit from the land himself by selling it onto a third party while denying that the documents were in his possession. A detailed overview of the specifics of the case is given in a written report by the Capuchins dated 30 August 1651.613 In order to initiate the legal process against Fouzibée, the Capuchin friars approached the French ambassador, Jean de La Hay, seigneur de Vantelet (from 1639-1665), requesting to be given the title deeds614 of the property which they had consigned into the care of the French dragoman, Mr. Fouzibée, in his capacity as their procurator. At the initial meeting, the two parties to the case and the ambassador were present. Fouzibée, however, had denied this fact in spite of having received a commission in his capacity of procurator upon transferring the property to the vaḳıf trustee Muṣṭafā Bey and having received the same commission upon repossessing it from “the Turk”.615 While Fouzibée had promised to hand over the ḥüccets, he admitted to simultaneously being in contact with the Turk for the sale of the property. The neighbour, Miss. Annette had a plot of land adjacent to the embassy which she wanted to sell. She had promised to sell the land to Fouzibée, who had expressed his interest in building a small house. The price she offered to sell at was 800 piastres, which she described as being “very cheap”. He replied that he did not have the money with which to buy at present and would try to find a solution. Yet when was questioned as to whether he had borrowed money from Ambassador de la Haye in order to purchase the plot of land on behalf of the Capuchin friars, Fouzibée was not able to deny that the Ambassador would negate that he had ordered him to buy the house and land with the money provided. He confirmed that in order to acquire the money from Ambassador de La Hay he would have to get a guarantee from Mons. De La Forest and that the said ambassador would not want to give money for such a small place and that they would buy everything in the name of Mons. de la Forest. The tone of the exchange alters in terms of content and style with a question and answer based on moral considerations with a concluding statement in the form of two complete

613 Ibid., Series F., doc. 8. 614 The French version of the Ottoman Turkish word for “document” (ḥüccet) has been used: “coget”, or “hogget”. 615 In this document, the generic term “the Turk” is periodically used to refer to the vaḳıf trustee and ḳāżī Muṣṭafā Bey, who was a Muslim Ottoman subject.

147 conditional sentences. When asked by the Capuchin friar whether he felt that he had dealt with them honestly or had wronged them, Fouzibée replied in the affirmative to the former to which the friar responded that if that had indeed been his intention, then he should be in conformity with the friars and therefore cede them their property. But if he had dealt with them with the intention of deceiving, then they would demand justice from the presiding French ambassador. Following the latter conditional clause, Fouzibée lays down two conditions: firstly, that his defence be in writing; secondly, that permission be given for one party in the case to question the other in the presence of the ambassador. Fouzibée then proceeded to claim that the property belonged to de La Forest, rather than to him. The second step in the procedures by the Capuchin friars was to approach the French ambassador for a second time and request that he order Fouzibée to bring him the ḥüccets, since they expected either a second refusal by the dragoman or lies given to them. The ambassador reassured the Capuchins with a promise to do everything in his power to bring the case to a successful conclusion and have the property that was in the hands of the Turk revoked. Soon after, a neighbour informed the Capuchin friar that the ḳāżī of Tophane was going to hand over the ḥüccets to Fouzibée. Upon hearing this, the friar rushed to the ambassador and advised him to send his interpreter, Battte, and to not present the ḥüccets to Fouzibée since they were the object of litigation. Batte, not having not found the ḳāżī present, charged his deputy (nāʿib) with passing on the message. The friar then headed to Scaick requesting him to speak to the Jewish interpreter of the Dutch embassy to use his influence at the Sublime Porte in order to prevent the trustee Muṣṭafā Bey from pursuing his case and to make him remove himself from the case. On the 19th, Mr. Batte had been speaking to the deputy judge who had responded that he had paid and that he could not retain/withhold the said ḥüccets. The ambassador had forbidden Mr. Fouzibée to use these ḥüccet and to give them to the Turk. He (Fouzibée) responded to his Excellency that he would pay the interest of 900 piastres (the original sum was 800 piastres). That same day, with Fouzibée, Mr. La Borde attempted to retrieve the ḥüccet from the Turk in Galata. However, his search was in vain. Upon hearing this, His Excellency the Ambassador ordered him to find the ḥüccet and to make everyone in Constantinople search for it. In the following days, the Ambassador continued to hear testimonies by the Capuchins’ procurator, Scaick, in response to Fouzibée’s defence, as well as by members of the local Christian community, such as a neighbour, her daughter and Mr. Nicoleto who, on the 21st, the presence of the abovementioned and they, along with Mr. Nicoleto, took an oath before His Excellency the Ambassador to say the truth in the presence

148 of Mons. Scaick and Mr. Batte. After that, they presented what they knew about the affair once again and they admitted all the articles that they knew that they had said about themselves without being questioned.616

d.i.iv. A case for the claimant In his claims, Scaick argued that a copy in Turkish of the ḥüccet was transferred to the Turkish judge by Fouzibée with the name Muṣṭafā Bey for the acquisition of Mrs. Cocona’s garden. A total of eight documents are presented by Scaick in his capacity as the Capuchins’ procurator: a petition by Mr. Scaik to Ambassador de la Haye in defence of the Capuchins;617 a decree by His Excellency permitting Mr. Scaik to act on behalf of the Capuchin against Fouzibée;618 a request by Scaik that Fouzibée must respond to the first motion;619 a reply by Scaik to Fouzibée’s reply to the first motion;620 a new application by Scaik against Fouzibee’s response;621 another application by Scaik;622 a response by Scaik to Fouzibee’s 43 folio response;623 and a petition by Scaik requesting a decision from the ambassador.624

d.i.v. A case for the defendant Louis Fouzibée’s defence against the lawsuit of Scaick on behalf of the friars was based on the premise that he did not place the land in his name and therefore could not engage in transactions with the said contract. He also argued that the garden and right of way through the passageway were not under his proprietary authority. Upon the presentation of a petition which was established to be from the hands of Jean Scaick in his capacity of procurator of the Capuchin mission of Constantinople, Fouzibée responded to the ambassador that he acknowledged the procurator in his legitimate appointment through merit to act against him.625

616 Taken from an initial report of the appearance of the claimant and defendant before the French ambassador and the summary of the first steps taken. AMCC, Series F, doc. 8. 617 Ibid., doc. 9. 618 Ibid., doc. 11. 619 Ibid., doc. 12. 620 Ibid., doc. 15. 621 Ibid., doc. 17. 622 Ibid., doc. 18. 623 Ibid., doc. 20. 624 Ibid., doc. 23. 625 Ibid., doc. 10, dated 4 December.

149

Fouzibée proceeded to respond to the first motion made on 23 December 1651, seven days later,626 and subsequently reinforced his response with a supplement.627 A translation of the ḥüccet revealed that the Turkish ḳāżī Muṣṭafā Bey had sold the garden of Cocona to Fouzibée with a place serving as a passageway. This was done via the deliverance of 700 piastres that Muṣṭafā Bey confesses to having received from the hands of Fouzibée, done on the 21 Cemaziulevvel 1061/ 10 June 1651). Additional points of defence were given by Fouzibée in a document issued on 24 February 1652, namely, the 500 piastres that a certain Greek had offered the Capuchins to secure the house and garden of Veufue from the hands of the trustee (mütevellī) for the benefit of the friars. Nevertheless, this sum was never donated and only arrived due to the efforts of Fr. Jacques of Paris, the Capuchin of the hospice. The Greek wanted to pledge the said house and garden for the sum of 500 piastres. Fouzibée had advised the Father superior to say that the Capuchins wanted to purchase part of the garden and not the right of way. Yet the proposal made by Fr. Jacques to the Greek contradicted what Fouzibée had advised, saying instead that the Capuchins wanted to purchase a section of the garden and right of way and, as a result, the Greek did not want to lend his money. Therefore, Fouzibée says that if the 500 piastres are missing, it is the fault of Fr. Jacques.628 With respect to this and the hearing of testimonials carried out by the ambassadorial chancellery at the request of Scaick containing the declaration of Mr. Cocona and Nicoletto Bon, her son and Faustina Bon, her daughter, with Cocona filing to remain in agreement with Fr. Jacques to sell to the friars all of the section of her garden bordered by the hospice and the embassy for a sum of 400 piastres and that Fr. Superior said that Fouzibée, as the procurator of the friars, would make the payment and the contact would be made. Cocona Bon’s declaration was confirmed by her children, Nicoletto and Faustina, and furthermore was amply supported by the investigation carried out on the 20 January 1652. The recognition made by Fouzibée in his defence, dated 4 December 1651 admits that he took commission from the Capuchins to make a property transaction with Veufue, for the purchase of the garden for the sum of 400 piastres, which he accepted for . Nevertheless, following the purchase of the garden by the vaḳıf trustee, his commission ceased and he was discharged.629

626 Ibid., doc. 13. 627 Ibid., doc. 14. 628 An official handwritten letter by Fouzibée to Fr. Jacques confirming his statement is not present in the archives. 629 AMCC, Series F, doc. 19.

150

Soon after Scaick’s final application dated 25 April 1652, Fouzibée petitioned the ambassador arguing that Scaick had four hearings in front of him, yet he had only asked questions to Fouzibée which were to the claimant’s advantage and on which he based his final claim. Therefore, Fouzibée sought to be granted additional hearings “in order to make known the truth and you by my reasons and to vindicate myself of the falsities of which he accuses me”. He likewise requested an audience to answer the testimony made against him by Paul Bon, his sons and daughter “who I reject as my enemies and people incapable of giving testimony.” 630

d.i.vi. Other evidence 1. Witness testimonies of individuals called to give evidence in the Fouzibée affair.631 At Fouzibée’s request, in his defence, additional testimonies were given at the chancellery on 4 May 1652 by a Greek who was called Chanelaki as well as the testimony of two other Greek individuals called Michael and Micalaki, and two individuals by the names of Vassili Chimi and Dominico Gustiniano as regards their verbal exchange with the trustee ḳāżī Muṣṭafā Bey, in addition to another testimony from Chimi and Giustiniano about the words that they are understood to have said to the Veli Paşa. 2. A post-trial written declaration by the French ambassador in which he confirms the above details of the sales contract placed in his name by the Capuchin’s former procurator, Louis Fouzibée. The latter passed the contract in front of the deputy judge (nāʾib) of Galata Abdullah Efendi and then the ḳāżī of Galata Cabsula Efendi on 7 July 1652. The contract was for the purchase at the agreed price of the portion of the garden enclosed between the French embassy and the royal foundation of the Capuchins which was acquired as part of the properties of St. Louis for the benefit of the friars. The 400 piastres for the purchase were delivered in the ambassador’s name to Fouzibée; this sum comes from the alms collected by the Capuchins missionaries in the Levant.632 Greater details about the exact trial documents presented to the French ambassador during the case are listed in a post-sentencing inventory. 633 It reveals that there were seventeen in total, as follows:

630 Ibid., doc. 22. 631 Ibid., doc. 16. 632 Ibid., doc. 33, dated 14 March 1653. 633 Ibid., Series F, doc. 21, dated 13 July 1652.

151

1. An application by Scaik to the ambassador in his judicial competency, against Fouzibée.634 2. An application by Fouzibée to the effect that Scaik had powers to act against him.635 3. A decree by his Excellency granting permission for Scaik to act on behalf of the Capuchins against Fouzibée.636 4. A response by Fouzibée to the first claim by Scaik.637 5. A claim by Scaick against Fouzibée. 6. A response by Fouzibée.638 7. An addition made by Fouzibée to his first response.639 8. An answer given by Scaick to the above response.640 9. A response by Scaick to Fouzibée. 641 10. An application by Fouzibée against Scaick.642 11. A response by Fouzibée to the application of Scaick containing 43 folios.643 12. A testimony of witnesses called in the affair against Fouzibée, consisting of 10 folios.644 13. A letter written by Fouzibée to the Father Superior Jacques.645 14. A copy of the ḥüccet in Turkish which had been in Fouzibeé’s possession. 15. A translation of the ḥüccet. 646 16. A response by Scaick to Fouzibeé’s previous response, consisting of four folios.647 17. Fouzibeé’s application to the facts of Scaick’s latter response.648

634 Ibid., doc. 9. 635 Ibid., doc. 10. 636 Ibid., doc. 11. 637 Ibid., doc. 13. 638 Although not specified, what appears to be Scaick’s second application against Fouzibée and his response to it are not contained within the archives unless these two documents are part of the initial application and response. 639 Ibid., doc. 14. 640 Ibid., doc. 15. 641 Ibid., doc. 17 642 Ibid., doc. 18. 643 Ibid., doc. 19. 644 Ibid., doc. 16 645 Not extant in the archives nor does it appear as an entry in the catalogue. 646 Neither a copy of the Turkish original of the ḥüccet nor its translation are extant or even mentioned within the archive catalogue. 647 Ibid., doc. 20. 648 Ibid., doc. 22.

152

d.i.vii. Judgment The final sentence for the case brought before de la Haye on 10 October 1651 was given by the ambassador in writing in Pera on 8 May 1652 / 17 May 1652 in favour of the Capuchins of St. Louis.649 The ambassador forbade Fouzibée from engaging in property transactions with the ḥüccet and from handing it over to the Turkish trustee. Appointments rendered between the parties in the present instance, writings, contra-edicts, replicas and productions from the parties were reviewed by de la Haye. The ambassador made a judgement on the said instance sentencing Louis Fouzibée to deliver the document registered with the Turkish judge Muṣṭafā Bey into Jean Scaick’s hands and to transfer the portion of the garden that the Capuchins had charged him with acquiring from Cocona for the benefit of their house into Scaick’s name, in addition to the right of way through the passageway from the house of Cocona in the hospice. He was furthermore sentenced to reimburse the sum of 400 piastres, to which the Capuchins had agreed with the said Mrs. Cocona Veufue for the said acquisition, on top of deducting what he may have already received. Ambassador de la Haye then concluded his judgement by ordering that “the injurious words contained in the writings of the said Fouzibée against the honour and good faith of the Capuchin priests be scratched and struck through”.650 He was forbidden to use such terms again to the Capuchins, with hardly any punishment, and he was merely sentenced to 20 piastres which was to be applied towards buying bread for the poor and destitute.

d.ii. Religious order (Capuchins) v. religious order (Jesuits) Property disputes were not confined to friars against the Ottoman state or against lay people, rather contestations also arose between religious orders in Istanbul. A series of eleven documents reveals a dispute between the Capuchins and Jesuits over a property located in Pera. These consist of the original court document (ḥüccet) issued in 1017/ 1609 during the reign of Sultan Ahmed I (r. 1603-1617) regarding a property over which two zimmī brothers had joint ownership;651 a copy in Ottoman Turkish of the court document and an incomplete Italian

649 Ibid., doc. 24. 650 Ibid., doc. 24. 651 AMCC, Series U, doc. 1.

153 translation of the document;652 a full translation into Italian of the court document;653 a testimony from a Latin lay person against the Jesuits over the disputed property confirming its purchase by the Capuchins;654 an attestation by the prior owner regarding the ownership and rights over the two doors;655 a statement explaining the reasons why one half of the property could not be transferred to the original owner’s successors;656 a document with reasons contesting the Jesuits’ claims on the property;657 a statement from Venetian dragomen dismissing the Jesuits’ claim over the property;658 a fetva issued by Müftī Yaḥyā;659 and the final judgement with an agreement between the two orders for right of way over the land.660

d.ii.i. Parties The Jesuits represented by the Jesuit superior of the mission of Greece Fr. Nicolas of Genevieve accompanied by Fr. François Chamerlat. Friars Minor Capuchin, represented by the Capuchin superior of the mission of Greece, Fr. Thomas of Paris, assisted by Fr. Jacques.

d.ii.ii. Subject The property itself consisted of a plot of land on which stood a house with two doors and a garden. It was located in the Topḫāne quarter in the district of Tomtom in Pera and bordered on three sides by the residences of the Venetian bailo and French ambassador and by a private street on the remaining side.661

652Ibid., Series F, docs. 46, fols. 2-3; 653 Ibid., doc. 6. 654 Ibid., doc. 27. 655 Ibid., doc. 29. 656 Ibid., doc. 31. 657 Ibid., doc. 46.1. 658 Ibid., doc. 47. 659 Ibid., Series V, doc. 11. 660 Ibid., Series F, doc. 51. 661 Bordered on one side by the citadel walls of Galata and on the other by the banks of the Bosphorus, the quarter took its name from the imperial armoury (Topḫāne-i Amīre) which was established in the locality in 1455 during the reign of Sultan Mehmed II (r. 1451-1481). It can be described as Istanbul’s oldest industrial zone and housed a predominantly Christian population dominated demographically by Greeks and Armenians.

154

d.ii.iii. Details of the case Co-ownership of the property by two brothers, Domenico and Pandeli, sons of Pero. While the former owned half of the courtyard and the door situated at the bottom of the garden opening onto Topḫāne, the other half of the courtyard and the second door were the freehold property of Pandeli. Bastino Salvago subsequently inherited the whole property, then the widow Corona Bon bought the whole property, which was then inherited by her daughter Faustina Bon. Dragoman Louis Fouzibée purchased the Topḫāne side on behalf of the Capuchins since it was situated close to the residence of the ambassadorial chaplains, and the other half on behalf of the Jesuits. The Jesuit priests were claimants for the right of way to Topḫāne by a small path which was in the possession of the said Faustina on behalf of the Capuchin friars and by a door which is situated at the bottom nearby the small entrance to the French embassy which opens onto the street of Topḫāne. The Jesuits claim that the right of way through the said door is stipulated in an old ḥüccet. Yet, the Capuchins likewise support their defence with another document (ḥüccet) in which a common right of use of the said path and door is not granted. Both then made recourse to the French chargé d’affaires, Jean François Roboly (in office 1659-1664), requesting his intervention in the resolutions of their property dispute.662 The role of the French consuls, who took up appointment throughout the empire, was equally as important since they received requests from the local Roman Catholic communities which they would then convey to the ambassador who would submit the matter to the Sublime Porte in a formal petition.663 The consul was the representative of royal authority as well as acting as judge, protector and guide in the resolution of civil and criminal cases of French nationals as well as nationals of other foreign countries.664 They were granted equal jurisdiction to the ambassador over their own nationals and all Westerners who came under their protection according to the capitulatory articles of 1597, 1604, letters of justice and orders

662 Jean François Roboly was chargé d’affaires at the French embassy in Istanbul. He was born in 1623 into a noble family of Provence and died in Istanbul on 22 September 1689. He was a French merchant residing in Pera and an agent of King Louis XVI (r. 1774-1792) in Constantinople as attested in letters from the king who describe him as “Notre cher et bien aimé le sieur de Roboly, agent pour nos affaires à Constantinople…”, Archives Nationales, AE B/III/269, 1662-1669. Marie de Testa and Antoine Gautier, Drogmans et diplomates européens auprès de la Porte ottomane (Istanbul: İsis, 2003), 180- 184. 663 For more on the appointment, status and functions of French consuls in Ottoman lands see: Panaite, “French Capitulations and Consular Jurisdiction,” 71-87. 664 Van Den Boogert, Capitulations, 34-38.

155

(ḥüküms) addressed to local authorities and could likewise pass judgement free from the interference of Ottoman officials.665

d.ii.iv. A Case for the Claimant The claimants present as their strongest proof to their claim of right of way, a court document (ḥüccet) dated 4 Zi’l-ḳ‘āde 1017/ 8 February 1609 which was originally issued by a tribunal during the reign of Sultan Mehmed II (r. 1444-1446, 1451-1481) and reconfirmed during the reign of Sultan Ahmed I (r. 1603-1617).666 The document confirmed the co-ownership (müşterek) between the brothers Domeniko, son of (veled-i) Pero and Pandeli Panzani.667 The two brothers are described as zimmīs, from which can be ascertained that they were subjects of the Ottoman sultan, rather than individuals who had been granted a temporary guarantee of protection by the Ottoman state, such as foreign merchants and sailors (müstʾemin).668 Subsequent to laying out the perimeters of the property, the conditions of co-ownership of the property and the easement of right of way are detailed as follows:

[…] our house has two doors, half of the courtyard and the door opening onto the Topḫāne side from inside the lower garden is my [Domenico’s] freehold and the other half is the freehold of my abovementioned brother Pandeli. The path and the door opening from the abovementioned courtyard on Pandeli’s side is to the extent of a beast of burden entering and exiting and no more. We consensually agreed to this method [of co- ownership]. 669

665 Panaite, “French Capitulations and Consular Jurisdiction,” 84; Niels Steensgard, “Consuls and Nations in the Levant from 1570 to 1650,” Scandinavian Economic History Review 15 (1967): 13-55. 666 As seen above, the word ḥüccet generally describes a legal document prepared by the court, but it can also refer to a title-deed. The document presented by the Jesuits consisted of the former. It appears that in the absence of a title-deed, the original owners had given a court document with the required witnesses’ signatures. Moreover, a ḥüccet could act as proof of title deed but only because the document contained the relevant information, but was not, in and of itself, a title deed. 667 Only Domeniko is described as being the son of Pero, it may therefore be induced that Pandeli was a half brother with the same birth mother. 668 Another indication of the fact that they are Ottoman ẕimmīs is the use of the term veled-i for “son of” because if they were protégés or foreignors, this term would not be used. 669 Ottoman Turkish: “menzilimizin iki ḳapısı olup aşağa bāğçe içinden Ṭopḫāne cānibine açılān ḳapının ve ḥavlunun niṣfī benim mülkü ve niṣfü’l-āḫirī ḳarındāşım mezbūr Pandeli’nin mülküdür ve zikr olunan ḥavludan mezbūr Pandeli ṭarafina āçılān ḳapı ve yolu ḥumla ile bir ḥammāl bārgīrı duḫūl ve ḫurūc edecek miḳdārı olup ziyāde olmağa mā beynimizde riżāmızle bu minvāl üzere itifāḳ eyledik.” AMCC, Series U, 1.

156

It was the brother Pandeli who brought the property matter to the court in order to obtain the legal document as proof of co-ownership, although it does not specify the type of co-ownership. Regardless of the personal agreement between the two brothers, the Ottoman legal concept would have been applied to the situation of co-ownership since it was dealt with in the şerʽī court. Proprietary partnership or co-ownership is permissible according to Islamic law and is treated as contractual partnership, which came into existence on the agreement of the two parties or through inheritance.670 Yet, upon the death of one of the co-proprietors, the property would be shared out proportionately among the direct descendants, as opposed to being inherited directly by the other joint proprietor. Although the issue of co-proprietorship is laid down in clear terms in the document in addition to details about the subject matter’s location, parameters and division, there is no express mention of the easement (ḥaḳḳ-i irtifāḳ) of right of way or passage right (ḥaḳḳ-i mürūr). Nor does it mention Pandeli’s use of an implied right of way over a continual period of time, thus acquiring rights over land as a result of the passage of time, that is, an easement by prescription. Ultimately, the remedy sought by the Jesuits was the easement of right of way through the door opening onto Topḫāne at the bottom of the garden of the co-owned property.

d.ii.v. A Case for the Defendant The defendants presented four pieces of evidence in contestation to the Jesuits’ claim. These consisted of a testimony dated 1652 from the Levantine Nicoletto Bon, the son of the widow Corona Bon, confirming the purchase of the property by the Capuchins;671 an attestation by Sebastian Salvago that the two doors of the palisade belong to Fouzibée and he can block them when he wishes;672 a declaration by Venetian dragomen in support of the Capuchins;673 a statement explaining the reasons why one half of the property could not be transferred to the

670 In the document, the adjective müşterek is used, which means shared. It is derived from the Arabic three-root verb sh-r-k, which linguistically means a sharing, participating, partaking or co-partnership. Legally, it signifies “a contract between two or more people for participation in capital and its profit”. Since there are several types of sharing (sharikah) in Islamic jurisprudence, it is worth distinguishing that the proper term for proprietary partnership with regard to the belonging of a property to two or more co-proprietors is sharikat al-milk. Ibn Manẓūr, “sharaka,” Lisān, 10:448; Ibn ʿĀbidīn, Radd al- Mukhtār, 3:364. 671 AMCC, Series F, doc. 27. 672 Ibid., doc. 29. 673 Ibid., doc. 47.

157 original proprietors’ successors;674 a document contesting the Jesuits’ claims on the property;675 a fetva issued by Müftī Yaḥyā.676 1. A written declaration dated 27 March 1652 by Nicoleto Bon that Louis Fouzibée purchased the property from his mother, the widow Bon, on behalf of the Capuchins. To this can be added a later attestation from the same year on 23 December by Sebastian Salvago who wrote it in his own hand in the that it would be of value as evidence in the legal case. In it, he confirms that the two doors belong to Fouzibée and being his possession, it is within his right to “shut them with nails whenever he pleases”.677 2. The Venetian dragomen came forward to produce a declaration written in Pera in September 1664 supporting the Capuchin’s defence against the Jesuits claim that they did not have right of passage through the door opening onto Topḫāne at the bottom of the garden of the co-owned property.678 They begin with listing the property-related documents in the possession of each religious order as follows: a. Title deeds and contracts in the possession of the Jesuits: the original legal document prepared by the court (ḥüccet) detailing the co-proprietorship between the brothers Domenico and Pandeli; a contract of sale from Mrs. Corona Bon to Bastian [Sebatian] Salvago for the sale of two pirhi-width of land at the bottom of the property;679 a contract from the same Bastian to Fouzibée for the sale of the house and garden;680 a contract by Fouzibée to Bernardo for the sale of the said property;681 an open sale contract between Fouzibée and the Jesuits.682 b. Title deeds and contracts in the possession of the Capuchins: a title deed from Mrs. Corona to the trustee (mütevellī) of the Sublime Porte for the sale of the house, garden and the aforementioned door opening onto Topḫāne; a sale contract from Mrs. Corona to Fouzibée selling to him a section of the garden and half of the abovementioned door; a written declaration from Bastian Salvago to Mrs. Corona Bon stating his lack of pretentions over the property; a

674 Ibid., doc. 31. 675 Ibid., doc. 46.1. 676 AMCC, Series V, doc. 11. 677 AMCC, Series F, doc. 29. 678 The dragomen head the statement with an introduction of themselves as “Noi Infrascritti Interpreti della Serenissima Republica.” (We the under-mentioned interpreters of the Most Serene Republic of Venice). 679 AMCC, Series U, doc. 22. 680 A non-extant document dated 12 January 1652 described in the catalogue as “Codjet de vente d’un terrain avec petite maison, faite par Sébastien Salvago a Louis Fouzibée”. AMCC, Series F, doc. 25. 681 Ibid., doc. 34; Series U, doc. 24. 682 Series F, doc. 30.

158 fetva from the müftī.683 Following the examination of the documents produced by both religious orders, they conclude that “the abovementioned legal documents and contracts of the Jesuits are insufficient to prove that they have a right of passage through the said door”.684 3. An undated report presenting reasons why the ḥüccet between Dominico and Pandoli declaring co-ownership of the property, does not give the right over Pandoli’s half to his successors. Although its author is not stated, it was possibly written by the Dominican friars as an argument in their defence. The main points included are that the easement it is not stated in the title deed; that Salvago, as the successor of Pandoli, had no pretentions over the property, with the deed passing by sale to Mrs. Corona Bon in the name of the friars without any opposition raised; that Bastinaki, the daughter of Salvago, let Corona Bon sell half of the property including one of the doors to Fouzibée, with the other half being retained by Bastinaki and that the abovementioned Bastianaki had no pretention that the property be co-owned. Furthermore, when Corona sold the land and house to Fouzibée, who made the purchase on behalf of the Jesuits, it was not mentioned that the transaction included the door or that it would be co-owned. 4. The document written in French by the Capuchins contests with the Jesuits’ pretentions over the right of way through the door to Topḫāne with nine points, the main ones being: i. the legal document presented by the Jesuits as proof of their claim does not include details about the easement; ii. the legal impermissibility of rights over another’s property as a result of continual use over a prolonged period of time as confirmed in a fetva; iii. When Corona Bon chose to lease her house to the Turkish trustee for a period of thirty years, it was done so without the door and path; iv. Corona Bon removed the house from the hands of the Turkish trustee and sold a part of the garden to Fouzibée and one of the doors. Salvago showed no opposition to the sale as he had no right over the property; v. Salvago bought a small section of the garden ending near the Topḫāne door, but with this purchase, he did not acquire the right of way through the said door; vi. he confirmed these pretentions in a document; vii. Corona Bon made a request of Fouzibée regarding the door, yet she did not make the same request of Salvago because he did not possess proprietary rights over it.

683 Of these four documents, only the fetva is present in the archives in Series V. There is no mention of the remaining three in Series F and Series U of the archive catalogue, which treat the issues of property-related court documents, property titles, contracts of sale, testamentary documents and donations, etc. 684 Original Italian “…li predetti cogetti e contratto delli RR.PP. Giusuiti sono insufficienti per provare ch’abbino ius di passaggio per la predetta porta.”

159

5. The fetva issued by Müftī Yaḥyā deals with the issue of prescription, that is, the acquirement of rights over property or a title to land as a result of the passage of time.685 Possession by prescription is impermissible according to Islamic law, as the land/building cannot be acquired by mere possession however long the individual has enjoyed quiet and uninterrupted possession. Yet, this fetva also rejects easements by prescription, which enables the acquisition of rights connected with the property in question, although it is permissible according to Islamic law.

Zeyd and Amr are brothers, they share their father’s house. The paths and passages are marked, landmarked, but with ʿAmr’s agreement, Zeyd sometimes passed through the street door that had been shared with ʿAmr. Then, the house of the latter went to Bekir. Can he [Zeyd] claim passage through the aforementioned street door after Bekir has also acquired Zeyd’s [half]. Can he claim it without Bekir’s approval under the pretext that 40 years ago, Zeyd sometimes passed through there? The answer: No.686

It was observed above how the fetva was presented in the legal case as one of four pieces of evidence by the defendants (the Capuchins) against the Jesuits’ claim for right of way. It is interesting to note how the defendants employ an Islamic legal document in their favour in a case where the claimants are a Latin Catholic religious order and the judge is the French ambassador. The reasons for doing so could be attributed firstly, to an effort to counter the claimants’ presentation of another Ottoman document in the form of a title deed, and secondly, to be used as a supporting document in a ḳāżī court to which they would have brought their case were they dissatisfied with the French ambassador’s verdict. Land-related issues, be it registration, transfer, sale, donation, confiscation, etc, was to be documented at the local kadı court, therefore, it would be the logical place to go in order to appeal a decision relating to a land easement. While the Ottoman courts would not interfere with the jurisdiction of the ambassador in cases between Latins, it did have the authority to overrule his decision relating to land in the Ottoman domain.687

685 The fetva is contained in AMCC, Series V: Billets et fetfas de divers Muphtis; letters de Caratch, the whole series of which will be analysed in the following subsection of the current thesis PART III, 3.e. Fetvas from St. Louis of the French. 686 The original Ottoman fetva is not extant, all that remains is the French translation. Archives of the Capuchin Fraternity of the Paris Region, Series V, doc. 11. 687 Similar in the case of the jurisdiction of ambassadors and consuls from other nations, Fleet, “Turkish- Latin Diplomatic Relations,” 607; Maurits H. van den Boogert, “Consular Jurisdiction in the Ottoman Legal System in the Eighteenth Century,” Oriente Moderno 22, no. 3 (2003): 617-612.

160

d.ii.vi. Judgment

The final judgment was given by the chargé d’affaires, Jean François Roboly, on 3 January 1665 at the French chancellery where he gathered the two parties to the case. After reviewing the evidence and details of both the claimants and defendants, he ruled that the evidence presented by the Capuchins overrode the Jesuits’ claim to right of way. Further to his ruling, Roboly clarified that in spite of the proximity of the two properties, the Capuchins were the closest to their friary and to the French embassy in front of Faustina Bon’s property which had recently been acquired under the name of the chargé d’affaires. The Jesuits’ property, which previously belonged to Sebastian Salvago, and was acquired for them under the name of Louis Fousibée in his capacity as a dragoman for the French nation and shortly afterwards, under the name of Jean Bernard, the royal apothecary of the city. The chargé d’affaires also highlighted the fact that the partition from the door in the possession of the Jesuits was not positioned in a straight line across to the partition of the Capuchins to the Topḫāne road as it should have been and was therefore detrimental to the Capuchins’ proprietary interests. As a result, a promise was obtained from the Jesuits to align it with the said road while the Capuchins would secure their partition by adding masonry to their side. The ruling concluded with an agreement by the Capuchins and Jesuits promising to neither contravene the judicial order nor have another dispute concerning the said house and path.688 The Jesuits’ half of the property, consisting of the house, lower courtyard and garden, was eventually sold to the Capuchins in 1672 as a contribution to the hospice properties of the latter friars.689 It was bought for a sum of 600 piastres as detailed in a receipt issued by the French chancellery of the French embassy during the ambassadorship of Charles Marie François Olier, marquis de Nointel for the payment of 400 piastres owed to the Jesuits.690

688 In another document with the same catalogue reference, a review of the judgement is presented with additional points. Its author is not stated but it is written in Italian and in handwriting different from the ruling in French. It opens with the judgement that the ḥüccet of 1609 was “very obscure” and from it, one was unable to ascertain the following points: why the door attached to the wall of the French embassy would have been given; that the door does not have a wall nor a fence; that it does not belong to the part owned by Pandeli which opens onto the lower courtyard, but in the part belonging to Domenico; while it states that the door opening onto the public road is big enough to fit a beast of burden trhoug it, it does not specify the exact size. AMCC, Series F, doc. 51; 689 Ibid., doc. 52, dated 19 April 1673. Original document not extant in AMCC archives. 690 Ibid., doc. 54, dated 1 August 1673.

161

d.ii.vii. Conclusion The above two cases demonstrate that cases involving zimmīs v. müsteʾmin and müsteʾmin v. müsteʾmin were brought before the ambassador who possessed the jurisdiction to pass judgement. Yetö müsteʾmins had the option of dealing with more than one jurisdiction. Juliette Dumas has shown that cases of litigation against the French ambassador by foreign Christian merchants were brought to the şerʿī courts to be tried by the ḳāżī; in more complicated cases brought before the ambassador by müsteʾmins, the former might petition the Sublime Porte for a ruling by the Imperial Council.691 As can be observed above, ḥüccets were issued by şerʿī courts to non-Muslim Ottoman subjects as well as foreigners for issues involving proprety possession and property rights. They were also issued to foreign merchants, and those linked to the embassies if engaging in trade and legal business upon their registration with the local ḳāżī.692 Ḥüccets proved to be important documentary evidence for the holder in the event of a dispute.

e. Fetvas from St. Louis of the French This section aims to present the differing themes of the fourteen fetvas contained within the archive of St. Louis of the French through their translation and analysis in order to understand their wider applicability to the property problems experienced by Istanbul’s Latin Catholic religious orders in addition to providing contextualisation for the property disputes particular to the Capuchins and Dominicans.693 The subject matter is as follows: renting at the market price; the validity of contracts of sale; a donation; unjust court sentencing; the demolition of a church located near a mosque; rights of Christian worship within the private space; re-litigation; right of way; the reconstruction of a church; the loss of title deeds. The fetvas are comprised of original documents, written in Ottoman taʿlīḳ script on small rectangular pieces of paper measuring 20cm by 10cm with two parallel folds. All of the fetvas contain the following components: an invocation; a question; a brief “yes” (olūr) or “no” (olmāz) for the decision preceded with “the answer” (el-cevāb) and end with the expression “God knows best” (Allahu aʿlem); the müftī’s name; a signature accompanied by an expression

691 Juliette Dumas, ““Müsteʾmin” Dealing with the Ottoman Justice: Role and Strategy of the Ambassador,” Oriente Moderno 93, no. 2 (2013): 485-486, 490-491. 692 Panaite, “French Capitulations and Consular Jurisdiction,” 82. 693 AMCC, Series V, docs. 2-14.

162 of modesty; and an exhortation for God’s forgiveness.694 However, the documents do not show the sources on which the fetvas were based, they are not dated nor are they stamped with a seal. While the French translation is written on the back of each document, they are not accompanied by explanatory literature in either Ottoman Turkish or French concerning their date or place of issue. Likewise, there are no explanatory notes in the archive catalogue within the series index or in the introduction, unlike documents from other Series for which a date is usually provided. Nevertheless, the issue date of the fetvas can be estimated to be the first half of the seventeenth century, as observed by Geneviève Thibault.695 In a letter to Mr. d’Andrezel dated 1719 soon after his arrival in Istanbul, Fr. Hyacinth mentioned his request to the French ambassador for a fetva due to the recent construction of a mosque near a church on the Aegean island of Chios.696 The fetva issued is among those contained within the series of fourteen: “…quelques jours avant de partir, je priay Monsieur l’ambassadeur de faire demander de sa part un fetwa au Grand Müftī; pour savoir s’il est permis aux puissances de démolir une église chrétienne sous prétexte qu’elle est voisine d’une mosquée. Je savais que cela n’était pas permis. Je m’en étais informé par des gens de loy que j’avais fait consulter; mais j’avais besoin d’avoir cette décision par écrit et je n’avais pas pu me la faire expédier.”697 Therefore, it is probable the the fetvas were sought by the French ambassador on behalf of the Capuchins and their properties at either the request by the friars themselves or by their gardien in Paris.698 The fetvas are answered and signed by three different müftīs: ʿAtāullah, ʿAbdullah and Feyzullah. Only their first names appear on the documents. Their signatures are preceded by an adjective which denotes their humility, i.e. “the poor” (el-faḳīr),699 and are followed by the supplication “may he be pardoned [i.e. by God]” (ʿufiya ʿanhu), in the hope of securing divine for any error committed in the issuing of legal opinions. It is difficult to ascertain the rank of the three müftīs who issued the fetvas due to the lack of any mention of their locality, position, or their full names. Since the documents, which are located in Paris within the archives

694 For a detailed explanation of the etymology, components, legal weight, and impact of fetvas see PART II of this dissertation. 695 Thibault, in her PhD thesis, estimates that the fetvas date from the first forty years of the eighteenth century in “Les Archives,” 144, 146. 696 AMCC, Series M: Papiers retrouvés et concernant les missions de Grèce et d’Asie dont: Chio, Smyrne, archipel, doc. 38, fol. 16. 697 Ibid., doc. 38, fol. 15. 698 It was not uncommon for French ambassadors to seek such Islamic responsa, such as Francois Savary de Breves composed a guidebook containing among other Ottoman documents twenty-two fetvas issued by several contemporary şeyhülislāms. Panaite, “French Capitulations and Consular Jurisdiction,” 71- 87. 699 This term is used interchangeably with “wretched” (haḳīr) in fetva literature and can be understood as connoting a “poor” , in the sense of being filled with humility and piety.

163 of the Capuchin Fraternity of the Paris Region, were originally housed within the archives of the church of St. Louis of the French in Istanbul, it can be assumed that the fetva questions were presented by someone affiliated to the church or its religious order for the purpose of obtaining favourable legal opinions on issues which directly affected the church and its properties, ranging from property ownership to the loss of title deeds. Since the church was located within the Ottoman capital, it can be assumed that these fetvas were presented to the müftīs locally. A subject of primary significance for the ecclesiastical properties was the historical claim of religious orders over first and foremost, questions related to land, and secondly, churches and affiliated properties which were in their possession ab antiquo. A juridical opinion on the latter is given by Müftī Abdullah who grants recognition to the religious order’s claim: Question: If a noble mosque is newly built near a church located in a town ab antiquo, can the congregation of the said mosque demolish the aforementioned church on the claim that it is merely near the mosque? Answer: No.700

Such a fetva alludes to the changing demographics of an area which results in the construction of places of worship to serve the religion of the sovereign rulers. The construction of a new mosque in a location containing a historical church is suggestive of the encroachment of Islam into a traditionally Christian space. Moreover, the fact that the new mosque has been built in close proximity to the church suggests that space is limited. While the name of the belde (which can be translated as either town or city) has been omitted due to the general nature of fetva questions, Fr. Hyacinth’s abovementioned letter is indicative that it was Chios. Yet, the characteristics of this location also resemble those of Pera, where the Church of St. Louis of the French was situated. From the time of the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople, the construction of mosques and the conversion of churches can be attributed to the natural demographic changes within the city.701 The increase in the Muslim population resulted in pressure on existing resources and competition for space. It is only natural that the Capuchin friars would wish to ensure the preservation of their sacred space by obtaining a favourable legal opinion which secured their

700 Original Ottoman Turkish: “Bir beldede vākī ḳadīmī bir kenīsenin ḳurbunda müceddeden bir cāmiʿ- i şerīf bināʾ olunsa, cāmiʿ-i mezbūr cemaʿāti kenīse-i mezbūre mucerred cāmiʿye ḳarībdir deyu kenīseyi hadme ḳādir olurlar mi? El-cevab: Olmāzlar.” AMCC, Series V, doc. 7. 701 Ömer L. Barkan and Ekrem H. Ayverdi, İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrir Defteri 953 (1546) Tarihli, Istanbul: Baha Matbaası, 1970, p. xi.

164 property, regardless of where it was located within Ottoman territories. This is once again demonstrative of the use of the Ottoman Islamic infrastructure by non-Muslims through the juridical authority in an attempt to validate an action or a fact on property law. A second fetva, this one by Müftī Feyzullah, reinforces the aforesaid legal opinion in terms of recognising the Church’s historical claim over its land: Upon the dilapidation of a church located in a city ab antiquo, the church of this infidel city was rebuilt without additions based on it having existed before the Ottoman conquest. Can Zeyd, a local government official, say, “I will demolish the church merely because it was rebuilt?” The answer: No.702

The legal opinion recognises the right of Christians to rebuild and/or renovate old churches without interference by the state. The reconstruction of totally destroyed or dilapidated church properties was allowed on the basis that buildings are not eternal and succumb to damage by natural disasters and the elements. In an area of high urban density like Pera, churches were frequently falling victim to the constant conflagrations which spread through the wooden buildings which predominated the urban landscape. Therefore, the need for the repair or reconstruction of the Church of St. Louis of the French was a valid concern and the right to undertake such work was sought at one level through the legal opinion of the müftī, and at another through imperial edicts issued by the reigning sultan, often aided by the intervention of the ambassador of France as the protector of the churches and properties in Ottoman lands.703 Furthermore, permission to reconstruct places of Christian worship could be used to the advantage of the religious orders, such as in the case of the construction of the official church of St. Louis of the French. A third fetva given by Müftī Abdullah treats the theme of freedom of Christian worship within the private space of the home as follows:

702 Original Ottoman Turkish: “Bir beldede olan kenīse-i ḳadīme ḫarāb oldukta ol belde keferesi kenīseyi vażʿ-i ḳadīmī üzere taʿmīr edüp nesne ziyāde eylemeseler ehl-i ʿurf ṭāifesinden Zeyd mücerred taʿmīr etmekle kenīseyi hedm ederim demekle ḳādir olur mu? El-cevāb: olmāz.” AMCC, Series V, doc. 12. 703 While the judicial role of the French ambassador has been treated above, the diplomatic one and its employment by the religious orders in the protection of their ecclesiastical properties will be presented in detail in Part IV of the current thesis.

165

If Zeyd, from the local executive officials,704 arrests Amr the ẓimmī saying “you lit a candle and read the Bible in your house”, can he [Zeyd] demand a pecuniary fine from Amr due to the misdemeanor? The answer: No.705

According to Islamic legal doctrine, a public show of worship by ẓimmīs, such as ceremonial processions and the ringing of bells, was prohibited. Rather, all rituals and were to be practiced within the privacy of the church.706 Although private residences were defined as private space, their use for communal liturgies and the practicing of rites officially by the priests was likewise prohibited. The Ottoman authorities ensured compliance with these prohibitions through a policy of the seizure of such properties and the reversion of their ownership to the state treasury. As noted in Part II, one such incident occurred in May and June 1662, during which twelve private properties belonging to Christian residents of Galata were seized by the authorities. The justification behind such a measure was that “infidelity, and error” were taking place within the residences which they claimed were being used for the practice of Christian rites.707 The above-mentioned fetva however, provides a legal basis sanctioning personal Christian worship within a private residence without incurring the most minor of punishments or any harsher measures such as confiscation.

Several of the fetvas in this series provide rulings on issues directly related to the two case studies relating to property problems experienced by the Capuchin friars in Istanbul. One fetva issued by Müftī Yaḥyā pertaining to a right of way reflects the abovementioned property conflict between the Capuchins and Jesuits as mentioned above.708 Three other fetvas reflect answers to the first more complex property dispute between the Capuchin friars and the French dragoman Fouzibée mentioned above. The first pertains to the loss of title deeds and is issued by Müftī Abdullah: “Zeyd loses his title deeds (ḥücec ve temessukāt) for the possession of his real properties and Amr subsequently seizes the properties

704 The term elh-i ʿörf refers to local representatives who carried out the sultan’s orders, the word ʿörf connoting both customary law and a component of imperial law. Whereas, in Ottoman , ʿörf was synonomous with siyāsa (penal punishments). On the concept of ʿörf, see Akman, “Örf: Osmanlı Devletinde”, 87-94. 705 Original Ottoman Turkish: “Elh-i ʿörf ṭāifesinden Zeyd ʿAmr zimmīyi aḫẕ edup sen menzilinde kendil yakup İngil okurmuşsun deyu ʿAmr’den cerīme nāmına nesne almağa ḳādir olur mu? El-cevāb: olmāz.” AMCC, Series V, doc. 8. 706 Ibn ‘Ābidīn, Ḥāshiyat Radd al-Mukhtār, 3:272. 707 İŞS, 10, fol. 156b, 9 May 1662. 708 AMCC, Series V, doc. 11. Original Ottoman Turkish document not extant in the archives, only the French translation remains.

