The Politics of Punishment, Urbanization, and Izmir Prison In

Home , Alemdar (ship), Efeler, Ekrem Akurgal, Hamidiye (cavalry), Imperial Arsenal, Ismail Hakki Bey

The Politics of Punishment, Urbanization, and Izmir Prison

in the Late Ottoman Empire

A Dissertation submitted to the

Graduate School

of the University of Cincinnati

in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

in the Department of History

of the College of Arts and Sciences

2015

Ufuk Adak

M.A., Ege University, 2006.

Committee Chair: Elizabeth B. Frierson, Ph.D.

Abstract

This dissertation examines the politics of punishment and application of

Ottoman prison reform in the three major port cities, Izmir, which receives the greatest attention, Istanbul, and Salonica in the late Ottoman Empire. This work explores Ottoman prisons on a daily scale and in a larger imperial frame by rethinking the idea of social control and surveillance in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, including the ways in which the Ottoman government dealt with the prisons as ‘modern’ and ‘European’ legal institutions. By using primary sources drawn from

Ottoman archives, and relying heavily on Ottoman and British newspapers and journals, this dissertation examines Ottoman prison reform from various angles such as sustenance of prisoners, health and hygiene; the usage of cannabis (esrar) in

Ottoman prisons; prison work; prison architecture; and urbanization.

Until the first half of the nineteenth century, the Ottoman Empire was using various buildings as prisons, including old fortresses, such as Baba Cafer Zindanı and

Yedikule in Istanbul; military barracks; shipyards, such as Tersane Zindanı (Bagnio); khans, such as Cezayir Hanı in Izmir; and local notables’ (ayan) palace dungeons.

The bureaucratization and centralization attempts of the Tanzimat reformers and, more importantly, the promulgation of the criminal codes of 1851 and 1858 not only paved the way for the shift from corporal and capital punishment to imprisonment but also allowed for the establishment of a new set of definitions in terms of crime and punishment. However, the establishment a modern prison remained merely an ideal until 1871 when the first general prison (hapishane-i umumi) was built in Istanbul.

The construction of purposefully built prisons continued in the major cities of the

Empire, including Izmir and Salonica, in the second half of the nineteenth century.

Izmir as one of the major port cities of the Empire saw immense and fluctuating flows of people due to wars, migration, and territorial losses of the

Empire, and was faced with increased crime rates during this late Ottoman period.

Nineteenth-century Izmir also saw the restructuring of its urban and governmental space with new military barracks, hospital, governor’s palace, prison, reformatory, and school that all symbolized the presence of the ‘centralized’ government. The uniformity of state architecture provided visual and physical representations of progress and modernity through which the Ottoman imperial government strove to

‘enlighten’, ‘modernize’, and homogenize cities and their provincial hinterlands.

The public sphere of Izmir was foundationally shaped in the period from

1825-1901. Izmir Prison, constructed in 1873, remained until the disintegration of the public space in Izmir in 1959. From its construction to destruction, Izmir Prison as a central part of the new Ottoman public space presented to the people living in the city not only the dichotomic image of a threatening (punitive) and reassuring (order) space, but also symbolized an apparatus of power in terms of the legitimatization of social control, even at the increasingly well-known cost of inhumane treatment of prisoners.

iii

To My Mother and Father

Acknowledgements

This dissertation started taking its very primitive shape after I submitted my

M.A. thesis entitled the Ottoman Prisons in the Province of Aydın at the end of the

19th and the beginning of the 20th century to Ege University in Izmir, Turkey in 2006.

My research on Ottoman prisons and prisoners at the Prime Ministry’s Ottoman

Archives (BOA), the libraries of Boğaziçi University, Istanbul University, Atatürk

Kitaplığı and SALT Research Library, and the National Library in Izmir in 2010 and in 2012-2014 provided me the necessary sources to construct a clear narrative of

Ottoman prison reform in depth.

I am especially grateful to my advisor Elizabeth Frierson at the University

Cincinnati, for her incredible support and help through this arduous journey. I would like to thank her again for hours of discussions about my project and the sources that I used in this work. I benefited tremendously from those discussions. I also owe a thank you to Maura O’Connor. Frankly, I learned a lot in her graduate research seminar class that helped me very much in terms of methodology.

I presented several papers on Ottoman prisons and prisoners in various venues, including Great Lakes Ottomanist Workshop (GLOW) in Montréal and in Cincinnati, the Middle East History and Theory Conference (MEHAT) in Chicago, and the

Middle East Studies Association (MESA) in Washington, D.C. Thank you to Julia

Philips Cohen and Carole Woodall for their indispensable comments for the papers I presented at GLOW in Cincinnati and the MESA in Washington, D.C. that were the pillars of this work.

A very big thank you goes to Kent Schull who generously sent me his book on

Ottoman prison reform in the late Ottoman Empire before it was published. I also owe a thank you to Schull for his valuable and constructive comments and questions that

enriched this dissertation. I would like to thank Vangelis Kechriotis for his support and powerful comments particularly on discussions about port cities. I also would like to thank Raja Adal for his valuable comments particularly on the extraterritoriality discussions. I would like to thank Isaac Campos for his comments on my paper examining drug trafficking in Ottoman prisons, which turned into one of the sub- sections of this work.

