A Legal and Historical Study of Latin Catholic Church Properties in Istanbul from the Ottoman Conquest of 1453 Until 1740
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
AIX-MARSEILLE UNIVERSITE ******** THESIS To obtain the grade of DOCTOR OF AIX-MARSEILLE UNIVERSITY 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 Latin Catholic Church Properties in Istanbul 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 France, Paris DEGUILHEM Randi, Directrice de Recherche, CNRS, TELEMMe-MMSH, Aix- Marseille University, Aix-en-Provence GHOBRIAL John-Paul, associate professor, University of Oxford GRADEVA Rossitsa, professor, American University of Bulgaria, 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. Galata 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 Constantinople/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 law 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 Catholic Church 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 Roman Catholic 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 sultan 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 History 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. Friars 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 Protectorate 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 sultans 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, decrees 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 Catholic missions 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 Christians in the Ottoman Empire 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 Ottoman Turkish 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 Fleet 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 Ankara; 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 İslam 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 Turkey 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.