166 without right. When Zeyd proves his lawsuit against Amr for those properties and wants to retake them with a court order, can Amr say “until you find and bring the title deeds I will not give them to you”? The answer: No.”709 The second applies to the cancellation of a contract following a mistaken sale and was issued by Müftī Ataullah: “Is a sale and delivery made under duress valid and binding according to the law? The answer: No.”710 The third regards the cancellation of a sale contract: “After the sale and delivery of Zeyd’s freehold land to Amr for an agreed sum, Zeyd stated that the said sale took place by cheating and overcharging. If he proves the claim, cheating and overcharging, can the sale be rescinded? The answer: Yes.”711

The remainder of the fetvas deal with wider, but no less significant, issues experienced by the Capuchins in relation to their proprieties: donations and unjust verdicts. Donations were important sources for the acquisition of new buildings and the expansion of plots of land. Properties from donation could be subject to dispute, it was therefore useful to have a legal opinion which could be used in court, such as the following by Mūftī Abdullah treating the subject of the death of a donor before delivery of possession has been carried out: “Zeyd donated to Amr of a certain quantity of effects. If Zeyd were to subsequently die712 before delivery [of possession] and reception, is the said donation null and void? The answer: Yes.”713 This legal opinion corresponds to the agreed upon position in the Hanafi school regarding the voiding of a gift of tangible property which has not been taken possession of by the recipient before the donor’s death, unless it was a testamentary gift. In the former case the gifted property

709 Original Ottoman Turkish: “Zeyd mülk ‘akarlarının ḥücec ve temessukātini ẓāī‘ edüp ba‘dehu ol ‘aḳārları Amr tağallüb bi ğayr-i ḥaḳḳin żabṭ edüp, Zeyd Amr’den ol ‘aḳārları daʿva ve iḳāmeti beyyine [delil] etmekle [ettigin zaman] ḥukm-i ḳāẓі ile Amr’den ‘aḳārlarını almak istedikte Amr ḥücec ve temessukāti bulup getirmedikçe vermem demeğe ḳādir olur mu? El-cevāb: olmāz.” Ibid., doc. 14. 710 Original Ottoman Turkish: “Ikrāh-i mu‘teber ile olan bey‘ ve teslīm şer‘an ṣahīḥ ve mu‘teber olur mu? El-cevāb: olmaz.” Ibid., doc. 3. 711 Original Ottoman Turkish: “Zeyd mülk ‘arżesini ‘Amr’a semen-i ma‘lūma beyʿ ve teslīm etikten sonra Zeyd bey‘-i mezbūr tağrīr ve ğabn-i fāḥiş ile olmuş idi deyu daʿva ve tağrīr ve ğabn-i fāḥişi isbāt edicek bey‘i fesḫe ḳādir olur mu? El-cevāb: olur.” Ibid., doc. 4. 712 Fevt olmak is the Ottoman verb used here for dying. This verb, along with halāk etmek and adverbs such as hālik and müteveffā to indicate the deceased, were specific to non-Muslims and were standard vocabulary in use thoughout Ottoman documents. Najwa al-Qattan’s insightful research on the discriminatory language used in the Damascus sijills from 1775 to 1865, which were in Arabic, shows similar results. Najwa al-Qattan, “Textual Differentiation in the Damascus Sijill: Religious Discrimination or Politics of Gender?” in ed. Amira El Azhary Sonbol, Women, the Family, and Divorce Laws in Islamic History (Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1996), 194-198. 713 Original Ottoman Turkish: “Zeyd şu ḳadār eşyāʾsini ʿAmr’da hibe edip ba‘dehu teslīm ve ḳabż bulunmadığın Zeyd fevt olsa hibe-yi mezbūre bāṭila olur mu. El-cevāb: olur.” AMCC, Series V, doc. 5.

167 would have returned to the donor’s estate. Unjust sentencing encapsulating three separate areas including sentencing contrary to the şerīʿat, the rehearing of lawsuits, altering a sentence at a rehearing, and the lack of opportunity for the defence.

In a lawsuit related to a matter between Zeyd and ʿAmr, upon [ḳāżī] Bekir having the case tried, Bekir sentences Amr in contravention of the canonical law of Islam when it is established that Zeyd is in the right. If he [Bekir] gives legal justification, can the sentence be carried out and is the justification valid? The answer: No.714 Once a decision and a sentence and a legal justification has occurred with the canonical law of Islam, is it lawful for the [suit] be heard again? The answer: No. In this manner, the ḳāżī rehears the said lawsuit and rules contrary to the first sentence. If he gives legal justification, can the sentence be carried out and is the justification valid? The answer: No.715 Zeyd filed a lawsuit against Amr for a certain amount of aḳçes and took the case to court. While ʿAmr had indeed not prepared his procurator, the judge ruled the said amount in Zeyd’s favour with witness statements of some individuals to the claim. If he gives legal justification, can the sentence be carried out and is the justification valid? The answer: No.716

These fetvas offer Ottoman juridical answers to property issues experienced internally within the Latin Catholic community. Interestingly, some of the issues addressed among this series of fourteen fetvas concerns the above-mentioned property conflict of the Dominican friars of St. Peter in Galata, as dealt with above.717 Others could be applicable to either religious order, Capuchins or Dominicans, notably the subject of re-litigation. It was also significant for the friars to ensure the prevention of the retrial of individuals who dealt with their properties on their behalf. Following the

714 Original Ottoman Turkish: “Zeyd ʿAmr ile bir ḫuṣūṣa müteʿalliḳa daʿvāsında Bekir ḳāżīya murāfeʿa olduḳta hakk Zeydin yedinde idiği sābit iken Bekir ḫuṣūṣ-u mezbūru ḫilāf-i şerʿ Amr’a ḥükm edip ḥüccet verse ḥükmü nāfiz ve ḥücceti muʿteber olur mu? El-cevab: Olmāz.” Ibid., doc. 6. 715 Original Ottoman Turkish: “Bir defaʿ [kere] şerʿle faṣl ve ḥukm ve ḥüccet olunsa daʿvānin tekrār istimāʿyi [in today’s Turkish the ending would bi ‘si’ = istimasi] cāiz olur mu? El-cevāb: Olmāz. Bu ṣūrette Zeyd ḳāżī daʿvā-yı mezbūreyi tekrār istimāʿ ve ḥukm evvelin ḫilāfina ḥukm edip ḥüccet verse ḥükmü nāfiz ve ḥücceti muʿteber olur mu? El-cevāb: Olmāz.” Ibid., doc. 10. 716 Original Ottoman Turkish: “Zeyd’in ʿAmr ile şu ḳadar aḳçeye müteʿalliḳa daʿvası olmağla Zeyd ḳāżīya varup Amr yā vekīli ḥażir değil iken meblağ-i mezbūru daʿva ve mudaʾsına baʿżi kimesneler sehadet etmeleriyle ḳāżī meblağ-i merḳūmu Zeyd’e ḥükm edip ḥüccet verse ḥükmü nāfiz ve ḥücceti muʾtabere olur mu? El-cevāb: olmāz.” Ibid., doc. 13. 717 Ibid., doc. 2.

168 absolution of David Maggi from the claims of exchange (istibdāl) carried out without permission and financial wrongdoing to the vaḳıf of the deceased Süleyman Ağa, or the rejection of the Jesuits’ claims to right of way over the Capuchins’ land for example, an authoritative legal opinion as a preventative measure against re-litigation would have been most beneficial. The following fetva provides this: “After ʿAmr was proven innocent concerning a case between Zeyd and ʿAmr, can Zeyd litigate ʿAmr for the said matter? The answer: No”,718 reflecting the Islamic legal principle that once the defendant has absolved himself from a charge, a case cannot be reopened against him/her, regardless of the case subject.

f. Conclusion While St. Louis of the French still remains in use today, the many trials undergone during efforts for the establishment of a new Latin Catholic place of worship is demonstrative of the difficulties in circumnavigating the rules governing the construction of new churches in Ottoman law, regardless of the persistent negotiations on the part of the French ambassadors. It has also been shown how the Capuchins did not only face challenges to their property rights by the Ottoman state but also by the Latin lay community and even by religious communities of the same denomination. Yet some questions remain: What was the classification of the grounds of the embassy? Was the embassy territory considered to be sovereign territory enjoying diplomatic immunity and inviolability? What the documents do confirm is that there was extraterritorial ambassadorial jurisdiction. Furthermore, extraterritorial rights enjoyed by foreigners in the form of the appointment of a governor (bailo, consul) for the administration and governance of justice to the subjects of their respective nation, i.e. ambassadorial and consular jurisdiction was also laid out in articles of the capitulations.719 As shown in the two case studies above, in the Ottoman capital, this jurisdiction lay with the ambassador and chargé d’affaires and was deemed absolute without the complication of interference by the local ḳāżī.

718 Original Ottoman Turkish: “Zeyd Amr ile bir ḫuṣūṣa müteʿalliḳa daʿvāsindan ʿAmr’i ibrāʾ etiktan ṣonra Zeyd ḫuṣūṣu mezbūru ʿAmr’dan daʿvāyı ḳādir olur mu? El-cevāb: Olmāz.” Ibid., doc. 9. 719 Article 24 of the 1597 Capitulation.

169

4. Understanding the Latin Catholic Ecclesiastical vaḳıf a. Introduction The Ottoman Empire, which spread over three continents, comprised the members of the three monotheistic religions, more than twenty religious sects and an equal number of ethnic groups. Moreover, the Christians present were comprised of numerous denominations, including Orthodox, Armenian, Assyrian, Maronite, Protestant and Catholic, with the latter being divided into Roman, Greek, Armenian, and Chaldean. The Christian denominations that predominated in the capital of the Empire were three: Greek Orthodox, Armenian and Roman Catholic, all of which founded vaḳıfs at certain periods in Istanbul as well as in other locations throughout the Empire. While the phenomena of vaḳıfs of the two former denominations have been researched in some detail in relation to Ottoman legal doctrine and practice, those of the latter remain widely unstudied. This section attempts to shed light on the Latin Catholic vaḳıf by firstly examining it within the wider context of the Christian vaḳıf, its definition and its validity according to Islamic legal doctrine and Ottoman legal practice. After this, the particular situation of certain ecclesiastical properties in the Ottoman capital. The narrow reach of the latter should be emphasised, due to the restriction and prohibitions on accessing church archives other than those of the Dominicans of SS Peter and Paul and the Capuchins of St. Louis of the French.

b. The meaning of Christian vaḳıf720 The precise meaning of the term vaḳıf as a reference to ecclesiastical endowments has been debated. Ahmet Akgündüz presents the relied upon Hanafi legal position that considers the definition of a valid Christian vaḳıf as one which is the endowment of property to a church as long as its proceeds are for the common good (ḳurbet) such as for poor ẕimmīs;721 Alexandar Fotić, likewise, considers the term to refer to every endowment regardless of the religious

720 It is worth highlighting two points: First, Islamic law does not distinguish between vaḳıfs of Jews and Christians or Christian denominations, moreover, in the Ottoman documents, the term kenīse is used to denote both church and synagogue. This term, derived from Arabic kanīsah, is also used to denote both religions’ places of worship linguistically and in terms of jurisprudence, Ibn ‘Ābidīn, Hāshiyat, 3: 271; Zaydān, Aḥkām, 229. Second, the term “Christian vaḳıf” is used here to refer to vaḳıfs founded by Christians for the benefit of Christians of zimmī status, i.e. who were Ottoman subjects. However, those who held the status of müsteʾmen were legally allowed to found vaḳıfs but not to benefit from them according to the consensus of the three major Sunni schools of law with the exception of the Shafʿis who considered vaḳıfs endowed for the benefit of müsteʾmens as valid. Zaydān, Aḥkām, 429. 721 Akgündüz, Vakıf Müessesesi, 172-4.

170 affiliations of its founder;722 Eugenia Kermeli does not consider them to constitute the charitable category (ḫayrī) because of their lack of the element of ḳurbet.723 On the other hand, in her study on the Maronite vaḳıfs of Lebanon, Sabine Saliba has shown them to be not only of the charitable (ḫayrī) kind but also semi-familial (ahlī) providing financial support for monks and nuns outside of the immediate family.724 Furthermore, Van Leeuwen argues that in Hanafite jurisprudence, the prescriptions concerning vaḳıfs founded by Christians do not fundamentally differ from their Muslim counterparts, with the poor constituting the beneficiary of the vaḳıf.725 Vaḳıf could also be understood in the more general sense of a donation which, in legal terms, it essentially was insofar as being a self-governing, defined charitable object donated in perpetuity. Undoubtedly, the Christian vaḳıf’s main elements resemble that of the Muslim vaḳıf, such as the timeframe of perpetuity in exchange for the fulfilment of certain conditions, the complete transfer of property and the inalienable character of the endowed property.726 Nevertheless, Eugenia Balta highlights the fact that a monastic vaḳıf was, in its nature, distinct from a Muslim vaḳıf in the early years following the conquest since it lacked a vaḳıfnāme or property that was defined and protected in perpetuity and was even derived from an invalid mülk.727 Therefore, the meaning of Christian vaḳıf can vary from a strict legal interpretation comprehending all the elements and characteristics of a Muslim vaḳıf to a broader interpretation which encapsulated an endowed property for philanthropic purposes.

722 Fotić, ‘The Official explanations,” 43. 723 Eugenia Kermeli, “Ebū’s Su’ūd’s Definitions of Church vaḳfs: Theory and Practice in Ottoman Law”, Islamic Law: Theory and Practice, ed. Robert Gleave (London & New York: I. B. Tauris, 1997), 142. 724 Sabine Mohasseb Saliba, Les monastères maronites doubles du Liban (Lebanon: Pusek, 2008), 175- 203. 725 Richard Van Leeuwen, Notables and Clergy in : The Khazin Sheikhs and the , 1736-1840 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 30; Richard Van Leeuwen, “The Maronite Waqf of Dayr Sayyidat Bkirkī in Mount Lebanon durint the 18th century” Le waqf dans l’espace islamique. Outil de pouvoir socio-politique, ed. Randi Deguilhem (Damascus: Institut Français de Damas, 1995), 259- 275 as well as Zouhair Ghazzal, “Lecture d’un waqf maronite du mont Liban au XIXe siècle”, in Ibid., 101-120. 726 In his study on vaḳıfs in Albania, Gilles de Rapper reveals that the designation vaḳıf was multi- relıgious and had evolved to be refer to a variety of property in additon to pious foundation, such as sacred spaces and Christian places of worship known for their healing power. Giles de Rapper, “Vakëf: Lieux Partagés du Religieux en Albanie,” in Religions traversées. Lieux saints partagés entre chrétiens, musulmans et juifs en Méditerranée, eds. Dionigi Albera and Maria Couroucli, 53-83 (Arles: Études méditerranéennes, 2009). 727 Evangelia Balta, Les Vakifs de Serrès et de sa Région (XVe et XVIe s.) (Athens: Centre de Recherches Néo-Helléniques, 1995), 197.

171

Due to the differing interpretations of the exact meaning of Christian vaḳıf, its legal definition should not be used as an inflexible framework within which to understand its legal application during the Ottoman era. As will be noted below, a uniform legal practice in relation to Christian vaḳıfs did not exist, rather, state policy towards ecclesiastical properties seemed at times erratic if not contextualised according to specific political, economic and social circumstances of the time. One of the reasons for a lack of uniformity was the lack of a standardised legal position in the ʿahdnāmes that were contracted with the Christian populations whose lands were conquered peacefully by the Ottomans. As noted by Eugenia Kermeli “Although these [non-Muslim] vaḳfs were indeed tolerated in the Empire and efforts were made to accommodate them, they never came under the umbrella of specific privileges given to the ẕimmīs by the Ottoman administration”.728 Yet, could endowments be considered privileges at all since their existence was sanctioned in fetvas?

c. Christian vaḳıfs according to Islamic legal doctrine Similar to vaḳıfs endowed by Muslims, vaḳıfs endowed by Christians could be categorised as vaḳıf ahlī and vaḳıf ḫayrī. The former was permissible if endowed to family who were ẕimmīs and transferred to the poor and needy upon their extinction.729 Yet, what is of concern here is the debates surrounding the latter. According to the majority opinion in the Hanafi legal school, church vaḳıfs or ecclesiastical vaḳıfs dedicated to the clergy, ascetics or anything related to the benefit of the Christian religion, such as a bible school, are invalid (bāṭil) because they do not constitute ḳurba according to the Islamic legal definition of the word, unless the proceeds went towards something considered as such, for example, the poor.730 In that case, the vaḳıf would be valid (ṣaḥīḥ).731 In practice, the biographer Muhammad Ibn Saʿd (d. 844) reported that Caliph ‘Umar II authorized vaḳıfs for the benefit of churches. However, Michael the Syrian reported the contrary, that the caliph was the first to prohibit them.732 A vaḳıf endowed by a ẕimmī that is valid is bound by the same conditions as that of a Muslim.

728 Kermeli, “Ebū’s Su’ūd’s Definitions,” 145. 729 Abū Bakr Aḥmad Ibn Amr al-Shaybānī, Aḥkām al-Awqāf (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, 1999), 291. 730 Ibn ‘Ābidīn, Ḥāshiyat, 3: 36; al-Shaybānī, Aḥkām al-Awqāf, 288; Zaydān, Aḥkām, 486-487; Ibn Nujaym, al-Baḥr al-Rā’iq, 5: 204; Ibn al-Humām, Sharḥ, 5: 38. 731 al-Shaybānī, Aḥkām al-Awqāf, 287. 732 Fattal, Le Statut Légal, 143.

172

Being a Muslim was not a necessary condition for the creation of a vaḳıf, nor was it necessary that the endowers be a subject of a Muslim state. Thus, müsteʾmins have the right to endow property/possessions that they bought in Muslim lands regardless of whether they choose to settle in them or return to non-Mulsim lands (dāru’l-ḥarb) because the same rules apply to them as ẓimmīs with regards to vaḳıfs.733 It was also valid for a non-Muslim to endow property to benefit Muslims, such as the poor.734 However, it was impermissible for a non- Muslim to endow their property as a mosque just as it was impermissible for a Muslim to endow a property to a church because it was not ḳurba in itself according to each religion, just like it would not be permissible to bequeath funds for the building of such places of worship following death.735 Such a testimony will be considered invalid and the protery in question will be divided among his/her inheritors upon the endower’s death, unlike a vaḳıf which is bequeathed in perpetuity.

c.i. Rules on existing vaḳıfs at the time of the Islamic conquest According to Islamic law, Christian ecclesiastical properties, namely, churches, monasteries and their affiliated properties were granted protection by the ruler. Likewise, monks/friars were left undisturbed during the holy war and were granted tax exemption for a temporary period following the cessation of the war. In lands conquered by the Ottomans with existing foundations, their rights were recognised through edicts. Non-Muslim vaḳıfs were not allowed to acquire land or immovable assets, but rather covered their costs through the allocation of lands or immovable by the sultan through imperial edicts. A mülknāme was a precondition for the transformation of private property (mülk) into vaḳıf: “There is one exception to this [the invalidity of a non-Muslim endowment]; that is, it was possible to own by means of a valid ownership according to şerʽī rules and if a mülknāme-i hümayūn was given to the owner (mālik), then it could be endowed and recognised as valid.”736 Nevertheless, such legal documents did not grant them complete immunity as Christian churches and convents

733 al-Shaybānī, Aḥkām al-Awqāf, 284; Hilmi, Ahkâm-il Evkaf, 56; Ali Haydar Efendi, Tertibüs-Sunûf Fi Ahkâmil-Vukûf (Istanbul, 1919), 352; Ömer Nasuhi Bilmen, Hukuk-u İslamiye Ve İstilâhât-ı Fıkhiye Kamusu (Istanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi, 1949), 4:361. 734 al-Shaybānī, Aḥkām al-Awqāf, 287; Hilmi, Ahkâm-il Evkaf, 57; Haydar, Tertibüs-Sunûf, 324, 332; Bilmen, İstilâhât-ı Fıkhiye, 4:361. 735 al-Shaybānī, Aḥkām al-Awqāf, 288. 736 Akgündüz, Vakıf Müessesesi, 447 note 107.

173 that were in close proximity to mosques could be appropriated by the state and either destroyed or converted into a space for Muslim use.737

c.ii. Rules on the creation of new vaḳıfs The following difficulties arose in the foundation of new Christian vaḳıfs: 1. Agricultural lands classified as mīrī (public/communal) land were considered the property of the public treasury. The sultan’s permission was required for the allocation of such land to vaḳıfs. However, the income of agricultural land could not be allocated to non-Muslim vaḳıfs. Nevertheless, non-Muslims were entitled to property rights on residential lands. 2. Difficulties arose in obtaining a registration decision from a şerʽī court for the establishment of an endowment. 3. The condition of ḳurba could not be met for non-Muslim ecclesiastical foundations or anything benefiting the religious orders and clergy.738 In spite of these difficulties and restrictions, Christian endowments of various denominations continued to be founded throughout the Ottoman Empire. As will be treated below, those wishing to endow properties for the benefit of Christians or the Christian religion achieved this by using certain legal mechanisms within the Ottoman system or by circumventing established rules to create new and novel practices.

d. Christian vaḳıfs according to Ottoman legal practice Ottoman policy towards ecclesiatical property at the time of the Ottoman conquest of Istanbul in 1453 was executed within the framework of Ottoman imperial and religious law (ḳānūn and şerīʿat), and more specifically, within the legal doctrine of the Hanafi School of law, which was prefered in the Ottoman Empire.739 Vaḳıfs in the Ottoman Empire were traditionally classified under three categories: evḳāf-ı ḳadīme, those transferred from previous Islamic states; evḳāf-ı irsādiye, by the assignment of state (mīrī) land; and evḳāf-ı ṣaḥīḥa-ı

737 Ahmet Refik, Onuncu Asr-ı Hicri’de İstanbul Hayatı (1495-1591) (Istanbul: Enderun Kitabevi, 1988), 44-45. 738 Akgündüz, Vakıf Müessesesi, 457. 739 The government adopted the Hanafi doctrine as the official one in the mid-sixteenth century. Prior to this, the Ottomans tended to prefer it but not officially, thereby recognising judges from other legal schools even in the Balkans and Anatolia.

174 lāzime, which were established by an individual from his/her own private property.740 Vaḳıfs, in terms of ownership, (mülkiyet) were divided into: ṣaḥīḥ, irsād-ı ṣaḥīḥ and irsād ğayr-ı ṣaḥīḥ. According to Islamic legal doctrine, non-Muslim vaḳıfs were not permitted to acquire real estate, since minority vaḳıfs were not considered to be legal entities and, therefore, there was often no record of the acquisition of property.741 Nevertheless, in practice, the founders and administrators of non-Muslim vaḳıfs circumvented this restriction by two methods: Firstly, in order for the non-Muslim vaḳıf to own property, it had to establish the vaḳıfs with land donated by the sultan (i.e. mīrī land), or in the case where the vaḳıf was to be created out of privately-owned property. Secondly, their immovable properties were registered in the name of a pseudonym such as a member of the community or in a fictitious name, such as that of a saint.742 Numerous studies have shown that the above-mentioned legal doctrine regarding non- Muslim vaḳıfs was fully adopted and implemented in Ottoman legal practice. The vaḳıfs of religious minorities under Ottoman rule were not restricted to specific geographical areas or periods. Rather, they were present and functioning in Anatolia as well as in the Balkan and Arab provinces and the Greek islands under Ottoman rule extending from the early to the late Ottoman period.743 Christian vaḳıf were likewise not restricted to a particular denomination, with studies demonstrating the existence of Greek Orthodox, Maroinite, Armenian and Coptic vaḳıfs on both a large and small scale.744 Studies on Christian vaḳıfs during the early years following the Ottoman conquest of territories have shown that existing ecclesiastical properties were incorporated into the Ottoman administrative and legal system. This was achieved firstly through recognition, and secondly through the adjustment of existing legal practice to accommodate the vaḳıfs. As İnalcık clarified: “[E]specially during the first transition period…[the Ottomans] incorporated the existing military and clerical groups into their own administrative system without discrimination….But the most fundamental and perhaps the

740 For more information about the types of vaḳıfs in the Ottoman Empire, see Nazif Öztürk, Menşe’i ve Tarihi Gelişimi Açısından Vakıflar (Ankara: Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü, 1983), 80-116. For more on the sources, methodological approaches, purposes and types of vaḳıfs in the Ottoma Empire see Randi Deguilhem, “Wakf: Ottoman Empire up to 1914,”, Encyclopedia of Islam (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 87-92. 741 Ali Em, Türk Hukuk Sisteminde Vakıflar, Ankara: Turkan Kitabevi, 2011, p. 39. 742 Ibid. 743 See Sabine Mohasseb Saliba ed., Les fondations pieuses waqf chez les chrétiens et les juifs: Du Moyen Âge à nos jours (Paris: Guenther, 2016). 744 Deguilhem, “The waqf in the city,” 944-947. Saliba, Les fondations pieuses.

175 most effective component of the istiʿmālet policy was, from the beginning, the recognition of the Orthodox church as part of the Ottoman state.”745 Upon the initial conquest of territories, the sultan recognised the privileged status and previous privileges granted to the churches/convents and their immovable properties during the Byzantine era.746 The expansion of such privileges in favour of one , namely the Orthodox, over another, the Roman Catholic, was used as a political card to maintain tensions between the two denominations.747 This recognition necessarily resulted in their accommodation into the administrative and legal systems. Since many of the ecclesiastical properties consisted of landed estates, this meant that they had to be categorised according to Ottoman land law and also for fiscal reasons, as one of three: private (mülk), public (mīrī) or endowment (vaḳıf).748 In the early Ottoman period following the conquest of an area, Christian ecclesiastical properties, were registered as freehold mülk, vaḳıf or even tīmār, as has been shown by Eugenia Balta’s example of the monastery of Saint-Jean Prodrome (known as Margarid) in Serres from the end of the fourteenth to the beginning of the sixteenth century. 749 In numerous studies, E. A. Zachariadou demonstrates that Greek Orthodox monks were granted protection by and audience with the Ottoman sovereigns and the fact that their monasteries and monastic properties were granted legal recognition and even privileges during the Ottoman Empire’s early years.750 Another of her studies reveals that people dedicated land and moveable property to monasteries due to the tax exemptions or privileges the properties received and thus were guaranteed against confiscation due to the good relations between the monks and the conqueror.751 Others guaranteed the security of their landed property by placing

745 İnalcık, “Greek Orthodox Patriarch,” 409-410. 746 Runciman, The Great Church in Captivity, 170-175; Elizabeth A. Zachariadou, “Early Ottoman Documents of the Prodromos Monastery (Serres)” Südost-Forschungen 28 (1969): 3-8. 747 İnalcık, “Greek Population,” 236-7. 748 N.B. Being mülk does not exclude it from being vaḳıf, they both have the characteristic of temlīk (ownership). 749 Balta, Les Vakifs de Serrès, 39, 41-43. 750 Zachariadou, “Early Ottoman documents, 10-11; Elizabeth A. Zachariadou, “Another document of Shehab al-Din Pasha concerning Mount Athos (1455),” Studia Ottomanica 25, no. 1203 (1997): 217- 222. Tom Papademetriou likens the Greek monasteries of Mt. Athos to “the modern Swiss banking system in which individuals can deposit their wealth into an institution that prossessed the greatest possible security.” Papademetriou, Render unto the Sultan, 90. 751 Elizabeth A. Zachariadou, “Some remarks about dedication to monasteries in the late 14th century”, in Mount Athos in the 14th and 15th Centuries, ed. D. D. Komini (Athens: National Research Foundation, Institute of Byzantine Studies, 1997), 30-31.

176 it in the hands of the monks while also deriving an annual income from it through the institution of adelphata.752 Ron Shaham examines the nature of and motives behind the establishment of vaḳıf by Christian and Jewish minorities in Ottoman şerʿī courts in late Ottoman .753 He concludes that their establishment can be attributed to legal obligation as well as practical considerations. As regards the former, the judicial autonomy enjoyed by these non-Muslim religious communities was restricted to certain aspects of personal status law and civil law. They had to have recourse to the state şerʿī courts that had exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to vaḳıfs, which protected them against confiscation by the state. 754 Non-Muslim vaḳıfs in the Ottoman Empire were not restricted to Christians and Jews but included the community, although unlike the former two, Druze vaḳıfs were not established in the şerʽī courts.755 In spite of the application of general laws on Christian vaḳıfs in Ottoman territories, they were still vulnerable to sudden changes in policy, justified by the irāde of the sultan. There were three major incidents of the confiscation of vaḳıf property by decrees of the sultans. The first was during the reign of Sultan Mehmed II, who ordered the widespread confiscation of properties that were defined as gayr-ı saḥīḥ, be they vaḳıf or mülk, and their transformation into timārs during 1486-1515.756 This was justified by arguing that they had been founded on mīrī land and were thus invalid. The deviation from previous policies towards such Christian vaḳıfs can be attributed the sultan’s efforts to increase the economic capital of the empire through timārs.757 The second incident of confiscation of monastic properties took place during the reign of Suleyman I and the third during the reign of Selim II.758 During the latter all monastic

752 Paul Magdalino, “Adelphaton,” in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, ed. Alexander P. Kazhdan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 1:19. 753 For a comprehensive study on minority vaḳıfs in the late Ottoman and Republican periods see Nazif Öztürk, Azınlık Vakıfları (Istanbul: Altınküre Yayınları, 2003); Hasan Güneri, “Azinlik Vakıflarının Incelenmesi,” Vakıflar Dergisi, no. 10 (1973): 79-108. 754 Ron Shaham, “Christian and Jewish “waqf” in Palestine during the Late Ottoman Period,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 54, no. 3 (1991): 467-470. 755 Aharon Layish, “The Druze Testamentary waqf,” Studia Islamica, no. 71 (1990): 128. 756 Lowry, “Privilege and Property,” 119. Özel, “Limits of the Almighty,” 226-246. 757 As Stanford Shaw notes that as a result of the 1553 law on the confiscation of untitled vaḳıfs in Egypt, “some three hundred tax-producing muqata’as” were confiscated by the public treasury and the revenues increased “by over eighty per cent during the last years of the century”. Shaw, “Land Law of Ottoman Egypt,” 116. 758 Alexandar Fotić, “The Official Explanations”; Kermeli, “Confiscation and Repossession,” 39-53; Elias Kolovos, “Christian Influence and the Advent of the Europeans: Negotiating for State Protection: Ciftlik-holding by the Athonite Monasteries (Xeropotamou Monastery, Fifteenth-Sixteenth C.),” in Frontiers of Ottoman Studies, eds. Colin Imber, Keiko Kiyotaki, and Rhoads Murphey (London: I. B. Tauris, 2005), 197-210; John C. Alexander, “The Lord Giveth and the Lord Taketh Away: Athos and

177 property which had not paid tithes and had purchased their properties with falsey acquired document were to revert to the Ottoman state. The “confiscation” crises can be attributed to a need for a large amount of immediate cash or broader legal attempts to bring imperial law (ḳānūn) in line with divine law (şeriʿat). This is well summed up by Tom Papademetriou as follows: “Examining the issue of ecclesiastical administration requires that one consider both its religious and fiscal aspects. The Ottoman approach to the local hierarchs and the church developed in an ad hoc manner according to specific needs of the state. The ambiguity of the state with regard to the bishops and the monasteries led to bishops at one point becoming timariots, and monasteries eventually becoming vaḳıf.”759

d.i Ecclesiastical buildings and land Ownership of the land on which the ecclesiastical properties was built was to determine the legal position surrounding their construction, reparation, destruction, conversion and, most importantly, their endowment. The application of one set of laws to all Ottoman lands was not feasible given their diversity. Rather, the application of ʿörf was central. During the early years of the Ottoman Empire, territorial expansion to the south encapsulating Egypt, to the south- east the provinces of Anatolia and the European provinces to the east led to the incorporation of existing legal traditions, be they Mamluk, Seljuk, Byzantine, Slavic or Venetian. For reasons of practicality and to retain the legal status quo, certain established local laws and judicial practices of these newly conquered territories, especially those related to tax, administration and private law, were retained and incorporated into the Ottoman law of those areas and was therefore classified as ʿörf (customary law). The incorporation of local customs into the main body of law was possible due to the ’ recognition of custom as a source of law in the instance of lack of rulings or only general rulings in certain areas of Islamic law. Customary practice that was sanctioned by state authority became ʿörf and thus, from the early years of the Ottoman Empire, the legal system was made up of şeriʿat and ʿörf.760 The Ottoman rulings on land ownership were based on early Islamic practice that had traces of Byzantine and Sassanid legacy.761 One of the competences of the law of the sovereign the Confiscation Affair of 1568-1569,” in Athos in the 14th -16th Centuries, ed. Athonika Symmeikta (Athens: The National Hellenic Research Foundation, 1997), 149-200. 759 Papademetriou, Render unto the Sultan, 101. 760 Çağatay, İslam Hukukunun Ana Hatları, 630. 761 , Kitāb, 28-39.

178

(ülūl-emre) was the determination of laws governing lands that were conquered by force, over which the ruler had more than one elective right.762 Lands conquered by Muslim armies were considered to be the inalienable common property of the Islamic community (feyʾü’l- müslimīn)763 which was under the control of the Islamic state. All money derived from such land was to go to the state/public treasury (beytülmalü’l-müslimīn). These territories were therefore classified as public lands (arāzī-i mīrīye) and were to be dealt with by the ruler according to common benefit (maṣlaḥat). Ownership of these lands could be divided into three categories: ownership (raḳāba) which was maintained on behalf of the public; possession/use (taṣarruf) and usufruct (istiğlāl) which were rights given to the subjects.764 For example, upon the sale of land by a peasant, the sale consisted merely of tenancy rights (rights of taṣarruf or istiğlāl), likewise, the founder of a vaḳıf concedes its usufruct (istiğlāl) but retains its ownership (reḳābet). These divisions allowed for complete state control of land and that which was built on it. This meant it had the right to abrogate proprietary rights on freehold property,765 the best example of this is the revocation of vaḳıfs by the Ottoman Sultans (such as Mehmed II) which was justified by the fact that the state had inalienable ownership over the land and therefore any land that was endowed had to be done by imperial decree, with the tax revenues going to the sultan.766 “Thus, the principle of the first occupation did not establish ownership on land; it was the state’s dominium eminens [ownership] based on conquest and consequently its validation power that established possession.”767 As regards legal classification according to landholding, land had three different statuses: state, freehold and endowed. State lands were mīrī. Linguistically, the term refers to that belonging to the public but administered by the state and in the Ottoman era, it came to mean lands belonging to the state and the taxes derived from them.768 It is also known by the terms arażī-i memleket (lands of the state) or arażī-i beytülmal (the treasury’s lands).769 The right of ownership of such lands was that of the state, whereas the possession and usufruct were given to the subjects who therefore ruled to be in the position of tenant (müstecir). Mīrī arażī could be dealt with according to the irāde of the ruler, the land and buildings could even be given as freehold (mülk) to the people. After the conquest of Constantinople, the land became mīrī

762 Akgündüz, Osmanlı Kanunnâmeler, 1:77. 763 Based on the Qur’anic verse on fayʾ. Qur’an 59:6-7. 764 İnalcık and Quataert, An Economic and Social History, 106. See also Cin, Mirî Arazi, 99-100. 765 Ibid., 104. 766 These vaḳıfs were known as ğayr-i ṣaḥīḥ (unsound) or irṣādī. 767 Çizakça, A History of Philanthropic Foundations,” 74. 768 Kenanoğlu, “Mîrî Arazi”, 157. 769 When mīrī land is mentioned alongside öşür and ḫarāç it is referred to as ʽarāżī-i sultaniye.

179 regardless of its location, city or countryside. The documents about land were rewritten every year, the last time was during the reign of Sultan Maḥmūd II (r. 1808-1839). The types of taxes paid on such land include: tapu, muaccele and müeccele (which includes hâsılât hissesi, icâre-i zemîn, bedel-i öşür, mukātaa).770 The rulings on mīrī lands were systematised under the şeyhülislâm Ebüssuʿūd Efendi (d. 1574) who redefined the basic laws of land tenure and taxation through the harmonisation of şeriat and kanun which was incorporated into the Ḳānūn-i Cedīd in 1673, which was the official land code until the introduction of the Land Law in 1858.

Vaḳıfs founded on mīrī lands were known as irṣādī, which linguistically means to survey and prepare. In legal terminology refers to a foundation for public benefit, of which the usufruct or possession (or both) as well as the income of an asset which is owned by the public treasury. Therefore, the difference between a valid endowment and an irṣādī one was the use of privately-owned property in the former verses the use of public funds to the exclusion of private involvement.771 They are also referred to as taḥsīsāt ḳābilinden vaḳıflar or gayr-i saḥīḥ vaḳıflar (invalid vaḳıfs). Legally, their status was invalid since vaḳıfs could only be endowed from property which was in the full ownership (reḳābet) of the founder, yet they were justified in practice by the jurists on the basis of public benefit and became common during the Mamluk and Ottoman eras.772 Although the income from the right of possession right (taṣarruf, or taxes such as öşür, haraç, etc., of the mīrī lands that were endowed as vaḳıfs was to be used for public good, there was no full ownership of the land and the usufruct right of possession right of the land went to the founder. It can be questioned whether this classification of vaḳıf was a legal term subsequently created to justify the endowment of mīrī lands. Many of Istanbul’s Latin Catholic churches and their properties had been established prior to the Ottoman conquest of the city. Those that had been appropriated following the conquest became either private or endowed property. The religious orders which managed to establish themselves elsewhere in Galata following the seizure of their churches and monasteries did so through the aquisition of new or formerly confiscated properties which were either purchased by Christians from the community or given to the friars of a particular

770 There were additional types of land taxation, the main one being haraç which was imposed in exchange for lands which had been taken by force (anveten) left in the possession (taṣarruf) of the original non-Muslim residents. These were known as haraci lands. 771 D. Behrens-Abouseif, s. v. wakf, in EI2, p. 64. 772 Kenneth M. Cuno, “Ideology and Juridical Discourse in Ottoman Egypt: The Uses of the Concept of Irṣād,” in Islamic Law and Society 6, no. 2 (1999): 145.

180 religious order as a donation or endowment by the Christian faithful. These included monatary donations and donations in kind such as houses containing chapels, orchards and vinyards. However, if the properties and land fell into Muslim possession following the conquest and were later bought by Christians, the construction of houses of worship was impermissible. This was confirmed by the following fetva: “Is it permissible for a church, which belonged to the Muslims following the conquest, to be bought by the Christians and re-made into a church? The answer: they cannot, it is not permissible.”773 This policy was put into practice when those Christians who repurchased eclesiatical land that had been appropriated by the state promised to build homes instead of rebuilding the destroyed original properties (churches/monasteries). Christian buyers were sometimes expected to confirm their intentions not to build a church or chapel with promises at the time of purchase. For example, the Orthodox Christian dragoman Georgi, son of Lazari, and Constantine, son of Andrea, purchased church properties making the pledge that “if by some means I build a church, let the state treasury again seize [the propety] and take it out of my possession”774 following the fire of 1660 and the consequent destruction of various Catholic churches/convents in Galata. Properties and land that were endowed to the churches were issued with ḥüccets recognising their validity by the court and preventing any possible future disputes over ownership.775 It is interesting to note that these legal documents were not vakfiyes. The best evidence of the implementation of legal rulings regarding the status of the land on which ecclesiatical buildings were built is from the court records documenting the struggles for possession of the land following the destuction of the property by fire.776 All of the documents mention that following the destruction of the church properties, the land reverted to mīrī status. This resulted in the land being put up for public sale, met by rapid efforts by the friars to raise enough funds to buy back their confiscated property, usually done by a Catholic individual from the Galatan community. Reconstruction began when the land was once more in the safe hands of the Catholic community. However, permission was given by the authorities only for the building of houses and not the reconstruction of the churches. Nevertheless, it is worth keeping in mind that Ottoman state policies towards churches and affiliated ecclesiastical

773 Original Ottoman Turkish: “Bir kilise ḥīn-i fetḥte müslümanlar mālik olduktan sonra, naṣāra iştirā edip geri kilise eylemeğe ḳādir olurlar mı? El-cevāb: Olmazlar, mümkün değildir.” Düzdağ, Şeyhülislm Ebussuud, 104. 774 Original Ottoman Turkish: “…bir ṭarīḳ ile kenīse edersem yedimden nezʿ olunup yine cānib-i mīrīden żabṭ olunsun…”, İŞS, 9, fol. 96a, August 1661. 775 A dispute arose over the ownership of SS Peter and Paul in spite of the existence of a donation deed. 776 See Part II, 2.c.iv. According to rulings in Istanbul court records (1660 & 1697), of the current thesis.

181 properties was not constant throughout the empire and was often employed more loosely in areas with a majority Christian population.777

e. Latin Catholic vaḳıfs The Latin Catholics did not enjoy the same status and privileges as the Orthodox and Armenian communities as observed in Part I. The aftermath of the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople saw the establishment of a patriarchate for the Orthodox and soon afterwards, one for the Armenians. The jurisdiction of the two patriarchs soon spread from the capital to the rest of the Ottoman territories, which took place for the Orthodox from the beginning of the fifteenth century and for the Armenians in the seventeenth century, leaving no place for a third patriarchate. Therefore, the Latin Catholics had to accept the status quo and innovate by circumventing the prohibition on ecclesiastical endowments in numerous ways. During the early post-Ottoman conquest period, properties would be endowed by the local lay community to the Latin Catholic religious orders for the creation of churches and convents, which would be recognised by the Magnifica Comunità di Pera, a governing council representing the Latin Catholic subjects before the Ottoman Sublime Porte which was responsible, among other things, for the temporal administration of the Latin Catholic churches. In spite of possessing all the conditions to qualify as a valid vaḳıf, these endowments were not registered within the şerʿī courts and therefore not incorporated into the Ottoman legal system. The religious orders, due to their vows of poverty, did not have material possessions, so funds for the purchase of properties came from donations and alms. Since land in the capital was located in the Ottoman domain, its status was governed by Ottoman land law which did not allow land or buildings to be endowed directly for the benefit of a non-Muslim religion or men/women of the habit. However, such laws could be circumvented in numerous ways by, for example, selling the land directly to a third person and registering it in their name; through its obtainment from a pious foundation or by constructing a house or planting an orchard on land which consequently became the freehold (mülk) of the individual who constructed/planted it and who could then endow it; the latter having been observed above in the case of the Levantine merchant David Maggi.

777 See Kiel, Art and Society; Rossitsa Gradeva, “Ottoman Policy,” 14-36.

182

The subject of Latin Catholic endowments can best be examined through pratical examples from the churches in Galata and Pera, such as that of the Franciscan Observants.778 The religious order had originally established itself in a church and friary that it constructed in 1453 that was consecrated to St. Anthony of the Cypresses in the district of Sirkeci located on the southern side of the Golden Horn.779 Since the friars had supported the Greeks during the Ottoman conquest of the city, they had to abandon their property which was subsequently demolished. They eventually re-established themselves in Galata. There, a women from a rich and noble Galatan family of Genoese origin, Clara Maria Draperis (née Bertulla), who was the widow of the prominent merchant Niccolò Draperis, endowed them with a property, which included a small chapel, on 1 of January 1584/5780 in the district of Mumḫāne. The friars were eager to obtain an official act of donation juridically approved so as to clarify the status of the property as an endowment of the religous community and thus secure it against any future attempts of appropriation by either the state or Galatan community.781 While the original act of donation did not suvive the fire of 1660, which destroyed the church and friary, its contents were preserved in the first authentic copy produced by Father Giovanni in 1633.782 The donation was confirmed on 8 March 1585 by the bolla Sicut nobis nuper exponi fecistis issued by Pope Gregorio XIII and was written up and confirmed by witnesses.783

778 They became known as the reformed Observants following the conversion to Islam of two of the friars of St. Maria Draperis in 1642 resulting in a issued by Pope Urbain VIII on 5 August 1643 which established the Reforme de la plus Stricte Observance in Istanbul. Belin, Histoire, 273; also see Frazee, Catholics and Sultans, 75. 779 The district of Sirkeci was a centre for Venetian merchants prior to the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople after which they relocated to the Genoese hub of Galata. 780 For debates regarding the exact date of the endowment and registration see Matteucci, La missione Francescana di Costantinopoli, 1:306-309. 781 This proved essential as in 1609, the first contentions arose between the patron of St. Maria Draperis, Giorgio Draperis, and the Magnifica Comunità di Pera. For contentions, see Ibid., 1: 319-326. 782 Two other authentic copies are produced in the archives of the Fathers Asssumptionists in Kadiköy ordered by the Venetian bailo, one in the Propaganda Fide by the Vicar Father Gregorio De Magistris O.F.M. Conv. in the year 1647 and a third in the archives of St. Maria Draperis, Ibid., 1: 302. 783 The following is the act of donation of Maria Draperis to the Franciscan order: Jehsus Maria! – SJ dichiara per la presente scrita come la chiaraza Bertulla già moglie del quodam messer Nicolò, cittadino perotto del caxatto di Drape, di Pera territorio di Constantinopolj, come tutrice di soi figliolj come verj et legitimj heredj (di) detto messer Nicolò di Drape, dà una loro chesia nominata S. Maria di Drape di jus patronato de detto caxatto; ha datto per habitare et officiare detta chesia a la Religione di Sancto Francesco di observantia abitanti al Sancto Sepulcro del nostro Signore in Jerusalem, e per lej al Reverendo padre frate Paulino Olivolj Pisanj al presente Guardiano del Santo Monte Sion et Commissario appostolico di tuta Terra Sancta; con questa condicione che detta Religione deba ricognosere detto caxatto e suoj successorj in perpetuo in titullo di Patronato al più vechio. Et in senio di questo, detta Religione li donerà ognj anno, la matina dela Purifacatione dela Madonna un candelo de libre dua benedetto et uno officio universalle per tuti li morti del detto caxatto, e di più si agiongeno tanto vivi come morti ala participacione di tuti benj spirituallj che nela deta chesia

183

The act of donation resembles that of the donation made by Maria Bertulla Draperis’s paternal uncle, Angelo Zacharia, to the Dominicans in April 1535, insomuch as it contains identical conditions of transfer and the same rights and duties of the donor and the beneficiaries. Since the property, which included a house, a chapel and a wooden of the Mary, was given in perpetuity to the Franciscan Observants for their free use by the benefactress and owner of the property, Maria Bertulla Draperis, upon the fulfilment of certain conditions, and the act of donation was legally valid, it can therefore be considered the first pia causa (pl. piae causae) of the Franciscan Observants in Galata following their relocation form Sirkeci. While the benefits of the chapel and adjoining property were conceded to the friars for their use in perpetuity, the benefactress maintained property rights and rights of patronage. The latter was recognised by the friars through their fulfilment of the conditions of a monthly offer of a candle and the yearly celebration of a mass for the of Bertulla Draperis and the Draperis family. The contract was legally recognised by the representatives of the Christian community of Galata, the Magnifica Comunità di Pera, who were also responsible for the temporal

si farano: como Messe, Divinj officij, orationj sì publichi come privati, comprentendo in detta participacione vivj e morti. Et ala detta Religione resti l’uso perpetuo detta chesia, e stantia apicatta a la muraglia a la fazata davanti de essa chesia, nela qualle chesia e stantia dita Religione non possano disfare ne rifabricare dele antichità cossa alcuna senza (consenso) di detto caxa(t)to. Di più occorendo bixognio e servitù e soccorso del brazzo seculare per detta chesia et Reverendi padri de detta Religione in quella habitanti, sia obligato detto caxatto, come lorro protectore et defensore di defenderlj e servirlj. Et deti Reverendi padri li debano cognosere per loro potectore e defensore et servitore: In corum fidem etc. Fatta in P(er)a nela detta chesia questo dì primo di Genaro 1585. Scrito per me Bernardo di Negri del quodam messer Francescho ad instantia dele parti (le) qualli afermorano prexenti l’infrascricti testimonij di loro mano propria. Io fra Paulino Olivoli Pisano Guardiano et Commissario appostolico sopra per parte mia e della mia Religone confirmo quanto di sopre (sic.) quanto di sopra ditto di mano propria. Io Madonna Bertula sopra ditta in nome mio et in nome di mei filiolj sopra schriti come tutrice supra ditta confermo quanto di sopra schritto, et io Lorenzo Suma suo Zenero in nome della ditta Madonna Berttula mia socera con suo consenso schrivo la presente dicendo non sapere lei schrivere, afermando quanto sopra ditto. Io Loiso filio del quondam messer Nicolò di Drape quanto di sopra afermo mano propria. Io Lorenzo Suma fui presente e sono testimonio quanto di sopra. Io Bernardo del quandam messer Francescho di Negrj fui presente e sono testimonio di quanto sopra è scritto e di mano propria. Io fra Antonio Dallmata confermo ut supra. Io fra Joseph de Coniglione siciliano de la famigl(i)a, confermo ut supra. Io fra Cristophano da Velletri della famiglia ut supra. Io Marco Discachi drag(o)man(n)o veneto affermo ut sopra. Io Ambroxo Grillo fui presente quanto di sopra mano propria. Io Antonio de messer Bernardo di Negri fui presente et testimonio quanto di sopra. Io Eduardo da Gagliano son testimonio a quanto di sopra. Io Antonio Confortino sono testimonio quanto di sopra scritto di mia mano propria. Io Petro Gallante sono testimonio a quanto di sopra mano propria.