This dissertation could not have been written without the generous financial support from the Department of History at the University of Cincinnati, and Charles

Phelps Taft Research Center. I thank both institutions for their support.

I am grateful to Ann Elizabeth Deluca and Maribeth Mincey who proofread all the drafts of the chapters presented in this dissertation. Maribeth also deserves special thanks for her invaluable comments.

I would like to thank my friends Yiğit Akın, Ebru Aykut, Nurçin İleri, Isaac

Hand, Rengin Ataman, Şahin Sonyıldırım, Fatih Kuzucu, Onur İnal, and Faika Çelik who supported me through the writing process of this dissertation.

Finally, I would like to thank my dear fiancée Merve Bayram for her loving support, encouragement, and inspiration.

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... i

Acknowledgements ...... v

List of Tables and Charts ...... ix

List of Figures ...... x

List of Abbreviations ...... xii

Introduction ...... 1

1. Crime, Punishment, and Prisons: Theoretical, Historical, and Global Perspectives ...... 4 2. The Literature on the History of Ottoman Prisons ...... 13 3. Sources ...... 16 4. Focus and Method ...... 18 5. Content ...... 22

Chapter 1: The Politics of Punishment in the Late Ottoman Empire ...... 25

1. Criminal Law and Imprisonment: From the Classical Age to the Age of Prison Reform .... 27 2. Punishment and Prisons in the Ottoman Empire in the Eyes of the British Press ...... 42 3. ‘Western’ Reformers for ‘Eastern’ Problems ...... 58 4. Prison Reform in the Late Ottoman Empire ...... 64

Chapter 2: The Politics of Space and Prison Reform in Izmir in the Late Ottoman Empire ...... 80

1. Historical Background of the City ...... 83 2. The Beginnings of the Construction of Governmental Space in Izmir ...... 87 3. Nineteenth-Century Izmir ...... 92 4. Crime, Security, and Punishment in Izmir ...... 98 5. From Cezayir Hanı to Izmir Prison: Institutionalization of Imprisonment in Izmir ...... 103 6. Conclusion ...... 127

Chapter 3: The “Forgotten Ones”: Ottoman Prisoners in Port Cities ...... 131

1. Sustenance for Ottoman Prisoners ...... 134

vii

2. The Struggle for Health and Hygiene in Ottoman Prisons ...... 140 3. Rehabilitation through Religious Education...... 147 4. ‘Lunatics’ ...... 149 5. The Usage of Esrar in Ottoman Prisons ...... 154 6. The Other “Forgotten” Ones: Female Prisoners ...... 159 7. The “Ideal”ization of Ottoman Prisoners: Work, Uniforms, and Photography ...... 161 8. Conclusion ...... 169

Chapter 4: (In)Security in Ottoman Prisons: Prison Escapes, Pardons and Amnesties ...... 180

1. (In)Security in Ottoman Prisons and Prison Escapes ...... 182 2. Pardons and Amnesties: “Mercy of the Grace” ...... 196 3. Conclusion ...... 200

Conclusion ...... 204

Bibliography ...... 213

Appendices ...... 254

viii

List of Tables and Charts

Table 2.1. The Prison Population in Izmir in the late Ottoman Empire

Table 3.1. Mortality rates in Istanbul hospitals in 1890

Table 3.2. Male-female ratio in Ottoman prisoners in the years of 1898-1899

Table 4.1. The statistics of the general prison (habshane-i umumi) in Salonica in the first decade of the twentieth century

Chart 4.1 Number of Prisoners and Crime Types in Salonica Prison in 1912

List of Figures

Figure 1.1. “With the Turks – Summary Punishments”, the Graphic, December 1, 1877.

Figure 1.2. “A Christmas Dinner in A Turkish Prison”, the Graphic, January 21, 1882.

Figure 1.3. “A New Facts About Turkish Prisons and Practices”, The Illustrated Missionary News, September 1, 1893.

Figure 1.4. “A Visit to a Turkish Prison”, the Graphic, November 28, 1896.

Figure 1.5. A sketch of Ottoman prison including separate wards for prisoners, detainees, and female prisoners.

Figure 2.1. General View of Izmir in the nineteenth century.

Figure 2.2. Gureba-yı Müslimin Hospital in the front.

Figure 2.3. Luigi Storari’s plan of Izmir (1856).

Figure 2.4. Lamec Saad’s plan of Izmir (1876).

Figure 2.5. Démétrius Georgiadés’ plan of Izmir (1885).

Figure 2.6. Cezayir Hanı, Menekşeli Han. Charles E. Goad, Plan d’Assurance de Smyrne, (1905).

Figure 2.7. The governor’s palace (Hükümet Konağı) in Izmir. Aydın Vilayet Salnamesi (1891).

Figure 2.8. Izmir Prison – Military Barracks – The Government Palace (Lamec, 1876).

Figure 2.9. The plan of Izmir Prison.

Figure 2.10. Izmir Prison in the nineteenth century.

Figure 2.11. Izmir Prison in the 20th century.

Figure. 2.12. The release of the prisoners in Izmir.

Figure. 2.13. The governmental square of Izmir in the late Ottoman Empire.

Figure 3.1. A Coupon for Bread (Nan-ı Aziz Pusulası).

Figure 3.2. Toptaşı Bimarhanesi.

Figure 3.3. Prisoners of War in Selimiye Military Barracks in İstanbul dressed monotype prison uniforms. Resimli Gazete, June 10, 1897.

Figure 3.4. Pharmacy in İstanbul prison. Polis Mecmuası, v. 78, October 14, 1916.

Figure. 3.5. Surgery room in İstanbul prison. Polis Mecmuası, v. 77, September 15, 1916.

Figure 3.6. The hospital inside İstanbul prison.

Figure 3.7. The hospital inside İstanbul prison. Polis Mecmuası, v. 77, September 28, 1916.

Figure 3.8. Workshop for tailoring in İstanbul prison. Polis Mecmuası, v. 24, July 14, 1914.

Figure 3.9. Workshop for tailoring in İstanbul prison. Polis Mecmuası, v. 74, October 14, 1916.

Figure 3.10. Workshop for coppersmithing and whitesmithing in İstanbul prison. Polis Mecmuası, v. 74, October 14, 1916.

Figure 3.11. Workshop for jewelers in İstanbul prison.

Figure 3.12. Workshop for knitting socks in İstanbul prison. Polis Mecmuası, v. 85, January 28, 1917.

Figure 3.13. Workshop for watchmakers in İstanbul prison. Polis Mecmuası, October, 28, 1916.

Figure 3.14. Workshop for shoemaking in İstanbul prison. Polis Mecmuası, v. 77, September 28, 1916.

Figure 3.15. Workshop for carpenters in İstanbul prison. Polis Mecmuası, v. 82, December 14, 1916.

Figure 3.16. School for older prisoners in İstanbul prison. Polis Mecmuası, v. 84, January 14, 1917.

Figure 3.17. School for juvenile prisoners in İstanbul prison. Polis Mecmuası, v. 85, January 28, 1917.

Figure 3.18. Reading room in İstanbul prison.

Figure 4.1. Ottoman prisoners in Rumelia.

List of Abbreviations

BNA: The British Newspapers Archive

BOA: Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi

CUP: The Committee of Union and Progress

IJMES: The International Journal of Middle East Studies

İBBKKY: İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kent Kitaplığı Yayınları

MEB: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı

MMZC: Meclis-i Mebusan Zabıt Ceridesi

TALİD: Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi

TDNVİA: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi

TTK: Türk Tarih Kurumu

TVYY: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları

YKY: Yapı Kredi Yayınları

xii

Introduction

On September 27, 1841, M. Blanqoui, a member of the French Institute, sent a report to the Secretary of the Interior of France, entitled “the forgotten ones” (les oubliés), based on his inspections of the conditions of Ottoman prisons and prisoners.

Having a special ferman (imperial decree) in his hand, he visited a few cities, including Sofia and Belgrade in the Balkans, and the prisons in Istanbul. Blanqoui was one of the inspectors who carried out missions to inspect prison systems in

Prussia, Spain, England, and Germany. Based on his inspections, the prisons in the

Empire were mostly located in a basement or ground floor below the street level and received very little light and air. The prisoners slept on an area of clay without straw or blanket, and they received bread that was “awful, full of straws, black, and heavy” and was impossible for Blanqoui to eat. According to him, the Ottoman prisoners were “misérables” dying of poverty or illness. These prisoners were people arrested in a brawl, or picked up at night by patrols, or just unfortunates who stayed in prisons for months without a trial. He noted that a man could be confined due to a single offense regardless of age and the greatest danger for an accused person was to be forgotten in

Ottoman prisons.1

Blanqoui wrote his inspection report just two years after the promulgation of the Tanzimat Edict in 1839 purporting to guarantee and protect security of life, honor, and property of all subjects living in the Empire and a year after the criminal code

(Ceza Kanunnâme-i Hümayunu) of 1840 that was the beginning of the series of criminal codes issued in the nineteenth century. Despite the relatively new code, according to Blanqoui, “there was not an economic and disciplinary regime in the

1 Rapports sur Les Prisons de la Prusse, sur le Régime de Quelques Prisons de L’Espagne, de L’Angleterre et de L’Allemagne et sur le Régime des Prisons de la Turquie, (Paris: Imprimerie Administrative de Paul Dupont, 1843), 77-82. 1

prisons of the Ottoman Empire” at that time. However, since the punishment policies of the Empire were more complicated than his depictions, we should be skeptical about Blanqoui’s short report.

Until the first half of the nineteenth century, the Ottoman Empire was using various buildings as prisons including old fortresses, such as Baba Cafer Zindanı and

Yedikule 2 in Istanbul; military barracks; shipyards, such as Tersane Zindanı

(Bagnio) 3 ; khans, such as Cezayir Hanı in Izmir; local notables’ (ayan) palace dungeons, and even a barn4 such as in Şarkikarahisar.5 The bureaucratization and centralization attempts of the Tanzimat reformers and, more importantly, the promulgation of the criminal codes of 1851 and 1858 not only paved the way for the shift from corporal and capital punishment to imprisonment but also allowed for the establishment of a new set of definitions in terms of crime and punishment. However, the establishment of the first modern prison remained as merely an ideal until 1871 when the first general prison (hapishane-i umumi) was built in Istanbul. The construction of purposefully built prisons6 continued in the major cities of the Empire, including Izmir and Salonica, in the second half of the nineteenth century.