184 administration of the Latin Catholic churches in greater Constantinople. Likewise, its legitimacy was not contested by the Ottoman authorities in spite of the chapel and adjacent private properties being endowed to the Observant Franciscan friars in perpetuity for their worldly and spiritual benefit and the spiritual benefit of the Catholics of Galata. A friar of the order of friars Minor affilitated to the parish of St. Francis in Galata who lived in Istanbul for three years in the early seventeenth century gave the following description of the house and the chapel, the condition of which would not have changed substantionally since the time of its endowment to the friars:784

Dopo la Chiesa di S. Pietro segue quella di Santa Maria Draperii cosi detta per antichissimo Iuspatronato, che vi hà la Casa Draperii. E questa situata nel Piano vicino alla Marina non molto Iontano da quella di San Francesco dell’instessa drandezza di quella di S. Pietro poco più o meno. Hà la sua porta, che risguarda occidente, e di dentro poco di atrio avanti la Chiesa, quale è ditre Navate, ma picciole, con alcune Colonne. Vi sonno similmente in questa treno quatro Altari con il Pulpito ben custoditi, et ornati. Il Convento hà più tosto forma di Casa, che di monastero per essere assai angusto per largo,e ristreto per ogni lato, fuorchè verso la strada da Case adherento vi è solo un giardinetto con un Cortile, che gli apre un poco d’aria...785 Il luogo per se stesso è antico al pari d’ogn’altra Chiesa come antica è la Casa Draperii, che fin’ora con molti slpendore persevera...786

Both the church and house, which was dedicated to the Blessed Virgin, were in a very bad state of repair. Maria Draperis is supposed to have made the endowment specifically to the Franciscan friars due to her devotion to St. Francis and the Holy Places in Jerusalem.787 The following year the donation was confirmed and accorded to the friars of the Franciscan Observants in the papal bull Sicut nobis exponi fecistis dated 8 March, 1585. 788 The chapel was completely destroyed in the Great Fire of Galata in 1660, except for the wooden icon, which was preserved in the house of Geroge Draperis, the benefactor of the monastery. The church was rebuilt after it was decided by the Congregation of the Observance on 25 July 1661 that it would be restored at the expense of the in order to house

784 While the name of the author of the manuscript, which is located in the Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris, is unknown, it was written between the years 1623 and 1633L d’Alessio, “Recherches sur l’histoire,” 22. 785 Ibid., 39-40. Manuscript no. 254, fols. 273 v. to 274 v. 786 Ibid., fol. 274 r. Matteucci, La missione francescana di Costantinopoli, 2: 301-19. 787 Belin, Histoire, 272. 788 Ibid.

185 some friars from there.789 Reconstruction was done in a hurry in time to receive the guests without acquiring imperial permission in the form of a firmān. Consequently, the church was demolished in 1663 and converted into the Kemankeş Kara Mustafa Paşa mosque.790 The community was forced to move uphill to Pera where they built a new church in 1678. Although the church was destroyed in the fire that broke out on 4 of May 1696, permission was received to reconstruct it, while the icon, once again, escaped harm.791 St. Maria Draperis also lost properties as a result of compensation given to those Muslim Ottoman subjects who had lost properties in Eminünü near the new mosque of the Vālide Sulṭān Hatice Turhan. One such individual, Mehmed Cemal Efendi b. Mahmud, who was the trustee of the Pīrī Paşa vaḳıf in Istanbul, had stores belonging to the vaḳıf exchanged with the former properties of St. Maria which were in the possession of the Vālide Sulṭān, for the construction of her above-mentioned imperial mosque which was maintained through a vaḳıf.792 It can be concluded when comparing the situation of St. Maria Draperis with the above- mentioned Islamic legal doctrine on Christian vaḳıfs, that while the endowment fulfilled all the conditions for the validity of a pia causa, its bestowal in perpetuity for the benefit of the friars rendered it invalid since it did not constitute ḳurba according to the Islamic definition.793 Regardless of the rulings laid down in the juridical texts, as seen above, in practice, such vaḳıfs did exist. What leads to confusion is the Ottoman authority’s classification of the endowment

789 Ibid., 274. 790 The exact origin of the mosque is debated. Janin mentions that this mosque had originally been transformed from the church and hospital of St. Antony: Janin, La Géographie Ecclésiastique, 586. Rinaldo Marmara argues likewise, adding that its conversion took place in 1642 according to the account by Kâtip Çelebi in his work Fezleke, in Rinaldo Marmara, La Chiesa Latina Cattolica Di Costantinopoli: Da Bisanzio ad oggi (Istanbul: Latin Katolik Tuhani Reisliği, 2011), 36; d’Alessio mentions that the Grand Vizier Kemankeş Kara Mustafa Paşa (in office 1638-1644) simultaneously transformed the church and hospital of St. Anthony and the church of St. Maria, which were both situated in the district of Mumhane, into mosques. Then, he mentions that the confiscation of the former took place in February 1636: d’Alessio, “Recherches sur l’histoire,” 34. 791 For negative effects of the fire on the Christians of Galata, see Eldem, French Trade, 232-233; Yaron Ben-Naeh, Jews in the Realm of the Sultans: Ottoman Jewish Society in the Seventeenth Century (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck Press, 2008), 112; Claire Norton, “(In)tolerant Ottomans: Polemic, Perspective and the Reading of Primary Sources,” in The Character of Christian-Muslim Encounter: Essays in Honour of David Thomas, ed. Douglas Pratt (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 260-261. 792 İŞS, 10, fol. 84b/2 (14 L 1072/2 June 1662). For the role of women in the foundation and administration of vaḳıfs see Randi Deguilhem, “Consciousness of Self: The Muslim Woman as Creator and Manager of Waqf Foundations in Late Ottoman Damascus,” in Beyond the Exotic. Women’s in Islamic Societies, ed. Amira El-Azhary Sonbol, 102-115 (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2005). 793 Ibn al-Humām, Sharḥ, 6: 188.

186 land as mīrī following the destruction of the church in the fire of 1660 since it was not permissible for an individual to endow a building without the land.794 The property consisting of the chapel and adjacent buildings that were endowed to the Franciscan Observants was freehold (mülk) and the land on which they were constructed had originally been private following the Ottoman conquest due to its location in an urban area and that fact that it had been surrendered peacefully submitting to the terms of a peace contract.795 However, soon afterwards, the lands of the district were given over to the vaḳıf of the Ayasofya and, therefore, the payment of a yearly land rent (muḳāṭaʿa) was required on the part of the religious order.796 The church vaḳıf and its properties, which had existed without contestation by the authorities, were appropriated under two different pretexts: the construction of a mosque in the place of the destroyed chapel and monastery and the bestowal of its properties as recompense for those who had donated their own properties to the state to serve an imperial vaḳıf. The justification of the confiscation of these properties by the state appears to lie in a different set of jurisprudential rulings than those that constituted Ottoman policy towards Christian vaḳıfs and the status of their lands.

e.i. Through the Dominican properties The act of donation on 20 April 1535 by the Genoese nobleman, Angelo Zacharia, on 20 April 1535 of a house and chapel was used to establish the first endowment of the Dominicans in Galata following the appropriation and conversion of their old property of St. Paul into a mosque.797 The deed states that the property, which included the chapel, house and

794 al-Shaybānī, Aḥkām al-Awqāf, 31. 795 As Kenneth Cuno has observed: “In Syria and Palestine the Ottomans appear to have proceeded with the reorganization of the land regime in much the same way and at the same time as they did in Egypt. Most of the arable land was classified as miri or state owned. Most privately-owned land (milk) was urban real estate with buildings, and otherwise it consisted of orchards, vineyards, and vegetable gardens, nearly all of which were within or near the towns.” Cuno, “Was the Land,” 131. 796 AMCC, Series T, doc. 27. 797 Original text: “In nomine Domini Amen. Anno eiusdem Domini 1535 die XXma aprilis. Misser Angelo Zacharia, quondam Domini Petri Antonij, come procuratore e’ patrone della chiesa e’ capella di S. Pietro, habbiando iurepatronatus convenente et patto con li frati del Ordine di S. Domenico di rinovare gli patti e’ conventioni che hanno insieme di tempo in tempo, et siando passato il termino di anni dodici, come appare per lo ultimo instrumento fatto per il Signor D: Domenico della Xane notario, infrascritti saranno posti et annotati li patti et conventione loro. In primo detto Misser Angelo Zacharia come Patrone [di] detta chiesa et di detto loco di S. Pietro et Paulo, vuole et concede alli detti Frati di S. Domenico conventuali, che possino stare et abitare in dicto loco et officiare li divini offici e’ celebrare le loro messe e’ fare tutte le loro ceremonia solite et consuete a l’ordine loro. Unde per incenso e’ memoria de iurepatronatus vuole detti frati annuatim al tempo della candelora debbiano dare a lui uno

187 outbuildings, was given in perpetuity to the Dominicans for their free use and benefit upon the fulfilment of certain conditions. Such is the of any vaḳıf, although a vigorous search has found no evidence that the donation was registered at the local şerʽī court and would therefore not have received such an appellation. The donor did not appoint himself or his descendants as trustees for the administration of the endowment. The founder sought to gain spiritual benefits via his endowment in both this life and the next by stipulating the monthly offer of a candle and the weekly celebration of a mass for his own and for that of his parents which were given by the Dominicans in honour and remembrance of their patron. He also laid down three other conditions: first, the Dominicans would be the beneficiaries and not the patrons of the church; second, the friars would have to cover all of the costs of reconstruction and repair; third, the founder would retain the privilege of supervising the

dopiere, o’ vero bendone, come hanno oservato sino al presente: Ancora debbiano celebrare una messa di morti ogni settimana per l’anima de suoi passati secondo il stile che fin hora hanno tenuto, e’ che li beni, et la chiesa et el giardino non debiano esser propriati al particolare, tal che habbia a’ nascer qualche discordia, ma che sieno comuni, come de primo s’e facto d’accordo: ancora che non debiano accetar per stantia persona alcuna mondana in le loro celle ne alcuno huomo de chi nasca al’ luogo pericolo, ma totis viribus diano a’ loro repulsa; et venendo alcuno frate forestiere de loro in detta chiesa debiano, in signum patronatus, notificarlo a’ detto misser Angelo; ancora li frati volendo fabricare alcuna casa per loro comodo debiano dirlo al detto misser Angelo; e’ far di lui mentione come patron di loro; e’ bisognando detta chiesa, o’ detto luogo qualche fabrica e’ riparatione sieno detti frati a’ fabricar’ obligati, e’ reparare con l’habitatione alli loro bisogni. Ancora siando nel ultimo istrumento del predeto quondam D. Dominico della Xane ottomila aspri nominati, quali furono sborsati a’ spesi in lo edificio del monasterio, vuole sieno al presente annullati e’ non sieno piu obligati detti aspri ottomila. Ancora trovandosi in detto monasterio alcuno frate dissoluto o’ scandaloso e’ inobediente, misser Angelo con lo presidente delli frati possa expellerlo, e’ fare mandarlo come membro putrido e’ scandaloso e’ perche la inquiete non paria alli religiosi; pero non vuole che li mondani giochino alla palla nel’ inchiostro per aliquo patto; e’ questo vuol sia per patto espresso. Ancora vuolesi intendar in presente come in futuro che è di conventione et di patto, che detto misser Angelo sia procuratore de’ frati in detto luogho, e’ in le ragioni del detto convento sia sempre chiamato: Cosi observando e’ mantenendo le dette cose detto misser Angelo promette e’ si obliga di non mutar gli detti Frati conventuali di San Domenico dalla detta chiesa: Ma li detti Frati habbino a stare et habitare. Ne vuole che niuno postero o’ di suoi discendenti possino ne vaglino rimuoverli dal detto luogho, servando li capituli qui sopra posti e’ per verita e’ chiareza del sopradetto si sottoscriveranno ambedue le parti e testimoni di mano proprio. Ego [Fra] Lucas de Pera Vicarius substitutus Societatis vice omnium Fratrum presentium affirmans supradicta manu propia me subscripsi. Ego Fra Pantaleon de Pera confirmo supradicta manu propria. Ego Fra Joannes de Pera affirmo supradicta manu propria. Ego Fra Thomas de Pera affirmo supradicta manu propria. Ego Angelo Zacharia quondam Domini [Petri Antonij] affirmo supradicta manu propria. Ego Phillipus Argentis…Notarius publicus et civis florentinus, in presentiarum Magnifici Domini Aloisij, pro Illustrissimo Domino Florentino Costantinopoli Bailis dignissimi Cancelarii, supradicta descripsi; inter prestantes Magnificum Lucam et Dominum Angelum et actum Anno D. MDXXXV.”: d’Alessio, “Les origins dominicains,” 462-464.

188 conduct of the friars, such as expelling scandalous or rebellious friars in agreement with the superior, of administering the goods as procurator and of reviewing their accounts.798 A provisional contract was written up by Zacharia’s father, Pietro Antonio, whereas the new contract committed all the eventual heirs of the founder. Consultation and consent of the procurator was required for all temporal matters, with the exception of emergency reparation or reconstruction which was to be agreed upon by the religious community and all expenses was to be covered by them.799 The deed also makes mention of eight thousand aspres which was the total amount of the debt that the Dominicans had incurred with Petro Antonio who had provided for the payment of the renovation and construction of the church and priory. As for the date of the official installation of the friars, d’Alessio estimates that it took place shortly before 1523 because the original contract was renewed every twelve years since its creation and, therefore, the original contract could be dated from between 1500 and 1523.800 Furthermore, the founder ensured that the property was considered, according to ancient law, as the undivided ownership of the community and thus prevented contentions regarding the division of the property. As a customary recognition on the part of the religious beneficiaries of their dependence upon their generous benefactor and in keeping with the customs of Zacharia’s country, he requested the presentation of a candle on Day. Likewise, it was customary to remember the benefactors during liturgical ceremonies and so a mass was to be said every in memory of Zacharia’s deceased family members.801 The contract was signed by the contracting parties consisting of the Dominicans, represented by the substitute vicar for the Orient, Lucas de Pera, and three of his colleagues and by Angelo Zacharia. At the end, the Florentine Philippe Argentis, notary public, records the agreement initialled on behalf of the bailo of Florence in Istanbul. This is supported by an authentic notarised copy of the document dated 1561 as follows:

Si dice essere cosa certa come sotto di 20 del mese di Aprile dell’anno 1535, il Sig. Angelo Zaccaria, figliuolo del quondam Pietro Antonio di Pera, come padrone e procuratore ancora in quel tempo della Chiesa e Cappella delli Santi Pietro e Paulo di Pera…ha dato e concesso per se et successori et posteri suoi et della sua famiglia in perpetuo con titolo et causa di relocatione, ovver renovatione la predetta chiesa et cappela dei Santi Pietro e Paulo, poste nellà città di Pera…al Rev. do Padre Fra Luca di Pera,

798 Ibid., 465; Palazzo and Raineri, La Chiesa, 7. 799 Ibid., 466. 800 It was renewed in 1561 and 1609 as well as in a declaration of 1626: Ibid., 472-3. 801 Ibid. p. 466.

189

dell’Ordine de Predicatori di S. Domenico, allora Vicario di detta chiesa, et a molti altri frati similmente conventuali, all’ora presenti et accettanti […]802

The friars were eager to obtain an official act of donation juridically approved so as to clarify the status of the properties endowed to them and thus secure them against any future attempts of confiscation by either the Ottoman state or contestation by the Latin community. The contract was legally recognised by the representatives of the Christian community of Galata, the Magnifica Comunità di Pera, who were also responsible for the temporal administration of the Latin Catholic churches. Yet, its legitimacy was never contested by the Ottoman authorities in spite of the private properties being endowed to the Dominican friars in perpetuity for their worldly and spiritual benefit and the spiritual benefit of the Catholics of Galata. This can possibly be attributed to the fact that the property itself remained registered in the name of the founder, Angelo Zacharia. Upon a superficial glance of the title deeds, it would appear to adhere to the Ottoman laws of proprietary ownership. With the expansion of their properties during subsequent decades, the Dominicans sought to enjoy the benefits of endowments without the insecurity of any future seizure of its properties by the Ottoman authorities for contravening the Ottoman laws on vaḳıfs and thus facing a fate such as that of the Orthodox landed monasteries during the reigns of sultans Mehmed II, Süleyman I and Selim II as demonstrated above. This was achieved through two methods. The first was by registering the endowment in the name of a member of the Latin Catholic community of Galata and Pera, often an ambassadorial employee or the ambassador himself, or as a charitable endowment without indicating the church or friars as the beneficiaries or as a private endowment. The second method was that of exchange (istibdāl) of freehold property bought on behalf of the friars for vaḳıf properties and vice versa. As regards the first method, while the Dominican conventual archive does not contain extant title deeds for endowed properties from the post conquest period up until the eighteenth century, it does contain such documents for the mid-nineteenth century.803 Such endowments of ecclesiastical properties for the benefit of the Frankish nation, including the friars, carried with them two main conditions. The first, that they be registered under the name of the

802 CADG, register no. 37.1.1. 803 One such example of a missing document is a court order (iʿlām) in which a stone storehouse built on land purchased on behalf of the Dominicans and endowed to them in perpetuity is declared of vakıf status. CADG, no. 37.2.4, dated 1739.

190 ambassador to the Porte of the protectorate Catholic power (in this instance, the French ambassador), and that they be approved through a firmān.804 The second method was through the proprietary process of exchange of vaḳıf property. For an exchange to take place with another property, both should be either a similar asset or of an equivalent value so as to preserve the function, objective and benefit of the original vaḳıf property, which is a matter of personal legal reasoning (ijtihād).805 As regards the implementation of istibdāl in which it was not stipulated as a condition on the endowment deed by the founder, for such an exchange or sale to be carried out under Ottoman law, the obtainment of official permission from the sultan in the form of an imperial decree was required which was addressed to and overseen by the ḳāżī. In legal terms, istibdāl was only permissible (cāiz) through an imperial order (emr-i sulṭānī) and by permission of the judge (izn-i ḥākim), with the trustee’s opinion (rey-i mütevellī) holding weight when he could find other properties for the replacement.806 The second requirement was established by the jurist Molla Hüsrev (d. 1480), insofar as no one other than the judge had the authority to grant a conditional istibdāl.807 The first requirement was instituted by a legal opinion (fetva) given in 1544 by the şeyhülislām Ebussuʿūd Efendi (in office 1545-1574) as a solution for the prevention of the appropriation of vaḳıf properties. This was one of the negative consequences of istibdāl in which it could be used as a method of enabling a vaḳıf property to regain its freehold status. In order to mitigate such practices, the ḳāżī could not grant permission without an imperial decree. Ebussuʿūd’s fetva reads as follows: “Is it permissible to sell and substitute vaḳıf property? The answer: An imperial edict was decreed in order to disallow the judges’ permission for sale and substitution [of vaḳıf] upon the pressence of legal rationale. When was the judges’ permission disallowed upon the presence of legal rationale? The answer: It was written in the year 951”.808 As mentioned in the supracommentary of the fetva, this legal opinion was based on the position of the Hanafi judge Ṣadr al-Sharīʿa (d. 747). Therefore, when the founder of the vaḳıf had not bestowed upon himself authority for exchange, this power was then vested in the sultan. The incorporation of these checks and balances into the practice is indicative that

804 Vanessa R. de Obaldía, “For the poor and needy of the French nation: a Latin Catholic endowment in nineteenth century Istanbul,” (2019) TBP. 805 Muḥammad Abū Zahrah, Muḥāḍarāt fī al-Waqf (Cairo: Dār al-Fikr al-ʾArabī, 1972), 35. 806 Hilmi, Ahkâm-il Evkaf, 115. 807 Molla Hüsrev, Dürerül-Hükkâm Fi Şerhi Gureril-Ahkâm (Istanbul 1317), 2:136. 808 Original Ottoman Turkish: “Vakıf ʿaḳārın beyʿ ve istibdālı cāiz midir? El-Cevāp: Müsevviğāt-ı şerʿiye mevcūt olıcak beyʿe ve istibdāle izin vermekten ḳużātı menʿ için Emr-i Şerīf vārid olmuştur. Müsevviğāt-ı şerʿiye mevcūt iken ḳużāt izinden ne zamanda menʿ olunmustur? El-Cevāb: 951 tārīḫinde vārid olmuştur”, Fetâvâ, Süleymaniye Yazma Eser Kütübhanesi, no. 223, fol. 125b.

191 istibdāl was not to be practiced frivoulously, rather, that it should be done on the basis of the necessity of maṣlaḥat. Imam al-Tarabulusī was sentenced to death by the Ottoman authorities due to his efforts to prevent the embezzlement of vaḳıfs through istibdāl.809 His writings are indicative of the excessive practice of istibdāl with no solid legal restrictions in place, and, as in the case of cash vaḳıfs, were inconsistent with the principles of vaḳıf, in the former case, in terms of perpetuity and irrevocability and in the latter in terms of interest.810 The practice of istibdāl remained a much discussed subject among the scholars of jurisprudence as is indicated by the many monographic treatises on the subject.811 Yet, few of these studies treat the subject of exchange by Christians and very little if any about Latin Catholics. As demonstrated above, David Maggi exchanged (istibdāl) the stone storehouse in Bereketzāde with seven other buildings located in different parts of Istanbul.812 Since the property had been purchased on behalf of the Dominicans of St. Peter for their benefit in perpetuity, he sought to maximise the profit derived from the endowment’s properties through its exchange. Numerous other examples can be given concerning the exchange of houses endowed to the Dominicans for freehold.813

e.ii Through the Capuchin properties The Capuchins, as friars, did not own material possessions let alone properties; rather, they were dependent on alms and donations of lands and buildings for the survival of their mission in Istanbul.814 Therefore, endowments were one of the mechanisms by which they financed the religious community and their churches.815 As mentioned above, when treating the status of land and properties, the status of the properties of the Capuchins, which were part of the chapel of St. Louis of the French, can be divided into two categories. The first consisted

809 Doris Behrens-Abouseif, Egypt’s Adjustment to Ottoman Rule: Institutions, Waqf and Architecture in Cairo (16th and 17th Centuries) (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 148. 810 Jon E. Mandaville, “Usurious Piety: The Cash Waqf Controversy in the Ottoman Empire,” International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, no. 10 (1979): 289–308. For more examples on the practice of istibdāl with Ottoman vaḳıfs, see İbrahim Oğuz, “Osmanlı Vakıflarında İstibdal Problemi (Midilli Örneği),” TAD 34, no. 58 (2015): 583-601. 811 Akgündüz, İslâm Hukukunda, 291. 812 See Part III d.i. Vakıf Trustee Ṣāliḥ Efendi v. French Merchant David Maggi. 813 CADG, register no. 30.1.9. 814 AMCC, Series F, doc. 33. 815 Endowments which were recognised by the Ottoman legal system are described as vacouf in the AMCC catalogue, which is the French phonetic equivalent of the Turkish word vaḳıf, pl. evḳāf, vuḳūf.

192 of endowed (vaḳıf) land, necessitating the payment of a land rent (muḳāṭaʿa) to the vaḳıf administrator or trustee (mütevellī) on which were freehold (mülk) properties. Numerous examples can be given of this first category, such as a house which the friars used as a residence near the imperial mosque which was bought for 170 piastres, with the land remaining that of the vaḳıf.816 Regarding the payment of the land rent to the vaḳıfs, this applied regardless of the religious adherence of the proprietor of the building as well as his subjectship. Some payment receipts reveal that some non-Muslim Levantines made payments both in money and in kind, such as oil.817 In one instance, the Jew Yusuf pays 20 aḳçes annually in addition to a specified quantity of oil to the vaḳıf trustee, also called Yusuf, following his consent for the purchase of a house and garden adjoining the Yusuf Paşa Mosque for a sum of 120 aḳçes.818 The second category consisted of empty plots of land on which no building had yet been erected: these could be categorised as either freehold, state or endowed. Vacant plots of land purchased on behalf of the Capuchins to increase their properties were located in Pera and often near or adjacent to existing ones. On 15 September 1625, a document (ḥüccet) indicating a property sale was realised between a certain Yacoume and the French ambassador for a plot of land next to the latter’s house.819 These plots were purchased by ambassadorial employees or the ambassador himself from Muslim proprietors as well as from Christian ones. In April 1651, a garden was purchased by the already notorious French dragoman Fouzibée from Muṣṭafā ibn Bālī which shared a wall with the French embassy. All of these plots automatically became part of the Capuchin complex in Pera. Although they were registered in the name of the purchaser in order to circumvent the prohibition of friars being proprietors, the lands were implicitly endowed for the benefit of the religious order and their mission in perpetuity.

f. Conclusion When comparing the situation of SS. Peter and Paul with the above-mentioned Islamic legal doctrine on Christian vaḳıfs, it can be concluded that while the endowment fulfilled all the conditions for the validity of a pia causa (pl. piae causae), its bestowal in perpetuity for the benefit of the friars rendered it invalid since it did not constitute ḳurba according to Islamic legal doctrine. Regardless of the rulings laid down in the texts of Islamic jurisprudence, as seen

816 AMCC, Series T, doc. 2. A letter from Fr. Bérouti to Fr. Hyacinthe dated 1701. 817 Ibid., doc. 27. 818 AMCC, Series U, doc. 47. 819 Ibid., doc. 6.

193 above, in practice, such vaḳıfs did exist. What leads to confusion is the Ottoman authority’s classification of the endowment land as mīrī following the destruction of the church in the fire of 1660 since it was not permissible for an individual to endow a building without the land.820 The property of the chapel and adjacent buildings that were endowed to the Dominicans were privately owned and the land on which they were constructed had not altered its status of private land following the conquest due to its location in an urban area that had been secured for the resident Christians under the terms of a peace contract. The justification of the confiscation of these properties by the state appears to lie in a different set of jurisprudential rulings than those that formed the Ottoman policy towards Christian vaḳıfs and the status of their lands. While properties were expressly endowed to the Dominicans as piae causae in the period soon after the Ottoman conquest and later implicitly endowed as vaḳıfs, the Capuchins of Pera only had properties endowed to them implicitly and never as vaḳıfs. In spite of being under the immediate protection of a French Catholic power as official chaplains at the French embassy, their properties were subject to the Ottoman property and land laws without exception.

5. Conclusion The variety of legal documents examined in these sections pertaining to the three legal cases, including title deeds, documents (ḥüccets) containing sales transactions, petitions (‘arż- ı ḥāl), court orders (i‘lām), orders from a high official (buyuruldu) and Islamic responsa (fetvas) among the Ottoman legal documents and details of initial lawsuits, petitions brought by the claimants, responses by the defendants, declarations, witness statements, to the final sentence given by the ambassador/chargé de affaires in the Western sources, sheds light on the legal avenues taken by the Capuchins and the Dominicans in the resolution of their property disputes in the districts of Galata and Pera. Among the Ottoman documents, fetvas were actively sought from müftīs in support of their legal claim/defence in spite of their nature as Islamic legal documents. Furthermore, the section has demonstrated both who held the jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes and how the religious had to carefully navigate between two differing legal systems: that of their country of residence, the Ottoman capital, and that of the ambassadorial chancellery to which they took their case, the French ambassador being the protector of the religious orders before the Sublime Porte. Through these avenues, the Latin Catholic friars

820 al-Shaybānī, Aḥkām al-Awqāf, 31.

194 sought to safeguard their properties not only from confiscation by the Ottoman authorities but also from members of the local community and even other Latin Catholic religious orders who contested their property rights. Therefore, disputes were not restricted to one type of claimant or defendant; rather they possessed three diverse categories: Turk v. Latin/religious order; religious order v. Latin; religious order v. religious order. When analysing the Ottoman legal position regarding the vaḳıf of Christians in general and of Latin Catholics in particular, it was necessary to approach it from the aspect of general laws and principles which were laid down in the şeriʿat and ḳānūn. The general principles laid down in the ʿahdnāme contracted with the Genoese as well as the Metropolit ḳānūnnāme and previous agreements contracted with Catholic monks in Bosnia did not grant limitless rights to the Christians, rather they placed within the confines of the Islamic legal framework. Likewise, the general rulings governing Christian vaḳıfs were subject to restrictions and alterations depending on which set of juridical ruling (endowments, land law, non-Muslim places of worship) were to be applied to individual vaḳıfs. The legal doctrine could likewise be substantially influenced by mechanisms in Ottoman legal practice such as the irāde of the sultan. All these came into play as observed in the cases of the Dominican and Capuchin properties, and therefore explain the lack of uniformity in the Ottoman policy towards Latin Catholic ecclesiastical properties, be they private or endowed.

195

PART IV: THE FRENCH PROTECTORATE OVER THE LATIN CATHOLIC CHURCHES OF OTTOMAN ISTANBUL

1. Introduction The subject of Latin Catholic church properties cannot be treated independently from France’s role as protector of Catholicism in Ottoman lands, since it was through the tireless diplomatic efforts on the part of the French ambassadors before the Sublime Porte which ensured the preservation of these properties and the rights of the religious orders which administered them. The theme of the French protectorate over the Latin Catholic churches of Ottoman Istanbul is one to which a whole PhD thesis could be dedicated. Therefore, in order to do the subject justice within the limited temporal and geographical confines of my research, I focus on the Ottoman and French legal documents which justified and facilitated such a role: capitulations (ʿahdnāmes), imperial edicts (firmāns), and letters patent. The capitulations were instrumental in securing diplomatic protection for Catholicism, its adherents, its places of worship and institutions throughout the Ottoman Empire. Although I have not been able to locate all of the original Ottoman manuscripts of the capitulations, I found secondary sources that contain the Ottoman version of these treatises. Therefore, I am able to provide a transliterated version of the Ottoman text and a comparison with the French version of the treaties. While individual capitulatory articles have been presented, they are supported with diplomatic correspondence and memoires. Furthermore, the capitulatory articles have been placed within the broader geopolitical context of Franco-Ottoman relations in addition to political realities within France itself with the aid of secondary sources dealing with the history of Catholicism in the Ottoman territories in general, and the influence and policies of France in the Levant towards Latin Catholicism and their religious orders in particular. The conventual archives of SS. Peter and Paul in Galata and the archives of St. Louis of the French in Paris contain a collection of imperial edicts issued by the Ottoman sultan and letters patent granted by the French monarch which directly related to the French ambassadors and the protectorate of France over SS. Peter and Paul and the French ambassadorial chapel as well as the Dominicans and Capuchins who administered them. I analyse these in order to determine the legal implications and the extent of the influence of the Catholic power over the churches’ affairs. The conventual archives also reveal that relations between France and the

196 churches were not unilateral, through a careful study of a variety of letters written by the friars. In gratitude for the French protection of the church and the clergy, and for the subsidies granted to the missions, the friars of SS. Peter and Paul and St. Louis undertook to care for the spiritual well-being of their protectors. Furthermore, the limits of contractual relations between France and the Ottoman Empire are detailed in this section which analyses both the capitulations and the imperial firmāns granted to the religious orders giving them legal sanction to perform their rituals and activities as well as affording the protection of ecclesiastical property. Nonetheless, in spite of these permissions, they could face severe punishment as a result of sudden changes in Ottoman domestic policy which was often influenced by wider geo-political factors. Moreover, imperial edicts issued in response to petitions by other Christian denominations demonstrate that such policies were often shaped by existing quarrels between these denominations within the Empire. The Ottoman authorities were more than willing to exploit these hostilities to maintain divisions within the Christian population.

2. General: French influence over the Latin Catholic religious orders, churches and properties a. The power of diplomacy French influence in Ottoman lands was on the increase during the first decades of the sixteenth century as was its visible presence in Istanbul, specifically in the commerce of Galata. The first French ambassador arrived in Istanbul in 1534, with diplomatic representation having been acquired subsequent to other Catholic powers with a presence in the Empire.821 The two main responsibilities of the French ambassador to the Porte were the protection of French commerce and Catholicism throughout the Ottoman Empire. Yet, this did not solely apply to French religious orders or French laymen. Rather, their protectorate covered the Catholic religious orders, secular clergy and missionaries in general, as well as anyone among the Roman Catholic lay community who sought to affiliate themselves to the French nation, even

821 The Ottomans also sent representatives to France in the form of enjoys by Sultan Suleyman to King Francois I in 1533, Selim II to Charles IX in 1571, Murad III to Henri III in 1581, Mehmed III to Henri IV in 1601 and to Louis XIII in 1607 and Mehmed IV to Louis XIV in 1669; and later the first Ottoman ambassador, Yirmisekiz Çelebi Meḥmed Efendi, sent by Ahmed III to King Louis XV on 19 of August 1719. For nogotiations for the first embassy to France, the first embassador and his journey to Paris see Fatma Müge Göçek, East Encounters West: France and the Ottoman Empire in the Eighteenth Century (New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), 7- 23.

197 when they came from rival nations.822 Consequently, recourse was made to the ambassador of the Catholic power by clergy and laymen alike for a multiplicity of issues including judicial, religious and commercial.823 Notably, their role as the vanguards of Catholicism in Ottoman lands embodied France’s political interests in the region, as confirmed in instructions by King Louis XIII (r. 1610-1643) to his ambassador in Istanbul, Henri de Gournay, Comte de Marcheville (in office 1631-1634): “La principalle fin de l’establissement de l’ambassadeur de Sa Majeste a la Porte est, en premier lieu, pour proteger, par l’entremise du nom et autorite de Sa Majeste, les couvents et maisons de religieux de toutes nations, qui sont establies souls son adveu a divers endroits du Leant, ensemble tous les chretiens qui y vont et viennent par devotion pour visiter les Lieux-Saints de la Terre-Sainte; et en second lieu l’assistance et protection de tous les marchands francais ou qui trafiquent souls la baniere de la France.”824 This was a reminder that the ambassador, as a representative of the French King to the Sublime Porte, followed the King’s wishes in the implementation of French policy in the Levant.825 During the reign of King Francis I (r. 1515-1547), France was the first European country to establish formal and reciprocal diplomatic relations with the Ottoman Empire. The first French ambassador to the Sublime Porte, Jean de La Forêt who was a of the order of St. Jean of Jerusalem, began his mission in 1535. In 1536, relations between France and the Ottoman Empire came to be known as the Franco-Ottoman alliance, and was described by Robert Kann as “…the first nonideological diplomatic alliance of its kind between a Christian and non-Christian empire…”.826 Such an alliance brought about cooperation on multiple levels, including military and educational.827 These relations continued until the death of Francis I, after which they stalled. It was not until Mehmed Sokollu (d. 1579) attained significant political influence in the Empire through his appointment as grand vizier in 1565,

822 As in the case of the Venetian merchant Marcntonio Stanga who became a member of the French nation in Istanbul. Dursteler, Venetians in Constantinople, 131-132. 823 The French embassy was located in the vineyards of Pera, a predominantly Frankish and Greek suburb, where most foreign embassies were located from the sixteenth century. 824 François Rey, De la protection diplomatique et consulaire dans les échelles du Levant et de Barbarie (Paris: L. Larose, 1899), 306. 825 As an example, in a letter by the French king dated September 1619 instructing Ambassador Césy, a whole paragraph is dedicated to France’s position towards Catholicism in Ottoman lands B.N., Fonds Francais 17.831, p. 380. 826 Robert A. Kann, A History of the Habsburg Empire, 1526-1918 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974), 62. 827 Militarily, the two powers cooperated on the naval front during the in 1543 and educationally, an Arab language course was established at the Collège de France under the instruction of the French diplomat and linguist Guillaume Postel (d. 1581). Gerald J. Toomer, Eastern Wisedom and Learning: The Study of Arabic in Seventeenth century England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 26.

198 that effective efforts could be made to renew diplomatic relations between the French and the Ottomans. By the time the Capitulation of 1581 was granted to the French, their ambassadors were given “precedence and priority” over the other European representatives to the Porte. This status was even incorporated into Article II of the July 1581 Capitulations as follows: From this side also the articles of the treaty and safe-conduct shall be observed as before and, apart from the fact that the dynasty of the abovementioned is pre-eminent among the kings and bans who are celebrated within the Messiah’s people and the kings of the communities which follow , and has been granted and entrusted with the keys of government, for reason that they have maintained friendship, with sincerity of heart, beyond all the other kings, towards our Porte superscribed with justice, too, and since the days associated with felicity of our fathers and forefathers of sublime glory up until this present moment, until now mutually, there has never occurred the violation of the treaty and safe-conduct and the breaking of the alliance and faith, and because they have always been steadfast and enduring in the perfection of sincerity and devotion to our door which is the refuge of felicity, let them give precedence and priority, as has always been done from of old, to the ambassadors of France who are resident at our threshold which is the nest of felicity, over the ambassadors of the Spanish and other kings, when they come to your high-halled Divan and when they visit our Grand Viziers and our honourable councillors.828

Nevertheless, the French ambassador’s influence at court was not as constant as it was dependent on the mood of Franco-Ottoman relations which were influenced by wider geo- political factors. During certain periods, the ambassador maintained favourable and even close relations with high Ottoman officials, such as Baron de Salignac who would enjoy the company of high court officials on his hunting expeditions and was invited on occasions to the houses of ağas.829 Furthermore, the position of the Ottoman Empire on the international stage, often shaped by its military successes or failures, also determined the level of influence enjoyed by the representative of the Catholic powers to the Sublime Porte. For example, in February 1690, the French ambassador obtained an imperial decree directed at the governors of the provinces of Egypt, Aleppo, Damascus, Tripoli, Diyarbakir, Mosul, , Baghdad, Erzurum, and

828 The Ottoman Turkish copy of the Capitulation is found in the Süleymaniye Yazma Eser Kütübhanesi, Esad Ef. MS. 3345 in the margins of ff. 168r (Shawwal 989/29 October-7 November 1581). Translation taken from Susan A. Skilliter, William Harborne and the Trade with Turkey 1578-1582: A documentary study of the first Anglo-Ottoman relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), 171. 829 Gontaut Biron, Ambassade, 1:92-94, 97.

199

Cyprus, forbidding any interference with the Jesuits and other French priests who were teaching Catholic doctrine to the Orthodox, Armenian and Coptic denominations.830 Two points are notable in this firmān: the first, is that the prohibition of the prevention of the priests’ activities implied the granting of permission; the second, and more important is the use of the word mezheb instead of millet.831 This leniency towards the proselytizing activities of the Catholic missionaries can be viewed as an attempt by the Ottoman authorities to ingratiate themselves with the French following their defeat at the hands of the Hapsburgs. Although the missionaries’ activities were following the Ottoman Catholic subjects’ treachery during the invasion of Chios by the Venetians in 1695.832 As some travellers observed, the foreign protectorate enabled the religious orders to enjoy privileges such as tax exemptions but it also transferred to the popular level enabling them to mark their visual presence while enjoying the every-day liberties of conducting their affaires undisturbed: “Au reste tous ces Religieux y demeurent en grande liberté, ilz se tiennent soubs la protection des Ambassadeurs, ce qui faict qu’ils ne payent auncun tribut: ilz vont par la ville avec leurs habits sans qu’on leur face aucun desplaisir, au contraire les Turcs les respectent & honnorent, & en tout les estiment comme Religieux & personnes sacrées, en quoy ils se monstrent plus Chrestiens que nos Heretiques.”833

b. The significance of the Ottoman-French Capitulations in securing the protectorate bi. Definition and general objective of the Capitulations. France’s success in maintaining its role of protector of the Catholic religious and lay communities in addition to the ecclesiastical properties can be attributed largely to a series of capitulations negotiated with the Ottoman Empire, which were periodically renewed and expanded.834 The Ottoman definition of capitulation was the general term ‘ahdnāme, which was used until the nineteenth century to refer to all agreements of the Porte with foreign

830 BOA, ED, vol. 28/3, p. 32. 831 An appropriate definition for mezheb when referring to a religious minority in the Ottoman Empire would be denomination or sect; whereas millet was defined as an autonomous self-governing religious community. 832 For restrictions on Catholic priests in Ottoman Syria, see BOA, Ahkam-ı Şam-ı Şerif, vol. II, pp. 28- 29; 98. 833 Stochove, Voyage, 100-101. 834 The capitulations, which were unilateral treaties granting privileges and concessions to the French without any reciprocity, were the first formal agreement between the Ottoman Empire and France.

200 countries, be they related to peace, trade, etc., although the term kapitülasyonlar was also adopted by the Ottomans.835 The first formal agreement between the Ottoman Empire and France came in the form of the capitulations.836 They were unilateral non-reciprocal treaties granting privileges and concessions to the French on the condition of maintaining peaceful relations with the Ottoman Empire.837 Edhem Eldem explains that the unilateral nature of the capitulations is often overlooked: “The most common error is to assume that these were commercial treaties through which the Ottoman state surrendered a number of its rights and prerogatives, thus yielding to the desire of the nation that made the request, which would in effect place its subjects above the law. In actual fact, the capitulations were not treaties; they were not commercial in essence; and the rights that they gave to their beneficiaries were not a form of exclusion from the law but, on the contrary, an attempt at bringing them into a manageable legal structure.”838 Therefore, the first capitulations were contracted in very general terms, by guaranteeing the freedom of establishment and movement of individuals, freedom of commerce and religion, immunity of residence and penal and civil jurisdiction. Furthermore, they were legal contracts that were connected to the ruling sultan, insofar as his predecessor would confirm them in their original unaltered form upon his succession to the throne or he would renew them to accommodate the desired amendments and extension of privileges.839 Yet, additional privileges often came at a cost of long hours of negotiation and high fees. Nevertheless, other Western

835 Linguistically, the word ʿahdnāme is a combination of the Arabic word ʿahd (contract) and the Persian word for letter, nāme. 836 The Ottoman Empire first began to grant capitulations to Western Powers in the fourteenth century, when the first treaty was agreed with Genoa in 1352. Venice was the second nation with which it contracted capitulations in the . The Italian nations, including the Venetians and Neapolitans, dominated the diplomacy of capitulations until the mid-sixteenth century when an independent capitulation was ratified with the France in 1536. It can also be noted that the French had a previously obtained capitulation from the Mamluks confirmed by the Ottomans in 1517. The capitulatory agreements were extended to England in 1578, the in 1612, the Hapsburgs in 1718, in 1737, the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies in 1740, the subjects of Tuscany in 1747, in 1746, in 1761, Russia in 1774, and Spain in 1782. Van Den Boogert, Capitulations, 7. 837 A consequence of the breaking of these terms was a revocation of individual privileges or the whole capitulatory agreement. 838 Edhem Eldem, “Capitulations and Western trade,” The Cambridge History of Turkey (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 3:293. 839 Nasim Sousa divides the capitulations in terms of their international recognition into three periods: the first, early exterritorial system was non-binding and conceded according to customary law; the second, earliest capitulations conceded by the Turkish sultans which were unilateral privileges; three, the latest capitulation in Turkey beginning in the eighteenth century in which privileges of earlier treaties became rights as they transformed into international treaties binding in character. Nasim Sousa, The Capitulatory Regime of Turkey: Its History, Origin, and Nature (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1933), 153-170.