This work examines the history and interplay of Izmir Prison, which was built in 1873 as the general prison of the Province of Aydın, and “the forgotten ones”,

2 See “Yedikule Zindanı”, in Mehmet Zeki Pakalın, Osmanlı Tarih Deyimleri ve Terimleri Sözlüğü, I, (İstanbul: MEB, 1971), 614. Pakalın states that Yedikule was known as the dungeon specifically for envoys and also for Ottoman viziers who were executed there. 3 See “Banyol”, in Pakalın, ibid., 158-159. Pakalın notes that the Europeans called dungeons in Trablus, Tunisia, and Algeria as “Banyo”, and the term “Banyol” was its transformed version. According to Pakalın, two types of people were confined in Tersane dungeon: captives (üsera-yı miri), and forger and thieves. See Rinaldo Marmara, İstanbul Deniz Zindanı 1740, (İstanbul: Denizler Kitabevi, 2005). 4 BOA., A.MKT.UM., 466/71 11 L 1277 (22 April 1861). 5 See Gültekin Yıldız, Mapusâne: Osmanlı Hapishanelerinin Kuruluş Serüveni (1839-1908), (İstanbul: Kitabevi, 2012), 15-54; Anthony Gorman, “Regulation, Reform and Resistance in the Middle Eastern Prison”, in Cultures of Confinement: A History of The Prison in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, eds. Frank Dikötter-Ian Brown, (New York: Cornell University Press, 2007), 96-97; Ömer Şen, Osmanlı’da Mahkûm Olmak: Avrupalılaşma Sürecinde Hapishaneler, (İstanbul: Kapı Yayınları, 2007), 4-12. 6 For proposed prison plans in the nineteenth century see Norman Johnston, Forms of Constraint: A History of Prison Architecture, (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2000), 63-66. 2

prisoners who were active agents in the prison to some extent. The main goal of this dissertation is to explore the shift from mahbes (dungeon) to purposefully built hapishane (prison) in Izmir, one of the major port cities of the Empire, and to examine the governing mentality of the Empire with a particular focus on crime and punishment in Izmir in the late Ottoman Empire. This work aims to make a contribution to the recent literature on Ottoman prisons by analyzing the position and role of Izmir Prison within the context of the urbanization and transformation of

Izmir. In addition to attempting to offer a peripheral view of the history of Ottoman prisons by exploring Izmir Prison, prisons in Istanbul and Salonica are also within the scope of this work for the limited purpose of examining center-periphery relations and diverse applications of Ottoman prison reform in different port cities. The selected cases from Istanbul and Salonica provided in this work are intended to offer a glimpse into the application of Ottoman prison reform in different port cities of the Empire.

I argue that Izmir Prison was one of the major components of the military, administrative, and public spaces of Izmir that were encircled by monumental buildings including Amber Barracks (Sarı Kışla-1829), the Hospital (Gureba-yı

Müslimin Hastanesi-1851), the Reformatory (Islahhâne-1868), the Governor’s Palace

(1868-72), Izmir High School (İzmir İdadisi-1886) and later the Clock Tower (1901).

Izmir Prison represented the application of a new set of criminal codes and also the apparatus of power shifting and centralization attempts of the Ottoman government in the late Ottoman Empire.

In subsequent chapters, this work considers the following range of questions:

How was the shift from mahbes to hapishane realized in Izmir in the nineteenth century? What was the role of Izmir Prison in Izmir’s new governmental space in the nineteenth century? How did the imperial governance affect prison administration in

Izmir? What do local newspapers tell us about Izmir Prison and its prisoners? Do we see a shift of Smyrniots’ perceptions regarding Izmir Prison from Abdülhamid II’s era to the Second Constitution when the prison was even in more central of the city than before? Was Ottoman prison reform and imperial transformation realized at the same level in the imperial center as it was in port cities such as Izmir and Salonica?

Crime, Punishment, and Prisons: Theoretical, Historical, and Global Perspectives

The theoretical perspectives on the history of punishment date back to sociologist Émile Durkheim’s works. 7 Durkheim analyzes punishment within the context of society’s moral order and solidarity. According to Durkheim, there is a strong link between violation of “conscience collective”, composed of society’s shared beliefs, values, sentiments, and traditions, and a “punitive” reaction.8 While

Durkheim’s concept of conscience collective attempts to define criminality and punishment within the limits of sociology, Cesare Lombroso, Italian criminologist and physician, approached crime as a disease and measured skulls of criminals and lunatics in order to approve his hypothesis that criminals possessed anthropological and atavistic characteristics, which marked the origins of ‘the born criminal’ theory in the very late nineteenth century.9