201 nations could also enjoy the contracted privileges of the leading nation under the most- favoured-nation principle.840 In relation to the documents themselves, the capitulatory system was not restricted to the capitulations; rather they included two complementary legal documents issued by the Ottoman authorities: the firmān and berāt (deed of appointment). The former were granted upon the petition by foreign nations sought for a range of capitulatory-related issues from the clarification of an ambiguous article to the request of a tax exemption. The latter were issued to consuls, protégés and dragomans before they took office as a confirmation of their authority and had supplementary articles that were not contained within the capitulations, but like them, they could be revoked.841 In relation to religious privileges in particular, those that were granted covered both indigenous and foreign Catholic orders and secular clergy. Privileges were likewise conceded to their churches, chapels, houses (priories, friaries, and convents) and any institutions affiliated to them such as schools, boarding schools, hospitals, orphanages, seminaries, dispensaries, and hospices. Moreover, objects necessary for the annual maintenance of places of worship and for use in religious services were also exempt from customs duties.842 Charles Frazee explains the effects of the capitulations connected to the rise of French and Catholic influence as follows: “The Capitulations placed the French ambassador to the Porte in a commanding position in matters involving Catholics, overshadowing the Venetian and Genoese officials who had previously served in that capacity. Henceforth, when Catholic bishops needed a berāt of appointment, they looked to the French envoy to procure it, and, very often, to provide the fees – always necessary for attainment of any office in the Ottoman world. If a church official had a grievance, this was also transmitted to the Porte by the French minister. Since these concessions allowed French merchants to settle in Balkan and Near Eastern cities the influence of the reached into areas never before entered in the Orient.”843 Without a doubt, religion and national interests were inextricably linked for the French.

840 Capitulatory privileges were not automatically granted to other nations; rather, their ambassadors would have to petition the Porte to obtain a firmān confirming capitulatory privileges. France was recognised as such in the capitulation of 1740. 841 Van Den Boogert, Capitulations, 24-26. 842 For more details about these objects and the total annual value of such fixed for each institution see: Le Régime des Capitulations: son histoire, son application, ses modifications par un ancien diplomate (Paris: Librairie Plon, 1898), 299-311. 843 Frazee, Catholics and Sultan, 68.

202

bii. Overview of the capitulatory agreements granted by the Ottoman sultans to the French For the study of the capitulations, I will analyse the original Ottoman Turkish documents contained within the Ottoman Archives of the Office of the Minister, specifically the ʿahdnāme of 1740 as well as individual articles contracted in addition to the capitulations but separate to the main ones.844 Moreover, I consulted collections from ʿAlī Reşād’s Ḳāpitulāsyonlar: tārīḫi, menşāʾı, aṣilleri. The French version of the capitulations and treaties with the Ottoman Empire will be consulted as a valuable comparative source. For this, I will be relying on three published compendia from the nineteenth century comprising the French- Ottoman treatise and capitulations: E. Charrière’s Négociations de la France dans le Levant I, F.A. Belin’s Des capitulations et des traités de la France en Orient, and Ignace Baron de Testa’s Recueil des traités de la Porte Ottomane avec les Puissance étrangers depuis le premier traité conclu en 1536.845 While the said published sources are somewhat outdated, I choose to use them due to their comprehensiveness and conciseness. Diplomatic relations between France and the Sublime Porte was initiated as a result of a succession dispute upon Mehmed II’s death in 1481 who had not designated an heir. Following the enthronement of Sultan Bayezid II (r. 1481-1512), the contestant Cem Sultan (d. 1495) sought refuge in Rhodes and then in France. Sultan Bayezid II (r. 1481-1512) sent a special envoy to France on two separate occasion, 1483 and 1486, in unsuccessful attempts to negotiate his brother’s confinement.846 Later, these relations were formalised through a series of official correspondence between 1525 and 1528, consisting of a promise of assistance given by Sultan Süleyman II and a response of gratitude from François I to leave prison. The issue of ecclesiastical properties first arose in a letter by the sultan to François I in response to the petition for the reinstitution of a Latin Catholic church located in Jerusalem, which had been converted into a mosque. The sultan describing the reinstitution as contrary to the religion of Islam, the rejection of the king’s request is based on the Islamic law that the place of worship had already been prayed in and thus had been endowed as a mosque. Nonetheless, he proceeds

844 The Ottoman text of the capitulation of 1740 in Ecnebi Defteri 29/4 Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi and MS 780 Eggerton collection, ; ʿAlī Reşād, Ḳāpitulāsyonlar: tārīḫi, menşāʾı, aṣilleri (Istanbul: Ḳanā’t Maṭbaʿsi, 1912). 845 Ernest Charrière, Négociations de la France dans le Levant I (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1848-60); François-Alphonse Belin, Des capitulations et des traités de la France en Orient (Paris: Challamel, 1870); Ignace Baron de Testa, Recueil des traités de la Porte Ottomane avec les Puissance étrangers depuis le premier traité conclu en 1536 (Paris: Amyot, 1864). 846 Emrah Safa Gürkan, “France,” Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire, edited by Gb̀or ℓgoston and Bruce Masters (New York: Facts On File, 2009), 221-225.

203 to reassure the king that “the other places apart from the mosque will continue to remain in the hands of the Christians; no person will bother them as long as my reign continues. They will live tranquilly under the wing of our protection, they will be permitted to repair their doors and their windows, they will preserve in all surety the oratories and the establishment that they currently occupy, without anyone oppressing or tormenting them in any way.”847 This first official contact established the basis for France’s policy of defending Catholic interests in the Ottoman Empire, and while François I did not succeed in reinstating the church, he secured an imperial promise of protection and preservation of properties. While François I had set the tone for France’s policies in Ottoman lands, successor kings continued such politics to varying degrees and with specific focuses. King Henri II continued his father’s policy in the Levant concerning the traditional politics toward the Catholic religion and whosoever professed it. He secured the restitution of relics, the manumission of friars and other enslaved Christians as well as the liberation of some French pilgrims.848 Moreover, he secured a firmān ensuring the protection of French subjects and allies travelling to and from Jerusalem on pilgrimage.849 King Henri III (r. 1574-1589), who came to the throne in 1574, sought to secure the interests of the Pope and the religious orders in Jerusalem.850 His successor, Henri IV (r. 1589-1610), directed an official written request to Sultan Mehmed III (r. 1595-1603) in 1595 for the re-opening of the Conventual Franciscan church of St. Francis that had been closed by the Ottoman authorities in 1586. Its eventual re-opening took place during the reign of Sultan Murad III (r. 1574-1595),851 in addition to the revocation of an imperial order to convert the church of the Holy Sepulchre into a mosque.852 Basile Homsy argues that King Louis XIII (r. 1610-1643) was the veritable founder of France’s protection of Christians in the Orient.853 He suggests that while the capitulations were

847 Transliteration of original Ottoman Turksih: “Mescid olan yerinden ma ʿad ise keru ʿissiler elinde olup ondan sākin olanlara eyam ʿad altimizde meskene daḫl ve taʿrruż etmeyup katf ḥimāyetimizde āsūde-i ḥāl olup kapıları ve manẓaraları yapamak emr edup olan sākin olundukları maʿbedlerinde ve yerlerinde refahiyet ile oturup meskene onlara bi-vechi min el-vucūh ẓulm ve taʿadī etmek iḥtimālı yoktur.” Charrière, Négociations, 1:131-132. 848 Letter from the sultan in Latin in Ibid., 2:588, and in French in Testa, Recueil des traités, 1:87. 849 Ibid. 850 Charrière, Négociations, 3:820, 823. 851 Matteucci, Un glorioso convento, 125-128. A letter by King Henri IV to Mehmed III dated 20 March 1595, is provided in Testa, Recueil des traités, 3:328. 852 François Savary de Brèves, Relation des voyages de Monsieur de Brèves, tant en Grèce, Terre Saincte et Aegypte qu'aux royaumes de et Arger, ensemble un traicté faict l'an 1604 entre le roy Henry le Grand et l'empereur des Turcs, et trois discours dudit sieur, le tout recueilly par le S. D. C.: Discovrs Veritable fait par Monsieur de Brèves (Paris: N. Gasse, 1628), 222. 853 Homsy, Les Capitulations, 244-248.

204 not renewed during the reign of Louis XIII, the end of the marked a new policy in France’s position concerning its protectorate of the Christians in the Orient. King Louis XIII, influenced by Cardinal de Richelieu and Fr. Joseph du Tremblay, extended France’s protection to all Christians throughout Ottoman lands and not exclusively to European Catholics. He conveyed these instructions to his ambassador to the Porte, Haye-Vantelet, in 1639 as follows: “[C]omme premier soin de protéger et d’assister les chrétiens et les catholiques du Levant autant qu’il lui sera possible, interposant le nom et l’autorité de Sa Majesté partout où il jugera le pouvoir faire utilement.”854 This instruction was not contained within the articles of previous capitulations, rather it was an affirmation of France’s continued religious policy towards the Christians of the Orient as well a reflection of its universalistic approach. Although this policy was not put to paper, its practical effects was to create a sense of security among the Christians within the Ottoman Empire insofar as they could have recourse to the French ambassador and consuls and all the benefits that this implied. Furthermore, Louis XIII’s reign saw the church of St. Benoît assigned to the Jesuits after establishing themselves in the Ottoman capital once again following their initial failure in 1583, in addition to the exclusive possession of the Holy Places of Bethlehem by the religious orders.855 Notwithstanding, their installation at the church was not without overcoming much hardship including efforts of their removal and banishment from the Empire, were it not for the intervention of the French ambassador Jean-François de Gontaut Biron, Baron de Salignac (in office 1607-1611).856 Subsequently, his successor, Louis XIV (r. 1643-1715) wished to implement a real and effective protection of the Christians of the East which he achieved through the nomination of a French consul in Jerusalem specified in the capitulation of 1670, thus cementing French influence in the Ottoman Empire. The French king’s personal intervention was a policy that was mirrored by his successors Louis XV and Louis XVI.857

854 Ibid., 244. 855 Exclusive possession was recognised through imperial edicts throughout the reign of Louis XIII, notably in 1620, 1621, 1625, 1627, 1630, 1632, 1633, and 1635. Gérard Pélissié Du Rausas, Le régime des capitulations dans l'Empire Ottoman (Paris: Rousseau, 1902), 94. 856 Gontaut Biron, Ambassade, 1:85-90. 857 Buğra Poyraz divides the capitulations into three groups according to their periodization: 1. The period of limited priviledges (until 1536); 2. The period of Capitulations of wide coverage (from 1536 to 1740); 3- The period of permanent Capitulations (from 1740 until the Treaty of in 1923 resulting in the abolishment of the Capitulations). Buğra Poyraz, This History of the Church Diplomacy in Turkey (Istanbul: Libra, 2016), 24.

205

biii. Individual articles granting privileges to the Latin Catholic religious orders, their churches, properties, institutions and activities. The individual capitulatory articles will be presented below as well as their effects on the Latin Catholic adherents and the churches. Moreover, these articles should be understood within the wider geo-political context of French-Ottoman relations in addition to political realities within France itself. Such contextualisation can take place from three angles: French policy towards Catholicism in Ottoman lands as conveyed by the French ambassadors; French internal policy impacting foreign policy towards Catholicism in the Ottoman Empire; French foreign policy towards the Ottoman Empire.

942/1536 The first capitulatory agreement to appear in the historical sources that was granted by Sultan Süleyman I (r. 1520-1566) to the French was dated 18 February 1536. However, it is debated whether the document was in fact ratified. The lack of any extant Ottoman copy of the treaty, in either its ratified or draft form as well as the existence of a paraphrased French translation have led to the common opinion that the document consisted of a French offer to the Grand Vizier Ibrahim Pasha which was never ratified.858 Nevertheless, it set the tone for subsequent capitulations.859 The informal capitulatory agreement granted to France was no doubt a response to the offer conveyed by the French ambassador Jean de la Forêt to Sultan Süleyman of an alliance against the Hapbsburgs since after the drafting of the capitulation, a agreement was signed between the two states for such joint military action.860 A shared

858 For this opinion, see Gilles Veinstein, “Les capitulations franco-ottomanes de 1536 sont-elles encore controversables?,” in Living in the Ottoman Ecumenical Community: Essays in Honor of Suraiya Faroqhi, eds. Vera Costantini and Markus Koller (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 71-88; Skilliter, William Harborne; Gaston Zeller, “Une légende qui a la vie dure, les capitulations de 1535,” Revue d’histoire moderne, II (1955): 127-32; Nicholas Iorga, Points de vue sur l’histoire du commerce de l’Orient à l’époque moderne (Paris, J. Gamber, 1925), 27-55. However, Joseph Matuz argues that the Capitulations of 1536 were ratified following his analysis of two imperial decrees by Süleyman I (the Magnificent) dated July 1536 (Muharrem 943) and May 1549 (rebi’ ahir 956) both addressed to the sancakbey and ḳāḍī of Jerusalem. Joseph Matuz, “À propos de la validité des capitulations de 1536 entre l’Empire ottoman et la France”, Turcica: Revue d’Études Turques 24 (1992): 183-192. Zeki Arıkan is of the same opinion based on the presence of the draft text of the treaty and the letters of the negotiating ambassador, Jean de La Forêt. Zeki Arıkan, “1536 Kapitülasyonları ve Cumhuriyet İdeolojisi,” Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Tarih Bölümü Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi 24, no. 37 (2005): 11-28. 859 Following the granting of this capitulation to France, the Venetian influence at the Porte greatly diminished, in addition to losing a great part of their possessions in 1540. 860 Stanford Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 1:97-98.

206 enmity towards Emperor Charles V (r. 1516-1556) was another factor for close diplomatic ties. The French ambassador’s influence extended beyond the sultan into the inner realms of the Imperial Palace. France, seeking to have a grand vizier who energetically supported campaigns in the west, encouraged the vālide sulṭān Hürrem Sultan (d. 1558) to seek the execution of the Grand Vizier Ibrahim Paşa (in office 1523-1536).861 Thus, followed a French-Ottoman advance on .862 Yet, soon France was to break off that alliance, withdraw from Italy as a result of the papal allegiance, which was reversed from being pro-Spanish. During the late sixteenth century, relations between France and the Vatican became closer, with the latter siding with France in their political rivalry with the other great Catholic powers of Spain and Portugal.863 The betterment of relations not only resulted in Pope Clement VIII (1592-1605) absolving Henry IV in order to recognise him as the legitimate king of France, but more significantly in relation to the question of Catholicism in the Levant, it lead to increased French influence with successive popes, through Richelieu at the beginning of the seventeenth century and later through the French missionaries which the Propaganda Fide preferred to appoint in Asia.864 Thus, influencing France’s stance in relation to negotiations with the Ottoman Empire at any given time.

Only one article treats the question of the protection of the Latin Catholic religion and its adherents, as being subjects of the French king: Article VI: “Quant à ce qui touche la religion, a esté expressément promis, accordé et conclud que lesdicts marchans, leurs agens et serviteurs, et tous aultres subgetz du roy ne puyssent jamays estre molestez ne jugez par caddis, sangiacbeys, sous-bassy ne autres que par l’excelse Porte seulement, et qu’ils ne puyssent estre faictz ne tenuz pour Turcqs si eulx-mesmes ne le veullent et le confessent de bouche, sans violence, ains leur soit licite observer leur religion.”865 A second article in this treaty was used as the basis for the exclusion of tax payments by the religious orders: Article XV: Qu’aucun des subgetz du Roy qui n’auroit habité dix ans entiers et continuelz ès pays dudit Grand Seigneur ne doyve ne puysse estre constraint à payer

861 Ibid., 1:98 862 This informal capitualtion also caused the waining of Venice’s influence before the Sublime Porte, especially given the territorial loses it had suffered, such as Thessalonica to the Ottomans in 1430 after an eight-year seige. 863 Kenneth M. Setton, The Papacy and the Levant (1204-1571) (: The American Philosophical Society, 1978), 2:508. 864 John Joseph, Muslim-Christian Relations and Inter-Christian Rivalries in the Middle East (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1983), 35. 865 Charrière, Négociations, 1:288.

207 tribut, carrach, avanie, taxe, asaps, vagueurs, ne à faire garde aux terres voisines, magasins du Grand Seigneur, travailler à l’arsenal ne à d’autre quelconque angarie, et que ès pays du Roy soit faict le semblable et réciproque aux subgets du Grand Seigneur.”866 France secured official recognition from the Imperial Porte for its place as protector over individual Latin Catholic churches in the capital from the sixteenth century. An article was later inserted into the capitulatory agreement of 1536 enabling the church and priory of St. Peter to enjoy the privileges of the agreement. Four years later, in 1540, King François I sought to bring the Jesuit church of St. Benoît under royal protection by designating it as the royal chapel, a request that was acceded by the Porte.867 The subsequent capitulatory agreements of 1569, 1581 and 1597 dealt primarily with commercial issues, although they also renewed the guarantee of freedom of worship laid down in the initial agreement. Furthermore, the right of passage of pilgrims to and from the Holy Land was guaranteed in the capitulation of 1597868 granted by Sultan Mehmed III (r. 1595- 1603) to King Henri IV (1589-1610) “Il ne sera causé ni trouble ni empêchement aux pèlerins allant et venant à Jérusalem, non plus qu’aux religieux résidant dans l’église de Qamâma tous sujets du padichâh de France.869 Pilgrims were often targeted on route by avarous officials looking to acquire additional wealth at the vulnerable foreigners’ expense. They could even be subjected to reprisals as a result of wars waged by Catholic powers against Muslim states far from the Holy Land, such as the threat of the Mamluk sultan of Egypt Sayf al-Dīn Qāyit Bāy (r. 1468-1496) to retaliate against the Christian pilgrims in Jerusalem and Bethlehem for the war begun in 1482 by the Isabella I and Ferdinand II against the Muslim Nasrid dynasty which ruled the Emirate of Granada.870 The Capitulations of 1604, 1673 and 1740 were the most significant in terms of the all-encompassing nature of the privileges granted to Christians residing within the Ottoman domain, on the one hand, and the particularity of the privileges granted to certain Roman Catholic religious order, their churches and institution, on the other.

866 Ibid., 1:293. 867 Rausas, Le régime, 82. 868 No longer extant. 869 Belin, Des capitulations, 122. 870 Setton, The Papacy, 2:417.

208

1012/ 1604:871 Significantly, the capitulation of evāḫir Zi’l-Ḥicce 1012/ 20-29 May 1604 between Sultan Ahmed I and King Henri IV (r. 1589-1610), which consisted of 50 articles, conceded French protection to Christian pilgrims travelling to Jerusalem and the clergy and men of the habit living there as well as the interdiction of restrictions to be placed on them in the undertaking of their religious duties. This capitulation was used as the basis for the protectorate of France over all Catholics and Catholic missionaries within Ottoman lands. A separate act attached to the capitulation states that “all foreign nations that do not have ambassadors at our Felicitous Porte” fell under the French capitulations. There are only two articles in this capitulation that deal with the subject of the Catholic religion and religious. It is a as follows:

Article 4: Nous commandons aussi que les sujets dudit empereur de France et ceux des princes, ses amis, alliés et confédérés puissent, sous son aveu et protection, librement visiter les saints lieux de Jérusalem, sans qu’il leur soit fait ou donné aucun empêchement. Article 5: De plus, pour l’honneur et amitié d’icelui empereur, nous permettons que les religieux qui demeurent en Jérusalem, Bethléem et autres lieux de notre obéissance, pour y servir les églises qui s’y trouvent d’ancienneté bâties, y puissent avec sûreté séjourner, aller et venir, sans aucun trouble et destourbier, et y soient bien reçus et protégés, aidés et secourus en la considération susdite.

From the fifteenth century, the idea of began to merge with an increasing sense of national self-consciousness.872 For example, the religious renaissance of early seventeenth century France led by King Louis XIII (r. 1610-1643) encouraged the proliferation of Latin Catholic missions in the East which sought conversions within the hierarchy of other Christian denominations within the Ottoman capital and elsewhere. The founding of the Propagande Fide by Pope Greory XV in 1622 and its preference for sending out French missionaries, resulted in an increase in missionary societies in France, such as the Société des Missions Etrangeres de Paris which was approved by the Vatican in 1664.873 As above, the religious renaissance in the early seventeenth century also encouraged the ideas of a holy war. Negotiations in France as well as in Rome and Spain were encouraged by figures such as the

871 Text published in Munşeʿātu’s-Selātīn by Ahmed Feridun Efendi (d. 1583) who was the reʾīsü’l- küttāb of sultans Selim II and Murad III. French text in Testa, Recueil des traités, 1:141-154. Ottoman text: BOA, ED 29/4, 1-31. 872 Setton, The Papacy, 2:417. 873 John Joseph, Muslim-Christian Relations and Inter-Christian Rivalries in the Middle East (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1983), 35.

209 statesman Maximilien de Béthune, duc de Sully (d. 1641) with his European confederation project of the “Grand Design” and Fr. Joseph du Tremblay (d. 1638) who embraced the Duke of Nevers, Charles de Gonzaga’s (d. 1631) crusade projects. Subsequently, approximately seven decades passed with the enthronement of six Ottoman sultans and two French monarchs without a renewal of the capitulations, reflecting a low point in Ottoman-French relations due to France’s alliance with the Pope.874 The French ambassador de Nointel decribes the lull in the relations during this period, “ne s’estant fait aucun revouvellement d’amitie des Empereurs de France avec sultan Moustafa Durant ses deux regnes, ni avec les Sultan Osman, Mourat, et Ibrahim freres, il estoit reserve au nom de Louis quatorze d’agir puissamment au de non par ses armes a la defence de la Religion et a sa protection par son Ambassadeur a la Porte.”875 Nevertheless, during this period France sought to maintain its influence over its Latin Catholic protégés and churches in Ottoman lands through its ambassadors. Upon his appointment as ambassador to the Sublime Porte, Philippe de Harlay, Comte de Césy (in office 1619-1640), was accorded the guardianship of the Franciscan order administering the Holy Places of Jerusalem, the restoration of the Holy Sepulchre, and to be vigilant with respect to the Jesuits who were established in the Ottoman capital by King Henri IV.876 He not only archieved to negotiate permission for the Holy Sepulchre’s restauration was also the appointment of a French consul in Jerusalem. Similar orders were given to Ambassador Henri de Gournay, Comte de Marcheville, during his tenure in Istanbul from 1631 to 1639, for the establishment and protection of the Jesuit and Capuchin orders in the Levant.877 However, de Gournay was not a strong representative of French interests before the Sublime Porte, and he was unable to successfully maintaing the Latin Catholic’s right to administer the church of the Holy Sepulcre, which consequently fell into the hands of the Greek Orthodox in 1634. Tensions continued during the period of his successor Jean de La Hay (in office 1639-1665) who was imprisoned in October 1660 after being unable to comply with the payment of an extraordinary and often extortionate tax known as avania,

874 The sultans were Mustafa I (1617-1618), Osman II (1618-1622), Mustafa I (1622-1623), Murad IV (1623-1640), Ibrahim (1641-1648), and Mehmed IV (1648-1687); and the French monarchs Louis XIII and Louis XIV. The French tradition that a renewal of the capitulations occurred in 1614 upon King Louis XIII’s accession to the throne has been refuted by Alexander H. de Groot as contradicting the unilateral nature of the capitulations. Alexander H. de Groot, “The Historical Development of the Capitulatory Regime in the Ottoman Middle East from the Fifteenth to the Nineteenth Centuries,” Oriente Moderno, no. 3 (2003): 598. 875 AMCC, Series G, doc. 4, fol. 5. 876 Tongas, Les Relations, 19. 877 Ibid., Appendix, 258.

210 three months later he was embarked on a ship back to France and replaced temporarily by the charge d’affaries Roboly. 878

1084/ 1673: The subsequent capitulation of 1674 was the result of negotiations between the Marquis de Nointel, Charles-François Olier, who was appointed French ambassador to the Porte in 1670, and the Grand Vizier Köprülü Fazıl Ahmed Pasha (in office 1661-1676). Dated 10 Safer 1084/28 May 1673 in Edirne and given in the form of a berāt with intitulatio of the Sultan and insciptio of the French King Louis XIV. Ambassador Olier, Marquis de Nointel, was acknowledged as the carrier of a message and the request for the continuation of the existing friendship. It secured French protection of all the Catholic clergy practicing in the Ottoman Empire by granting them the status of subjects of the king of France. The treaty confirmed that all Latin clergy in Ottoman lands were under French protection as the subjects of King Louis XVI and guaranteed the presence of French Capuchins and Jesuits in Istanbul. Consequently, French missionaries were allowed to serve the religious needs of the Latin Catholic communities of Galata and Pera and proselytization, albeit to the diverse Christian denominations as well as to Jews and Yazidis in the empire. The presence of Latin Catholic religious orders, their churches and their activities were also guaranteed and the foundation of schools, hospitals, and orphanages was made possible. It also recognised for the first time France’s official right of protection over the Holy Places in Jerusalem and Bethlehem.

Article I: Que les nations chrétiennes et ennemies qui sont en paix avec l’empereur de France, et qui désireraient visiter Jérusalem, puissent y aller et venir dans les bornes de leur état, en la manière accoutumée, en toute liberté et sûreté sans que personne leur cause aucun trouble ni empêchement; et si dans la suite il convient d’accorder aux dites nations la liberté de commercer dans nos Etats, elles iront et viendront pour lors sous la bannière de l’empereur de France comme auparavant.879 Article II: Les évêques dépendant de la France et les autres religieux qui professent la religion franque, de quelque nation ou espèce qu’ils soient, lorsqu’ils se tiendront dans

878 André Bruneau, Traditions et politique de la France au Levant (Paris: Librairie Félix Alcan, 1932), 41. 879 Homsy, Les Capitulations, 251-252.

211

les bornes de leur état, ne seront point troublés dans l’exercise de leurs fonctions dans les endroits de notre empire où ils sont depuis longtemps.880 Article III: Les religieux francs qui, suivant l’ancienne coutume, sont établis dedans et dehors de la ville de Jérusalem, dans l’église du St. Sépulcre, appellée Camama, ne seront point inquiétés pour les lieux de visitation qu’ils habitent et qui sont dans leurs mains, lesquels resteront encore entre leurs mains, comme par ci-devant, sans qu’ils puisent être inquiétés à cet égard, non plus que par les prétentions d’impositions. Et s’il leur survenait quelque procès qui ne put être décidé sur les lieux, il sera renvoyé à ma sublime Porte.881 Article IV: Les français ou ceux qui dépendent d’eux de quelque nation ou qualité qu’ils soient, qui iront à Jérusalem, ne seront point inquiétés en allant et en venant. On n’inquiétera pas les églises que la nation française a à Smyrne, Seyde, Alexandrie et dans les autres Echelles, et on n’exigera d’eux aucun argent sous ce prétexte.882 Article V: “On n’inquiétera pas les français quand, dans les bornes de leur état, ils lisent l’évangile dans leur hôpital de Galata.”883

New articles Article I (new): Que les Evesques ou autres religieux de secte latine, qui sont sujets à la France, de quelque sorte qu’ils puissent estre, soient dans tous les lieux de nostre Empire, comme ils estoient auparavant, et y faire leurs fonctions, sans que personne les trouble ni les empesche, que les religieux François qui sont en Jérusalem, et qui ont depuis longtemps les Lieux saints tant dehors que dedans, comme aussi ceux qui sont dans le Saint-Sépulchre en jouissent, et le possèdent comme auparavant, sans que personne les moleste, en leur demandant des imposts ou autrement, et s’ils ont quelque procès, ils soient envoyez à nostre Porte de félicité. Article II (new): Que tous les François, et tous ceux qui sont sous leur protection de quelque sorte qu’ils puissent estre qui vont et vienent en Jérusalem, ne soient point tourmentez ni molestez. Article III (new): Nous voulons que les Pères Jésuites et Capucins, qui sont en Galata, jouissent toujours de leurs églises; et celle des Capucins ayant été brûlée, nous donnons permission qu’elle soit rebâtie. Nous voulons aussi qu’on ne moleste point les

880 Ibid., 252. English translation: “Bishops who depend on France and other religious who profess the religious of the Franks, of whatever nation or place, as long as they act in that capacity, shall not be troubled in the exercise of their duties within the boundaries of our empire where they have lived for a long time.” 881 Ibid., 254. 882 Ibid., 255. 883 Ibid.

212

églises des Français, qui sont à Smyrne, à Seyde, à Alexandrie, et dans toutes les autres echelles de notre Empire, ni qu’on leur demande aucun argent pour celles-ci. Article IV (new): Nous permettons qu’ils puissent exercer l’office divin dans l’hospital qui est à Galata, sans que personne les moleste.884

The aforementioned capitulation only details the exclusive religious privileges accorded to France regardless of its claims to be safeguarding all of the Latin Catholic religious orders and secular clergy throughout Ottoman lands. Following this treaty, the Ottoman Empire met with two majory military defeats and significant consequential territorial losses negotiated in the treaties of Carlowitz (1699) and Passarowitz (1718). In spite of defeating Russia in a war that ended with the Pruth peace (1711), both Russia and remained a threat, as well as the Venetians through the pillaging activities of the of Malta in the Aegean. Therefore, in the interests of reviving a strong alliance with France, grand vizier Ibrahīm Paşa (in office 1718-1730) obtained imperial authorisation for the repairation of the Holy Sepulcher which had been requested by the French ambassador twenty-eight years earlier.

1153/ 1740885 Following France’s successful mediation of the Peace of Belgrade in 1739, the eighty- five-article capitulatory agreement signed on 28 May 1740 was the result of efforts by the French ambassador the Marquis de Villeneuve. Article 33 and onwards were renewals and additions accorded by Sultan Mehmed IV to Ambassador de Nointel in 1673. This capitulation was in perpetuo, thus rendering unnecessary their renewal with the advent of every new sultan to the throne.886 This was the last capitulation of its kind between the Ottoman Empire and France, with all subsequent agreements being a peace treaty (1802) or primarily commercial in nature (1838 and 1861). Based upon the 1604 and 1673 capitulations, the final capitulatory agreement confirmed previous privileges and was the most extensive one formally granted to a western power.887 Furthermore, it cemented France as the vanguard of not only the Latin

884 For a description of the document of the capitulations as seen by a contemporary in the presence of the French ambassador and his observation about this capitulatory article see Galland, Journal, 2: 95- 96. 885 French text in Testa, Recueil des traités, 1:186-210. Ottoman text in BOA, ED 29/4, fols. 1-31. The perpetuity of this treaty was interpreted from the word “never” in article 85 of the treaty which stipulates that “never shall the contrary to the present articles be allowed.” Sousa, The Capitulatory Regime, 279- 280. 886 Philip Marshall Brown, “The Capitulations,” Foreign Affairs 1, no. 4 (1923): 77. 887 With article 83, France was entitled to the privileges granted to all other nations: Comme l’amitié de la cour de France avec ma Sublime Porte est plus ancienne que celle des autres cours, nous ordonnons,

213

Catholics and their institutions in the Ottoman Empire, but also those who came under the Catholic denomination, such as Armenian, Assyrian, Chaldean, and Byzantine Catholics. The Ottomans’ granting generous privileges to France was attributed to wider geo- political events, significantly, France’s role in the return of Belgade to Ottoman control, the latter having previously lost it to the Austrains in the in 1718. Aksan argues that “the Ottoman Empire was saved and even renewed by the French mediation” during the Russo-Turkish War (1735-39), through France’s representative to the Sublime Porte, the Ambassador Marquis de Villeneuve (in office 1728-1741) and the Count de Bonneval.888 Robert Olson substantiates this premis with the reasoning that France’s role in the successful negotiations of both the Treaty of Partition of Persia in 1724, in an effort to prevent war with Russia, and the in 1739 led to the granting of these capitulations to France, in addition to the perceived benefit of favourable relations with European powers in the face of the ongoing Persian threat to its eastern provinces.889

Article I: L’on n’inquiétera point les Français qui vont et viendront pour visiter Jérusalem, de même que les religieux qui sont dans l’église du Saint-Sépulcre, dite camamat. Article 32/2: ….[L]es évêques dépendants de la France et les autres religieux qui professent la religion franque, de quelque nation ou espèce qu’ils soient, lorsqu’ils se tiendront dans les bornes de leur état, ne seront point troublés dans l’exercice de leurs fonctions, dans les endroits de notre empire où ils sont depuis longtemps.890 Article 33: Les religieux francs qui, suivant l’ancienne coutume, sont établis dedans et dehors de la ville de Jérusalem, dans l’église du saint sépulcre, appelée camamat, ne seront point inquiétés pour les lieux de visitation qu’ils habitent et qui sont entre leurs mains, lesquels resteront encore entre leurs mains comme par ci-devant, sans qu’ils puissant être inquiétés à cet égard, non plus que par des prétentions d’impositions; et s’il

pour qu’il soit traité avec elle de la manière la plus digne, que les priviléges et les honneurs pratiqués envers les autres nations franques aient aussi lieu à l’égard des sujets de l’empereur de France. 888 Aksan, “Ottoman-French Relations, 1739-1768,” Journal of Ottoman Diplomatic History, in Studies on Ottoman Diplomatic History, ed. Sinan Kuneralp (Istanbul: İsis Press, 1987), 11. 889 Olson, “The Ottoman-French Treaty,” 349, 352. 890 Original Ottoman Turkish: Fransız tebasından olan piskoposlar ve frenk mezhebinde olan ruhbān ṭāʾifesinin ʿOsmanlı memleketlerinde ḳadīmden oldukları yerde kendi ḥāllerinde āyīnlerini icrāʾ ettiklerinde kimse mānıʿ olmayacaktır. English: “Bishops who depend on France and other religious who profess the religion of the Franks, of whatever nation or place, as long as they act in that capacity, shall not be prevented from the exercise of their duties within the boundaries of our empire where they have lived for a long time.” BOA, ED 29/4, 12.

214 leur survenait quelque procès qui ne pût être décidé sur les lieux, il sera renvoyé à ma Sublime-Porte. Article 34: Les Français, ou ceux qui dépendent d’eux, de quelque nation ou qualité qu’ils soient, qui iront à Jérusalem, ne seront point inquiétés en allant et venant. Article 35: Les deux ordres de religieux français qui sont à Galata, savoir: les Jésuites et les Capucins, y ayant deux églises qu’ils ont entre leurs mains, ab antiquo, resteront encore entre leurs mains, et ils en auront la possession et la jouissance. Et comme l’une de ces églises a été brûlée, elle sera rebâtie avec permission de la justice, et elle restera comme par ci-devant entre les mains des Capucins, sans qu’ils puissent être inquiétés à cet égard. On n’inquiétera pas non plus les églises que la nation française à Smyrne, à Saïde, à Alexandrie et dans les autres échelles, et l’on n’exigera d’eux aucun argent sous ce prétexte. Article 36: On n’inquiétera pas les Français quand, dans les bornes de leur état, ils liront l’évangile dans leur hôpital de Galata. Article 40: Les consuls de France et ceux qui en dépendent, comme religieux, marchands et interprètes, pourront faire faire du vin dans leurs maisons, en faire venir de dehors pour leur provision ordinaire, sans qu’on puisse les inquiéter à ce sujet. Article 67: Les Français qui sont établis dans mes états, soit mariés, soit non mariés, quels qu’ils soient, ne seront point inquiétés par la demande du tribut nommé kharadj. Article 82: Lorsque les endroits, dont les religieux dépendants de la France ont la possession et la jouissance à Jérusalem, ainsi qu’il en est fait mention dans les articles précédemment accordés et actuellement renouvelés, auront besoin d’être réparés pour prévenir la ruine à laquelle ils seraient exposés par la suite des temps, il sera permis d’accorder, à la réquisition de l’ambassadeur de France résidant à ma Porte de félicité, des commandements pour que ces réparations soient faites d’une façon conforme aux tolérances de la justice et les cadi[s], commandants et autres officiers ne pourront mettre aucune sorte d’empêchement aux choses accordées par commandement. Et comme il est arrivé que nos officiers, sous prétexte que l’on avait fait des réparations secrètes dans les susdits lieux, y faisaient plusieurs visites dans l’année, et rançonnaient les religieux, nous voulons que de la part des pachas, cadi, commandants et autres officiers, qui s’y trouvent, il ne soit fait qu’une visite par an dans l’église de l’endroit qu’ils nomment le sépulcre de Jésus, de même que dans les autres églises et lieux de visitation. Les évêques et religieux dépendant de l’empereur de France qui se trouvent dans mon empire seront protégés, tant qu’ils se tiendront dans les bornes de leur état, et personne ne pourra les empêcher d’exercer leur rit, suivant leur usage, dans les églises qui sont entre leurs mains, de même que dans les autres lieux où ils habitent. Et lorsque nos sujets tributaires et les Français iront et viendront les uns chez les autres pour ventes, achats et autres affaires, on ne pourra

215

les molester contre les lois sacrées pour cause de cette fréquentation; et comme il est porté par les articles précédemment stipulés qu’ils pourront lire l’évangile, dans les bornes de leur devoir, dans leur hôpital de Galata, cependant, cela n’ayant pas été exécuté, nous voulons que dans tel endroit où cet hôpital pourra se trouver à l’avenir, dans une forme juridique, ils puissent, conformément aux anciennes capitulations, y lire l’évangile dans les bornes du devoir, sans être inquiétés à ce sujet.

As can be observed from the above-mentioned capitulatory articles, the subject of the Holy Sites predominated. France however, appeared to have a monopoly on the privileges granted for the protection of pilgrims, friars and churches. For example, France was one of the few Western power to enjoy the privilege of extending the rights to visit Jerusalem unhindered to all those under its flag, subject and allies alike.891

3. Specific: The French protectorate through Ottoman firmāns of the conventual archives a. Definition of firmāns Firmān (or fermān) was the general term given to any order or edict of the sultan and, more specifically, to an imperial edict bearing the imperial cipher (tuğra)892 which was issued on the decision of the Imperial Council (Divān-i Hümāyūn) - the principle executive and judicial organ of the Empire - upon the sultan’s orders.893 They were divided into two categories: the first was the imperial decree containing the tuğra of the sultan (emr-i şerīf); and the second, an edict decorated with imperial handwriting (ḫaṭṭ-ı hümāyūnla muvaşşaḥ), which

891 Also granted to the Netherlands in 1612, Venice in 1706 and the Two Sicilies in 1740. Borromeo, “Le clergé latin,” 94. 892 The tuğra (imperial cypher), first used by Sultan in 1324 in the form of a signature, was a symbol comprising the name and title of the reigning sultan of the Ottoman Empire. It appeared on money, official documents and buildings, and stamps, for example. It contained features such as the name of the sultan, the name of the sultan’s father, the title ḫān and şah were also added with time as well as the term el muẓaffer dāima (the eternal victor) which was added during Sultan Murad I’s reign. For more information see: Derman M. Uğur, “Tuğra”, DİA, vol. 41 (Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 2012), 336-339. 893 The word firmān was used synonymously with emir and ḥüküm in phrases with honorific epithets such as emr-i ʿālī (the exulted order), emr-i şerīf (the noble order), emr-i pādişāhī (the sultanic order), emr-i münīf-i vācibü’l ittibāʿ (the illustrious order obligatory to follow), ḥükm-i şerīf (the noble ruling) and ḥükm-i cihān-mutāʿ (worldly ruling to be obeyed). Mübahat S. Kütükoğlu, “Ferman,” DİA, vol. 12 (Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 1995), 400; Uriel Heyd, “Farmān- Ottoman Empire,” The Encyclopaedia of Islam New Edition, vol. II (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965), 803-806.

216 contained the ṭuğra with the addition of the sultan’s handwriting.894 Firmāns would often display visually striking features in order to affirm their importance as a legal document, often being adorned with motifs, illuminated or dusted with gold power. According to a Münşeāt Mecmuası by Hālet Efendi, a firmān had six components and five conditions for its validity.895 Thus, they generally contained six parts structured along the following lines: the word firmān or its equivalent; the name and title of the person to whom it was given or sent; the reason for which it was issued (narratio), which is usually a summary of the petition; followed by a clear explanation of the sultan’s order (dispositio); the imperial exhortation for the successful fulfillment of the order by the official to whom it was addressed (santio-comminatio); and the date and place where the firmān was written.896 Petitions, requests, or reports written for the acquirement of a firmān could be submitted by private individuals, officials and foreign representatives. Therefore, the subject matter of firmāns was multifarious, and included themes related to “administration, military affairs, finance, judicial decisions, etc. Some are communiqués on Ottoman victories, travel permits, safe-conducts, permits for foreign ships to pass through the Straits, courier orders, etc. Many firmāns which contained rules of general applicability became ‘regulations’ (ḳānūn) and were incorporated in kanunnames…”897 Not only ḳānūnnāmes, but also collections of ʿadālet-nāmes (lit. book of justice) originated as firmāns pertaining to the preservation of justice in the empire. There were referred to as ʿadālet firmānı and were usually issued by sultans upon their succession to the throne.898 They were also collected into registers called mühimme defterleri and were presented as decisions issued by the Imperial Council without the stereotypical opening and closing formulae.899

894 Osmanlı Fermanları (İstanbul: Başbakanlık Devlet Arçivleri Genel Müdürlüğü, 1992), 20. 895 The components are the word firmān; the name of the recipient with a laudation and supplication, the reason attributed to it, the sender’s intended order, an explanation of the order and the necessary supplication to finalise. The five conditions were that it contained the imperial cypher, an expression flattering the sultan, deference for the rank of the recipient, a laudation preceding the name of the individual to whom it was directed and a supplication following it as well as the reason for which it was written. Kütükoğlu, “Ferman,”, 402. 896 For a detailed overview of the structure, preparation, dispatch and registration of the firmān see Uriel Hayd, Ottoman Documents on Palestine 1552-1615: A Study of the Firman according to the Mühimme Defteri (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960), 7-31. 897 Heyd, “Farmān- Ottoman Empire,” 805. 898 ʿAdālet-nāmes contained edicts ordering the authorities to work within the boundaries of the religious, secular and customary law, prohibitions against the oppression of the sultan’s subjects by state official’s subjugation and malpractice, as well as wrong innovations and detailed harsh punishments for all such injustices. Halil İnalcık, “Adâletnâme,” DİA, vol. 1 (Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 1988), 346-347. 899 Mühimme defterleri were registers of the Imperial Council (Divān-ı Hümāyūn), the principle executive and judicial organ of the Ottoman Empire, which was responsible for the investigation of

217

b. Legal weight of firmāns Firmāns were decrees issued at the highest level of state, traditionally by the office of the sultan himself but they could also be issued by high officials such as the Grand Vizier, the treasurer or financial officer (defterdār) and the chief judges (ḳāżī-i ʿaskers),900 in the name of the sultan. In addition, they were known to have been issued by imperial princes serving as governors as well as governors of Ottoman provinces such as the vālī of Egypt.901 Since firmāns were issued upon the decision of the Imperial Council and the sultan’s orders according to circumstance, they were particular to that sultan, therefore, with the succession of each new ruler, both the predecessor’s edicts were reconfirmed and additional edicts were issued by the ruling sultan. They often contained a phrase stating that they conformed to the şeriʿat and previously established ḳānūns, such as compatible with the noble şeriʿat (şerʿ-i şerīfe uygundur), a phrase which would also be seen on other documents, namely ḳānūnnāmes. As regards firmāns issued to Roman Catholic orders, two general themes can be observed: diplomatic and proprietary. The former was in recognition of the protectorate of a foreign power over the churches or the autonomy of the orders over their own properties, whereas the latter granted permission for the construction, reconstruction, repair, and renewal of the churches and affiliated buildings. 902

complaints and the rectification of grievances. These registers contained rulings that were issued by decision of the Council after the obtainment of the sultan’s approval and were then presented in the form of firmāns. By the seventeenth century, the mühimme defterleri were in wide use. Before then, the documents from the Council were placed in the aḥkām-ı mīrī registers. From 1649 onwards, administrative and judicial related decisions were collected in a separate register titled şikāyet defterleri (complaints registers), with state related issues remaining in the mühimme defterleri, although at times it is difficult to distinguish between the two in terms of themes since the criteria determining their contents could be vague. Suraiya Faroqhi, “Mühimme Defterleri,” E.I., vol. 7 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1993), 470. 900 Ḳāżī-i ʿaskers (lit. judge of the soldiers) of Rumelia and Anatolia held the second highest rank in the judicial hierarchy after the şeyhülislām. They were members of the Imperial Council and played the most significant role in resolving judicial cases at the Council, even representing the şeyhülislām in his absence. For a detailed overview of ḳāżī-i ʿaskers see Uzunçarşılı, İlmiye Teşkilâti, 151-160. 901 Heyd, “Farmān - Ottoman Empire,” 804. 902 Other Roman Catholic churches sought the French ambassador’s intervention in the obtainment of firmāns for the construction and repair of their churches and friaries. For the example of the Conventual Franciscan church of St. Anthony, see Paolo Girardelli, “Between Rome and Istanbul: Architecture and Material Culture of a Franciscan Convent in the Ottoman Capital,” Journal of Mediterranean Studies 18 (2010): 167, 170-174; Girardelli, “Architecture, Identity, and Liminality,” 248.

218

c. The Church of SS. Peter and Paul The conventual archive of of SS. Peter and Paul in Galata contains a collection of thirteen imperial edicts (firmāns) dating from 1013/1605 until 1302/1885.903 Unfortunately, not all of the original documents are preserved. Rather, some are copies the authenticity of which has been certified by Ottoman authorities at a later date, while others are Italian translations of firmāns which are no longer contained within the archives.904 I intend to analyse the firmāns that demonstrate the influence of the French ambassadors and the protectorate of France over the Dominican church in order to determine the legal implications and extent of influence of the Catholic power over the church’s affairs, while placing the analysed firmāns within the broader historical context of French diplomatic influence over the Latin-rite churches of Ottoman Istanbul.905 The firmāns to be analysed are the two oldest extant firmāns in the archives, dated 1013/1605 and 1037/1621 respectively. Both decree the designation of the Church of SS. Peter and Paul to the French ambassador as a place of prayer, the latter being a confirmation issued by Sultan Murad IV (r. 1623-1640) of a former firmān issued by his predecessor Ahmed I.906 The church had originally been under the protection of Venice and as the French traveller, Vincent de Stochove (d. 1679), noted during his visit to Galata in the 1630, it was the church in which the Venetian bailo had his chapel: “Les Peres Dominicains y ont aussi un assez beau couvent & possedent l’Eglise de Sainct Pierre, ces Religieux sont tous Venitiens, ce qui faict que le Bayle ou Ambassadeur de Venice y tient sa chappelle.”907

903 The documents have been referenced according to the published inventory by Giovanni Palazzo in Arturo Bernal Palacios, “Fr. Benedetto Giovanni Palazzo O. P. (1892-1955) and His Catalogue of the Conventual Archive of in Galata (Istanbul),” Dominican History Newsletter 12 (2003): 157- 86. 904 It is difficult to ascertain whether the original firmāns are in existence as a careful examination of the Ottoman archives, the archives of the French consulate in Istanbul and the diplomatic archives in La Coureuve have provided no positive results. It is plausible that some were destroyed in the many fires which plagued the church over the centuries and documents related to the church which would have been kept at the chaple of St. Anne in the complex of St. Francis as the meeting place of the Magnifica Comunità di Pera. 905 Of the remaining nine firmāns, three regard the repair and reconstruction of the church and convent, two concern the transformation of endowments (vaḳıf) into private possession (mülk), while two mention that the affairs of the church are to be administered exclusively by the religious order, and two firmāns authorise the construction of the Dominican Church and Friary of Makriköy (nowadays Bakırköy) and the Dominican Church in Smyrna. 906 Belin mentions two additional firmāns, one issued by Sultan Ahmed I, dated 1608, which placed the Church of SS Peter and Paul under the protection of the king of France during the ambassadorship of de Salignac, and the second by Sultan Mahmud I, dated 1731, which renewed the aforementioned firmān during the ambassadorship of Louis Sauveur Villeneuve. The firmān was renewed for a third time with a ḫaṭṭ-i şerīf in 1804 (sefer 1218) under the ambassadorship of Marshal Brune. Belin, Histoire, 222. However, the original of neither have been located. 907 Stochove, Voyage, 100.

219

However, as the edicts below reveal, recognition of the protectorate of SS. Peter and Paul was subsequently transferred to France.

ci. Translation and analysis of the firmāns The oldest extant firmān in the conventual archive dated 1013/ 1605 was issued by Ahmed I which and decreed the church as the official place of prayer for the French ambassador.908 The edict was issued as the result of a formal written petition (arż-ı ḥāl) directed to the Ottoman Sublime Porte by Francois Savary de Brèves, who served as French ambassador of King Henri IV (r. 1589-1610) from 1589 to 1607. Ambassador de Brèves was a persistent and successful negotiator with the Porte who served the interests of the Latin Catholic churches of Galata. His success gained him the title of “special protector and defender of all the churches and monasteries, general protector of the Christians of the Ottoman Empire” by the Latin Catholic community in Pera.909 Ambassador de Brèves’ petition was for the designation of the church of SS. Peter and Paul as the official place of prayer since the church of St. Benoît which was formally assigned to the ambassador was located too far from his residence. The firmān of 1605 resulting from the petition, issues four separate orders. The first, that the Dominican church be assigned to the French ambassadors; the second, that they permitted freedom of worship within the church; the third, that the ambassador have the freedom to bring Jesuit priests to perform rituals at the church; the fourth, protection from interference and meddling.910 A subsequent imperial edict issued by Sultan Ahmed I (r. 1603-1617) in 1608 placed SS. Peter and Paul under the protection of the French monarch, Hentry IV (r. 1589-1610).911 However, the Dominican church continued to receive a yearly subsidy from the Republic of Venice, which was formerly the official protector of Catholicism in the Ottoman Empire.912

908 CADG, register no. 27. 1. 909 Belin, Des capitulations, 175. 910 For the translation into English and a detailed analysis of the firmān of 1605 see Vanessa R. de Obaldía, “The French Protectorate Through Firmāns of the Conventual Archive of Saints Peter and Paul,” in Domenicani a Costantinopoli prima e dopo l’impero ottomano: Storia, immagini e documenti d’archivio, eds. Claudio Monge and Silvia Pedone (Firenze: Nerbini, 2017), 73-76. For a copy of the firmān and its transliteration see Ibid., 83-84. 911 While either the original or facsimile of this firmān has not been located in either the Dominican conventual archive or the Vatican archives, it is mentioned in d’Alessio, Le Couvent, 18. 912 Belin highlights that while SS. Peter and Paul had been put under French protection in 1608, it continued to remain under Venetian protection and only was only completely placed under the French

220

Nevertheless, in practice the Dominican churches were known to be under French protection prior to this date, albeit unofficially. This is proven in an account by the French ambassador Francois Savary de Brèves who intervened to prevent the Dominican church of St. Nicholas from being seized and transformed into a mosque.913 The right of protection extended to the Italian Dominican friars who were administering the church and friary and did not merely encapsulate the immovable property, which presents an interesting juridical situation in which the representative of a foreign power was defending nationals of another country.914

Firmān 1037/ 1621 The second earliest extant firmān in the conventual archive is effectively a renewal of the terms of that of 1613 and was issued on the last ten days of the fourth month in the Islamic calendar, rebīʿü’l-āḫir, of the year 1037/1621.915 The firmān is addressed to the ḳāżī of Galata and begins with a stereotypical formula attributed to a functionary of his position. The decree is issued in response to the French ambassador, Philippe de Harlay’s petition to the Sublime Porte for the renewal of the imperial edict of 1613 originally granted by Sultan Murad IV’s predecessor, which officially designated the Dominican church of SS. Peter and Paul to the French ambassadors. This firmān concludes with a reiteration that the ḳāżī not grant permission in contradiction to the imperial decree. Due to its significance, a translation of the whole firmān is provided as follows:

[The imperial cypher:] Shah Murad the son of Ahmed ḫan ever victorious. When the Eminent Imperial edict reaches the most authoritative of judges of the Muslims, the best of the governors of the monotheists, the mine of virtue and knowledge, the evidence of truth over all of creation, the inheritor of the wisdom of the prophets and messengers, surrounded by the increased grace of the Ruler the Helper, His Eminence the Ḳāżī of Galata (may God increase his virtues), let it be known that: The French ambassador sent an envoy to my Imperial Court, and while the church called Saint Benoit located in Galata itself is reserved for the French ambassador, when it was previously reported that [the church] was far from the houses which they inhabit, the

flag in 1705 during the vicariate of R. P. Tommaso de Via of Chio (1702-1706). A feast was even given to celebrate the occasion. Belin, Histoire, 227. 913 Brèves, Relation, 17. 914 The capitulations granted France wide powers of protection over Catholicism in Ottoman lands, as well as granting rights to nationals of other states who was under the French flag or considered a subject of the French king. 915 CADG, register no. 27.2.

221

aforesaid Church of St. Petro916 in the protected city [Galata] was designated once again to the notables [i.e. French ambassadors]. Besides, let no one interfere with the monks917 known by the name of Jesuits from the Frankish sect who come to the above-mentioned church. Regarding this subject, they requested my imperial edict (emr-i şerîf) as a renewal of the imperial edict (hüküm-i hümayun) issued during the time of my deceased father the Hüdavendigar,918 may God illuminate his grave. Regarding this issue, I order that you execute the imperial edict (hüküm-i hümayun) issued by my father the Hüdavendigar (the sovereign) and that you not grant permission [to anyone] in opposition to it. Know such and act according to the monogram of the Sultan Written on the last ten days of the month of rebīʿü’l-āḫir of the year 1037. In the abode of Constantinople the protected.

The imperial edict contains three interrelated order which can be analysed as follows: 1. The renewal of the right recognising the assignment of the Dominican church of SS. Peter and Paul to the French ambassador. Since its establishment, the Church of SS. Peter and Paul was under the protection of the Republic of Genoa. Nonetheless, the designation of the church to the French ambassador, who was the official French diplomatic representative to the Ottoman Sublime Porte, granted official recognition to the France’s custodianship over the church and the religious order who administered it. The Jesuit church of St. Benoît had already been the beneficiary of the Catholic power’s protection from 1540.919 The original reason for the designation of another of Galata’s churches as a place of prayer of the French ambassadors is attributed to the excessive distance from the notables’ residence. However, the two churches were (and still remain) located at the reasonable distance of 0.30 km from one another, and therefore, it appears to be a pretext for increasing France’s influence over the Latin Catholic churches of Galata, especially when considering that the French embassy was initially located within the walls of Galata itself and was therefore relatively close to both churches.

916 San Petro, the name of the chuch given in the document, is Italian for St. Peter. Since the same name has been used to refer to the church in other Ottoman legal documents, such as a court record dated 1661, it can be suggested that this was the shortened version of the name of SS. Peter and Paul. İstanbul Müftülüğü, İŞS 9, fol. 96a, 17 August 1661. 917 The term used here in Ottoman Turkish is rāhibler, which was a term used interchangeably for monk, friar and males from other categories of religious orders. Here, the term is ued to refer to the Jesuits which are a religious order of clerks regular. 918 Meaning sovereign, lit. devotee of God. It was the title conferred to Sultan Murad I (r. 1362-1389). 919 Upon the request of the king of France, François I, the Church of St. Benoît was orally assigned by Sultan Süleyman I to the French ambassadors as their official place of worship in 1540 (and remained so until 1672) and was subsequently confirmed in written form in the firmāns of 1609, 1617, 1619 and 1628. Arthur Droulez, Supplément à l’Histoire de Saint Benoît (Paris, 1948), 14.

222

2. Freedom of worship at both the church of St. Benoît and that of the Dominicans in Galata. This right contained within the edict can be understood within the context of the religious rights of the French ambassadors in addition to the political affiliations of the religious orders who administered these churches. St. Benoît was the first of Istanbul’s chuches to be designated as the official royal chapel of the French ambassador and the Jesuits who presided there were both Latin Catholic missionaries and French subjects. The Jesuit mission had experienced difficulties settling into Istanbul upon the mission’s first attempt to establish themselves in the city in 1583 and once again in 1609 due to opposition by the Venetian ambassadors which resulted in tensions with the Ottoman authorities.920 Thus, while the French ambassador had another of Galata’s churches designated to them as their official place of worship, he was also careful to secure the Jesuits’ protection through additional methods; bringing the Jesuits to perform liturgy at the Church of SS. Peter and Paul was one of these. It was not uncommon for churches to host friars from the city’s other religious orders, especially when they faced extenuating circumstances.921 After all, the Church of St. Benoit had been under the administration of the Dominicans since 1576, until its transferral to the Jesuits on 18 November 1583 soon after their arrival in Istanbul.922 3. Protection granted to the Jesuits from molestation and interference in their rituals. This guarantee was significant since the position of the mission was not always secure. Its rivalries with Istanbul’s other Latin Catholic religious orders, primarily the Capuchins, had put them at risk of having their properties seized by the Ottoman authorities.923 Moreover, they were temporarily expelled from Istanbul in 1628, almost a decade before the issuing of this order, due to their role in a conflict about the Greek Patriach Kyrill Loukaris (in office 1629-1638) which put in opposition the English and Dutch ambassadors to the French.924 While the activities of certain foreign Latin Catholic religious orders could have caused umbrance among the local non-Catholic Christians, such as their political affiliations or successful proselytisation activities, this was an order that one can see repeated in other Ottoman

920 Adina Ruiu, “Conflicting Visions of the Jesuit Missions to the Ottoman Empire, 1609-1628,” Journal of Jesuit Studies 1 (2014): 265. 921 Such was the case of the Franciscan Observants who remained for a time at St. Benoît after having to abandon their friary of St. Anthony of the Cypres during the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453. 922 On 25 August 1584, the French ambassador signed an agreement granting control of St. Benoit to the Jesuits and the act of donation was drawn up the same day. Droulez, Supplément, 16-17. 923 Janin, La Géographie Ecclésiastique, 594; Adina Ruiu, “Missionaries and French Subjects: The Jesuits in the Ottoman Empire,” in A Compnaion to the Early Modern Catholic Global Missions, ed. Ronnie Po-Chia Hsia (Leiden: Brill, 2018), 200-203. 924 For details on the temporary of their mission see Ruiu, “Conflicting Visions,” 272-278.

223 documents used in this study, primarily firmāns and ʿahdnāme. Therefore, it can be understood within the general context of a prohibition against interference by local Ottoman officials and Muslim residents with the church and rituals carried out within as well as acts causing aggrevation to the friars. One question that arises concerns the reasons why the French ambassador asked for a renewal of the imperial edict? Such a move could be interpreted as an attempt to secure the position of the church and priory through the obtainment of an official document from the Sublime Porte. To attribute efforts for renewal as a response to the insecurity felt by the Dominican friars is feasible in view of the fact that all three of the churches over which the Dominicans presided following the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople were either appropriated and/or converted into mosques: St. Nicholas in 1629 or 1630, St. Mary in 1636,925 and St. Paul, which had been converted into Ğalaṭa Cāmiʿ, as mentioned above. Moreover, diplomatic relations between France and the Ottoman Empire were not constantly amiable, but went through periods of strain leaving the churches and clergy without any effective diplomatic protection. This is reflective of the general situation where the fortunes of the ecclesiastical properties in Galata and Pera were often tied to the degree of the Catholic powers’ representation at the Sublime Porte.

d. The Church of St. Louis of the French di. Translation and analysis of the firmāns The archives of St. Louis of Pera contain over seventy firmāns dating from 1005 AH (1596) to 1084 AH (1663).926 Of these, seven are pertinent to the theme of the protectorate of the French over the Capuchin order and their churches.927 They were issued with general applicability to their travels, ministry and churches in the Levant as opposed to specific decrees recognising French protection over the friars at a particular church, such as French embassy and the chapel in which they used to administer the masses and as such they were addressed to all the responsible officials of a particular region, rather than to one particular judge. These were issued in response to a direct request by the French ambassador or his chargé d’affaires

925 For more on the history and conversion of the two churches, see Palazzo, Odalar Djami. 926 Contained in Series R: Commandements impériaux; firmans; barats; lettres de recommandation. Series X contains translations of twenty imperial edicts into primarily French as well as Italian and Greek, but not the original Ottoman Turkish documents. 927 Ibid., Series R: docs. 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 41 and are dated 1036/1627, 1051/1642, 1058/1648, 1063/1653, 1063/1653, 1073/1662, 1123/1711, respectively.

224 addressing certain needs or reinforcing the capitulatory articles. Religious rights included free passage to Capuchin friars, brother and those who live only by alms, permission to catechise and preach in the churches of the Christian subjects, protection from verbal abuse;928 that they be allowed to remain within their friaries and churches undisturbed;929 the ensurance of the safety and tranquillity of the itinerant friars;930 that they be protected and defended in accordance with the capitulations as well as to ensure that the not be subjected to bribes;931 that the Capuchins be allowed to exercise their functions as missionaries in the consulates, villages and at sea;932 and carry out missionary activities unhindered and to occupy their churches and friaries undisturbed. This can be attributed to the fact that the friars and chapel were automatically under French protection as they were located in the ambassadorial compound. As chaplains, the friars came under the status of members of the ambassador’s household, that is, individuals who worked directly for the ambassador and were not genealogically related. In addition to the chaplains, this household typically comprised of a secretary, an accountant, a doctor, a chief steward, dragomans and a variety of servants since these officials and servants were attached to the ambassador as official staff whose appointments were authorised by the French senate. Therefore, the Capuchin chaplains were under the direct protection of the ambassador, and enjoyed the limited immunity that the position brought. Likewise, the chapel, located within the French ambassadorial complex was part of the structure of the embassy and, as such, was deemed to be under the protection of the French nation. However, the ambassador’s own diplomatic immunity was vulnerable in the sense that it could be breached according to the circumstances during strained diplomatic relations, and therefore their person was not immune from incarceration nor their residence from looting.933 The French consuls likewise enjoyed immunity of person and residence under articles of the capitulations as well as imperial orders and letters of justice (ʿadāletnāmes) addressed to local authorities in cities with a French consular presence.934 Here, the second earliest firmān will be analysed, that dated 1051 AH (1642) since it is one of the most comprehensive ealier edicts. Unlike the above-mentioned edicts of SS. Peter and Paul which were addressed to the local ḳāżī of the district in which the Dominican church

928 Ibid., doc. 5. 929 Ibid., doc. 8. 930 Ibid., doc. 10. 931 Ibid., doc. 11. 932 Ibid., doc. 12, Ottoman document not extant but the summary of the document exists in the archive catalogue. 933 Mitler, “The Genoese,” 85. 934 Panaite, “French Capitulations and Consular Jurisdiction,” 79-80.

225 was located, this had an all-encompassing jurisdiction in the lands of Rumelia and Anatolia to whose officials it was directed. With the exception of the Arab provinces, these areas made up the main territories governed by the Ottoman Empire in southeastern Europe and the westernmost protrusion of Asia. The geographical cover is significant because by this date the order of Friars Minor Capuchin already had a presence in the cities of Istanbul, Smyrna, , Circassia and several of the Aegean Islands, in addition to the certain Arab cities, significantly Aleppo. The edict was issued in response to a petition by the Capuchin friars, who complained of having been subject to abuses and extortion by local Ottoman officials. Therefore, it issues two interrelated orders. The first consists of an order to Romelian and Anatolian judges to ensure the safety and tranquillity of the Capuchins in their travels throughout the empire and upon entering into cities, towns and villages (siyaḥatlar eyledikleri yerlerde ve girdikleri şehrlerde ve ḳaṣaba ve ḳariyelerde). The second is a prohibition to disturb the friars, either in their travels or their churches and friaries. Particular warning is given to cavalrymen (sipāhīs) and janissaries (yenīçeris), the latter of whom were designated with maintaining security at important locations throughout the empire but were notorious for being restless or even riotous due to lack of booty in campaigns, insufficient bonuses or delays in the payment of their salaries.935 Therefore, foreign pilgrims and friars would have been a tempting target.

4. Specific: The French protectorate through letters patent and letters of protection found in the conventual archives936 In matters relating to church properties, the ambassadors also depended on the direct intervention of the French king through letters addressed to the Ottoman sultans in order to grant greater authority to their diplomatic efforts. The conventual archives of St. Louis of the French contain a series of six letters patent from the French kings dating from 1626 to 1718 in relation to the Capuchin order and their missions in Ottoman lands. The reasons attributed to the issuing of each of the six letters are summarised as follows: letter dated 1626 to grant free passage to the Capuchins for their missions in the Levant; letter dated 1628 to grant royal protection to the religious order established in the Levant; letter dated 1645 to re-establish the

935 Shaw, History, 1:93, 176 936 See AMCC, Series G, doc. 4.

226

Observant Franciscan order in the consulate chapel of Sidon to the detriment of the newly introduced Capuchins; letter dated 1656 to confirm the ancient protection, rights and privileges of the holy places and the religious communities of Jerusalem; letter dated 1674 to grant the Jesuits established in the Levant the title of chaplains of the French nation and letters patent dated 1718 confirming the pension of 12,000 francs for the Capuchins established in the Levant.

a. Definition and legal weight of the letters Letters patent, a term used in the plural, is derived from the Latin term litterae patentes. It consists of a written order issued by a monarch granting rights or status. As a form of legal instrument, it is a vestigial exercise of extra-parliamentary power by a monarch who required only his seal or signature on the document to make it legally enforceable. The letters of royal protection treated here were formal letters granted on the part of the monarch to individuals placing them under royal protection. While they were not legally binding on the Ottoman authorities, they could be used within the context of already established legal agreements between the two states, such as within the of the capitulations or to verify the religious order’s status as subjects of the king of France.

b. Analysis of the letters The archive of St. Louis of the French contains three letters patent of royal protection in favour of the Capuchins established in the Levant.937 The first is dated 22 January 1628,938 the second is 1 March 1724939 and the third is 22 December 1737.940 The first was granted by the King of France and of Navarre, Louis XIII (r. 1610-1643) and is distinct in wording, although similar in content to the latter two, which were issued by Louis XV (r. 1715-1774). Both contain identical wording and can therefore be considered standard format with adjustments being made for dates and ambassadors’ names in corresponding to the period in which the letters were issued. The first establishes royal protection of the Capuchin order in the Levant,

937 The word “Levant” is derived from the medieval French meaning Orient. As a geographical term, it is used here to refer to territories located within the Ottoman Empire. 938 AMCC, Series A, doc. 2. 939 Ibid., doc. 25. 940 Ibid., doc. 28.

227 while the latter two reaffirm the protection granted in previous letters patent, the second making reference to that dated 25 November 1687,941 while the third makes reference to that dated 1 March 1724. Within this framework, they contain four significant orders. The first is the granting of recognition to the French Capuchin friars due to the success of their missionary activities as well as the assistance given to the subjects of the French king residing in the Levant. The second states the confirmation of royal protection over the said Capuchins, on the one hand, and their affiliated properties throughout Ottoman lands, on the other: “Nous prenons et mettons lesdits Religieux Capucins Missionnaires nos Sujets, en notre Protection et Sauve-Garde speciale; ensemble les Hospices, Eglises, Chapelles et Maisons qu’ils ont et pourront avoir dans tous les Pays et Echelles du Levant.” The third concerns the appointment of the French ambassador to the Sublime Porte as well as the consuls and vice-consuls in the employment of their powers in addition to the subject of legal jurisdiction to maintain/safeguard the properties of the Capuchins and to prevent interference with their missions or activities. The fourth is an exhortation for the right to religious freedom and practice of the religious order in the consular chapel and the hospitals over which they presided. From these royal letters of protection, it can be established that the theme of ecclesiastical properties of the Capuchin religious order were dealt with in conjunction with and not independent of the protection and religious rights of the friars themselves. The reiteration of the types of properties under their possession reflects the significance of the material (proprietary) establishment as a means of facilitating and, to a certain extent, justifying the presence of the religious missions in Ottoman lands. The ambassador and consuls, as representatives of the French nation before the Ottoman Porte possessing extraterritorial jurisdiction, were appointed to oversee and implement royal orders pertaining to these matters.

5. Limitations a. On ecclesiastical properties Both the capitulations and imperial firmāns/letters patent granted religious orders and missions a permitted space and legal justification in which to carry out their missionary activities; furthermore, they enabled the protection of ecclesiastical properties in Ottoman lands. Yet, they did not become untouchable with these legal agreements. In reality, their

941 Document no longer extant.

228 activities could be curbed, resulting in serious punishments and the confiscation of properties due to sudden changes in Ottoman internal politics. Examples of contraventions of the documents treated above in relation to ecclesiastical properties in Galata and Pera are the confiscation of the Dominican church and priory of St. Paul 1476 and its transformation into a mosque between 1476 and 1478 by Sultan Mehmed II;942 the closure of the Conventual Franciscan Church of St. Francis from 1586 to 1590;943 the demolition of the Minor Observant Franciscan church of St. Maria in 1663 and its conversion into a mosque944 and the appropriation of the church, friary and outbuildings of St. Francis and the chapel of St. Anne in 1697 and their conversion into a mosque in 1698.945

b. On the activities of Latin Catholic missions As regards the limitations to the activities of the missions, a momentary re-direction of attention from the Ottoman capital towards the cities of Aleppo and Damascus in the Ottoman’s Levantine provinces (eyālet-i Šām and eyālet-i Ḥaleb) is necessary.946 The Latin Catholic missions, with support of the Propaganda Fide, sought conversions from among the Eastern Christian churches whom they perceived as heretics. Efforts to proselytisation bore fruit both

942 See PART III, 2.b, for a full and detailed history of the church and its conversion. 943 The church was closed by the Ottoman authorities from 1586-90 as a result of an increase in hostilities towards Christians fueled by millenarian tendencies and apocalyptic warnings, which were encouraged by Sultan Murad III, who was known to be superstitious. Hasluck, Christianity and Islam, 2: 722. 944 The Franciscan Minor Observants were endowned with a property, which included a house, chapel and wooden icon of the Virgin Mary, by a rich and noblewoman from a Galatan family of Genoverse origin, Clara Maria Draperis (née Bertulla), on 1st of January 1584/5 in the district of Mumhane. The chapel was completely destroyed in the Great fire of Galata in 1660, except for the wooden icon, which was preserved in the house of Geroge Draperis, the benefactor of the monastery. The church was rebuilt after it was decided by the order of the Franciscan Observants on 25 July 1661 that it would be restored at the expense of the Holy Land in order to house some friars from there. Reconstruction was done in a hurry in time to receive the guests without acquiring imperial permission in the form of a firmān. Consequently, the church was demolished in 1663 and converted into a mosque. 945 A huge fire which swept through Galata on 4/5 May 1696 and destroyed the complex of St. Francis and all its properties from which it derived its revenues, with the exception of a house it owned near the French ambassadorial palace in the Vignes de Pera, Dört Yol.An imperial decree issued by Mustafa II in March 1697 ordered the appropriation of the church, monastery and outbuildings along with its other properties, with the exception of a house in Pera. The church, which had not been completely destroyed by the fire, was partly demolished in October 1697, and then converted into a mosque in 1698. de Obaldía, “A Shared Space,” 133-162. 946 The Capuchins, and Jesuits all sought imperial permission to open houses in Aleppo in the early seventeenth century, with the latter two founding their missions there in 1627. John Joseph, Muslim-Christian Relations and Inter-Christian Rivalries in the Middle East (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1983), 36.

229 among the lay people as well as the church hierarchy with increasing numbers entering into communion with the Holy See through their establishment of the Eastern Catholic Churches.947 In one example of the consequential strained relations between the missionaries and the other Christian denominations, in 1698, a complaint was made to the district governor of Istanbul (ḳaymaḳāmı) by the Syriacs of Aleppo concerning the Latin missionaries in their city. The ruling issued in response to the grievance appeared in the form of a firmān in a mühimme defteri and states that those sent by the Pope were engaged in converting Armenian and other Christian denominations to Latin Catholicism. “A ruling to the district governor of Istanbul following a petition by the humble servants of the Syrian Orthodox church [of Antioch] (yakūbī süryānī) in Aleppo, some Latin religious sent by the Pope removed Armenians and other Christian denominations from their ancient rites. Those who were made to follow the Latin denomination should be arrested and receive their due punishment from the required penalties of the şeriʿat.…..”948 In an effort to deter further conversions to the Latin Catholic denomination, in the above ruling, it is the converts, described as having been made to leave their ancient rites, who are punished with banishment to the Aegean island of . Expulsion (nafī)949 was a discretionary punishment (taʿzīr), which consisted of either internal banishment to another town or border region or expulsion of non-Muslim citizens from the state. Since the objective of a discretionary punishment is either to coerce the realisation of a certain act or to prevent repetition, it is deemed to be corrective and rehabilitative rather than merely punitive. Being an individualised punishment, it was thus seen as the most effective way to resolve the issue of interdenominational conflicts which had been brought to the Sublime Porte’s attention.950 Conscious of increased denominational tensions in Syria, the ambassador Jean Louis d’Usson, Marquis de Bonnac (in office 1716-1724), had already voiced his concerns in a report

947 John Joseph, Muslim-Christian Relations and Inter-Christian Rivalries in the Middle East (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1983), 36-40. 948 BOA, MD, 110/00141/1263, dated 1109/1698. 949 A difference of opinion exists among jurists regarding the command of banishment (yanfu): exile from Muslim ruled territory, exile to another territory and imprisonment there or imprisonment in the territory where the crime was committed. Abū Bakr Muḥammad Al-Sarakhsī, al-Mabsūṭ (Beirut: Dār al-Maʿrifa, 1986), 9: 199. 950 While exile might appear an excessively harsh punishment, it comes at the lower end of penalties according to Islamic law, which are in descending order of severity: the death penalty, retaliation for injuries (qiṣāṣ ma duna al-nafs), cross-amputation (al-qaṭʿ min khilāf), amputation (qaṭ), flogging (jald), imprisonment (ḥabs), exile (nafī), banishment (tashhīr), fines, and a reprimand (taʾdīb). For a sound introduction to penalties in Islamic law, see Rudolph Peters, Crime and Punishment in Islamic Law: Theory and Practice from the Sixteenth to the Twenty-first Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).

230 on the state of affairs of the Catholic religion in the Levant. He argued that it was in “extreme danger” due to missionaries’ activities which were increasing tensions with local Greek Orthodox and Armenian populations. The ambassador noted that the Greek Orthodox ecclesiastical hierarchy would seek to exploit this situation in their favour before the Sublime Porte. He also reported the limitations of the capitulations in two significant ways. Firstly, he remarked on the protection of the missionaries in the Levant insofar as such missions were not mentioned, with only general reference being made to the Latin Catholics and specific reference to some churches in the Holy Land. Secondly, he mentioned the guarantee of the Ottoman state’s adherence to certain provisions within the capitulatory articles, giving as examples, to substantiate his claim, the church of St. Anthony and the Hospital of St. George in Galata, as well as the churches on the Aegean island of Chios.951 He wrote:

[I]l est nécessaire de remarquer que les capitulations que le grand Seigneur a avec la France, ne sont point un obstacle suffisant pour l’empecher de prendre et d’exécuter une semblable resolution [à chasser tous les missionnaires du Levant], car ce traité ayant été fait longtemps avant l’introduction formelle des missions dans le Levant, il n’y en est fait aucune mention et il y est seulement parlé de quelques églises de la Terre-Sainte et, en général, des Latins que se trouvoint dans les États du grand Seigneur, lors de la conclusion de ces traités. Il est nécessaire de remarquer encore, à cette occasion, que quoique les Turcs observent assez régulièrement les capitulations, ils s’en sont écartés en beaucoup de choses, mème dans les articles qui concernent la religion, sans qu’on ait pu ou voulu les contraindre à réparer leurs infractions. Ainsi l’église de Saint-Antoine à Galata ayant été rasée par eux, il n’a pas été possible d’en avoir raison, non plus que de celles qui furent détruites à Chio, quand les Vénitiens se retirérent; de même l’hôpital des François à Galata, compris formellement dans les capitulations, ayant été consumé par le feu, n’a jamais pu être rétabli, quelqu’instance qu’on en ait faite, ce que je marque pour faire voir que, quand les capitulations seroient favorables à l’établissement des missions, on ne pourroit pas se promettre d’en faire toujours un usage certain.952

951 The island of Chios was conquered in 1566 on the orders of Süleyman I following the Ottoman defeat at Malta the year before. Two of the nine Latin Catholic churches, Our Lady of Grace and St. Mary of the Castle were converted into mosques. 952 Charles Schefer, ed., Mémoire historique sur l’ambassade de France à Constantinople par le Marquis de Bonnac publié avec un précis de ses négociations à la Porte Ottomane (Paris: Leroux, 1894), 191-2. Original memoire in archives du Ministere des Affaires Etrangeres, Jean Louis d’Usson, Marqui de Bonnac, Memoire sur l’Etat actuel ou se trouvent les affaires de la Religion en Levant, Register 50MD/1, fols. 264-273.

231

The ambassador’s fears were justified when on 14 September 1722, the Sultan issued a firmān953 criticising the conversion of Ottoman Christian subjects by Roman Catholic missionaries, ordering the arrest and punishment of those responsible, exhorting the Empire’s Christians to preserve their ancient religion and demanding the return to Byzantine Orthodoxy of the Greek of the Antioch patriarchy.954 This was followed shortly after by another imperial order dated 1138 AH (1725) addressed to the ḳāżī and paşa of Aleppo which was obtained by Greek Orthodox clergy issuing charges against the Latin Catholic missionaries.955 In spite of the imperial prohibition, it appears that the French protected missionaries persisted in their policy to woo other Christian denominations under the Antioch patriarchy as demonstrated in a letter by Louis XVI dated 12 August 1649 confirming previously granted

953 While I could not locate a copy of the original Ottoman document in the Ottoman Turkish archives, a French version of the firmān is as follows: “Nous faisons savoir, par ce commandement, à nos Vizirs, le Pacha d’Alep, le Pacha de Seyde, le Pacha de Diarbekir, le Pacha de Tripoli, le Pacha de Damas, les Cadis, les Chefs des janissaires et autres officiers de la justice, dans les dites villes, auxquelles nous souhaitons toutes sortes de prospérités: que Eremia, Patriarche de Constantinople et Athanase Patriarche d’Antioche et de Damas, et les autres métropolitains, ont représenté à notre tribunal que, depuis le commencement du règne des empereurs ottomans, ceux qui avaient la charge de patriarche de la nation grecque ont eu seuls le soin des sujets sur lesquels ils étaient préposés, sans que les prêtres et les autres religieux d’aucune autre nation se mélassent de leurs affaires, ni de celles de qui que ce fût de leur nation. Ils [les deux patriarches] nous ont représenté aussi que depuis quelques années, les religieux latins ont converti à leur religion plusieurs chrétiens de nos sujets, tant prêtres et religieux qu’autres personnes, et qui de jour en jour, ils ne cessent d’en convertir, par les instructions qu’ils donnent aux enfants, et en prêchant les femmes chez elles. De plus, les dits patriarches nous ont exposé le grand mal que causèrent à l’île de Scio les missionnaires du Pape, qui ont accoutumé de parcourir secrètement les pays qui dépendent de nous pour attirer à leur religion les Grecs, les Arméniens, les Syriens et les autres chrétiens en leur faisant abandonner leur ancienne religión Or, désapprouvant ce procédé, nous ordonnons par ce commandement aux chrétiens de conserver leur ancienne religion, et de ne pas embrasser celle du Pape, ainsi que porte le commandement rendu par feu mon père l’empereur Mustafa pour le même sujet” Et nous ordonnons aussi d’arrêter dorénavant et de punir sévèrement ceux qui causeront de semblables troubles, et d’empêcher que les religieux latins n’aient aucune communication avec les Grecs, sans avoir égard aux raisons qu’ils pourraient alléguer, comme par exemple, s’ils disaient que ces chrétiens sont de leur religion depuis longtemps, et autres semblables” Ainsi nous vous ordonnons d’exécuter ce commandement aussitôt que vous l’aurez reçu, de n’y contrevenir en aucune manière, et de ne pas molester les chrétiens qui, persistant dans leur ancienne religion, ne suivent pas celle des religieux latins. Après quoi, vous mettrez le présent commandement entre les mains des susdits chrétiens.” Antoine Rabbath ed., Documents Inédits (Paris: A. Picard et Fils), 546. 954 The Antiochene Melkites were distinguished by acceptance of the seven ecumenical councils and, in the East they were considered Orthodox. It was Arabic speaking and followed the ancient liturgical rite of Antioch. Leadership changed with Greeks governing at the beginning of the sixteenth century. The two other churches of the Syrian Christians were the Jacobite and the Maronite churches, all three of which were incorporated into the Ottoman Empire upon Sultan ’s (r. 1512-1520) conquest of Syria and Lebanon in 1516. 955 AMCC, Series R., doc. 60.

232 royal protection to the Maronite nation.956 This is confirmed by the English traveller Paul Rycaut who highlights the distinct methods employed by the Latins missionaries: “[…]the Latines; who not being able by their Missionaries to gain them to their party, and perswade them to renounce the Jurisdiction of their Patriarchs, and own the Authority and Supremacy of the Roman Bishop, do never omit those occasions which may bring them under the lash of the Turk, and engage them in a constant and continual expence; hoping that the people being oppressed and tyred, and in no condition of having relief under the protection of their own Governours, may at length be induced to embrace a Foreign Head, who hath riches and power to defend them. Moreover, besides these wiles, the Roman Priests frequent all places here the Greeks inhabit, endeavouring to draw them unto their side both by Preaching and Writings […].”957 In spite of describing the Latins’ missionary tactics as “wiles”, his conclusion about them in comparison to the Greeks is favourably expressed, “But so far indeed have the Latines the advantage over the Greeks, as Riches hath over Poverty, or Learning over Ignorance.”958 Tensions between the denominations continued when the sent a petition (arz-u ḥāl) to the Sublime Porte complaining that the Greek subjects were converting to Catholicism. A fırmān was issued in 1734 in response. The grievance submitted by the patriarch was that “some wicked people from the resident Greek subjects converted from their ancient rites and were made to follow the Latin denomination”. In spite of numerous imperial orders being issued in response to an equal number of complaints, “since there was no end to their villainy” (şekavetlerinin nihāyeti olmadığından), the patriarch once again submitted a complaint to the Felicitous Porte. As a result, the edict ordered that the houses of the missionaries be no more, that they distance themselves from teaching children and mixing among the sultan’s subjects, and that each denomination adhere to their own rituals. If they were to act in contravention to this order, they would face a pecuniary punishment of five thousand kuruş to be paid to the soup kitchens of the governor of Damascus. Once a secret and public investigation had been carried out confirming the accusations, their names and profiles were registered and they faced the necessary punishments. The latter imperial edict was issued in response to a grievance brought to the Porte by the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch against the Latin Catholic missionaries. The Greek Patriarch of Constantinople, Jeremias, sought the destruction of the ever-spreading Roman Catholicism in the Levant as well as that of its champion and his adversary Euthymios

956 Letter given in Testa, Recueil des traités, 3:141-142. 957 Rycaut, Greek and Armenian Churches, 27-28. 958 Ibid., 28.

233

Saifi (d. 1723), the Greek Melkite metropolitan of Tyre and Sidon.959 The Patriarch of Antioch, Athanasius III Dabbas (in office 1720-1724), sought to directly target the missionaries who were successfully active in the Orient. Also, the Patriarch of Constantinople saw the conversion of Armenians and as a risk to the Greek Melkites.960 The missionaries having been described as agents of the Pope, awakened the political interests of the Sublime Porte. While the Ottoman authorities had no interest in encouraging or discouraging conversion between the many Christian denominations, the exhortation of the sultan for the ancient sects to conserve their beliefs and not submit to the Pope was spurred by the wider geo-political animosities with the Vatican during that period. The Sultan reinforced his protection of the ancient denominations by ordering the harsh punishment of anyone who was to contravene his order, to which was added the Grand Vizier’s threat to expel the missionaries from the Empire. This imperial edict resulted in the direct intervention of Louis XV requesting its revocation through his representative to the Porte, Jean Louis d’Usson, Marquis de Bonnac (date in office 1713- 1724), on the basis of its contravening the capitulatory articles granting the Catholic religious protection: “Comme mon intention, écrit-il à M. de Bonnac, le 30 octobre 1723, à l’exemple des rois mes prédécesseurs, de procurer en tous lieux et en toutes sortes d’occasion le bien de notre religion et de protéger ceux qui la professent, je veux que vous employiez tous vos soins pour obtenir la révocation du commandement du Grand Seigneur, en faisant connaître à la Porte qu’il ne saurait s’accorder avec l’observation des Capitulations qui subsistent entre moi et ce Prince. Vous ne saurez accomplir votre Ambassade par rien qui me soit plus agréable que par le succès de l’ordre que je vous donne.”961 Nonetheless, Ambassador de Bonnac chose to disobey the royal order, fearing irreparable damage to the position of the missionaries in the Orient, especially following the success of the negotiations in favour of the St. Sepulchre in Jerusalem, as did his successor Jean-Baptiste

959 Euthymios Saifi was a native of Damascus and officially converted to Catholicism in 1680, his pro- Catholic inclinations being influenced by his dislike of Greek dominating native Syrians. His decision to request the Propaganda to appoint him Vicar Apostolic in 1701, consequently giving him jurisdiction over all the Catholics of the patriarchate of Antioch, proved unfavourable. He was eventually condemned and excommunicated by the Greek Patriarch Jeremias and exiled to Adana by the Porte. Frazee, Catholics and Sultans, 200. 960 Concerns about conversions applied not only to the lay community but also to those within the ecclesiastical hierarchy, the proselytisation efforts of the Capuchin friars having reaped success in the past with the conversion of two patriarchs (Cyrille II of Constantinople in 1638 and Minas Hamtetzi of Jerusalem), and numerous archbishops, bishops and to the Latin Catholic faith due to in the capital as well as in Ottoman provinces in Syria and Egypt. 961 Rabbath, Documents Inédits, 556.

234

Louis Picon, Viscount d’Andrezel (in office 1724-1728).962 Due to the king’s stubborn persistence, the royal order was finally executed by ambassadors Michel-Ange, Comte de Castellane (in office 1741-1747) and Roland Puchot, Comte des Alleurs (in office 1747-1755) but on both occasions, they were met with rejection by the Porte. Regardless, as shown in the careful examinations of individual capitulatory articles above, they contained no privileges granting the missionaries free reign in the conversion of subjects of the sultan from other Christian denominations. Rather, conversion to Roman Catholicism would have been viewed as an allegiance to the Pope and endangered the converts’ fidelity as Ottoman subjects. While the example given above is restricted to the geographical area of Syria, many other examples exist of petitions of grievances submitted by various Christian denominations, primarily from the Greek Orthodox and Armenian communities, objecting to the successful proselytisation activities on the part of the Latin Catholic missionaries in Ottoman lands. Complaints came from all corners of the Empire, from cities in the Arab provinces such as Jerusalem, Cairo and Aleppo, to Erzurum and other locations in the Asian provinces.963 In addition to the Greek islands, with the Sultan issuing a firmān in 1725 reprehending the Latin Catholic priests’ missionary activities among the Greek, Armenian and Maronite Ottoman subjects on Chios and ordering those who had converted to Catholicism to return to their former rites.964 The authorities acknowledged and acted upon these grievances through the arrest, imprisonment and expulsion of the Latin Catholic missionaries in a particular city, province or even extending those orders throughout the Ottoman Empire.965 Ottoman policies towards the Roman Catholic religious orders and their properties may have appeared ad hoc. Yet, the latter imperial edict demonstrates that such policies were often shaped by existing feuds between Christians denominations within the Empire. Furthermore, the Ottoman authorities were more than willing to exploit these hostilities in order to maintain the rifts among the Christian population.

962 Schefer, Mémoire historique, 150, 180. 963 BOA, MD, 110, 276/1263, 438/1941; BOA, YB, 4/4/75, dated 7 M 1143. 964 French translation of the firmān in a letter by the Vice-consul for France at Chios, Christophe Rougeau de la Blotière to the Minister of Marine, Jean Frédéric Phélypeaux, Comte de Maurepas, in Philip P. Argenti ed., Diplomatic Archive of Chios, 1577-1841 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1954), 2:930-1. 965 AMCC, Series R., doc. 40; BOA, MD, 114/597, dated 29 Z 1114; BOA, AE.SAMD.III.176.17143, dated 29 Receb 1118; BOA, C.ADL.,35/2074, dated 29 Rebīʿu’l-evvel 1133.

235

6. Concessions and privileges a. Additional areas of French ambassadorial influence over individual church affairs966 French ambassadorial influence extended over many aspects of church affairs. The preservation of the church properties themselves signified the preservation of the Latin Catholic religion in Ottoman lands, a fact about which the ambassadors were conscious. In ambassadorial memoires and letters, they are seen as portraying themselves as the savours of particular churches. In the early seventeenth century, Francois Savary de Brèves used the verb “save” to describe how he prevented the church of St. Nicholas,967 located in Balat, from being converted into a mosque: “Peu de temps avant mon partement de Constantinople, je sauvai aussi une église nommée Sainct Nicolas, desservie par des Religieux Dominicains, que nous nommons en France Jacobins.”968 A couple of decades later, in 1636, Philippe de Harlay gives a detailed account in a letter to the Comte de Noailles of how he similarly prevented the “strange and cruel execution” of the destruction of the church of Saint Anthony969 located in Galata:

Les Grands de ce pays et les zélés de la loy mahométane ne pouvant souffrir que les Turcs allassent faire lire les Evangiles sur leurs testes dans l’esglise Saint- Antoine de Galata l’on fait attaquer par le Bacha de la Mer, lequel sur quelques faulces accusations des prétendus désordres qui se commettoient dans ladditte esglise, envoya prendre un bon Religieux Conventuel subject de sa Saincteté qui la servoit, et ne l’ayant pas trouvé coulpable il nous le renvoya le troizième jour, sur les instances qui furent faites de ma part et du Seigneur Bayle de Venise. Mais le

966 See AMCC, Series G, doc. 3 967 The church of St. Nicholas began to be mentioned in historical sources from the fourteenth century. It was located in the quarter of Balat in the Fatih District of Istanbul and was administered by the Dominican religious order. The church was closed by the Ottoman authorities in 1600 and confiscated in 1626 during the reign of Sultan Murad IV (r. 1623-1640) in spite of generous payments made on the part of the church to the authorities. It was then transformed into a small moque known as Kefeli Mescidi by the Grand Vizier Topal Recep Paşa (in office February-May 1632). Palazzo, Deux Anciennes Églises, 13-14. Payments of gifts and bribes to secure the reconstruction of churches was a common phenomenon, Gradeva, “From the Bottom Up,” 161. 968 Brèves, Relation, 17. 969 Not to be mistaken with the Conventual Franciscan church of St. Anthony of Padua on İstiklal Street. The mentioned church was established before the fourteenth century and was located on Mumḫāne Street adjacent to a hospice. It was closed by the Ottoman authorities in 1636 and was transformed by the Grand Vizier Kemankeş Kara Mustafa Paşa (in office 1638-1644) into a mosque named after him in 1642.