7 In addition to various translations of The Division of Labor in Society, and Moral Education: A Study in the Theory and Applications of the Sociology of Education for a detailed bibliography of Durkheim’s works see http://durkheim.uchicago.edu/Bibliography/Bib01.html For a detailed sociological and methodological analysis of different approaches to punishment see David Garland, Punishment and Modern Society: A Study in Social Theory, (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990); Kent F. Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire: Microcosms of Modernity, (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2014), 6- 11; Kent Schull, “Hapishaneler ve Cezalandırmaya İlişkin Yaklaşımlara Eleştirel Bir Bakış”, in Osmanlı’da Asayiş, Suç ve Ceza, eds. Noémi Lévy-Alexandre Toumarkine, (İstanbul: TVYY, 2007), 46-54. For historiographical approaches to prisons see Ricardo D. Salvatore-Carlos Aguirre, “The Birth of the Penitentiary in Latin America: Toward an Interpretive Social History of Prisons”, in The Birth of the Penitentiary in Latin America: Essays on Criminology, Prison Reform, and Social Control, 1830- 1940, ed. Ricardo D. Salvatore-Carlos Aguirre, (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1996), 3-5. 8 David Garland, Punishment and Modern Society: A Study in Social Theory, (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990), 28-31. 9 See Cesare Lombroso, Crime: Its Causes and Remedies, (London: William Heinemann, 1911); Cesare Lombroso-Gina Lombroso Ferrero, Criminal Man, (New York: The Knickerbocker Press, 1911); Cesare Lombroso-Guglielmo Ferrero, Criminal Woman, The Prostitute, and the Normal 4

In the 1920s, the Frankfurt Institute of Social Research in Germany started to produce revisionist texts of Marxism, particularly related to the cultural spheres of capitalist society, that paved the way for works concerning the study of punishment, such as George Rusche and Otto Kirchheimer’s Punishment and Social Structure

(1939). 10 Rusche and Kirchheimer argue that, historically, changing economic developments, class structures, and the labor market shaped both crime and punishment from the early Middle Ages to the twentieth century. However, Rusche and Kirchheimer overestimated the role of economy in penal practice while they ignored the importance of ideological and political forces and the internal dynamics of penal administration.11 As seen in David Rothman’s The Discovery of the Asylum

(1971)12, which examines the motivation behind the establishment of prisons and asylums in Jacksonian America, and Michael Ignatieff’s A Just Measure of Pain

(1978) 13 , which explores the emergence of the penitentiary through industrial capitalism and social classes, the neo-Marxist approach differed from the earlier works of Marxist tradition. In addition to the economic determinist perspective, the neo-Marxist examines culture and ideology and offers more sophisticated approach and insights to prisons.

Michel Foucault’s Discipline and Punish: The Birth of Prison (1975)14, which theorizes a shift in the target of punishment from the body to the mind or soul, became an influential work for the sociology of punishment and penal studies.

Woman, (Durham: Duke University Press, 2004); The Cesare Lombroso Handbook, eds. Paul Knepper- P.J. Ystehede, (New York: Routledge, 2013). 10 See George Rusche-Otto Kirchheimer, Punishment and Social Structure (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2003 [c.1939]). 11 Garland, ibid., 108-109. 12 See David Rothman, The Discovery of the Asylum: Social Order and Disorder in the New Republic, (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 2002 [c. 1971]). 13 See Michael Ignatieff, A Just Measure of Pain: The Penitentiary and the Industrial Revolution, 1750-1850), (New York: Pantheon Books, 1978). 14 Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, (New York: Vintage Books, 1995 [c. 1975]). 5

Foucault deals with the shift from corporal punishment to imprisonment and disciplinary origins of the prison by attempting to formulize the linkage between power, knowledge, and body. Foucault examines “a genealogy of the present sciencetifico-legal complex from which the power to punish derives its bases, justifications and rules, from which it extends its effects and by which it masks its exorbitant singularity.”15 According to Foucault, asylums, reformatories, hospitals, schools, and prisons all serve to discipline the body through an apparatus of surveillance and discipline controlled and imposed by those in power. Although

Foucault’s approach made an enormous impact on the penal studies by focusing on the links between power, knowledge, surveillance, and punishment, his theories were limited in many ways. As David Rothman states, Foucault stuck to his rhetoric more than reality, and his arguments do not encompass the historical and universal realities of prisons.16

Since David Garland first argued that the ‘penal-welfare’ complex was influenced by positivist thoughts of the early nineteenth century, and also emphasized the rehabilitative mission of the prison in Punishment and Welfare (1985), there has been a developing vast literature on crime, punishment, and prisons. I am indebted to this literature for the rest of this section, which attempts to illustrate the establishment of prisons in various parts of the world and the dynamics of the nineteenth-century prison reform.17

Until the eighteenth century, prisons, or the houses of correction,18 in Europe,

15 Foucault, ibid., 23. 16 Rothman, ibid., xix. 17 See David Garland, Punishment and Welfare: A History of Penal Strategies, (Brookfield,VT: Gower, 1985); Helen Johnston, “Introduction: Histories of Punishment and Control”, in Punishment and Control in Historical Perspective, ed. Helen Johnston, (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), 3-5. 18 On the discussion of terms of jail, prison, bridewell, and house of correction see Pieter Spierenburg, “The Body and the State: Early Modern Europe” in The Oxford History of the Prison: The Practice of Punishment in Western Society, eds. Norval Morris-David J. Rothman, (New York: Oxford University 6

were the places for convicts and also vagrants, orphans, the aged, and insane. Both prison-like institutions such as hôpitaux généraux in seventeenth-century France, and the early modern prisons in England served as asylums for the needy and vagrants.19