236

lendemain à deux heures de jour nous fumes advertis que deux ou trois cents hommes avec des cognées mettoient l’esglise à bas. Ce qui nous fit en toutte dilligence courir audit Bacha, et à force de prières et de raisons nous obteinsmes un de ses gens; lequel en compagnie d’un des Interprettes du Roy alla faire cesser cette estrange et cruelle exécution…970

There were other essential aspects regarding the preservation of ecclesiastical properties which required ambassadorial intervention related to the construction, reconstruction, and repair of churches and which were necessary not only for their continued functioning as places of worship but also to maintain the presence of the religious orders that administered and presided over the life of the churches.971 Above, we have examined how firmāns were legal documents which served to recognise the French protectorate over the church and priory of SS Peter and Paul. Likewise, such documents were sought to justify the reconstruction and structural repairs of Christian religious places but the ḳāżī did not possess sufficient jurisdiction to grant such permission through a court order. In such instances, the friars inevitably made recourse to the French ambassadors who would then proceed to exert their influence at the Sublime Porte when submitting their petitions to thereby initiate the first stage in the process. Once the petition had been received, an imperial order was issued granting jurisdiction to the local court to oversee the process of inspection and surveying prior to and after the repairs were carried out. Prior to any structural repairs, state officials in the form of the imperial architect (miʿmār ağa) and scribe (kātib) overseen by the local ḳāżī and were ordered to visit the church and priory to carry out a survey and measurements. Pertinant details often consisted of registering the boundaries of the churches, checking the validity of their title deeds (ḥüccets) and documenting the details of that which was dilapidated or destroyed. If the structure had succumbed to irreparable damage, usually due to a fire in such an instance, the accounts of local Muslim eye witnesses were taken regarding the size and appearance of the structure before its destruction. All relevant details were compiled into a report (keşif defteri)

970 Original letter dated 23 February 1636 in B.N., F.F. 20.983, p. 37, taken from Tongas, Les Relations, 136. 971 Thus, the prohibition in Islamic law of denying an existing church the right to carry out repairs as the denial of a petition for reparation over a long period would result in the church falling into disrepair and ultimately, dilapidation. See PART II, 3.b.iii for further details on the reconstruction and reparation of churches.

237 on the basis of which imperial permission was granted or denied and after which the permission was registered by the ḳā’im-maḳām of Istanbul.972 Following the reconstruction/reparation, the ḳāżī of Galata and the imperial architect were required to visit the site to ensure that no alterations to the structure or facade of the original design had been made. While the archives that treat this topic document just a few of the numerous occasions on which the intervention of the French ambassador was sought to save the churches from dilapidation or eradication through the obtainment of permission for their reconstruction and repair in the imperial capital, the assistance of the French ambassador in such matters was likewise sought in other provinces of the Ottoman Empire.973 Specifically, in relation to French influence over SS Peter and Paul, in 1013/ 1604, an imperial decree was issued granting permission for the renovation of the church at the request of the French ambassador Savary de Brèves.974 The conventual archives in Galata reveal that on several subsequent occasions, through the mediation of the French ambassador of the day, permission was received for the renovation of the church by a firmān issued by Mustafa II (r. 1695-1703) dated 1112/ 1700975 as well as by a more general edict by Mahmud I (r. 1730- 1754) dated 1144/ 1731976 with an attached report (iʿlām) granting permission for the reconstruction of the three friaries of SS Peter and Paul, St. Benoît and St. George, all of which were located in the district of Galata in close vicinity to one another.977 The archives of St.

972 The same process was followed regardless of the extent of the reparation works, be it major reconstruction or superficial repairs, see Peri, Christianity under Islam, 91-94. 973 The Ottoman archives detail a request by the French ambassador Baron de Chateauneuf that repairs to a church in Iskerderun frequented by Latin Catholic merchants and the consuls not be impaired, BOA, MD, 102/341, dated 29 Ṣafer 1103. Likewise, when the properties of the Latin Catholic Church were seen to be under threat, the king himself would intervene with an imperial letter (nāme-i hümāyūn) and an imperial edict (firmān) granting the request for the protection of the church in Jerusalem as well as the French pilgrims and merchants travelling there. BOA, NMH, d.5/44, pp. 97-99, date 20 B 1101; a request for the repair and reconstruction of Meryem Ana Kilisesi on the island of Chios, Ibid, MD, 47; an imperial order dated 1689 obtained by ambassador Pierre de Girardin (in office 1686-1689) addressed to the ḳāżī of Smyrna for the reconstruction of a Capuchin church destroyed in an earthquake, AMCC, Series R, doc. 25. 974 Testa, Recueil des traités, 3: 331. 975 CADG, register no. 27.3. 976 CADG, register no. 27.4.1. 977 Here, a fourth firmān regarding the reconstruction of the church was issued by Mahmud II (r. 1808- 1839) dated 1838 (1254 AH) shall be mentioned in spite of falling outside the time period of this study. The detailed eighteen-line imperial edict, which was issued shortly before the Tanzimat Reforms, resembles the previous edicts in terms of format and theme. In other words, it was issued in response to a petition by the French ambassador Albin Reine Roussin (in office 1832-1839) for the repair of sections of the priory, specifically, the cells of the friars (ruhbān odaları), which had become dilapidated with the passage of time. It also contains another feature of interest not present in the previous edicts: the insertion of a fetva given by the şeyḫülislām as a means of justifying the imperial order as being in compliance with the şeriat. Moreover, the firmān emphasises the fact that it is on the basis of the legal

238

Louis of the French likewise contain one imperial edict dated 1108/ 1697 issued in favour of the reconstruction of the the Capuchin friary located in Galata following damage caused by a conflagration.978 The translation of the whole firmān of 1112/ 1700 is provided as follows:

[The imperial cypher:] Shah Mustafa bin Mehmed ḫan forever victorious. When the Eminent Imperial edict reaches the most authoritative of judges of the Muslims, the best of the governors of the monotheists, the mine of virtue and knowledge, who raises the beacon of honour and religion, the inheritor of the knowledge of the prophets and messengers, surrounded by the increased grace of the Ruler the Helper, His Eminence the ḳāżī of Galata (may God increase his virtues), let it be known that: A group of non-Muslim subjects living in Galata made a petition to my Imperial Court and made it known that some sections of the Church of St. Peter located within Galata and some small rooms attached to it, which were left in their possession ab antiquo, have become dilapidated with the passage of time. My imperial edict requests that with the law of God, it be investigated and documented in this regard. If it was in their possession from the [time of the] imperial conquest and is in need of repair, in order for the repair to be [carried out] according to canonical permissibility, it is my order that it be investigated and documented. When my imperial edict reaches [the ḳāżī of Galata] according to my order issued on this matter, see that the above-mentioned matter is registered precisely and if the said church is an old church some sections of which have become derelict with the passage of time, according to the law of God, investigate and document the sections that are on the

opinion that the imperial order was issued, which is in keeping with the judicial process whereby, if deemed necessary, the opinion of a şeyḫülislām would have been sought on a particular matter prior to the issuing of an imperial edict. The fetva was given by the şeyḫülislām Mekkizade Mustafa Asım Efendi (last in office 1833-1846) regarding the permissibility of repairing the friars’ cells in consideration of the fact that the church existed before the time of the Ottoman conquest as follows: “Friars’ cells in an old interior courtyard of a church located in a district ab antiquo are in need of repair. Is it permissible for them to repair the cells, which belong to the church’s friars on the basis that they are old [i.e. existed before the Ottoman conquest]? The answer: Yes.” (Bir bolgede vākiʾ kiliseyi ḳadīmenin havlusu dāḫilinde ḳadīmden olan rühbān odaları taʾmire muḥtāç olmakla ol kilisenin rāhipleri nesne zidadelenmeksizin oldaları vaḍıʾ ḳadīmi üzere taʾmīre ḳādir olurlar mı? El cevāp: Olurlar.) The fetva reiterates the traditional legal position relating to the reconstruction and repair of churches, i.e., its status in relation to its existence before or after the conquest, with the same terms being employed: the former being described as “old” (ḳadīm) and the latter as “new” (cedīd). Once the status of the church and affiliated buildings is determined, permission for repair of the above-mentioned rooms is granted on the condition that it be carried out without widening or heightening the old situation and original structure (zikr olunan oṭaların bilā tevsīʿ ve bilā terfīʿ vaḍʿ-ı ḳadīm ve heyet-i aṣliye üzere taʿmīrine ruḫṣāt-ı senīyye-i mülūkānem emir ve firmān). CADG, register no. 27. 11. 978 AMCC, Series R, doc. 31.

239

point of dilapidation. Let it be recorded that repairs are liable to be carried out due to this motive. You should know thus. Act according to the monogram of the Sultan. Written on the last ten days of [the month of] rebīʿü’l-āḫir in the year 1112. In the abode of Constantinople the protected.979

The usual florid introductory section of the imperial edict addressed to the ḳāżī of Galata is followed by a description of the petitioner and the subject in question. It is interesting to note here that the Frānça elçisi which appeared in the imperial edicts above has been replaced with the very general term ehl-i zimmet re’āya. It could be that the petition had been made by a group from the Ottoman Roman Catholic community, be it the governing council of those subjects, La Magnifica Comunità di Pera, or the friars themselves through the ambassador. Yet, given the nature of the petition, it seems unusual that the French ambassador would not have been involved at some level. The firmān confirms the above-mentioned process for the approval of the repair or reconstruction of churches. Not only is the establishment and documentation of the degree of damage necessary, but also the status of the church itself as regards its existence before or after the conquest. Consequently, permission for repair is conditional on the verification of two claims on the part of the Dominicans: the first is that the church was in the possession of the community from the time of the Imperial Conquest (fetḥ-i ḥākānıdan berü yedlerinde terk olunup), that is, that it be classified as ab antiquo (ḳadīm), i.e. present before the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople, secondly, that sections of the church and priory are on the point of becoming derelict due to a lack of maintenance over the years. Therefore, a conditional permission was granted by Sultan Mustafa II, with the transferal of jurisdiction to the local court, in this instance, with the investigation and documentation and subsequent repairs being carried out under the supervision of the ḳāżī of Galata. As for the general edict dated 1144/ 1731 with an attached iʿlām, it served to reiterate the process followed at the level of the state prior and subsequent to the reconstruction or reparation of Latin-rite church properties and the limited nature of the ambassador’s influence following his submission of an initial petition.980 The documents consist of four translations into French.

979 CADG, register no. 27. 3. 980 Once a petition had been submitted by the French ambassador at the Porte, he had to wait until due process was carried out before being given a cause to intervene further. The documents studied reveal that firstly, the chief clerk together with two principle assistants of the imperial architect were sent to the church in question in order to register the names of the friars at the church and the names of some members of the local community in order to prepare a report often with the assistance of the French dragoman. Following this, the state officials inspect and take measurements of the sections of the ecclesiastical properties that need to be repaired. If the destruction is such that the original structure

240

Two are translations of firmāns issued by Sultan Mahmud I (r. 1730-1754) in the month of ramażān 1144 (March 1732) and in the month of rebīʿü’l āḫir 1144 (October 1731) relating to one issue. The former grants permission for the reconstruction of the three churches of SS Peter and Paul, St. George and St. Benoît, while the second contains a report (iʿlām) written by the ḳāżī of Galata and the imperial architect (miʿmār ağa) following an imperial order to visit the church properties after their reconstruction. The other two translations are of two ḥüccets981 into French which are undated but claimed to have been written by the ḳāżī and the imperial architect in response to the orders given in the imperial edict.982 While the precision of the translations and veracity of the contents vis-à-vis the original Ottoman document cannot be verified, they can still be of benefit as a comparative source regarding the firmāns analysed above. The earlier firmān of the two acknowledges of a petition on the part of the French ambassador, Louis Sauveur, Marquis de Villeneuve, who held the ambassadorship from 1728 to 1741, to the Sublime Porte requesting permission for the reconstruction of three Latin-rite churches under French protection which were damaged in one of the many fires which spread through the district.983 At this stage, the document mentions Ambassador Villeneuve’s efforts to convince the sultan of the legitimacy of his request by emphasising two points: first, that prior permission had been granted by an imperial edict and by a ḥüccet in court for the reconstruction of the said buildings along their original plans and second, the request for an imperial order to make a second visit and a second ḥüccet confirming that no additions or extensions were made to the original structures. The Marquis de Villeneuve enjoyed a fair degree of influence at the Sublime Porte, especially, in matters relating to Ottoman foreign policy.984 His confidence in dealing with the Porte is demonstrated in the terms he lays down in his request. These documents are supported by a report by de Villeneuve

cannot be established, the two deputy architects consequently proceed to determine details of the building in its entirety and the adjoining roads by obtaining witness statements from local Muslim residents. Once the survey and witness statements have been registered, they present their finding to the Imperial Council, upon which a ruling is made, occasionally justified Islamically by a fetva sought from the şeyḫülislām. 981 A document providing testimony in a case which is provided at the request of one of the parties by the court. They dealt with multifarious issues ranging from property, administrative issues, rule and order. 982 N.B. Every effort was made to locate copies of the original Ottoman documents in the Vatican secret archive as well as in the provincial archives of the Dominican order, the archives of other Latin-rite churches and libraries of Istanbul and BOA. 983 The three churches in question were SS. Peter and Paul, St. George and St. Benoît. As they would often succumb to damage during the same fires and were all under French protection, petitions were made on behalf of all three simultaneously. 984 He was charged with negotiating the peace of the Austro-Turkish War (1737-39) resulting in the Treaty of Belgrade (1739) and resulting in favorable territorial gains for the Ottomans.

241 dated 18 October 1731 addressed to the king in which he reports the conditions imposed by the imperial permission as follows:

Il était difficile, écrit-il le 18 octobre 1731, de faire autoriser ces changements, l’usage des Turcs dans ces occasions étant de ne donner d’autre permission que celle de rétablir les choses précisément comme elles étaient, ce qu’ils n’accordent pas même sans difficulté. Le vizir a franchi tous les obstacles dès que je lui ai représenté combien V.M. avait à coeur l’état des missionnaires, et j’en ai obtenu un commandement conforme au devis que chacun de ces ordres religieux avait fait faire, sans attention aux différences qu’il pouvait y avoir entre les nouvelles maisons qu’on doit construire et celles qui existaient avant l’incendie.985

Additionally, the translation serves to reiterate the above-mentioned process and the Ottoman officials who were customarily involved in the surveying, registration and supervision: the district ḳāżī, the deputy ḳāżī, the imperial architect and his clerk, master carpenters, the district governor as well as officials from the ambassador’s household, i.e. the dragoman. The delegation by the French ambassador to the head dragoman concerning the responsibilities of cooperating and assisting the state officials, is unsurprising given the significant role the dragomans played in formal negotiations and everyday activities due to their mastery of the Ottoman language. This was not unique to the French, rather other foreign diplomats were entirely dependent on their dragomans, such as the Venetians.986 The latter of these two firmāns contains a report carried out by the ḳāżī of Galata and the imperial architect at the request of Ambassador Villeneuve. The report is a detailed survey of the churches and adjacent friaries/priory of St. George, St. Benoît and SS. Peter and Paul. The ambassador’s request can be attributed to his efforts to protect the newly reconstructed church properties through the obtainment of a legal document confirming the fact that the properties did not exceed the measurement of the original plans internally and externally thus, enabling the refutation of any subsequent claims later claims that they had been rebuilt with the addition of extensions or the use of different construction materials, in the event of which the state would have the right of demolition and appropriation. Therefore, the ambassador sought to utilise the existing judicial processes of the state to secure the church properties against any potential future intervention by the very same state.

985 Archives du ministère des Affaires étrangères, 3:312. 986 Dursteler, Venetians in Constantinople, 35-37.

242

Furthermore, the French ambassador would submit petitions to the Sublime Porte on behalf of more than one religious order simultaneously for the repair and reconstruction of their properties. Natural catastrophes such as conflagrations, causing widespread destruction to ecclesiastical properties, resulted in the ambassador taking comprehensive action rather than making multiple individual interventions. The huge fire that started in a patty bakery (börekçi) and swept through Galata on 4/5 May 1696 was one such incident. It caused extensive damage to the four Latin Catholic churches and their affiliated properties located in Galata in close vicinity to one another: the Capuchin church of St. George, the Jesuit church of St. Benoît, the Conventual Franciscan complex of St. Francis and the Dominican church of St. Peter as mentioned above. While individual petitions were made on behalf of the two latter churches, the firmān of 1108 AH (1697)987 demonstrates how the properties of the two former religious orders were dealt with on the part of the judicial authorities as one entity, with one overriding imperial order being applied to both equally. The edict lays out the extent of the damage, the frairies themseves sucummed to the greatest damage, with the friars’ cells having been completely destroyed, as well details about layout, number of rooms, and dimensions of the buildings.

b. Privileges and preferences granted to the French king and ambassadors by these churches In gratitude for French protection of the church and the clergy and for subsidies granted to the friars, the religious orders at the churches undertook to look after the spiritual welfare of their protectors. The conventual archive reveals a variety of ways in which this was carried out. While the sources used here are from the late eighteenth century, due to the lack of documents from a period before 1740, it can nevertheless be assumed that similar approaches were taken by the friars at the beginning of the seventeenth century when the church and order first came under French protection. Three examples will be given here: 1. The special inclusion of the king of France during the mass through mentioning his name and praying for him,988 especially, on the feast day of St. Louis989 as well as singing the

987 AMCC, Serie R., doc. 31. 988 As exampled in an account by the French orientalist Antoine Galland (d. 1715) of the service in the Jesuit church of St. Benoît, in Galland, Journal, 2: 67. 989 Celebrated on 25 of August, St. Louis, King Louis IX of France, is the patron of builders, kings, large families and Crusaders. He is represented in art by the Crown of Thorns, crown, scepter and the fleur-de-lis.

243

Domine salvum fac regem and the Gloria Patri after the Tantum ergo.990 This was practiced not only in the churches located in the Ottoman capital but throughout the Empire, with one French traveller observing that “ne chantoient pas seulement de la bouche, mais encore du profond du cœur.”991 2. The granting of privileges to the French ambassadors by assigning them specific liturgical hours as well as praying for the ambassador, especially on , and on the days of the exposition of the .992 An example of pomp and ceremony at one of the churches upon the attendance of the Ambassador.993 Yet these privileges were not without contestations by the representatives of other Catholic powers to the Porte. In one such instance a dispute arrises between Ambassador Nointel and the bailo of Venice Morosini regarding the restaurarion of the Latin Catholic churches and the subsequent privileges conferred to them in the religious ceremonies.994 With the dispute consequently being resolved through the confirmation that the Pope had indeed allocated the protection of the churches in the Levant to the king of France.995 3. The French were even designated with selecting the priors of one of the of the church, the Sacré Coeur de Jésus, which was established by Marquis de Villeneuve in 1734 upon the permission of the Patriarchal Vicar in Istanbul.996 4. French ambassadors were granted privileges and special liturgical ceremonies by the Capuchins of St. Louis upon their arrival at the French embassy and upon the death of the ambassadors.997 During times of vulnerability, the Dominican friars of SS Peter and Paul would seek the French nation’s protection over their properties and religious order through a written request directed to the French ambassador. In one such letter dated 1802 asking for a renewal of France’s protection, signed by the superior and friars of the church, they begin by stressing the long-standing existence of the French protectorate and the fact that this representation was

990 CADG, register no. 42, fol. 35. 991 An observation by Galland during a visit to Chios in a letter to Ambassador Nointel in 1673. Galland, Journal, 2: 173-174; and during a visit to the Aegean island of Naxis, Ibid., 180. 992 CADG, register no. 42 fol. 34. 993 Galland, Journal, vol. 2: 52-3. 994 A letter from Ambassador Charles Olier, marquis de Nointel (1670-1680) to Jean-Baptiste Colbert (d. 1683) who was the Minister of Finances, dated 5 July 1676, Archives Nationals, A. E., B 377, fol. 125. 995 A letter from Ambassador Charles Olier, marquis de Nointel (1670-1680) to Jean-Baptiste Colbert (qui deja contoleu, Ibid., fol. 129. 996 CADG, register no. 10.1; 17.2. 997 Belin, Histoire, 310-11.

244 secured through petitions made to the Sublime Porte. The subsequently confirmed how they also benefited from the capitulatory treaties, in particular article thirty-six of the 1740 treaty.998

The religious order also would petition for the retention of particular ambassadors whose diplomatic efforts had served the interests of the Latin Catholic communities, in the hope that their tenure would be extended. One such example is a written testimony dated 22 December 1604 by friars from three different religious orders holding positions of importance999 on behalf of Ambassador de Breves, in which they mention his commitment to upholding the Catholic faith in the Levant and his efforts on behalf of the Latin Catholic church. They cite six different occasions of his intervention in church affairs: the re-opening of the Franciscan conventual church of St. Francis in Galata; the protection of the friars of the same church following an accusation that they were giving refuge to fugitive slaves; saving the clergy of Jerusalem and preventing the appropriation of the Holy Sepulchre and its transformation into a mosque; successfully negotiating the insertion of articles into the capitulations ensuring the protection of the religious orders; the recovery of the archbishopric of the Aegean island of Milos; and rescuing the Christians and churches of the besieged island of Chios:

Attendu qu’il est juste que la vérité soit connue de tous et en tout temps, nous avons voulu certifier et nous certifions par les présentes à tous ceux aux mains desquels elles parviendront que le très-illustre sieur François Savary, seigneur de Brèves, ambassadeur de S. M. le roi très-chrétien de France près cette Porte, a procuré de nombreux avantages à la sainte Église, en s’employant en toute occasion avec tant de zèle pour la gloire de Dieu, avec tant de charité et avec tant de sollicitude, que tous, en général et en notre particulier, nous lui sommes infiniment redevables des consolations qu’il nous a données à tous. Il a, contre toute attente fait ouvrir et sauvé l’eglise de Saint-Francois de Péra, grandeur et splendeur du nom chrétien dans ces contrées, lorsque, par suite de la dispute de préséance entre les ambassadeurs de Sa Majesté très-chrétienne, et de Sa Majesté impériale, elle avait été fermée, et qu’il y avait danger manifeste de la voir perdue. Dans une autre occasion, il l’a sauvée d’un danger manifeste qu’elle avait couru, par suite d’une accusation relative à quelques esclaves fugitifs, et qui avait menacé la vie de tous les religieux desservant la dite église. Lorsque fut émané l’ordre de cette Sublime-Porte de

998 CADG, register no. 31.1., fol. 2. 999 These consisted of Dominican Fr. Jonnantes, Andre Farga, general preacher and of the congregation of Constantinople; the minor observant Fr. Chérubin Cherubini guardian of the province of Marche, Commissioner, patriarch vicar of Constantinople and Fr. Francois Margalion, provincial commissar/steward.

245

faire esclaves les Pères de Jérusalem, de dépouiller le Saint-Sépulcre et de faire du saint temple une mosquée, le sus dit très-illustre seigneur, après beaucoup de peines et de démarches, a fait tout révoquer et a obtenu, au lieu du dit ordre sinistre, un ordre tout à fait contraire, et favorable aux saints lieux. Tout récemment, il a pris à coeur les besoins de Terre-Sainte et des religieux et a fait insérer dans les capitulations de Sa Majesté très- chrétienne des articles propres à empêcher que les dits religieux ne soient plus exposés à l’avenir à souffrir des molestations et des dommages, comme ils l’ont été auparavant. L’archevêché de ayant été usurpé par les Grecs, il l’a recouvré et tous les évêchés de l’Archipel ont toujours trouvé auprès de lui une protection particulière. Lorsque les galères du sérénissime grand-duc avaient assiégé l’île de Scio et avaient ainsi exposé aux plus grands dangers, non-seulement les églises, mais aussi tous les Chrétiens de l’île, il s’est conduit avec tant d’énergie et de sollicitude que tous les dangers ont été conjurés. En un mot, il a toujours employé avec amour toute son autorité et toute son énergie pour le service et l’avantage des églises et des couvents, non-seulement de cette ville, mais de tout le Levant en général, et avec l’aide des amis qu’il compte dans ce pays, et à ses frais, il a constamment défendu et assisté toutes les églises et tous les Chrétiens, qui se sont adressès à lui pour obtener des secours ou quelque faveur.1000

As can be observed, the Latin Catholic religious orders were largely dependant on the French nation as protectors for their survival and the preservation of their houses of worship and affiliated institutions as well as patrons for their missionary activities and for the repair/reconstruction of their properties. They therefore sought to support and encourage the presence of the most dedicated ambassadors to their cause, showing their gratitude through recognition of the French king and his representative to the Sublime Porte in their liturgies.

7. Conclusion Through their ambassadors and consuls, France maintained a position of influence over the Latin Catholic churches and their religious orders who, in turn, served the great Catholic power’s political interests in Ottoman lands. The ambassadors served as representatives before the Sublime Porte for the Latin Catholic lay and religious communities of Galata and Pera in particular, in matters relating to the resolution of disputes and the presentation of petitions pertaining to a variety of grievances. They were also solicited for the safeguarding of the Latin

1000 Testa, Recueil des traités, 3: 331-32.

246

Catholic missions, their institutions and properties by intervening with the Ottoman authorities to secure the reopening, renovation and reconstruction of churches and the preservation of ecclesiastical properties against confiscation. Furthermore, privileges contained within the Ottoman Capitulations granted to France relating to freedom of worship and travel, in addition to the protection of pilgrims, religious order and churches against interference by local officials, was a direct consequence of French protection. These carefully negotiated privileges granted a certain level of security to the religious orders as well as to their missionary activities and properties in addition to facilitating the employment of sufficient clergy to serve the spiritual needs of Roman Catholic Ottoman subjects as well as temporary residents such as merchants and diplomats. France’s role as the guardian of Catholicism in Ottoman lands was given official legal recognition by the Sublime Porte in the form of the capitulations, whereas their protection over individual churches was sanctioned through firmāns; both types of documents were issued and renewed by various Ottoman sultans. The latter confirmed French protection over the church and friary of SS. Peter and Paul and the Dominicans friars who presided there as well as the ambassadorial chapel of St. Louis and the Capuchin chaplains, although, in practice, France’s position as protector had preceded any official recognition of such by the Ottoman state. Therefore, France embraced the responsibility of ensuring the preservation and continuation of Catholicism in the Ottoman Empire within the limits of the priviledges granted in the capitulations and imperial edicts by the Ottoman sultans and within the confines of the instruction issues in letters patent and correspondence from the French monarchs.

247

CONCLUSION

Upon the Ottoman conquest of Istanbul in 1453, the Latin Catholic community of Galata experienced the loss of their status as a semi-autonomous colony under the Byzantine Paleologi and the renegociation of a new dual status of either permanently protected subject of the Ottoman sultans or temporary protected resident. Their rights were determined within the framework of the şeriʿat and complemented by the ḳānūn in the form of an ʿahdnāme granted to them in the same year. Regardless of the limited privileges contained within the first capitulation given to a Catholic power, it did not restrict the Latin Catholic lay and religious communities and their ambassadorial representatives to the confines of Galata, and consequently they expanded up the hill to the leafy district of Pera where they established not only residences, buisinesses and embassies, but also new places of worship. While the Latin Catholic church did not benefit from a religious and civil head, like the Orthodox and Armenian patriarchs and the Jewish chief rabbi, they were granted a certain degree of administrative and fiscal autonomy in the form of the Magnifica Comunità, religious autonomy regulated by the Propaganda Fide in addition to legal autonomy in the area of civil law through the representatives of the Catholic powers to the Sublime Porte. According to Ottoman legal doctrine, the laws governing Muslim-Christian relations within the dāru’l islām were universal, in particular, with respect to the status granted to non- Muslims and the consequential rights, obligations and restrictions imposed on them. However, the practical application of these laws could vary greatly depending on the socio-economic and political circumstances of a specific period. As seen above, the closure of ecclesiastical properties, their seizure, destruction or conversion into mosques occurred in spite of the Ottoman capitulations granted to the Catholic powers from 1453 until 1740 in addition to imperial edicts guaranteeing the protection of their churches. Likewise, the construction of new Latin Catholic churches and chapels on land where no Christian place of worship had previously existed contravened the prohibition against the construction of new churches. The fortunes of the Latin Catholic churches and the religious orders that administered them was considerably influenced by Islamic legal opinions as well as the irāde of the Ottoman sultan. Although the sultan’s will and the capitulations held equal legal strength, the former often prevailed since it was within the purview of the sultan to subsequently alter or even rescind the

248 latter. This was rare however, due to the underlying Islamic principles governing the capitulations as well as other temporary laws such as the imperial edicts. Relations between the Sublime Porte and the Latin Catholic ecclesiastics and their properties were governed by Ottoman law consisting of the two components of Islamic law and imperial legislation in addition to diplomatic treaties, be they directed internationally such as capitulations or locally such as imperial edicts. Deviation in policy which occurred from the established law towards non-Muslim minorities would be of two kinds. Firstly, that in favour of the non-Muslims as a result of negotiations on the part of their protectors, the representative of the Catholic power at the Sublime Porte. Secondly, that to their detriment, which could be attributed to urban, political or mostly economic factors. The Latin Catholic religious orders were under the protection of the great Catholic powers. As such, for legal reasons, they were regarded to be of the nationality of the state which protected them. Therefore, they were entitled to similar immunities of those working within the environment of the embassy and consulate, such as the right to have recourse to the ambassador or consul for the resolution of legal disputes and exemption from taxes. As regards the acquisition, preservation, loss and disputes surrounding Latin Catholic churches in Istanbul and their affiliated properties, the analysis three case studies on property disputes have supported conclusions concerning the methods used by the religious orders in the resolution of their property problems in addition to the jurisdiction held by ambassadors to adjudicate civil disputes. Moreover, they have revealed the fluidity of property possession and status in the Ottoman capital. Property ownership was not in perpetuo, but constantly in flux and primarily affected by political, economic and even environmental circumstances. As has been demonstrated, in the legal dispute concerning a Dominican property, in a time period of less than ninety years, a single plot of land had gone through five changes in status from being ecclesiastical property housing a church and priory, state land (mīrī) with the burnt remains of buildings, a revenue unit (muḳāṭaʿa) land with a freehold (mülk) stone storehouse which subsequently became endowed (vaḳıf) then substituted to freehold. Furthermore, certain property processes which were effectuated within the Ottoman legal framework were accessible to non-Muslims, that is substitution (istibdāl), consisting of the exchange of vaḳıf property for another property. In conclusion to the subject of the Latin Catholic vaḳıf, this study has provided the answer to the question of when does a Latin Catholic endowment become a vaḳıf? If vaḳıf is to be defined as an endowment incorporated into the Ottoman legal framework and recognised by Ottoman law rather than by its literal definition solely with respect to the Ottoman word for

249 endowment, then Latin Catholic ecclesiastical property becomes a vaḳıf when it is recognised as such through imperial confirmation and registered as such in the Ottoman courts. However, no Ottoman documents stating the endowment as vaḳıf to the Dominican and Capuchin religious orders of Galata and Pera, their churches or their institutions have come to light within the temporal confines of this research. Nevertheless, as the above investigations have demonstrated, this does not signify that the Latin Catholic churches did not enjoy the benefits of endowments since two types existed in Ottoman Istanbul. The first was the example of the endowments (piae causae) recognised by the Magnifica Communità through contractual agreements, such as the house and land endowed to the Dominicans for use as a chapel and convent by Angelo Zacharia in 1535 as well as the property containing a chapel endowed to the Observant Franciscans by Clara Maria Draperis in 1585 for use as a church and friary. The second example were the vaḳıfs created from properties registered in the names of Latin Catholic Ottoman subjects but which actually belonged to the Latin Catholic church such as the stone warehouse endowed by David Maggi on behalf of the Dominicans of SS. Peter and Paul. By these means, a variety of property transactions could be carried out such as sale, purchase, exhange and the act of endowement following the letter of the Ottoman law while simultaneously safeguarding the churches’ properties. It is worth highlighting that the conclusion about the existence of two types of Latin Catholic endowments is confined to specific spatial and temporal boundaires based on the studies of three Latin Catholic churches located in Galata and Pera from the mid-fifteenth century to the early sixteenth century. That is not to say that the “Latin Catholic vaḳıf” created along the model of the Greek Orthodox, Armenian, Maronite or Coptic monastic vaḳıfs did not exist elsewhere in the Ottoman Empire or during the subsequent centuries, especially, during the post-Tanzimat period (1839- 1876).1001 The Tanzimat period brought significant reforms in the nature of property ownership for non-Muslims within the Ottoman Empire. The Reform Edict of 1856 required the religious minorities of the empire to form themselves into official quasi-democratic entities with a constitution (niẓāmnāme) and elected assembly (meclis). Consequently, the Latin Catholics constituted themselves into the Catholic millet (katolik milleti). The Ottoman Land Code of 1858 and the Tapu Law and Tapu Seneds Laws were a result of these reforms. The latter

1001 In his study on vaḳıfs in Jerusalem from the mid-nineteenth century to the beginning of the twentieth century, Musa Sroor reveals the existence of numerous charitable vaḳıfs founded by Latin Catholics for the benefit of the poor of that particular religious community as well as for the destitute of the wider community. Musa Sroor, Fondations pieuses en mouvement de la transformation du statut de propriété des biens waqfs à Jérusalem (1858-1917) (Lebanon: IFPO, 2010), 223-236.

250 resulted in the issuance of title deeds which allowed for the registration of old title deeds as well as new ones acquired through inheritance and transfers, for example. Consequently, the pre-Tanzimat tradition of placing Latin Catholic church properties in the names of the procurators of the Magnifica Communità, French ambassadors, ambassadorial personnel and local Levantines was replaced with registration in both in the names of individual priests as well as in the names of the religious orders as legal entities. Nonetheless, this method of registering ecclesiastical properties still left them vulnerable to confiscation if the heirless priest died before the property could be registered in the name of another member of the religious community. Be that as it may, the subject of Latin Catholic ecclesiastical properties and their affiliated religious orders in post-Tanzimat Istanbul is a subject for another research study.

251

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Unpublished primary sources

Turkey Ankara, Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü Arşivi (VGMA) Ayasofya Vaḳfiyesi, ff. 57-59, f. 357.

Istanbul, Conventual Archive of the Dominicans of SS. Peter and Paul in Galata (CADG) Register nos. 4.3; 10.1; 17.2; 27.3; 27.4.1; 27.11; 30.1.9; 37.1.1-2; 37.2.1-8; 31.1; 42.

Istanbul, Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi (BOA) Ahkam-ı Şam-ı Şerif, vol. 2. Ali Emre - III. Ahmed (AE.SAMD.III) 176. Cevdet Tasnifi Adliye (C..ADL) 35. Ecnebi Defterleri (ED) 28, 29. Mühimme Defterleri (MD) 4, 102, 108, 110, 144, 438. Nâme-i Hümayun Defterleri (NMH) 5. Yabancı ülke arşivleri (YB) 4.

İstanbul Müftülüğü, Şerʿiye Sicilleri Arşivi, İstanbul Şerʿiye Sicilleri (İŞS) Register 9, fols. 52, 86, 96, 247, 273; Register 10 fols. 53, 82, 84, 106, 156 Register 23, fols. 10, 27, 60 Register 27, 23

Manuscripts Fetâvâ, Süleymaniye Yazma Eser Kütübhanesi, no. 223, fol. 125b. Minkarizāde Yahya b. Ömer, Fetāvā-i Minkarizade Efendi, Süleymaniye Yazma Eser Kütübhanesi, MS. Hamdiye 610, fols. 37a-b.

252

Şeyhülislām Esad Efendi, Fetāvā-yı Es‘adiyye, İstanbul Müftülüğü Kütübhanesi, 157, vol. 1, fols. 75b-76a. Şeyhülislām Mekkīzāde Mustafa Āsım Efendi, Beyāz Sīpāre, İstanbul Müftülügü Kütübhanesi, fol. 64a. Vānī Mehmed Efendi, Fetâvâ-yı Bistâmî, İstanbul Üniversitesi Nadir Eserler Kütüphanesi, T 989, fols. 1b-254a., 115a-115b. Velî b. Yusuf, Mecmûatü’l-fetâvâ, İstanbul Müftülüğü Kütüphanesi, fols. 78b-79a.

France Paris, Archives de la Mission des Capucins de Constantinople (AMCC) Series A: Letters patentes du Roi; lettres des Rois aux ambassadeurs…, doc. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 28. Series C: Décrets de la S. Congrégation; authentiques; ordes; avertissements et défenses, docs. 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 18, 19, 20, 23, 25, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37-42, 44, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 57, 59, 61, 63-66. Series F: Titres de propriété; achats; contrats; testaments; donations; comptes; dépôts; affaires contentieuses, docs. 1, 3, 4, 6-26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 37, 46, 47, 50, 51, 57. Series G: Gouvernement temporel de Saint-Louis; chapellenie, paroisse; Revenus; Sépultures; difficultés, docs. 3, 4, 31. Series M: Papiers retrouvés et concernant les missions de Grèce et d’Asie dont: Chio, Smyrne, archipel, doc. 38. Series R: Commandements impériaux; firmans; barats; lettres de recommandation, docs. 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 21, 25, 31, 41, 40, 60 Series T: Bougourdis, passeports, quittances, obligations, écrits d’affranchissement..., docs. 2, 27. Series U: Hodgets; ecrits des mutevelye etc…, docs. 1, 6, 8, 15-20, 22 & 24, 34, 47, 57, 60. Series V: Billets et fetfas de divers muphtis; letters de caratch, docs. 2-14. Series X: Documents ottomans, hüccet et commandements, doc. 13.

Paris, Archives du Ministere des Affaires Etrangeres (AE) Jean Louis d’Usson, Marqui de Bonnac, Memoire sur l’Etat actuel ou se trouvent les affaires de la Religion en Levant, register 50MD/1, fols. 264-273.

253

Paris, Archives Nationales (AN) Affaires étrangères (A. E.) B 3, fol. 269; B 376, fols. 222, 289, 435; B1 377, fol. 125, 129; B1 379, fol. 283.

Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale (B.N.): Fonds Français (F.F.) 4.134; 16.158; 17.831, fol. 380; 20.983, fol. 37.

Published primary sources Abū Yūsuf Yaʿqūb ibn Ibrāhīm. Kitāb al-Kharāj. Cairo: al-Maṭbaʿah al-Salafīyah wa- Maktabatuhā, 1927. Abū Zahrah, Muḥammad. Muḥāḍarāt fī al-Waqf. Cairo: Dār al-Fikr al-ʾArabī, 1972. Archives du ministère des Affaires étrangères, Vol. 3. Paris. d’Arvieux, Louis Laurent. Memoires du chevalier d'Arvieux: envoyé extraordinaire du roy à la Porte, consul d'Alep, d'Alger, de Tripoli, & autres echelles du Levant, Vol. 4. Paris: chez Charles-Jean-Baptiste Delespine le fils, 1735. ʻĀshiqpashazādeh. ʻĀshiqpashazādeh taʼrīkhī: a history of the Ottoman Empire to A.H. 883 (AD 1478), ed. Ālī Bey. Farnborough, Eng.: Gregg International, 1970. Al-ʿAynī, Badr al-Dīn. Al-Bināya Sharḥ al-Hidāya, ed. Ayman Ṣāliḥ Sha‘bān, Vol. 7. Beirut: Dār al-Kubub al-ʿIlmiyya, 2000. Ayvansarayî, Hüseyin. Hadîkâtü’l-Cevâmi‘: İstanbul Câmileri ve Diğer Dînî-Sivil Mi‘mârî Yapılar, edited by Ahmed Nezih Galitekin. Istanbul: İşaret Yayınları, 2001. Barbaro, Nicolò. Diary of the Siege of Constantinople 1453, translated by J. R. Jones. New York: Exposition Press, 1969. Basanno, Luigi. Costumi et i modi particolari della vita de' Turchi: ristampa fotomeccanica dell'edizione originale, edited by Franz Babinger. Monaco di Baviera: Casa editrice M. Hueber, 1963. Biron, Jean de Gontaut. Ambassade en Turquie de Jean de Gontaut Biron Baron de Salignac: 1605-1610 Voyage a Constantinople – Séjour en Turquie, Vol. 1. Paris: Honoré Champion, 1883-89. Brun, Corneille Le. Voyage au Levant: c'est-à-dire, dans les principaux endroits de l'Asie mineure, dans les isles de Chio, Rhodes, & Chypre & c.. Paris: Guillaume Cavelier, 1714. Cabī Ömer Efendi. Cabī tarīḫi (tarih-i Sultan Selim-i Salis ve Mahmud-i Sani), Vol. 2. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu 2003.

254

Çelebi, Kātib. Mizān al-ḥaqq fī ikhtiyār al-aḥaqq. Istanbul: ʿAli Riża Efendi Maṭbaʾsi, 2009. Çelebi, Evliya. Seyaḥatnāme, Vol. 1. Istanbul: Ikdam Matbaasi, 1898. Charrière, Ernest. Négociations de la France dans le Levant I, vols. 1, 2, 3. Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1848-60. Cohen, Amnon. Jewish Life under Islam: Jerusalem in the Sixteenth Century. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1984. Croix, François Pétis de La, Voyages de Petis de La Croix. Paris: Ferra, 1810. Doukas. Decline and fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1975. Dumont, Jean. Nouveau voyage du Levant: contenant ce qu'il a vû de plus remarquable en Allemagne, France, Italie, Malthe, & Turquie: où l'on voit aussi les Brigues secretes de Mr. de Chateau-neuf, Ambassadeur de France à la Cour ottomane, & plusieurs histoires galantes. The Hague: Chez Etienne Foulque, 1694. Gontaut-Biron, Théodore de. Ambassade en Turquie de Jean de Gontaut Biron Baron de Salignac, 1605 à 1610. Vol. 1. Paris: Honoré Champion, 1883-89. Grelot, Guillaume-Joseph. Relation nouvelle d’un voyage de Constantinople. Paris: En la boutique de Pierre Rocolet, 1680. Haydar Efendi, Ali. Tertibüs-Sunûf Fi Ahkâmil-Vukûf. Istanbul, 1919. Hill, Aaron. A Full and Just Account of the Present State of the Ottoman Empire in All its Branches: with the Government, and Policy, Religion, Customs, and Way of Living of the Turks in General. London: J. Mayo, 1710. Hüsrev, Molla. Dürerül-Hükkâm Fi Şerhi Gureril-Ahkâm, Vols. 2. Istanbul 1317. Ibn ‘Ābidīn, Muḥammad Amīn. Hāshiyat Radd al-Muḥtār ‘alā Durr al-Mukhtār, ed. Humaaddin b. Muaḥmmad Sālih Farfur, Vol. 2 and 3. Damascus: Ma’had Jamat al-Fath al-Islāmī, 2000. Ibn Hishām, Abū Muḥammad Jamāl al-Dīn. Al-Sīrah al-nabawiyyah. Vol. 3, Cairo: Mustafa al-Babi al-Ḥalabī, 1955. Ibn al-Humām, Sharḥ Fatḥ al-Qadīr ʿalā al-Hidāya, ed. Abd al-Razzaq Ghalib Mahdi, vol. 5, 6. Dar al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 2003. Ibn al-Humām, Kamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad. Sharḥ Fatḥ al-Qadīr, ed. ʿAbd al-Razzāq Ghālib al-Mahdī, Vol. 5. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya, 1995. İbn Kemāl, Tevārih-i Al-i Osman, ed. Şerafettin Turan. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1954. Ibn Nujaym. Al-Sharḥ al-Baḥr al-Rāʾiq, Vol. 5. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1997.

255

Kömürciyan, Eremya Çelebi. İstanbul Tarihi XVII. Asırda İstanbul, Hrand D. Andreasyan (trans.). Istanbul: Eren Yayıncılık, 1988. Kritovoulos, Michael. History of Mehmed the Conqueror, trans. Charles T. Riggs. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1954. Loir, Nicolas Du. Voyage du sieur du Loir contenur en plusieurs lettres écrites du levant, auec plusieurs particularités qui n'ont point encore esté remarqueés touchant la Grece, & la domination du Grand Seigneur, la religion & les moeurs de ses suiets. Paris: Gervais Clouzier, 1654. Menteşzāde, Şeyhülislām Abdürrahim Efendi. Fetava-yı Abdurrahim, Vol. 1. Istanbul: Daru’t- tibaʿati’l-maʿmureti’s-sultaniyye, 1827. Motraye, François Aubry de La. A. de La Motraye’s Travels through Europe, Asia, and into parts of Africa: containing a great variety of geographical, topographical, and political observations on those parts of the world, Vol. I. London: printed for the author, 1723. Naʿima Muṣṭafa Efendi, Naîmâ Târihi, Vol. 3. Istanbul: Bahar Matbaası, 1968. Nicolay, Nicolas de. La navigationi et viaggi nella Turchia di Nocolo de’ Nicolai, translated by Francesco Flori. Venice: Presso Francesco Ziletti, 1580. Pacifique, Le Père. Relation du Voyage de Perse. Paris: L’Imprimerie de Pierre de Rache, 1631. Quiclet, Jean. Les Voyages de M. Quiclet à Constantinople par terre. Paris: F. Clousier, 1664. Rāşid Mehmed Efendi. Tārih-i Rāşid, Vol. 1. Istanbul: Matbaa-i Amire, 1865. Raşīd ed-Din Ṭabīb, Cāmiʿ et-Tavārīḫ, ed. Ahmed Ateş, Vol. 1 Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1957. Rycaut, Paul. The Present State of the Greek and Armenian Churches, Anno Christi, 1678. The Mitre: London, 1679. ⸺ The Present State of the Ottoman Empire: Containing the maxims of the Turkish policy, the most material points of the Mahometan religion, their sects and heresies, their convents and religious votaries. Their military discipline, with an exact computation of their forces by land and sea. London: John Starkey, 1670. Al-Sarakhsī, Abū Bakr Muḥammad. al-Mabsūṭ, Vol. 9. Beirut: Dār al-Maʿrifa, 1986. Selânikî Mustafa Efendi. Tarih-i Selâniki, edited by Mehmet İpşirli, 2 Vols. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1999. Silahdar Fındıklılı Mehmed Ağa. Silahdar Tarihi, Vol. 1. Istanbul: Türk Tarih Encümeni Külliyatı, 1928. al-Shaybānī, Abū Bakr Aḥmad Ibn Amr. Aḥkām al-Awqāf. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, 1999.