The great movement of prison reform has its roots in the period of the late eighteenth through the middle of the nineteenth century. The Enlightenment thinkers and social and humanitarian reformers such as Cesare Beccaria20, an Italian philosopher, and

John Howard21, High Sheriff of Bedfordshire in England, played crucial roles in planting the seeds of prison reform in Europe. In the 1760s, Beccaria argued that punishment should be “proportionate to the crime, and determined by the law.”22

Beccaria’s influence could be seen in Howard’s book published in 1777. 23 In his book, Howard, based on his inspections of prisons in England, Wales, and in several other countries, such as France, Flanders, Holland, and Germany, aimed to illustrate

Press, 1998), 61; Peter Spierenburg, The Prison Experience: Disciplinary Institutions and Their Inmates in Early Modern Europe, (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1991), 7-10. 19 Pieter Spierenburg, “Four Centuries of Prison History: Punishment, Suffering, the Body, and Power”, in Institutions of Confinement: Hospitals, Asylums, and Prisons in Western Europe and North America (1500-1950), eds. Norbert Finzsch-Robert Jütte, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 23-24. George Rusche-Otto Kirchheimer, Punishment and Social Structure, (New Jersey: Columbia University Press, 2003), 72-73. 20 Cesare Bonesana Marchese Beccaria (1738-1794) is known as the founder of the classical school of criminology. See Esther Heffernan, “Beccaria, Cesare (1738-1794)”,Encyclopedia of Prisons and Correctional Facilities, vol. 1, ed. Mary Bosworth, (London: Sage Publications, 2005), 64-66. 21 John Howard (1726-1790) was a social reformer, who attempted to improve poor prison conditions in the eighteenth century. See Chris Schneider, “John Howard (1726-1790)”, Encyclopedia of Prisons and Correctional Facilities, vol. 1, ibid., 450-451; Crime and Punishment in England: An Introductory History, John Briggs et. al., (London: UCL Press, 1996), 160; John Aikin, A View of the Life, Travels, and Philanthropic Labors of the late John Howard, (Philadelphia: W.W. Woodward, 1794); John Howard, An Account of the Principle Lazarettos in Europe and Additional Remarks on the Present State of Prisons in England and Ireland, (Warrington: William Eyres, 1789). 22 Beccaria on Crimes and Punishments and Other Writings, ed. Richard Bellamy, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 113. See Beccaria’s chapter entitled “The Proportion Between Crimes and Punishments”, ibid., 19-22. 23 See John Howard, The State of the Prisons in England and Wales with Preliminary Observations, and Account of Some Foreign Prisons, (Warrington: William Eyres, 1777), 29, 74. In 1850, William Hepworth Dixon emphasized the significant role of John Howard in the history of the institutionalization of prisons in the world. “The history of prison science begins with Howard. Before his time there were no data on which to base a rule of criminal treatment. A few humane individuals- roused by the strange reports of cruelties and sufferings endured in the dungeon, which sometimes found their way into the social circle-had at long intervals forced their way into the dark adyta of the prison world, and brought their secrets to the light.” William Hepworth Dixon, John Howard and the Prison-World of Europe: from original and authentic documents, (New York, Robert Carter and Brothers: 1850), 31. 7

the conditions of prisons. Howard claimed that England lagged behind the other

European countries in terms of penal policies and poor conditions in British prisons, and according to him, that was the ‘antithesis of the idea of Christian charity’.24

Howard’s attempts to reform British prisons resulted in the 1779 Penitentiary Act that was a starting point of the centralized prison administration in England. 25 Prison reform in Europe, as Randall McGowen states, diffused in waves as abstract projects and resulted in building new prisons throughout Europe.26 In 1792, prison reformers championed Jeremy Bentham’s prison design panopticon, also known as the inspection house, which aimed to conduct ‘unseen surveillance’ of all prisoners from a central location within the radial configuration.27 By the late eighteenth century, the idea of separating vagrants, lunatics, and criminals and confining them in their respective institutions became stronger.

The era between the late eighteenth century and the late nineteenth century saw not only the shift from corporal punishment to imprisonment in Europe but also significant changes in the perception of crime, punishment, and the criminal within the framework of European administrative and institutional developments. The emphasis of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution on individuality, responsibility, and equity of people in front of the laws resulted in this shift of punishment ‘from heaven to earth, from the spiritual sphere to criminal law’.28

Patricia O’Brien notes that the history of prisons in Europe cannot be excluded from the continual political, economic, cultural, and social change in modern states.

24 Randall McGowen, “The Well-Ordered Prison: England, 1780-1865”, in The Oxford History of the Prison: The Practice of Punishment in Western Society, eds. Norval Morris-David J. Rothman, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 78-80. 25 McGowen, ibid., 80. 26 McGowen, ibid., 72. 27 See Jeremy Bentham, Panopticon Writings, (London: Verso, 1995). On panopticon architecture see Johnston, Forms of Constraint, 49-54. 28 Clive Emsley, Crime, Police, and Penal Policy: European Experiences (1750-1940), (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 27-28. 8

O’Brien states that the nineteenth-century prison was “the product of pressure to reform existing methods of punishment”. 29 Building secure, sanitized, and rehabilitative prisons was the main goal of the nineteenth-century prison reform movements in Europe. In the first decades of the nineteenth century, increased crime rates and the centralization, rapid developments in urbanization and industrialization and institutionalization of prison administration resulted in the emergence of newly designed prisons in Europe, along with prison personnel and a new set of prison rules for prisoners and prison cadres. With the opening of Pentonville model prison, described as “wings radiating around a central rotunda”, in London in 1842, the new site of punishment took its modern form. New prison architecture was marked by

“high walls, the gatehouse, the slatted windows, [and] the imposing size”.30 John Pratt claims that as the main site of punishment, prisons became more visible than other public buildings.31 Moreover, the attachment of the clock tower to prisons signified regularity, order, and the ways in which “punishment was now organizing itself around deprivation of time rather than the infliction of physical pain.”32 According to

Pratt, European authorities saw nineteenth-century prisons as the sites representing advanced or ‘modern’ social development.33 Furthermore, alongside the development of forensic sciences for solving crimes, the social sciences became a significant tool to examine the causes of crime and nature of criminals in Europe as seen in Durkheim’s

29 Patricia O’Brien, “Prison Reform in France and Other European Countries in the Nineteenth- Century”, Institutions of Confinement: Hospitals, Asylums, and Prisons in Western Europe and North America, 1500-1950, eds. Norbert Finzsch-Robert Jütte, (Washington, D.C.: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 291; Patricia O’Brien, “The Prison on the Continent: Europe, (1865-1965)”, in The Oxford History of the Prison: The Practice of Punishment in Western Society, eds. Norval Morris- David J. Rothman, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 178,181. 30 The telephone pole model, “multiple cell blocks at right angles to a long central corridor”, were also common throughout the Europe. O’Brien, “The Prison on the Continent (Europe, 1865-1965)”, 180- 181; Pratt, ibid., 35-36. For the daily routines of the Pentonville see Michael R. Weisser, Crime and Punishment in Early Modern Europe, (Sussex: The Harvestes Press, 1982), 168. 31 John Pratt, Punishment and Civilization: Penal Tolerance and Intolerance in Modern Society, (London: Sage Publications, 2002), 36. 32 Pratt, ibid., 43-44. 33 Pratt, ibid., 46-47. 9

and Lombroso’s works. As O’Brien states, the newly emerged fields including sociology and criminology strengthened prison reform movements in Europe in the nineteenth century.34

As Frank Dikötter has shown, the second half of the nineteenth century witnessed the emergence of modern penitentiaries in many countries throughout the world.35 Dikötter argues that the establishment of modern prisons was not a replica project inspired by the prisons in Europe and the United States. Rather, according to

Dikötter, prisons were reinvented and transformed depending on the political, social, and economic conditions of the states in which they were found.36 The idea of prison reform echoed in many countries as they sought to establish more ‘humane’ and

‘modern’ forms of punishment. Further, the establishment of prisons was seen as a yardstick of progress and modernity, and as Dikötter notes, as part of the ‘civilizing mission’ in the colonial context because corporal punishment was perceived as

‘barbaric’ and ‘uncivilized’. 37 Daniel V. Botsman links this tendency to Western audiences’ strong interest in the horrors of ‘Oriental despotism’ which was mostly illustrated in travel writings and included scenes of beheadings, crucifixions, and torture, in the early nineteenth century.38

In the same vein as Dikötter’s argument mentioned above, Botsman argues that instead of Western imperialism, Japan’s internal dynamics played a crucial role in

34 For an extensive analysis of the sources and historiography of crime and criminal justice in Europe see Xavier Rousseaux, “From Medieval Cities to National States, 1350-1850: The Historiography of Crime and Criminal Justice in Europe”, in Crime History and Histories of Crime: Studies in the Historiography of Crime and Criminal Justice in Modern History, eds. Clive Emsley-Louis A. Knafla, (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1996), 3-32. 35 Frank Dikötter, “Introduction”, in Cultures of Confinement, 2. 36 Dikötter-Brown, ibid., 1. 37 Ibid., 3. For the French colonial context see Peter Zinoman, The Colonial Bastille: A History of Imprisonment in Vietnam (1862-1940), (Berkeley: California University Press, 2001). 38 Daniel V. Botsman, Punishment and Power in the Making of Modern Japan, (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005), 4, 131. For the similar Orientalist literature on Chinese tortures, punishment, and prisons see Death by a Thousand Cuts, eds. Timothy Brook, et. al., (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008), 152-202. See Edward W. Said, Orientalism, (New York: Vintage Books, 1979); Michael L. Sprunger, ‘Grafting Justice: Crime and The Politics of Punishment in Korea, 1875- 1938’, PhD Dissertation, University of Hawai’i, 2011. 10

the establishment of modern criminal justice and penal system in Japan.39 According to Botsman, the Meiji leaders used the establishment of modern prisons as a tool for

‘nation building’.40 Japan attended the Third International Prison Congress in 1878 in order to show its level of ‘civilization’ to the Great Powers. However, Botsman states that the modern prison in Japan “made it possible to inflict suffering and pain more consistently and on a larger body of people”41 and the Meiji government’s campaign in the 1880s-90s to construct a national network of prisons resulted in the death of thousands of people due to miserable conditions for those building the new prisons.