256

Sphrantzes, George. The fall of the Byzantine Empire: a chronicle, translated by Marios Philippides. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1980. Stochove, Vincent de. Voyage du sieur de Stochove, faict es années 1630. 1631. 1632. 1633. Brussels: Hubert Anthoine Velpius, 1643. Thévenot, Jean de. The travels of Monsieur de Thevenot into the Levant in three parts, Viz. into I. Turkey, II. Persia, III. the East-Indies, translated by Archibald Lovell, Vol. I. London: Printed by Henry Clark, 1687. Tournefort, Joseph Pitton de. Relation d’un voyage du Levant fait par ordre du roy, Vol. I. Paris: L’Imprimerie Royal, 1717. Tursun Bey. The History of Mehmed the Conqueror, edited by Halil İnalcık and Rhoads Murphey. Minneapolis/Chicago: Bibliotheca Islamic, 1978. Valle, Pietro della. Viaggi di Pietro della Valle Il Pellegrino: con minuto ragguaglio di tutte le cose notabili osservate in essi, Vol. 4. Roma: appresso Vitale Mascardi, 1650. Vāsıf Efendi, Ahmed. Mehāsinü’l-Āsār ve Hakāikü’l-Ahbār, edited by Mücteba İlgürel. Istanbul: Edebiyat Fakültesi Basımevi, 1978. Wheler, George. A Journey into Greece. London: printed for William Cademan et al, 1682. Yenişehirli, Şeyhülislām ʿAbdullah Efendi. Behcetü’l-fetāvā. Istanbul: Matbaa-i Amire, 1872.

Reference works EI2: Encyclopaedia of Islam. 2nd edition, 12 Vols. Leiden: Brill, 1960-2005. DİA: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, 44 Vols. Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı (TDV), 1988-2013.

Akman, Mehmet. “Örf: Osmanlı Devletinde.” In DİA, Vol. 34, 93-94. Istanbul: TDV, 1997. Atar, Fahrettin. “Fetva.” In DİA, Vol. 12, 486-496. Istanbul: TDV, 1995. Behrens-Abouseif, Doris, s. v. “wakf.” In EI2. Bilmen, Ömer Nasuhi. Hukuk-u İslamiye Ve İstilâhât-ı Fıkhiye Kamusu, Vol. 4. Istanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi, 1949. Deguilhem, Randi. “Wakf: Ottoman Empire up to 1914.” In EI. Eyice, Semavi. “Arap Camii.” In DİA, Vol. 3, 326-27. Istanbul: TDV, 1991. Faroqhi, Suraiya, s.v. “Mühimme Defterleri.” In E.I. ⸺ s.v. “Sidjill: 3. In Ottoman administrative usage.” In EI2.

257

Gürkan, Emrah Safa. “France.” In Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire, edited by Gb̀or ℓgoston and Bruce Masters, 221-225. New York: Facts On File, 2009. Heyd, Uriel. “Farmān- Ottoman Empire.” In EI (new edition). Ibn Manẓur, Abū al-Faḍl. “badala” Lisān al-ʿArab, Vol. 2 . Beirut: Dār Iḥyā’ al-Turāth al- ‘Arabī, 1997. ⸺ “fatwa”. Lisān al-ʿArab, Vol. 10. Beirut: Dār Iḥyā’ al-Turāth al-ʿArabī, 1997. ⸺ “sharaka”. Lisān al-ʿArab, Vol. 10. Beirut: Dār Iḥyā’ al-Turāth al-ʿArabī, 1997. İnalcık, Halil. “Adâletnâme.” In DİA, Vol. 1, 346-347. (Istanbul: TDV, 1988. ⸺ s.v. “Djizya.” In EI2. ⸺ “Kanun.” In DİA, Vol. 24, 323-327. Istanbul: TDV, 2001. ⸺ “Mehmed II.” In DİA, Vol. 28, 395-407. Istanbul: TDV, 2003. Kenanoğlu, M. Macit. “Mîrî Arazi.” DİA, Vol. 30, 157-160. Istanbul: TDV, 2005. Kramers, J. H, s.v. “Shaykh al-Islām.” In EI. Kütükoğlu, Mübahat S. “Berat.” DİA, Vol. 5, 472-3. Istanbul: TDV, 1992. ⸺ “Ferman.” DİA, Vol. 12, 400-406. Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 1995. Magdalino, Paul. “Adelphaton.” In The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, edited by Alexander P. Kazhdan, Vol. 1, 19. New York: Oxford Univeristy Press, 1991. Mango, Cyril. “Galata.” In Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, edited by Alexander P. Kazhdan, Vol. 2, 815-16. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. Ortaylı, İlber. “Galata.” In DİA, Vol. 13, 303-307. Istanbul: İSAM, 1996. Öztürk, Nazif. “Mukataalı Vakıf.” In DİA, Vol. 31, 132-134. Istanbul: TDV, 2006. Repp, R. C, s.v. “Shaykh al-Islām: In the Ottoman Empire.” In E.I. “Joseph, Father (François Leclerc du Tremblay).” Encyclopædia Britannica, Vol. 15, 515- 516. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911. Snezhana, Rakova. "Venetians in Constantinople.” In Encyclopaedia of the Hellenic World, Constantinople. E-published by the Foundation of the Hellenic World, 2008. Accessed 12 July 2018, http://www.ehw.gr/l.aspx?id=11935. Tuncel, Metin. “İstanbul.” In DİA, Vol. 23, 205-300. Istanbul: TDV, 2001. Uğur, Derman M. “Tuğra.” In DİA, Vol. 41, 336-339. Istanbul: TDV, 2012. Uğur, Yunus. “Şerʾiyye Sicilleri.” In DİA, Vol. 39, 8-11. Istanbul: TDV, 2010. Ursinus, Michael, s. v. “Millet.” In EI2.

258

Secondary sources Afifi, Mohamed. “Reflections on the Personal Laws of Egyptian Copts.” In Women, the Family, and Divorce Laws in Islamic History, edited by Amira El Azhary Sonbol, 202- 215. Syracuse University Press, 1996. Akarlı, Engin Deniz. “Maslaha: From ‘Common Good’ to ‘Raison d’état’ in the Experience of Istanbul Artisans, 1730-1840.” In Hoca, 'Allame, Puits De Science: Essays in Honor of Kemal Karpat, edited by Kaan Durukan, Robert Zens and A. Zorlu-Durukan, 63-79. Istanbul: The İsis Press, 2010. Akdağ, Mustafa. Türkiye’nin iktisadî ve ictimaî tarihi. C. II 1453-1559. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1971. Akgündüz, Ahmed. Islâm Hukukunda ve Osmanlı Tatbikatında Vakıf Müessesesi. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1988. ⸻ Osmanlı Kanûnnâmeleri ve Hukuki Tahlilleri, Vol. 1. Istanbul: Fey Vakfı, 1990. ⸺ Osmanlı Kanûnnâmeleri ve Hukûkî Tahlilleri, Vol. 9. Istanbul: Cihân Matbaası, 1996. Aksan, Virginia H. “Ottoman-French Relations, 1739-1768.” In Studies on Ottoman Diplomatic History, edited by Sinan Kuneralp. Istanbul: İsis Press, 1987. d’Alessio, Eugène Dalleggio. “La communauté de Constantinople au lendemain de la conquête ottomane.” Échos d’orient 36 (1937): 309-17. ⸺ La Pietre Sepolcrali di Arab Giamí (Anitica Chiesa di S. Paolo a Galata). Genova: Società Ligure di Storia patria, 1942. ⸺ Le Couvent et L’Église des Saints-Pierre-et-Paul a Galata. Istanbul: Milli Nesriyat Yurdu, 1935 ⸺ “L’établissement dominicain de Péra (Galata).” Échos d’Orient 35, no. 181 (1936): 83- 86. ⸺ “Les origins dominicains du couvent de S. Pierre et Paul de Galata.” Échos d’Orient 29, no. 4 (1930): 459-74. ⸺ “Recherches sur l’histoire de la Latinite de Constantinople.” Echos d’Orient 25, no. 141 (1926): 21-41. ⸺ Relatione dello stato della cristianita di Pera e Constantinopoli obediente al sommo pontefice romano. Constantinople: Edizioni Rizzo & Son, 1925. ⸺ “Traité entre les Génois de Galata et Mehmet II (1er juin 1453),” Échos d’Orient 39, no. 1 (1940): 161-175. ⸺ “Une inscription inédite d’Arab-Djami.” Échos d’Orient 28, no. 156 (1929): 407-413.

259

Alexander, John C. “The Lord Giveth and the Lord Taketh Away: Athos and the Confiscation Affair of 1568-1569.” In Athos in the 14th -16th Centuries, edited by Athonika Symmeikta, 149-200. Athens: The National Hellenic Research Foundation, 1997. Anhegger, Robert, and Halil İnalcık. Kanunname-i Sultani Ver Muceb-i Orf-i Osmani. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1956. Argenti, Philip P. edited. Diplomatic Archive of Chios, 1577-1841, Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1954. Argıt, Betül İpşirli. “Clothing Habits, Regulations and Non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire.” Akademik Araştırmalar Dergisi 24 (2005): 79-96. Arıkan, Zeki. “1536 Kapitülasyonları ve Cumhuriyet İdeolojisi”, Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Tarih Bölümü Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi 24, no. 37 (2005): 11-28. Arseven, Celāl Esad. Eski Galata ve Binaları. Istanbul: Çelik Gülersoy Vakfı, 1989. Ayalon, Yaron. Natural Disasters in the Ottoman Empire: Plague, Famine, and Other Misfortunes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Aydemir, Abdullah. Ebussuûd Efendi. Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı, 1986. Aydın, M. Akif, “Istanbul’da Hukuk”, Antik Çağdan XXI. Yüzyıla Büyük İstanbul Tarihi Büyük İstanbul Tarihi, eds. M. Akif Aydın and Coşkun Yılmaz, Istanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Yayınları, 2016. Babinger, Franz. Mehmed the Conqueror and his Time. Princeton: University Press, 1978. Baer, Marc David. “The Great Fire of 1660 and the Islamization of Christian and Jewish Space in Istanbul.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 36, no. 2 (May 2004): 159- 181. Balta, Evangelia. Les Vakifs de Serrès et de sa Région (XVe et XVIe s.). Athens: Centre de Recherches Néo-Helléniques, 1995. Bardakjian, Kevork B. “The Rise of the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople.” In Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society, Vol 1, edited by Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis, 89-100. New York/London: Holmes & Meier Publishers, 1982. Barkan, Ömer Lütfi. XV ve XVIinci asırlarda Osmanlı imparatorluğunda zirai ekonominin hukuki ve mali esasları: I: Kanunlar. Istanbul: Bürhaneddin matbaası, 1943. ⸺ “Osmanlı Imparatorluğunda bir iskân ve kolonizasyon metodu olarak vakıflar ve temlikler.” Vakıflar Dergisi, 2 (1942): 279-386.

260

⸺ “Osmanlı Imperatorluğunda kuruluş devrinin toprk meseleleri.” Ikinci Türk Tarih Kongresi-Istanbul, 20-25 (Sept. 1937): 1002-13. Barkan, Ömer Lütfi and Ekrem H. Ayverdi, İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrir Defteri 953 (1546) Tarihli. Istanbul: Baha Matbaası, 1970. Batur, Afife. “Galata and Pera 1: A Short History, Urban Development, Architecture and Today.” ARI The Bulletin of the İstanbul Technical University 55/1, (2007): 1-10. Bayerle, Gustav. Ottoman Tributes in Hungary: According to Sixteenth Century Tapu Registers of Novigrad. The Hague: Mouton, 1973. Behrens-Abouseif, Doris. Egypt’s Adjustment to Ottoman Rule: Institutions, Waqf and Architecture in Cairo (16th and 17th Centuries). Leiden: Brill, 1994. Belin, François-Alphonse. Des capitulations et des traités de la France en Orient. Paris: Challamel, 1870. ⸺ Histoire de la Latinite de Constantinople. Paris: Alphonse Picard et Fils, 1894. Imen Ben Jemia, “Les femmes de la ville de Hama au XVIIe siècle: vies privées/vies publiques en Syrie ottomane à travers les registres des cadis.” PhD diss., University of Provence - now Aix-Marseille University-, 2009. Ben-Naeh, Yaron. Jews in the Realm of the Sultans: Ottoman Jewish Society in the Seventeenth Century. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck Press, 2008. Berger, Albrecht (trans.). Accounts of Medieval Constantinople: The Patria. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2013. Boogert, Maurits H. van den, “Consular Jurisdiction in the Ottoman Legal System in the Eighteenth Century.” Oriente Moderno 22, no. 3 (2003): 613-634. ⸺ The Capitulations and the Ottoman Legal System: Qadis, Consults and Beraths in the 18th Century, Leiden: Brill, 2005. Borie, Alain. “Istanbul,” Bulletin d’Informations Architecturales 115 (1987): page numbers Borromeo, Elisabetta. “Le clergé catholique face au pouvoir ottoman: les brevets de nomination (berât) des évêques et des archevêques (XVIIe siècle).” In Contacts and Controversies between Muslims, Jews and Christians in the Ottoman Empire and Pre- Modern Iran, edited by Camilla Adang and Sabine Schmidtke, 207-222. Wuerzburg: Ergon-Verlag, 2019. ⸺ “Le clergé latin et son autorité dans l’Empire ottoman: Protégé des puissances de l’Europe catholique? (XVe -XVIIIe siècles).” In L’autorité religieuse et ses limites en terres d’islam. Approches historiques et anthropologiques, edited by Nathalie Clayer et. al., 87-105. Leiden: Brill, 2013.

261

⸺ “Les Catholiques à Constantinople. Galata et les églises de rite latin au XVIIe siècle.” Revue des mondes musulmans et de la Méditerranée 107-110 (Sep. 2005): 227-243. Bosworth, Clifford E. “The Concept of Dhimma in Early Islam.” In Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society Vol. I, edited by Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis, 37-51. New York/London: Holmes & Meier Publishers, 1982. Brèves, Franois Savary de. Relation des voyages de Monsieur de Brèves, tant en Grèce, Terre Saincte et Aegypte qu'aux royaumes de Tunis et Arger, ensemble un traicté faict l'an 1604 entre le roy Henry le Grand et l'empereur des Turcs, et trois discours dudit sieur, le tout recueilly par le S. D. C.: Discovrs Veritable fait par Monsieur de Breves. Paris: N. Gasse, 1628. Braude, Benjamin. “Foundation Myths of the Millet System.” In Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society Vol. I, edited by Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis, 69-88. New York/London: Holmes & Meier Publishers, 1982. Brown, Philip Marshall. “The Capitulations.” Foreign Affairs 1, no. 4 (1923): 71-81. Bruneau, André. Traditions et politique de la France au Levant. Paris: Librairie Félix Alcan, 1932. Çabuk, Vahit. “XVII. Yüzyılda İstanbul Yangınları ve Kâtip-zâde’nin 1070 (1660) Yangını Hakkında Manzum Bir Tarihi.” Türk Kültürü 11, no. 125 (1973): 28-34 Çağatay, Neşet. İslam Hukukunun Ana Hatları ve Oslamlıların Bunun Bazı Kurallarını Değişik Ugulamaları. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1987. Cantemir, Dimitrie. The History of the Growth and Decay of the Othman Empire. trans. Nicolas Tindal, John James and Paul Knapton. London: printed for James, John, and Paul Knapton, 1734. Carnard, Marius. “Les expéditions des Arabes contre Constantinople dans l’historie et dans la légende.” Journal Asiatique, no. 208 (1926): 61-121. Casa, Jean-Michel. Le Palais de France à Istanbul: un demi-millénaire d'alliance entre la Turquie et la France / Istanbul'da bir Fransiz Sarayı: Fransa ile Tiïrkiye arasinda 500 ydlik ittifak. Istanbul, Yapi Kredi, 1995. Çataltepe, Sipahi. İslâm-Türk medeniyetinde vakıflar, Istanbul: Türkiye Milli Kültür Vakfı, 1991. Çavuşoğlu, Semiramis. “The Kadızadeli movement: An attempt of şeri’at-minded reform in the Ottoman Empire.” PhD diss., Princeton University, 1990. Cesinale, Rocco da. Storia delle missioni dei Cappucini, Vol. 3. Rome: Tipografia Barbèra, 1873.

262

Cezar, Mustafa. Osmanlı Devrinde İstanbul Yapılarında Tahribat Yapan Yagınlar ve Tabii Afetler. Istanbul: Berksoy Matbaası, 1963. Cin, Halil. Mirî Arazi ve Bu Arazinin Mülk Haline Dönüşümü. Ankara: Sevinç Matbaası, 1969. Çizakça, Murat. A History of Philanthropic Foundations: The Islamic World from the Seventh Century to the Present. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press, 2000. Cohen, Amnon. Jewish Life under Islam: Jerusalem in the Sixteenth Century. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1984. Covel, John. Early Voyages and Travels in the Levant. Surrey: Hakluyt Society, 2010. Cuno, Kenneth M. “Ideology and Juridical Discourse in Ottoman Egypt: The Uses of the Concept of Irṣād.” Islamic Law and Society 6, no. 2 (1999): 136-163. ⸺ “Was the Land of Ottoman Syria Miri or Milk? An Examination of Juridical Differences within the Hanafi School.” Studia Islamica, no. 81 (1995): 121-151. Dankoff, Robert, and Sooyong Kim (trans.). An Ottoman Traveller: Selections from the Book of Travels of Evliya Çelebi. London: Eland, 2010. Darling, Linda T. A History of Social Justice and Political Power in the Middle East: The Circle of Justice From Mesopotamia to Globalization. New York: Routledge, 2013. Deguilhem, Randi. “Consciousness of Self: The Muslim Woman as Creator and Manager of Waqf Foundations in Late Ottoman Damascus.” In Beyond the Exotic. Women’s Histories in Islamic Societies, edited by Amira El-Azhary Sonbol, 102-115. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2005. ⸺ “Les documents de waqf pour comprendre l’histoire socio-économique de l’Empire ottoman.” Actes du VII e congrès du CIEPO à Peçs (Hongrie) en 1986, 35-41. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1994. ⸺ “The waqf in the city.” In The City in the Islamic World, ed. Salma K. Jayyusi et al., 923- 950. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Delacroix-Besnier, Claudine. Les Dominicains et la Chrétienté Grecque aux XIVe et XVe Siècles. Rome: École Française de Rome, 1997. Demirel, Muammer. “Construction of Churches in Ottoman Provinces.” In Frontiers of Ottoman Studies: State, Province, and the West, Vol. 2, edited by Colin Imber et al, 211- 224. London & New York: I.B. Tauris, 2005. Droulez, Arthur. Supplément à l’Histoire de Saint Benoît. Paris 1948. Dumas, Juliette. ““Müste'min” Dealing with the Ottoman Justice: Role and Strategy of the Ambassador.” Oriente Moderno 93, no. 2 (2013): 477-494.

263

Dursteler, Eric R. “Education and Identity in Constantinople’s Latin-rite Community, ca. 1600.” Renaissance Studies 18 (2004): 287-303. ⸺ “Latin-Rite Christians in Early Modern Istanbul.” In Osmanlı İstanbu Sempozyumu Bildirileri, 29 Mayıs – 1 Haziran 2013, İstanbul 29 Mayıs Üniversitesi, edited by Feridun M. Emecen and Emrah Safa Gürkan, 137-46. Istanbul: İstanbul 29 Mayıs Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2014. ⸺ Venetians in Constantinople: Nation, Identity, and Coexistence in the Early Modern Mediterranean. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006. Düzdağ, Mehmet Ertuğrul. Kanunî Devri Şeyhülislâmı Ebussuud Efendi Fetvaları. Istanbul: Kapı Yayınları, 2012. ⸺ Şeyhülislm Ebüssuʿūd Efendi Fetvaları Işığında 16. Asır Türk Hayatı. Istanbu: Enderun Kitabevi, 1983. ⸺ Şeyhülislam Ebussu’ud Efendi’nin Fetvalarına Göre Kanunî Devrinde Osmanlı Hayatı: Fetava-yi Ebussu’ud Efendi. Istanbul: Sule Yayınları, 1998. Düzenli, Pehlul. Gayri-Müslimlere Dair Fetvalar. Istanbul: Klasik, 2015. Eldem, Edhem. “Capitulations and Western trade.” The Cambridge History of Turkey, vol. 3, 283-335. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. ⸺ French Trade in Istanbul in the Eighteenth Century. Leiden: Brill, 1999. ⸺ “Galata’nın Etnik Yapısı,” Biannual Istanbul 1 (1992): 58-63. ⸺ “Ottoman Galata and Pera between myth and reality.” In From «milieu de mémoire» to «lieu de mémoire»: The cultural memory of Istanbul in the 20th century, edited by Ulrike Tischler, 19-36. Munich: Martin Meidenbauer, 2006. Em, Ali. Türk Hukuk Sisteminde Vakıflar. Ankara: Turkan Kitabevi, 2011. Emecen, Feridun. Fetih ve Kıyamet 1453. Istanbul: Timaş Yayınları, 2012. ⸺ “Hukuki Bir Tartışmanın Tarihi Zemini: İstanbul Nasıl Alındı?” In Osmanlı İstanbulu, edited by Feridun Emercen and Emrah S. Gürkan, 35-41. Istanbul: 29 Mayıs Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2014. Epstein, Mark A. “The Leadership of the Ottoman Jews in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries.” In Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society, Vol. I, edited by Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis, 101-115. New York/London: Holmes & Meier Publishers, 1982. Ercan, Yavuz. Osmanlı Yönetiminde Gayrimüslimler, Kuruluştan Tanzimat’a Kadar Sosyal, Ekonomik ve Hukuki Durumları. Ankara: Turhan Kitabevi, 2001.

264

⸺ “Türkiye’de XV. ve XVI. Yüzyıllarda Gayrimüslimlerin Hukuki, İçtimai ve İktisadi Durumu.” Belleten 47, no. 188 (1983): 1119-1149. Eşref, Hālis, Külliyāt-ı Şerh-i Kanun-ı Arazi. Istanbul: Kütüphane-yi Cihan, 1898. Eyice, Semavi. Petite Guide à travers les Monuments Byzantins et Turcs. Istanbul: Istanbul Matbaası, 1955. Fagniez, Gustave. Le Père Joseph et Richelieu (1577-1638), vol. 1. Paris: Hachette, 1894. Falcini, Fiorenzo and Claudio Ceccherelli, La missione dei frati minori in Turchia e Grecia: numero unico nel cinquantesimo anniversario del passaggio alla provincia toscana (1930 - 1980); Istanbul - Kadikoy - Buyukada - Izmir e stazioni dipendenti - Bornova - Atene – Ankara. Firenze: Convento S. Francesco, 1986. Faroqhi, Suraiya. Men of modest substance: House owners and house property in seventeenth- century Ankara and Kayseri. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Fattal, Antoine. Le statut légal des non-Musulmans en pays d’Islam. Beirut: Imprimerie Catholique, 1958. Fleet, Kate. “Turkish-Latin Diplomatic Relations in the Fourteenth Century: The Case of the Consul.” Oriente Moderno 22, no. 3, (2003): 605-611. Fleischer, Cornell H. “The Lawgiver as Messiah: The Making of the Imperial Image in the Reign of Süleyman.” In Soliman le Magnifıque et son Temps, edited by Giles Veinstein, 159-177. Paris: Documentation française, 1992. Fotić, Alexandar. ‘The official explanations for the confiscation and sale of monasteries’; Eugenia Kermeli (ed.), “The Confiscation and Repossession of Monastic Properties in Mount Athos and Patmos Monasteries, 1568-1570.” Bulgarian Historical Review, vol. 28/3-4 2000, pp. 39-53. Frazee, Charles A. Catholics and Sultans: The Church and the Ottoman Empire 1453-1923. London: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Galland, Antoine. Journal d’Antoine Galland pendant son Séjour a Constantiople (1672- 1673), 2 Vols. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1881. Gerber, Haim Gerber. State, Society, and Law in Islam: Ottoman Law in Comparative Perspective. New York: State University of New York Press, 1994. Ghazzal, Zouhair. “Lecture d’un waqf maronite du mont Liban au XIXe siècle.” In Le waqf dans l’espace islamique. Outil de pouvoir socio-politique, edited by Randi Deguilhem, 101-120. Damascus: Institut Français de Damas, 1995. Ghobrial, John-Paul. The Whispers of Cities: Information Flows in Istanbul, London, and Paris in the Age of William Trumbull. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

265

Goffman, Daniel. “Ottoman Millets in the Early Seventeenth Century.” New Perspectives on Turkey 11 (1994): 135-158. Göçek, Fatma M. “The Legal Recourse of Minorities in History: Eighteenth Century Appeals to the Islamic Court of Galata.” In Minorities in the Ottoman Empire, edited by Molly Greene, 47-69. Princeton: Markus Wiener, 2005. Gökbilgin, M. Tayyib. XV. ve XVI. Asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı: Vakıflar, Mülkler, Mukataalar. Istanbul: Üçler Basımevi, 1952. Girardelli, Paolo. “Architecture, Identity and Liminality: On the use and meaning of Catholic Spaces in Late Ottoman Istanbul,” Maqarnas: An Annual on the Visual Culture of the Islamic World 22, (2005): 233-264. ⸺ “Between Rome and Istanbul: Architecture and Material Culture of a Franciscan Convent in the Ottoman Capital.” Journal of Mediterranean Studies 18 (2010): 162-188. Gradeva, Rossitsa. “A kadi court in the Balkans: Sofia in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries.” In The Ottoman World, edited by Christine Woodhead, 57-71. London: Routledge, 2012. ⸺ “From the Bottom Up and Back Again until Who Knows When: Church Restoration Procedures in the Ottoman Empire, Seventeenth-Eighteenth Centuries (Preliminary Notes).” In Political Initiatives “From the Bottoman Up” in the Ottoman Empire, edited by Antonis Anastasopoulos, 135-163. Rethymno: Crete University Press, 2012. ⸺ “On the Judicial Functions of Kadi Courts: Glimpses from Sofia in the Seventeenth Century.” In War and Peace in Rumeli: 15th to beginning of 19th century, edited by Sinan Kuneralp and Gül Tökay, 101-151. Istanbul: The İsis Press, 2008. ⸺ .“On Zimmis and Church Buildings: Four Cases from Rumeli.” In The Ottoman Empire: Myths, Realities and ‘Black Holes’. Contributions in Honour of Colin Imber, edited by Eugenia Kermeli and Oktay Özel, 203-237. Istanbul: The İsis Press, 2006. ⸺ “Orthodox Christians and the Ottoman Authoriy in Late Seventeenth-Century Crete.” In Frontiers of Ottoman Space, Frontiers in Ottoman Society, edited by Rossitsa Gradeva, 57-83. Istanbul: The İsis Press, 2014. ⸺ “Ottoman Policy towards Christian Church Buildings.” Études balkaniques, no. 4 (1994): 14-36. Greene, Molly. A Shared World: Christians and Muslims in the Early Modern Mediterranean, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2000.

266

Groot, Alexander H. de. “Protection and Nationality. The Decline of the Dragomans.” In Istanbul et les langues orientales: Actes du colloque, Istanbul 29-31 mai 1995, edited by Frédéric Hitzel, 235-255. Paris: L'Harmattan, c1997. ‒‒ “The Historical Development of the Capitulatory Regime in the Ottoman Middle East from the Fifteenth to the Nineteenth Centuries.” Oriente Moderno, no. 3 (2003): 575- 604. Güneri, Hasan. “Azinlik Vakıflarının Incelenmesi.” Vakıflar Dergisi, no. 10 (1973): 79-108. Hacker, Joseph R. “Ottoman Policy toward the Jews and Jewish Attitudes toward the Ottomans during the Fifteenth Century.” In Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society Vol. I, edited by Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis, 117-126. New York/London: Holmes & Meier Publishers, 1982. ⸺ “The Institution of the ‘Chief Rabbinate’ in Constantinople in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries,” [in Hebrew], Sefunot, 17 (1981): 225-63. Hallaq, Wael B. “From Fatwas to Furuʿ: Growth and Change in Islamic Substantive Law,” Islamic Law and Society 1, no. 1 (1994): 29-65. Hammer, Joseph von. Constantinopolis und der Bosporos, Vol. 2. [Budapest] Pesth: Hartleben's Verlag, 1822. ⸺ Vedia Dökmeci and Hale Çıracı. Tarihsel Gelişim Sürecinde Beyoğlu. Istanbul: Türkiye Turing ve Otomobil Kurumu, 1990. Hasluck, Frederick W. Christianity and Islam Under the Sultans, 2 Vols. Istanbul: The İsis Press, 2000. Heyd, Uriel. Ottoman Documents on Palestine 1552-1615: A Study of the Firman according to the Mühimme Defteri. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960. ⸺ “Some Aspects of the Ottoman Fetva”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 32, no. 1 (1969): 35-56. Hilmi Efendi, Ömer. İthaf-ül Ahlâf fi Ahkâm-il Evkaf. Ankara: Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü Yayınları, 1977. Hitzel, Frederic. Enfants de Langue et Drogmans, Diloğlanları ve Tercümanlar, Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 1995. Hofmann, Georg. Il Vicariato Apostólico di Costantinopoli 1453-1830. Roma: Pont. Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1935. Homsy, Basile. Les Capitulations et la Protection des Chrétiens au Proche-Orient: aux XVIIe et XVIII siecles. Beirut: Saint Paul Press, 1956. Huxley, Aldous. Grey Eminence. London: Vintage, 1941.

267

Imber, Colin. Ebu’S-Su’ud: The Islamic Legal Tradition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1997. İnalcık, Halil, and Donald Quataert. An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300-1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. İnalcık, Halil. “Fatih, Fetih ve İstanbul’un Yeniden İnşaası.” In Dünya Kenti İstanbul, edited by Afife Batur, 22-37. Istanbul: Trih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 1996. ⸺ “Fatih Sultan Mehmed Tarafından İstanbul’un Yeniden İnşaası.” 19 Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 3-4 (1988-89): 215-225. ⸺ “Islam arazi ve vergi sisteminin teşekkülü ve Osmanlı devrindeki şekilleriyle mukayesesi.” Islam Ilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 1 (1959): 1-18. ⸺ “Islamization of Ottoman Laws on Land and Land Tax.” In Essays in Ottoman History, edited by Halil İnalcık (Istanbul: Eren, 1998), 155-169. ⸺ “Kanunname”, TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi. Vol. 24. Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 2001. 333-337. ⸺ “Land Problems in Turkish History.” The Muslim World, 14 (1955): 221–28. ⸺ “Lepanto in the Ottoman Documents.” In Il Mediterraneo nella Seconda Metà del ‘500 alla Luce di Lepanto, edited by Gino Bezoni, 185-192. Firenze: Leo S. Olschki, 1974. ⸺ “Ottoman Galata 1453-1553.” In Première Rencontre Internationale sur l’Empire Ottoman et la Turquie Moderne, edited by Edhem Eldem, 275-376. Istanbul-Paris: Éditions – İsis, 1991. ⸺ “Ottoman Galata, 1453-1553.” In Essays in Ottoman History, edited by Halil İnalcık, 275-376. Istanbul: Eren Yayıncılık, 1998. ⸺ “Ottoman Methods of Conquest.” Studia Islamica, no. 2 (1954): 103-129. ⸺ Ottoman Policy and Administration in Cyprus after the Conquest. Ankara: Ayyildiz Matbaası, 1969. ⸺ The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age 1300-1600, London/New York: Phoenix, 1973. ⸺ “The Policy of Mehmed II toward the Greek Population of Istanbul and the Byzantine Buildings of the City.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 23 (1969): 229-49. ⸺ “The Status of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate under the Ottomans.” Turcica 21-23 (1991): 407-436. ⸺ The Survey of Istanbul 1455: The Text, English Translation, Analysis of the Text, Documentsç Istanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2012. ⸺ İbn Kemal’in Fetvaları Işığında Osmanlı’da İslâm Hukuku. Ankara: Gece Kitaplığı, 2014.

268

Iorga, Nicholas. Points de vue sur l’histoire du commerce de l’Orient à l’époque moderne. Paris: J. Gamber 1925. Işık, H. Sabri. Arap Camii ve Galata. Ekram Matbaası, Istanbul: 2000. İstanbul Yenicami ve Hünkar Kasrı. Istanbul: Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü, 1944. Janin, Raymond. Constantinople Byzantine: Développement Urbain et Répertoire Topographique. Paris: Institut Français D’Études Byzantines, 1950. ⸺ La Géographie Ecclésiastique de l'Empire Byzantin. 1. Part: Le Siège de Constantinople et le Patriarcat Oecuménique. 3rd Vol.: Les Églises et les Monastères. Paris: Institut Français d'Etudes Byzantines, 1953. Jennings, Ronald C. “Kadi, Court, and Legal Procedure in 17th C. Ottoman Kayseri: The Kadi and the Legal System.” Studia Islamica, no. 48 (1978): 133-172. ⸺ “Zimmis (non-Muslims) in Early 17th Century Ottoman Judicial Records: the Sharia Court of Anatolian Kayseri.” JESHO 21, 3 (1978): 225-93. ⸺ “Women in Early 17th Century Ottoman Judi cial Records - the Sharia Court of Anatolian Kayseri.” JESHO, 18 (1975): 53-113; Johansen, Baber. The Islamic Law on Land Tax and Rent: The Peasants' Loss of Property Rights as Interpreted in the Hanafite Legal Literature of the Mamluk and Ottoman Periods. London: Croom Helm, 1988. Joseph, John. Muslim-Christian Relations and Inter-Christian Rivalries in the Middle East. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1983. Kabrda, Josef. Le système fiscal de l'Église orthodoxe dans l'Empire ottoman d'après les documents turcs. Brünn: Universita J. E. Pukyně, 1969. Kamali, Mohammad Hashim. Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence. Cambridge: The Islamic Texs Society, 2003. Kann, Robert A. Kann. A History of the Habsburg Empire, 1526-1918. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974. Karagedikli, Gürer and Coşkun Tunçer. “The people next door: Housing and neighbourhood in Ottoman Edirne, 1734-1814.” Economic History Society Annual Conference March 2016. Kefevī, Salih b. Ahmed el. Fetāvā Ali Efendi, Vol. 1. Istanbul: Matbaa-i Âmire, 1311/1839. Kenanoğlu, M. Macit. “Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Dinlerarası İlişkiler (14-20. Yüzyıllar).” Milel ve Nihal 6, no. 2 (August 2009): 103-164. ⸺ Osmanlı Millet Sistemi: Mit ve Gerçek. Istanbul: Klasik, 2007.

269

Kermeli, Eugenia. “Ebū’s Su’ūd’s Definitions of Church vaḳfs: Theory and Practice in Ottoman Law.” In Islamic Law: Theory and Practice, edited by Robert Gleave, London & New York: I. B. Tauris, 1997. ⸺ “The Confiscation and Repossession of Monastic Properties in Mount Athos and Patmos Monasteries, 1568-1570.” Bulgarian Historical Review 28, 3-4 (2000): 39-53. Khalidi, Tarif, ed. Land Tenure and Social Transformation in the Middle East. Beirut: American University of Beirut, 1984. Kiel, Machiel. Art and Society of Bulgaria in the Turkish Period: A sketch of the economic, juridical, and artistic preconditions of Bulgarian post-Byzantine art and its place in the development of the art of the Christian Balkans, 1360-1700: A new interpretation. The Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1985. ‒‒ “Central Greece in the Suleymanic Age. Preliminary Notes on Population Growth, Economic Expansion and its Influence on the Spread of Greek Christian Culture.” In Soliman le Magnifique et son Temps, Actes du Colloque de Paris Galaries Nationales du Grand Palaise 7-10 Mars 1990, edited by Gilles Veinstein, 399-424. Paris: La Documentation Française, 1992. Kırımtayıf, Süleyman. Converted Byzantine Churches in Istanbul: Their Transformation into Mosques and Masjids. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları, 2001. Koç, Yunus. “Early Ottoman Customary Law: The Genesis and Development of Ottoman Codification.” In Shattering Tradition: Custom, Law and The Individual in the Muslim Mediterranean, edited by Walter Dostal and Wolfgang Kraus, 75-121. London, New York: I.B. Tauris, 2005. Kolovos, Elias. “Christian Influence and the Advent of the Europeans: Negotiating for State Protection: Ciftlik-holding by the Athonite Monasteries (Xeropotamou Monastery, Fifteenth-Sixteenth C.).” In Frontiers of Ottoman Studies, edited by Colin Imber, Keiko Kiyotaki, and Rhoads Murphey, 197-210. London: I. B. Tauris, 2005. Kömürciyan, Eremya Çelebi. İstanbul Tarihi XVII. Asırda İstanbul, trans. Hrand D Andreasyan. Istanbul: Eren Yayıncılık, 1988. Krstić, Tijana. “Moriscos in Ottoman Galata, 1609-1620s.” In The Expulsion of the Moriscos from Spain: A Mediterranean Diaspora, edited by Mercedes García-Arenal and Gerard Wiegers, 269-285. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Kuran, Timur. Mahkeme Kayıtları Işığında Sosyo-Ekonomik Yaşam, Vol. 1. Istanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2010.

270

Kurban Dilek and Kezban Hatemi. Bir Yabancı’laştırma Hikâyesi: Türkiye’de Gayrımüslim Cemaatlerin Vakıf ve Taşınmaz Mülkiyet Sorunu. Istanbul: TESEV, 2009. Kütükoğlu, Mübahat S. Osmanlı Belgelerinin Dili (Diplomatik). Istanbul: Kubbealtı Akademisi Kültür ve Sanat Vakfı, 1994. Layish, Aharon. “The Druze Testamentary waqf.” Studia Islamica, no. 71 (1990): 127-154. Le Régime des Capitulations: son histoire, son application, ses modifications par un ancien diplomate. Paris: Librairie Plon, 1898. Levy, Avigdor. “Introduction – III: The Structure of the Jewish Community.” In The Jews of the Ottoman Empire, edited by Avigdor Levy. New Jersey: The Darwin Press, 1994. Lewis, Bernard. From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2004. ⸺ “Nazareth in the Sixteenth Century according to the Ottoman Tapu Registers.” In Arabic and Islamic Studies in Honor of Hamilton A. R. Gibb, edited by George Makdisi, 416- 425. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. ⸺ “Ottoman Land Tenure and Taxation in Syria.” Studia Islamica, 50 (1979): 109-124. Loenertz, Raymond-Joseph. Byzantina et Franco-Graeca: articles parus de 1935 à 1966. Roma: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1970. ⸺ “Les établissements dominicains de Péra-Constantinople (Origines et fondations).” Échos d’Orient 34, no. 179 (1935): 332-349. ⸺ “Les Missiones Dominicaines en Orient au XIVe siècle et la Société de Frères Pérégrinants pour le Christ” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum (1932): 1-83. Lowry, Heath W. “Privilege and Property in Ottoman Maçuka in the opening decades of the Tourkokratia: 1461-1553.” In Continuity and Change in Late Byzantine and Early Ottoman Society papers given at a symposium at Dumbarton Oaks in May 1982. Edited by Anthony Bryer and Heath Lowry, 97-128. Birmingham: University of Birmingham Centre for Byzantine Studies, 1986. Mackintosh-Smith, Tim edited. The Travels of Ibn Battutah. London: Picador, 2003. Magdalino, Paul. “Bir Dinin ve Imparatorluğun Başkenti Olarak İstanbul.” In Bizantion’dan İstanbul’a Bir Başkentin 8000 Yılı, edited Doğan Kuban, 84-91. Istanbul: Sakıp Sabancı Müzesi, 2010. Mamboury, Ernest. The Tourists' Istanbul. Istanbul: Çituri Biraderler Basımevi. 1953. Mandaville, Jon E. “Usurious Piety: The Cash Waqf Controversy in the Ottoman Empire.” International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, no. 10 (1979): 289–308.

271

Manfroni, Camillo. “Le relazioni fra Genova, l’Impero Bizantino e i Turchi.” Atti della Societa Ligure di Storia Patria 28/3 (1898): 577-858. Mango, Cyril. “Galata,” Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, Alexander Kazhdan (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. Mantran, Robert. “Foreign Merchants and the Minorities in Istanbul during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries.” In Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society Vol. I, edited by Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis, 127-137. New York/London: Holmes & Meier Publishers, 1982. ⸺ Histoire d’Istanbul. Paris: Librairie Arthème Fayard, 1996. ⸺ “Images de Galata au XVIIe siècle.” Varia Turcica IV (1987): 193-202. ⸺ Istanbul dans la seconde moitié du XVIIe siècle; essai d’histoire institutionnelle, économique et sociale. Paris: A. Maisonneuve, 1962. ⸺ La vie Quotidienne a Constantinople au temps de soliman le magnifique et de ses successeurs (XVIe et XVIIe siecles). France: Hachette, 1965. Marchese, Ronald T. and Marlene R. Breu. “Intersection of Society, Culture, and Religion: The Constantinople Style and Armenian Identity,” In Armenian Constantinople, edited by Richard G. Hovannisian and Simon Payalian, 101-182. California: Mazda Publishers, 2010. Marmara, Rinaldo. La Chiesa Latina Cattolica Di Costantinopoli: Da Bisanzio ad oggi. Istanbul: Latin Katolik Tuhani Reisliği, 2011. ⸺ Précis historique de la communité latin de Constantinole et de son église, Istanbul: Latin Katolik Ruhani Reisliği, 2003. Masters, Bruce. Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Arab World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Masud, Muhammad Khalid, Brinkley Messick, and David Powers. “Muftis, Fatwas, and Islamic Legal Interpretation.” In Islamic Legal Interpretation: Muftis and their Fatwas. Edited by Muhammad K. Masud et al., 3-32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Matteucci, Gualberto. La missione Francescana di Costantinopoli: la sua antica origine e primi secoli di storia (1217-1585). Firenze: Biblioteca di Studi Francescani, 1971. ⸺ Un glorioso convento francescano sulle rive del Bosforo; il S. Francesco di Galata in Constantinopoli, c. 1230-1697. Firenze: Edizioni Studi Francescani, 1967. Matuz, Joseph. “À propos de la validité des capitulations de 1536 entre l’Empire ottoman et la France.” Turcica: Revue d’Études Turques 24 (1992): 183-192.

272

Mauri, Giovanni. Relatione dello stato della Cristianitá di Pera e Constantinopoli obediente al Sommo Pontefice Romano. Constantinople: Edizioni Rizzo & Son, 1925. Melville-Jones, John R. trans. The siege of Constantinople 1453: seven contemporary accounts. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1972. Miović, Vesna. “Diplomatic Relations between the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Dubrovnik.” In The European Tributary States of the Ottoman Empire in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, edited by Gábor Kármán and Lovro Kunčević, 187-208. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Mitler, Louis. “The Genoese in Galata: 1453-1682.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 10, no. 1 (1979): 71-91. Müge Göçek, Fatma. East Encounters West: France and the Ottoman Empire in the Eighteenth Century. New York/ Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987. Müller, Christian. “Non-Muslims as part of Islamic law: Juridical casuistry in a fifth/eleventh- century law manual.” In The Legal Status of Dimmī-s in the Islamic West, edited by Maribel Fierro and John Tolan, 21-64. Madrid: Brepolis, 2013. Müller-Wiener, Wolfgang. Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbuls: Byzantion, Konstantinupolis, Istanbul bis zum Beginn d. 17 Jh. Tübingen: Wasmuth, 1977. Naff, Thomas. “Reform and the Conduct of Ottoman Diplomacy in the Reign of Selim III, 1789-1807.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 83, no. 3 (Aug. – Sep., 1963): 295-315. Nargül, Veysel. “Fatwa.” In Islam: A Worldwide Encyclopedia, edited by Cenap Çakmak, Vol. 2, 471-473. California, Colorado: ABC-CLIO, 2017. Nicol, Donald M. Byzantium and Venice. A Study in Diplomatic and Cultural Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Noradounghian, Gabriel. Recueil d'actes internationaux de l'Empire ottoman: traités, conventions, arrangements, déclarations, protocoles, procès-verbaux, firmans, bérats, lettres patentes et autres documents relatifs au droit public extérieur de la Turquie, 1300- 1902. Paris: F. Pichon, 1897. Norton, Claire. “(In)tolerant Ottomans: Polemic, Perspective and the Reading of Primary Sources.” In The Character of Christian-Muslim Encounter: Essays in Honour of David Thomas, edited by Douglas Pratt, 242-263. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Obaldía, Vanessa R. de “A Shared Space and Shared Functions: From a Latin Catholic Church to an Islamic Vakıf in Seventeenth Century Istanbul.” Endowment Studies 2 (2) (2018): 133-162.

273

⸺ “For the poor and needy of the French nation: a Latin Catholic endowment in nineteenth century Istanbul.” (2019), TBP. ⸺ “Relations between the Ottoman State and its Christian subjects in Istanbul as reflected in the conversion of Byzantine churches into Islamic waqfs.” In Leaving One’s Trace in Society: Individuals and the Institutionalization of their Networks in Society via their Waqf Foundations, edited by Randi Deguilhem. Leiden: Brill, 2019 (TBP). ⸺ “The French Protectorate Through Firmāns of the Conventual Archive of Saints Peter and Paul.” In Domenicani a Costantinopoli prima e dopo l’impero ottomano: Storia, immagini e documenti d’archivio, edited by Claudio Monge and Silvia Pedone, 69-86. Firenze: Nerbini, 2017. Oğuz, İbrahim. “Osmanlı Vakıflarında İstibdal Problemi (Midilli Örneği),” TAD 34, no. 58 (2015): 583-601. Olson, Robert. “The Ottoman-French Treaty of 1740: A Year to be Remembered?” Turkish Studies Association Bulletin 15, no. 2 (1991): 347-355. Osmanlı Fermanları. İstanbul: Başbakanlık Devlet Arçivleri Genel Müdürlüğü, 1992. Ousterhout, Robert. “Churches and Monasteries.” In The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies, edited by Robin Cormack, John F. Haldon, and Elizabeth Jeffreys, 353-372. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Özel, Oktay. “Limits of the Almighty: Mehmed II's 'Land Reform' Revisited.” Journal of Social and Economic History of the Orient 42, 2 (1999): 226-246. Ozil, Ayşe. Orthodox Christians in the Late Ottoman Empire: A study of communal relations in Anatolia. London/ New York: Routledge, 2013. Özkasap, Hande Nalan. “Tarih-i Nihâdî (152b-233a).” MA diss., Marmara Üniversitesi, 2004. Öztürk, Nazif. Azınlık Vakıfları. Istanbul: Altınküre Yayınları, 2003. ⸺ Menşe’i ve Tarihi Gelişimi Açısından Vakıflar. Ankara: Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü, 1983. Öztürk, Necati. “Islamic Orthodoxy among the Ottoman in the Seventeenth Century with Special Reference to the Qadi-zade Movement.” PhD diss., University of Edinburgh, 1981. Pahlitzsch, Johannes. “The Transformation of Latin Religious Institutions into Islamic Endowments by Saladin in Jerusalem.” In Governing the Holy City: The Interaction of Social Groups in Jerusalem between the Fatimid and the Ottoman Period, edited by Lorenz Korn and Johannes Pahlitzsch, 47-69. Germany: Reichert Verlag Wiesbaden, 2004.

274

Palacios, Arturo Bernal. “Fr. Benedetto Giovanni Palazzo O. P. (1892-1955) and His Catalogue of the Conventual Archive of Saint Peter in Galata (Istanbul).” Dominican History Newsletter 12 (2003): 157-86. Palazzo, Benedetto. Deux Anciennes Eglises Dominicaines a Stamboul: Odalar Djami et Kefeli Mesdjidi. Istanbul: Imprimerie Güler, 1951. ⸺ L’Arap-Djami ou Église Saint-Paul à Galata. Istanbul: Hachette, 1945. Palazzo, Benedetto and A. Raineri. La Chiesa Di S. Pietro in Galata. Istanbul: Harti ve Şki Basımevi, 1943. Pamuk, Şevket. A Monetary History of the Ottoman Empire. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Pamukciyan, Kevork. “Eremya Çelebi Kömürciyan’ın 1660 İstanbul Yangını Hakkındaki Eseri.” In İstanbul Yazıları, edited by Osman Köker. Istanbul: Aras Yay., 2002. Panaite, Viorel. “French Capitulations and Consular Jurisdiction in Egypt and Aleppo in the Late Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Century.” In Well-Connected Domains: towards an entangled Ottoman history, edited by Pascal W. Firges et al., 71-87 (Leiden: Brill, 2014). ⸺ “Western Merchants and Ottoman Law: The Legal Section of the Turkish Manuscript No. 130 from the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris.” Revue des Études Sud-Est Européennes 45 (2007): 45-62. Papademetriou, Tom. Render unto the Sultan: Power, Authority, and the Greek Orthodox Church in the early Ottoman Centuries. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Peri, Oded. Christianity under Islam in Jerusalem: The Question of the Holy Sites in Early Ottoman Times. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Peters, Rudolph. Crime and Punishment in Islamic Law: Theory and Practice from the Sixteenth to the Twenty-first Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Poyraz, Buğra. This History of the Church Diplomacy in Turkey. Istanbul: Libra, 2016. Promis, Vincenzo. Statuti della Colonia Genovese di Pera. Turin, 1871. Provins, Pacifique de. Le Voyage de Perse et brève relation du voyage de l’Amérique, edited by Godefrey de Paris and Hilaire de Wingene. Assisi: Collegio S. Lorenzo da Brindisi, 1939. Punar, Bünyamin. “Kanun and Sharia: Ottoman land law in Seyhulislam fatwas from kanunname of budin the Kanunname-i Cedid.” MA diss., İstanbul Şehir University, 2015.

275 al-Qattan, Najwa. “Dhimmis in the Muslim Court: Legal Autonomy and Religious Discrimination.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 31, no. 3 (1999): 429-444. ⸺ “Textual Differentiation in the Damascus Sijill: Religious Discrimination or Politics of Gender?” In Women, the Family, and Divorce Laws in Islamic History, ed. Amira El Azhary Sonbol, 191- 201. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1996. Radushev, Evgeni Svetlana Ivanova and Rumen Kovachev. Inventory of Ottoman Turkish Documents about Waqf Preserved in the Oriental Department at the St. Cyril and Methodius National Library. Part 1 – Registers, trans. Rossitsa Gradeva. Sofia: IMIR 2003. Rapper, Giles de. “Vakëf: Lieux Partagés du Religieux en Albanie.” In Religions traversées. Lieux saints partagés entre chrétiens, musulmans et juifs en Méditerranée, edited by Dionigi Albera and Maria Couroucli, 53-83. Arles: Études méditerranéennes, 2009. Refik, Ahmet. Hicrî On İkinci Asırda İstanbul Hayatı (1000-1100). Istanbul: Enderun Kitabevi, 1988. ⸺ 16. Asırda İstanbul hayatı. Istanbul, 1935. ⸺ Onuncu Asr-ı Hicri’de İstanbul Hayatı (1495-1591). Istanbul: Enderun Kitabevi, 1988. Rozen, Minna and Benjamin Arbel. “Great Fire in the Metropolis: The Case of the Istanbul Conflagration of 1569 and its Description by Marcantonio Barbaro.” In Mamluk and Ottoman Societies: Studies in Honor of Michael Winter, edited by David Wasserstein and Ami Ayalon, 134-163. New York: Routledge, 2005. Runciman, Steven. The Great Church in Captivity: a study of the Patriarchate of Constantinople from the eve of the Turkish conquest to the Greek War of Independence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968. Sağman, Ali Riza. Fatih İstanbul’u Ne Şekilde Aldı?, 2 vols. Istanbul: Ahmet Sait Matbaası, 1948. ⸺ İstanbul’un Fethi Hakkında Enteresan Bir Fetvâ. Istanbul: Ahmet Sait Matbaası, 1957. Saliba, Sabine Mohasseb, edited. Les fondations pieuses waqfs chez les chrérines et les juifs: Du Moyen Âge à nos jours. Paris: Guethner, 2016. Saliba, Sabine Mohasseb. Les monastères maronites doubles du Liban. Lebanon: Pusek, 2008. Shaham, Ron. “Christian and Jewish “waqf” in Palestine during the Late Ottoman Period.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 54, no. 3 (1991): 460-472. Shaw, Stanford J. The Jews of the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic. London: MacMillan, 1991.

276

⸺ “The Land Law of Ottoman Egypt (960/1553): A Contribution to the Study of Landholding in the Early Years of Ottoman Rule in Egypt.” Der Islam 38, no. 1 (Oct. 1962): 106–137. Shmuelevitz, Aryeh. The Jews of the Ottoman Empire in the Late Fifteenth and the Sixteenth Centuries: Administrative, Economic, Legal and Social Relations as Reflected in the Responsa. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1984. Somer, Nihal. Osmanlı Fermanları. Ankara: Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi Dairesi, 1992. Sözen, Metin and Uğur Tanyeli. Sanat Kavram ve Terimleri Sözlügü. Istanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 1986. Sroor, Musa. Fondations pieuses en mouvement de la transformation du statut de propriété des biens waqfs à Jérusalem (1858-1917). Lebanon: IFPO, 2010. Steensgard, Niels. “Consuls and Nations in the Levant from 1570 to 1650.” Scandinavian Economic History Review 15 (1967): 13-55. Rabbath, Antoine, ed. Documents Inédits. Paris: A. Picard et Fils. Rausas, Gérard Pélissié Du. Le régime des capitulations dans l'Empire Ottoman. Paris: Rousseau, 1902. Reşād, ʿAlī. Ḳāpitulāsyonlar: tārīḫi, menşāʾı, aṣilleri. Istanbul: Ḳanā’t Maṭbaʿsi, 1912. Rey, François Rey. De la protection diplomatique et consulaire dans les échelles du Levant et de Barbarie. Paris: L. Larose, 1899. Roth, Christian. “Aspects of Juridical Integration of Non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire: Observations in the Eighteenth-Century Urban and Rural Aegean.” In Well-Connected Domains: towards an entangled Ottoman history, edited by Pascal W. Firges et al., 150- 163. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Ruiu, Adina. “Conflicting Visions of the Jesuit Missions to the Ottoman Empire. 1609-1628,” Journal of Jesuit Studies 1 (2014): 260-280. Ruiu, Adina. “Missionaries and French Subjects: The Jesuits in the Ottoman Empire.” in A Compnaion to the Early Modern Catholic Global Missions, ed. Ronnie Po-Chia Hsia, 181-204. Leiden: Brill, 2018. Runciman, Steven. The Great Church in Captivity: A Study of the Patriarchate of Constantinople from the Eve of the Turkish Conquest to the Greek War of Independence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968. Schatch, Joseph. An Introduction to Islamic Law. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1964.

277

Schefer, Charles ed. Mémoire historique sur l’ambassade de France à Constantinople par le Marquis de Bonnac publié avec un précis de ses négociations à la Porte Ottomane. Paris: Leroux, 1894. Setton, Kenneth M. The Papacy and the Levant (1204-1571), Vol. 2. Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1978. Shaw, Stanford. History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, Vol 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976. Skilliter, Susan A. William Harborne and the Trade with Turkey 1578-1582: A documentary study of the first Anglo-Ottoman relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977. Sousa, Nasim. The Capitulatory Regime of Turkey: Its History, Origin, and Nature. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1933. Sturdza, Mihail - Dimitri. Dictionnaire historique et gènéalogique des grandes familles de Grèce, d’Albanie et de Constantinople. Paris: M.- D. Sturdza, 1983. Sroor, Musa. Fondations pieuses en mouvement de la transformation du statut de propriété des biens waqfs à Jérusalem (1858-1917). Lebanon: IFPO, 2010. Tarīkh al-fatwā fī’l-islām wa aḥkāmuha al-sharʿiyyah. Damascus: Dār al-Rashīd, 1996. Terzorio, Clemente da. Le missioni del minori cappuccino: Sunto Storico, Vol. 2. Roma: Cooperative Tipografica Manuzio, 1914. Testa, Ignace de. Recueil des traités de la Porte Ottomane avec les puissance étrangères depuis le premier traité conclu, en 1536, entre Suléyman I et François I, jusqu’à nos jours. Paris: Amyot, 1864. Testa, Marie de and Antoine Gautier. Drogmans et diplomates européens auprès de la Porte ottomane. Istanbul: İsis, 2003. Thibault, Geneviève. “Les Archives de Saint Louis de Péra XVIIème et XVIIIème siècles: contributions à l'histoire de la mission capucine au Levant,” Vol. 1. PhD diss., France, 2010. Tolan, John. L’Europe latine et arabe au Moyen Âge: Cultures en conflit et en convergence. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2009. Tongas, Gérard. Les Relations de la France avec l’Empire Ottoman durant la première motié du XVIIe siècle et l’Ambassade a Constrantinople de Philippe de Harlay, Comte de Césy (1619-1640). Toulouse: Imprimerie F. Boisseau, 1942. Toomer, Gerald J. Eastern Wisedom and Learning: The Study of Arabic in Seventeenth century England. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.

278

Tóth, István György. “Between Islam and Catholicism: Bosnian Franciscan Missionaries in Turkish Hungary, 1584-1716,” The Catholic Historical Review 89, no. 3 (July 2003): 409-433. Traian Stoianovich. “Model and Mirror of the Premodern Balkan City,” in La Ville Balkanique, XVe - XIXe siècles, vol. 3 of Studia Balcanica, 83-110. Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1970. Trannoy, Armand. “La «nation latine» de Constantinople.” Echos d’orient 15, no. 94 (1912): 246-56. Uzunçarşılı, İsmail Hakkı. Osmanlı Devletinin İlmiye Teşkilâtı. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1965. ⸺ Osmanlı Devleti Teşkilatına Medhal. Istanbul: Maarif Matbaası, 1941. Van Leeuwen, Richard. Notables and Clergy in Mount Lebanon: The Khazin Sheikhs and the Maronite Church, 1736-1840. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Van Leeuwen, Richard. “The Maronite Waqf of Dayr Sayyidat Bkirkī in Mount Lebanon durint the 18th century.” In Le waqf dans l’espace islamique. Outil de pouvoir socio-politique, edited by Randi Deguilhem, 259-275. Damascus: Institut Français de Damas, 1995. Veinstein, Gilles. “Les capitulations franco-ottomanes de 1536 sont-elles encore controversables?” In Living in the Ottoman Ecumenical Community: Essays in Honor of Suraiya Faroqhi, edited by Vera Costantini and Markus Koller, 71-88. Leiden: Brill, 2008. ⸺ “Le Statut de Mustaʾmin, entre Droit et Politique.” In The Ottoman Empire Myths, Realities and ‘Black Holes.’ Contributions in Honour of Colin Imber, edited by Eugenia Kermeli and Oktay Özel, 189-201. Istanbul: The İsis Press, 2006. Violante, Tommaso M. La Provincia Domenicana di Grecia. Rome: Instituto Storico Domenicano, 1999. White, Joshua M. “Fetva Diplomacy: The Ottoman Şeyhülislam as Trans-Imperial Intermediary.” Journal of early modern history 19 (2015): 199-221. Yediyildiz, Bahaeddin. Institution du vaqf au XVIIIe siècle en Turquie: étude socio-historique. Ankara: Imprimerie de la Société turque d’histoire, 1985. Yıldız, Kenan. “1660 İstanbul Yangınının Sosyo-Ekonomik Tahlili.” PhD diss., Marmara University, 2012. Zachariadou, Elizabeth A. “Another document of Shehab al-Din Pasha concerning Mount Athos (1455).” Studia Ottomanica 25, no. 1203 (1997): 217-222.

279

⸺ “Early Ottoman Documents of the Prodromos Monastery (Serres).” Südost-Forschungen 28 (1969): 1-12. ⸺ “Some remarks about dedication to monasteries in the late 14th century.” In Mount Athos in the 14th and 15th Centuries, edited by D. D. Komini, 28-31. Athens: National Research Foundation, Institute of Byzantine Studies, 1997. Zaïmova, Raïa. Correspondance Consulaire des Ambassadeurs de France a Constantinople 1668-1708, Paris: Centre Historique des Archives Nationales, 1999. Zarinebaf-Shahr, Fariba. “Ottoman Women and the Tradition of Seeking Justice in the Eighteenth Century.” In Women in the Ottoman Empire. Middle Eastern Women in the Early Modern Era, edited by Madeline C. Zilfi, 253-263. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Zaydān, Abdul Karīm. Aḥkām al-Ẓimmiyyīn wa’l Musta’minīn fī Dār al-Islām. Baghdad: Maktabat al-Quds, 1982. Zeller, Gaston. “Une légende qui a la vie dure, les capitulations de 1535.” Revue d’histoire moderne 2 (1955): 127-32. Zilfi, Madeline C. “The Kadizadelis: Discordant Revivalism in Seventeenth-Century Istanbul.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 45, 4 (1986): 251-269. ⸺ The Politics of Piety: the Ottoman ulema in the Postclassical Age (1600 - 1800). Minneapolis: Bibliotheca Islamica, 1988.

280

APPENDIX I. Prints, Ottoman & European Documents 1. Woodcut of a Latin Catholic lady from Pera.

Nicolas de Nicolay, La navigationi et viaggi nella Turchia di Nocolo de’ Nicolai, trans. Francesco Flori da Lilla (Venise: Presso Francesco Ziletti, 1580), 69.

281

2. Fetvas i. Ecr-i misil ne ile mʿalūm olur? El-cevāb: bi-ğaraż ehl-i vuḳūfun iḫbārlarıyla. Katabahu el-faḳīr ʿAtāullah Meḥmet ʿufiyā ʿanhu.

How can the going market rate (ecr-i misil) be known? The answer: With the advice of the experts. Written by the poor1002 ʿAtāullah Meḥmet, may he be pardoned.1003

AMCC, Series V: Billets et fetfas de divers Muphtis; letters de Caratch, doc. 2.

1002 Here, the word “poor” is an expression of humility used to denote the status of the scholar as a humble servant of God. 1003 All translations from Ottoman Turkish and French to English are mine, as well as transliterations from Ottoman script to Latin script.

282 ii. Ikrāh-i mu‘teber ile olan beyʿ ve teslīm şerʿan ṣahīḥ ve muʿteber olur mu? El-cevāb: olmaz. Katabahu el-faḳīr ʿAtāullah Meḥmet ‘ufiyā ‘anhu.

Question: Is a sale and delivery made under duress valid and binding according to the law? The answer: No. Written by the poor ʿAtāullah Meḥmet, may he be pardoned.

AMCC, Series V: Billets et fetfas de divers Muphtis; letters de Caratch, doc. 3.

iii. Zeyd mülk ʿarżesini ʿAmr’a semen-i maʿlūma bey‘ ve teslīm etikten ṣoñra Zeyd beyʿ-i mezbūr tağrīr ve ğabn-i fāḥiş ile olmuş idi deyu daʿva ve tağrīr ve ğabn-i fāḥişi isbāt edicek beyʿi fesḫe ḳādir olur mu? El-cevāb: olur. Katabahu el-faḳīr ʿAtāullah Meḥmet ʿufiyā ʿanhu.

Question: After the sale and delivery of Zeyd’s freehold land to ʿAmr for an agreed sum, Zeyd stated that the said sale took place by cheating and overcharging. If he proves the claim, cheating and overcharging, can the sale be rescinded? The answer: Yes. Written by the poor ʿAtāullah Meḥmet, may he be pardonded.

AMCC, Series V: Billets et fetfas de divers Muphtis; letters de Caratch, doc. 4.

283 iv. Zeyd şu ḳadār eşyāʾsini ʿAmr’da hibe edip baʿdehu teslīm ve ḳabż bulunmadığın Zeyd fevt olsa hibe- yi mezbūre bāṭila olur mu. El-cevāb: olur. Katabahu el-faḳīr ʿAbdallah ʿufiyā ʿanhu. Zeyd made a donation to ʿAmr of a certain quantity of effects. If Zeyd were to subsequently die before delivery [of possession] and reception, is the said donation null and void? The answer: Yes. Written by the poor ‘Abdallah, may he be pardoned.

AMCC, Series V: Billets et fetfas de divers Muphtis; letters de Caratch, doc. 5. v. Zeyd ʿAmr ile bir ḫuṣūṣa müteʿalliḳa daʿvāsında Bekir ḳāżīya murāfeʿa olduḳta hakk Zeydin yedinde idiği sābit iken Bekir ḫuṣūṣ-u mezbūru ḫilāf-i şerʿ ʿAmr’a ḥükm edip ḥüccet verse ḥükmü nāfiz ve ḥücceti muʿteber olur mu? El-cevab: Olmāz. Katabahu el-faḳīr ʿAtāullah Meḥmet ʿufiyā ʿanhu. In a lawsuit related to a matter between Zeyd and ʿAmr, upon [ḳāżī] Bekir having the case tried, Bekir sentences ʿAmr in contravention of the canonical law of Islam when it is established that Zeyd is in the right. If he [Bekir] gives legal justification, can the sentence be executed and is the justification valid? The answer: No. Written by the poor ʿAtāullah Meḥmet, may he be pardoned.

AMCC, Series V: Billets et fetfas de divers Muphtis; letters de Caratch, doc. 6.

284 vi. Bir beldede vākī ḳadīmī bir kenīsenin ḳurbunda müceddeden bir cāmiʿ-i şerīf bināʾ olunsa, cāmiʿ-i mezbūr cemaʿāti kenīse-i mezbūre mucerred cāmiʿye ḳarībdir deyu kenīseyi hadme ḳādir olurlar mi? El-cevab: Olmāzlar. Katabahu el-faḳīr ʿAbdullah ʿufiyā ʿanhu.

Question: If a noble mosque is newly built near a church located in a town ab antiquo, can the congregation of the said mosque demolish the aforementioned church on the claim that it is merely near the mosque? The answer: No. Written by the poor ʿAbdullah, may he be pardoned.

AMCC, Series V: Billets et fetfas de divers Muphtis; letters de Caratch, doc. 7. vii. Elh-i ʿörf ṭāifesinden Zeyd ʿAmr zimmīyi aḫẕ edup sen menzilinde kendil yakup İngil okurmuşsun deyu ʿAmr’den cerīme nāmına nesne almağa ḳādir olur mu? El-cevāb: olmāz. Katabahu el-faḳīr ʿAbdullah ʿufiyā ʿanhu. If Zeyd, from the local executive officials, arrests ʿAmr the zimmī saying “you lit a candle and read the Bible in your house”, can he [Zeyd] demand a pecuniary fine from ʿAmr due to the misdemeanor? The answer: No. Written by the poor ‘Abdullah, may he be pardoned.

AMCC, Series V: Billets et fetfas de divers Muphtis; letters de Caratch, doc. 8.

285 viii. Zeyd ʿAmr ile bir ḫuṣūṣa müteʿalliḳa daʿvāsindan ʿAmr’i ibrāʾ etiktan ṣonra Zeyd ḫuṣūṣu mezbūru ʿAmr’dan daʿvāyı ḳādir olur mu? El-cevāb: Olmāz. Katabahu el-faḳīr ʿAbdullah ʿufiyā ʿanhu.

After ʿAmr was proven innocent concerning a case between Zeyd and ʿAmr, can Zeyd litigate ʿAmr for the said matter? The answer: No. Written by the poor ʿAbdullah, may he be pardoned.

AMCC, Series V: Billets et fetfas de divers Muphtis; letters de Caratch, doc. 9.

ix. Bir defaʿ [kere] şerʿle faṣl ve ḥukm ve ḥüccet olunsa daʿvānin tekrār istimāʿyi [in today’s Turkish the ending would bi ‘si’ = istimasi] cāiz olur mu? El-cevāb: Olmāz. Bu ṣūrette Zeyd ḳāżī daʿvā-yı mezbūreyi tekrār istimāʿ ve ḥukm evvelin ḫilāfina ḥukm edip ḥüccet verse ḥükmü nāfiz ve ḥücceti muʿteber olur mu? El-cevāb: Olmāz. Katabahu el-faḳīr ʿAbdullah ʿufiyā ʿanhu.

Once a decision and a sentence and a legal justification has occurred with the canonical law of Islam, is it lawful for the [suit] be heard again? The answer: No. In this manner, the ḳāżī rehears the said lawsuit and rules contrary to the first sentence. If he gives legal justification, can the sentence be executed and is the justification valid? The answer: No. Written by the poor ʿAbdullah, may he be forgiven.

AMCC, Series V: Billets et fetfas de divers Muphtis; letters de Caratch, doc. 10.

286 x. Fetva by the Müftī Yahya: Zeyd and ʿAmr are brothers, they share their father’s house. The paths and passages are marked, landmarked, but Zeyd, with ʿAmr’s agreement, sometimes passed through the street door that had been shared with ʿAmr. Then, the house of the latter went to Bekir. Can he [Zeyd] claim passage through the aforementioned street door after Bekir has also acquired Zeyd’s [half]. Can he claim it without Bekir’s approval under the pretext that 40 years ago, Zeyd sometimes passed through there? The answer: No.1004

AMCC, Series V: Billets et fetfas de divers Muphtis; letters de Caratch, doc. 11.

xi. Bir beldede olan kenīse-i ḳadīme ḫarāb oldukta ol belde keferesi kenīseyi vażʿ-i ḳadīmī üzere taʿmīr edüp nesne ziyāde eylemeseler ehl-i ʿurf ṭāifesinden Zeyd mücerred taʿmīr etmekle kenīseyi hedm ederim demekle ḳādir olur mu? El-cevāb: olmāz. Katabahu el-faḳīr Feyzullah ʿufiyā ʿanhu. Upon the dilapidation of a church located in a city ab antiquo, the church of this infidel city was rebuilt without additions based on it having existed before the Ottoman conquest. Can Zeyd, a local government official, say, “I will demolish the church merely because it was rebuilt?” The answer: No. Written by the poor Feyzullah, may he be pardoned.

1004 The original Ottoman Turkish document is not extant in the AMCC archive, only a copy of the French translation remain which I have chosen to transcribe and translate for the sake of completeness.

287

AMCC, Series V: Billets et fetfas de divers Muphtis; letters de Caratch, doc. 12. xii. Zeyd’in ʿAmr ile şu ḳadar aḳçeye müteʿalliḳa daʿvası olmağla Zeyd ḳāżīya varup ʿAmr yā vekīli ḥażir değil iken meblağ-i mezbūru daʿva ve mudaʿsına baʿżi kimesneler sehadet etmeleriyle ḳāżī meblağ-i merḳūmu Zeyd’e ḥükm edip ḥüccet verse ḥükmü nāfiz ve ḥücceti muʾtabere olur mu? El- cevāb: olmāz. Katabahu el-faḳīr ʿAbdullah ʿufiyā ʿanhu.

Zeyd filed a lawsuit against ʿAmr for a certain amount of aḳçes and took the case to court. While ʿAmr had indeed not prepared his procurator, the judge ruled the said amount in Zeyd’s favour with witness statements of some individuals to the claim. If he gives legal justification, can the sentence be executed and is the justification valid? The answer: No. Written by the poor ʿAbdullah, may he be pardoned.

AMCC, Series V: Billets et fetfas de divers Muphtis; letters de Caratch, doc. 13. xiii. Zeyd mülk ʿakarlarının ḥücec ve temessukātini żāīʿ edüp ba‘dehu ol ʿaḳārları ʿAmr tağallüb bi ğayr-i ḥaḳḳin żabṭ edüp, Zeyd ʿAmr’den ol ʿaḳārları daʿva ve iḳāmeti beyyine [delil] etmekle [ettigin zaman] ḥukm-i ḳāẓі ile ʿAmr’den ʿaḳārlarını almak istedikte ʿAmr ḥücec ve temessukāti bulup getirmedikçe vermem demeğe ḳādir olur mu? El-cevāb: olmāz. Katabahu el-faḳīr ʿAbdullah ʿufiyā ʿanhu.

Zeyd loses his title deeds for the possession of his real properties and ʿAmr subsequently seizes the properties without right. When Zeyd proves his lawsuit against ʿAmr for those properties and wants to

288 retake them with a court order, can ʿAmr say “until you find and bring the title deeds, I will not give them to you”? The answer: No. Written by the poor ʿAbdullah, may he be forgiven.

AMCC, Series V: Billets et fetfas de divers Muphtis; letters de Caratch, doc. 14.

3. Ḥüccet of 1609 (1017H) in the property dispute of the Capuchins v. the Jesuits: [1] Sebeb-i taḥrīr-i kitāb-i şerʿī budurki [2] maḥmiye-i Ğalaṭa ḫāricinde Ṭomṭom Maḥallesi sākinlerinden Domeniḳo veled-i Pero nām zimmī meclis-i şerʿ-i şerīfte [3] işbu ṣāḥibü’l -kitāb ḳarendāşī Pandeli nām zimmī muvācehesinde bit-ṭavʿ-i’ṣ-ṣāf iḳrār ve ʿitirāf edup [4] mā beynimizde müşterik olup maḥalle-i mezbūrede vāḳʿ eṭrāf-i selāsesi Venedīk ve Frānca bāylosleri sākin [5] olduḳları menāzil ve ṭarīḳ-i ḫāṣ ile maḥdūd olan menzilimizin iki ḳapısı olup aşağa bāğçe içinden [6] Ṭopḫāne cānibine açılān ḳapının ve ḥavlunun niṣfī benim mülkü ve niṣfü’l-āḫirī ḳarındāşım mezbūr Pandeli’nin mülküdür [7] ve zikr olunan ḥavludan mezbūr Pandeli ṭarafina āçılān ḳapı ve yolu ḥumla ile bir ḥammāl bārgīrı [8] duḫūl ve ḫurūc edecek miḳdārı olup ziyāde olmağa mā beynimizde riżāmızle bu minvāl [9] üzere itifāḳ eyledik dedikte muḳirr-i mezkūr Domeniḳo’ vech-i meşrūḥ üzere [10] ṣādır olan iḳrārını muḳarrun leh el-mezbūr Pandeli vicāhen taṣdīḳ ve şifāhen taḥḳīḳ etikte [11] bu vesīḳa-i anīḳe ʿalā mā huve el-ḥaḳīḳa biṭ-ṭaleb katb ve tarḳīm ve bir ṭālibe iʿṭāʾ ve teslīm olunduki ledā [12] el-ḥāce müzekker mā jarā oldu taḥrīren fī’l-yevmi’r-rābiʿ min zi’l-ḳʿāde iş-şerīfe sene sabaʿ ʿaşara ve elf. Şuhūdü’l-ḥāl: Faḫru’l-Ḥūş Jafer Çāvūş bin ʿAbdullah Imām Zāde Meḥmet Beg Ḥüseyn Çelebī el-Jātī

289

Matika veled-i Pero Zineri veled-i Manike Banatu veled-i Kuvalorte Nicoroz veled-i Kavarut

The reasons for writing this legal document is as follows: a zimmī called Domeniko, son of Pero, who is a resident of Tomtom District [located] outside of Galata, the protected, acknowledge and admits with complete obedience at the council of the noble law in the presence of the brother of the document’s owner, the zimmī called Pandeli, that “our house, located in the above-mentioned district delimited on three sides by the residences of the Venetian and French ambassadors and a private road, is shared between us and has two doors. Half of the courtyard and the door opening onto the Topḫāne side from inside the lower garden is my [Domenico’s] freehold and the other half is the freehold of my abovementioned brother Pandeli. The path and the door opening from the abovementioned courtyard on Pandeli’s side is to the extent of a beast of burden entering and exiting and no more. We consensually agreed to this method [of co-ownership]. Written on the fourth day of [the month of] the noble zi’l- ḳ‘āde in the year 1017. Witnesses: As above

290

AMCC, Series U: Hodgets; Ecrits des Mutevelye etc…, doc. 1.

291

4. Firmān of 1037H (1621) recognising the French protectorate over the churches:1005 Tuğra: Sah Murād bin Aḥmed ḫān el-muẓaffer dāima.

[1] Aḳża-ı ḳużāti’l-müslimīn, evla-ı vulāti’l-muvaḥḥidīn, maʿdenu’l-fażli ve’l-yaḳīn, ḥüccetu’l-ḥaḳḳi ʿale’l-ḫalḳı ecmaʿīn, vāris-i ʿulūmi’l-enbiyāʾ ve’l-mürselīn, [2] el-muḫtaṣṣ bi-mezīdi ʿināyeti’l- meliki’l-muʿīn mawlāna Ğalaṭa ḳāżisi zīde fażāilahu tevḳīʿ refīʿ hümāyūn vāṣil olıcak [3] maʿlūm ola ki Frānça elçisi Dergāh-ı Muallāma ādam gönderüp nafs-i Ğalaṭa’da vākiʿ Sān Benoît nām kilise [4] Frānça elçisi olanları maḫṣūṣ iken sākin oldukları menzilden baʿīd olduğu muḳaddeman ʿilām olunduḳta ekābirin [5] geri maḥmiye-i mezbūrede Sān Petro kilisesi kendilerine taʿyīn olunduğundan ğayrī ẕikr olunān kiliselerine França [6] ṭāʾifesinden Cesuit demekle maʿrūf olup gelen rāhiblerine daḫl olunmamak bābında merḥūm bābām Ḥudāvendigār [7] ṭābe-serāhunun zamānında verilen ḥükm-i hümāyūn mūcebince müceddeden emri şerīfim ricāʾ itmeğin buyurdum ki bu bābda bābām Ḥudāvendigār [8] ṭarafından verilen ḥükm-i hümāyūn mūcebince ʿamel edup min baʿīd ḫilāfına cevāz göstermeyesin. [9] Şöyle bilesin [10]ʿalāmat-ı şerīfe iʿtimād kılasın. [11] Taḥrīren fī avāḫir-i şehr-i rebīʿü’l-āḫir sene sebaʿ ve selāsīn ve elf. [12] Be-maḳām-i’l-maḥmiye-i Ḳonsṭanṭīnīye.

[The imperial cypher:] Shah Murad the son of Ahmed han ever victorious. When the Eminent Imperial edict reaches the most authoritative of judges of the Muslims, the best of the governors of the monotheists, the mine of virtue and knowledge, the evidence of truth over all of creation, the inheritor of the wisdom of the prophets and messengers, surrounded by the increased grace of the Ruler the Helper, His Eminence the Ḳāżī of Galata (may God increase his virtues), let it be known that: The French ambassador sent an envoy to my Imperial Court, and while the church called Saint Benoit located in Galata itself is reserved for the French ambassador, when it was previously reported that [the church] was far from the houses which they inhabit, the aforesaid Church of St. Petro in the protected city [Galata] was designated once again to the Notables. Besides, let no one interfere with the monks known by the name of Jesuits from the Frankish sect who come to the upper mentioned church. Regarding this subject, they requested my imperial edict (emr-i şerîf) as a renewal of the imperial edict (hüküm-i hümayun) issued during the time of my deceased father the Hüdavendigar [sovereign, lit. devotee of God-title for Murad I 1362-1389], may God illuminate his grave.

1005 An image of the firmān along with its transliteration without its translation into English is included in the Appendix of Vanessa R. de Obaldía, “The French Protectorate Through Firmāns of the Conventual Archive of Saints Peter and Paul,” in Domenicani a Costantinopoli prima e dopo l’impero ottomano: Storia, immagini e documenti d’archivio, eds. Claudio Monge and Silvia Pedone (Firenze: Nerbini, 2017), 85-86.

292

Regarding this issue, I order that you execute the imperial edict (hüküm-i hümayun) issued by my father the Hüdavendigar (the sovereign) and that you not grant permission [to anyone] in opposition to it. Know such and act according to the monogram of the Sultan Written on the last ten days of the month of rebīʿü’l-āḫir of the year 1037. In the abode of Constantinople the protected.

CADG, No. 27. 2.

293

5. Firmān of 1112 H (1700) permitting the reconstruction/renovation of the churches Tuğra: Sah Mustafa bin Meḥmed ḫan el-muẓaffer dāima. [1] Aḳża-ı ḳużāti’l-müslimīn, evla-ı vulāti’l-muvaḥḥidīn, maʿdenu’l-fażli ve’l-yaḳīn, rāfiʿ aʿlām-i ş- şerīfe ve’d-dīn, vāris-i ʿulūmi’l-enbiyāʾ [2] ve’l-mürselīn, el muḫtaṣṣ bi-mezīdi ʿināyeti’l-meliki’l-muʿīn mevlānā Ğalaṭa ḳāżisi zīde fażāilahu tevḳīʿ refīʿ hümāyūn vāṣil olıcak maʿlūm ola ki [3] Ğalaṭa’da sākin ehl-i zimmet reʿāya ṭāʿifesi Südde-i Saʿādetime arż-ı ḥāl edüp Ğalaṭa dāḫilinde vākiʿ ḳadīmden yedlerinde [4] terk olunan Sān Petro Kilisesinin ve ana [ona] mutaṣṣil ḳiṣṣa odalarının baʿżı maḥalların murūr-u ayām ile ḫarābe [olmayı] müşrif olduğun [5] bildirip maʿrifet-i şerʿle keşf ve ḥüccet olunmak bābında ḥükm-i hümāyūnum rijāʾ etmeğin fetḥ-i ḥākānīdan berü yedlerinde terk olunup termīmi [6] muḥtāc olmuş ise mesāğ-i şerʿi olduğu mertebe termīmi içün keşf ve ḥüccet olunmak emrim olmuşdur [oldu] buyurdum ki [7] ḥükmü şerīfim vusūl buldukta bu bābta ṣādir olan emrim üzere [8] ʾamel daḫī ḫuṣūṣ-u mezbūre tamām muḳayyid olup göresin kiliseyi mezbūr ḳadīmi kilise olup mürūr-u eyām ile baʿżı maḥalları ḫarābe muşrif olmuş ise [9] ḫarabe muşrif olan maḥallerin maʿrifet-i şerʿle keşf ve ḥüccet eyliyesin ammā muḳayyed olasın ki bu taḳrīb ile taʿmīr olunmak iḥtimālı olmaya şöyle bilesin. [10] ʿalāmet-ı şerīfe iʿtimād kılasın. Taḥrīren fī avāḫir-i rebīʿü’l-āḫir sene isnā ʿaşer ve mia ve elf. [11] Be-maḳām-i’l-maḥmiye-i Ḳonsṭanṭīnīye.

[The imperial cypher:] Shah Mustafa bin Mehmed ḫan forever victorious. When the Eminent Imperial edict reaches the most authoritative of judges of the Muslims, the best of the governors of the monotheists, the mine of virtue and knowledge, who raises the beacon of honour and religion, the inheritor of the knowledge of the prophets and messengers, surrounded by the increased grace of the Ruler the Helper, His Eminence the Ḳāżī of Galata (may God increase his virtues), let it be known that: A group of non-Muslim subjects living in Galata, made a petition to my Imperial Court and made it known that some sections of the Church of St. Peter located within Galata and some small rooms attached to it, which were left in their possession ab antiquo, have become dilapidated with the passage of time. My imperial edict requests that with the law of God, it be investigated and documented in this regard. If it was in their possession from the [time of the] imperial conquest and is in need of repair, in order for the repair to be [carried out] according to canonical permissibility, it is my order that it be investigated and documented. When my imperial edict reaches [the ḳāżī of Galata] according to my order issued on this matter see that the above-mentioned matter is registered precisely and if the said church is an old church some sections of which have become derelict with the passage of time, according to the law of God investigate and document the sections that are on the point of dilapidation. Yet, let it be recorded that repairs are liable to be carried out due to this motive. You should know thus. Act according to the

294 monogram of the Sultan. Written on the last ten days of [the month of] rebīʿü’l-āḫir in the year 1112. In the abode of Constantinople the protected.

CADG, No. 27. 3.

295

6. Court record i. 1108/ Mart 1697 – Capuchin St. George

[1] ʿIzetlu ve saʿādetlu ḳarındşim, pāşā-yı celīlu’l-ḳadr ḥażretlerinin hużūr-i ʿizzet mağfūrlarına [2] Mezīd iʿzār ve ikrām ile durer daʿvāt ṣāfiyāt muḥabbet fuzūn ve ğarar-ı teslimāt ve afiyāt meveddet numune [3] itḥāfından ṣoñra żamīr-ı munīr-ı ḥurşīd tanvīrlerine inhā-yı muḫliṣane budūrki: Frānça ruhbānlerinin Ğalaṭa’da vāḳiʿ [4] olup geçen sene muḥteriḳ olan Cezvīde ve Ḳapūçīn nām iki kilisenin muḳḳadem bā-fermnān-ı ʿālī-şān taʿmīri içün [5] keşf ve ḥüccet olunmağla derūn-ı ḥüccette taʿmīrī ve bināsına taṣrīḥ ve taʿyīn olunan muvażiʿiñ evżāʿ ve heʾyetinde [6] killā ve baʿżen rusūm-ı ḳadīmesine ḳaṭʿan muğāyīr olmayıp ve baʿde’t-ta‘mīr yine mucmele-yi ittifāḳla yoḳlanır tekrār [7] keşf olunmaḳ şarṭiyya vażʿ-ı ḳadīmī üzere binā ve taʿmīrine mumāniʿāt olmamaḳ bābında ḥālen şeref-yāfte [8] ṣudūr olan emr-i celīl-ü’l-ḳadri mūcebince mektūb-ı muḥabbet tarḥīr olundu ne dil vuṣūl mażmūn emr-ı ʿālī [9] üzere ʿamel dirki ve ḫilāfına cevāzdan tevaḳḳī buyurasız bāḳī ḥemīşe eyyām-ı ʿörū saʿādet ve kāmra- yi devlet bāb [10] muḥibb-i muḫliṣ Meḥmet.

Two churches called Jesuit and Capuchin located in Galata beloning to the Frankish friars which burned down last year were presented with a grand imperial edict in order to repair it. Upon an on-site review and a court document, within both the situation and framework of the subjects which is expressly specified in the document for the repair of the building. Some sections had not been altered from its old design in absolute and after repair, they were surveyed according to the concise agreement. On condition of an on-site review, there should be no prevention/prohibition for the construction and repair according to the [building’s] old design.1006

1006 Only the main section of the court records have been translated into English.

296

İŞS, 23.60a

7. Lettres patent of 22 January 1628 - Capuchins in the Levant

Louis by the grace of God the King of France and Navarre, the Count of Provence, Forcalquier and the adjacent territories. To all whom will see these letters, greetings. The success of the care/attention taken by the French Capuchin friars established in the Levant in the performance of the functions of apostolic missionaries and the aid that our subjects residing in this land continually receive have led us to give them on every occasion signs of our protection. The satisfaction we have of their zeal, piety and good conduct, as well as the late King our very honoured Lord and Bisayeul had used against the by granting them letters patent of protection on the twenty-fifth of November, one thousand six hundred and eighty-seven, and desiring not only to confirm them, and to keep them there, but yet/furthermore to give them the place of extending more and more the fruits which they have hitherto derived by their evangelical instructions and doctrine by the glory of God, and to the consolation of the faithful. We have by/with our special grace, full power, and Royal authority, stated and decreed, say and declare by these present signs of our hand, that by confirming the said letters patent of the twenty-fifth of November, six hundred and eighty-seven. We take and place the said friars Capuchin missionaries

297 as our subjects, under our special protection and safeguard; together with the hospices, churches, chapels and missions they have and may have in all the countries and places of the Levant. To this end, let us order our friend and faithful counsellor in our advice our Lord Viscount d’Andrezel our Extraordinary Ambassador to the Ottoman Porte, and to the consuls and vice-consuls of the French nation established by us in these places, their successors in the said offices, and others that it will be necessary to contribute depending on their powers and functions, each entitled to the maintenance of the establishments and hospices which our subjects the said Capuchin friars have or may have under their offices and jurisdictions, or by way of passage or dwelling for a time, and to prevent as far as possible, that said religious be molested by any person, either in their missions, or in other functions dependent on their ministry.

AMCC, Series A: Lettres patentes du Roi; Lettres des Rois aux ambassadeurs; Passeports; Ordonnances; Arrêts du Conseil d’Etat du Roi; Mandats; Allocations, doc. 25.

298

II. GLOSSARY

A ʿahd: contract. ʿahdnāme: unilateral pledge or privilege granted to a submitted or friendly group; a peace contract. aḳçe: chief monetary unit in the Ottoman Empire. ʿanveten: by force of arms. arż-i mevkūf pl. arāżī-i mevḳūfe: endowed land. arż-i mīrī pl. arāżī-i mīrīye state land. arż-i memlūk pl. arāżī-i memlūke: freehold land. ‘arż-ı ḥāl: petition. āyā: saint.

B Bāb-ı Āli: the Ottoman Sublime Porte, i.e. the seat of government. berāt pl. berevāt: certificate for the bestowal of appointments. buyuruldu: order of a high official.

C cāmiʿ pl. cevāmīʿ: mosque. cedīd: new; re. churches: built after the Ottoman conquest. cizye: tax paid by non-Muslim Ottoman subjects resident in lands under Islamic law.

D dār-ül ḥarb: the abode of war, non-Muslim lands. dār-ül islām: the abode of Islam. defter pl. defātir: register.

E ecnebī rāhip: foreign monk/friar. ecr-i misil: rent at the going market rate. ehlüʾz-zimmet: the people of zimmet.

299 emir, hüküm: order or decision taken by the sultan. emr-i sulṭānī: imperial decree. ermenī: Armenian.

F fetva (pl. fatāwā): Islamic responsa. fıkıh: Islamic jurisprudence. firmān: imperial decree. frenk pl. efrenc/efrenç: Frank; European Latin Catholic. frenk mezhebi: Frankish rite.

H ḥadīs: the sayings, actions and tacit approvals of the Prophet Muhammed and his Companions. ḫaḫam başı: Grand Rabi. ḫaṭṭ-ı humāyūn: imperial edict. ḥüccet pl. ḥücec document issued by the court.

I icāre-i müʾecelle: daily/monthly rent. i‘lām: court order. ʿilmiye: scholarly/religious hierarchy in the Ottoman Empire. irāde: will of the sultan. istibdāl: substitution or exchange of property. istiğlāl: usufruct. izn-i imam: permission of the ruler. izn-i sulṭānī: sultanic permission.

K ḳadīme: ab antiquo, i.e. before the Ottoman conquest kāfir pl. küffār/kefere: infidel. ḳānūn: law created and enacted at the command of the sultan. ḳānūnnāme: law books.

300

ḳāżī: Islamic judge. ḳāżī sicilleri: court records. kefere tāifesi: infidel sect. kenīse: church; chapel. keşiş: monk. kilise: church, chapel.

L levanten: Ottoman subjects of European descent.

M maṣlaḥat: public interest; benefit. mescid pl. mesācid: a quarter mosque which was not used for congregational prayer. millet: autonomous self-governing non-Muslim religious community. miʿmār ağa: imperial architect. mīrī: state. muşrik: polytheist. müfettiş effendi: imperial inspector of endowments. müfti: jurist. mühür: seal. mülk: freehold. müste‘min: a non-Muslim granted a temporary protection in Ottoman lands. mütevellī: trustee of an endowment.

N nāḳūs: semantrons. niżāmnāmes: regulations. nişan: monogram of the sultan.

O ʿörf: customary law. ʿörfī ḥuḳūḳ: customary law.

301

P patriḳ: Orthodox/Armenian patriarch. papāz pl. papāzlar: priest. papaz odaları: monks/friars’ cells. pia causa pl. piae causae: Christian endowment.

R rāhip pl. ruhbān: monk/friar. raḳabe: ownership. rūm: Orthodox.

S sān: saint. ṣulḥ aḳdi: peace contract. ṣulḥen: peacefully.

Ş şerīʿat: Islamic law. şerʿiyye sicil: court record. şeyhülisām: chief jurist of the Ottoman Empire.

T tamlīk: freehold. tapu taḥrīr defteri: cadastral survey register. tīmār: fief. taṣarruf: possession. ṭuğra: imperial cypher.

V vākıf: founder of an endowment. vaḳıf: endowment. vaḳıf-i ğayr-i ṣaḥīḥa: invalid endowments. vaḳıf-ı irṣādī: an endowment public benefit, of which the usufruct or possession is owned by the public treasury.

302 vaḳıf-i ṣaḥīḥa: valid endowments. voïvoda: governor.

Z zimmī: non-Muslim Ottoman subject. zimmet: a pact guaranteeing security in Islamic lands for Christians and Jews.

303

304