Botsman notes that “from the beginning of the 1880s, prison diaries and memoirs became an important literary genre for Meiji intellectuals, and prison issues were increasingly taken up and debated in the newspaper,” which we will see was a similar tendency in late Ottoman newspapers.42

Carlos Aguirre informs us that penal debates of Europe and North America were also echoed in Latin America in the 1830s.43 Aguirre notes that prison reformers in Latin America saw the establishment of penitentiaries, mostly built in the middle of the nineteenth century, based on the architectural designs of Pennsylvania and

Auburn.44 According to Aguirre, Latin American states saw these penitentiaries as

39 Botsman, ibid., 9. Botsman notes that since the early 18th century a series of influential thinkers in Japan had criticized harsh corporal punishments in the country, thus, the Meiji reforms were as a result of these debates. 40 Botsman, ibid., 166. 41 Botsman, ibid., 203. 42 Botsman, ibid., 192. 43 Carlos Aguirre, “Prisons and Prisoners in Modernising Latin America (1800-1940)”, in Cultures of Confinement, 18-19. For the differences in the timing and meaning of the adoption of the penitentiary system in the Latin American countries see Ricardo D. Salvatore-Carlos Aguirre, The Birth of the Penitentiary in Latin America: Essays on Criminology, Prison Reform, and Social Control (1830- 1940), eds. Ricardo D. Salvatore-Carlos Aguirre, (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1996); Crime and Punishment in Latin America: Law Society since Colonial Times, eds. Ricardo D. Salvatore, et. al., (London: Duke University Press, 2001). 44 Pennsylvania prison system was based on the principle of complete solitude of prisoner, day and night. Prisoners were released from their cells for only indispensable conditions such as bath and medical emergencies. This model was used in the Eastern State Penitentiary on Cherry Hill in Philadelphia in 1829. Auburn system included solitary confinement, prison work, and enforced silence 11

‘laboratories of virtue’ that would help “transforming criminals into law-abiding citizens”.45 Aguirre claims that stories published in newspapers in Latin America in the late nineteenth and the first decades of the twentieth centuries, made prisons more visible to the public than before.46 Aguirre sees prison reform in Latin America as a failure since it did not succeed in transforming prisoners into law-abiding citizens nor offer humane living conditions for prisoners.47

The prison reform in Russia and the break from the tradition of

“imprison[ment] until the tsars’s decree” and the horrific conditions of monastery prisons 48 started in the 1860s”. 49 Bruce Adams notes that the writings of the

Enlightenment thinkers such as Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Beccaria, and

Bentham circulated among educated Russians.50 Adams argues that the willingness of

Russia’s educated upper classes to see Russia as a European country and their attempts to curb “barbarity” of corporal punishments in the country were the main motivations behind Russian prison reform.51 In recognition of their reform efforts,

Russia was the host country for the Fourth International Prison Congress held in St.

Petersburg in June, 1890. That the Ottomans also sent a representative of the

in prison that was applied in Auburn in New York in the 1820s. Norman Johnston, Forms of Constraint, 69-79. 45 Aguirre, ibid., 22. 46 Aguirre, ibid., 45. On visiualizing prisons and prisoners see Clare Anderson-David Arnold, “Envisioning the Colonial Prison”, in Cultures of Confinement, 304-332. 47 Aguirre, ibid., 46. 48 For the early modern prisons in Russia see Nancy Shields Kollman, Crime and Punishment in Early Modern Russia, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012). 49 Bruce F. Adams, The Politics of Punishment: Prison Reform in Russia (1863-1917), (Dekalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1996), 13. See Abby M. Schrader, Languages of the Lash: Corporal Punishment and Identity in Imperial Russia, (Dekalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2003). 50 Adams, ibid., 14-20. See Simon Werrett, “Potemkin and the Panopticon: Samuel Bentham and the Architecture of Absolutism in Eighteenth Century Russia”, Journal of Bentham Studies, 2, 1999, 1-25. 51 Adams, ibid., 13. See Jonathan Daly, “Russian Punishments in the European Mirror”, in Russia in the European Context: A Member of the Family (1789-1914), eds. Susan P. McCaffray-Michael Melancon, (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005), 161-189. On crime and punishment in the Russian countryside see Stephen P. Frank, Crime, Cultural Conflict, and Justice in Rural Russia (1856-1914), (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999); Cathy Frierson, “Crime and Punishment in the Russian Village: Rural Concepts of Criminality at the End of the Nineteenth Century”, Slavic Review, 46/1, Spring 1987, 55-69; 12

government to this congress will be discussed in detail in the first chapter of this dissertation.52

The history of modern Ottoman prisons can be seen as the history of reform, or ıslah, to borrow the common term that was frequently used in many Ottoman documents regarding the establishment of new prisons and the improvement of the existing prison conditions. As seen above, debates, projects, and plans concerning prison reform circulated in many countries around the world and developed from different starting points in the nineteenth and the first decades of the twentieth centuries. The Ottoman prison reform movement was also part of this global trend toward establishing modern incarceration methods.

The Literature on the History of Ottoman Prisons

The history of Ottoman prisons has been on the agenda of Ottomanists since the late 1990s.53 In the first decade of the twentieth century, several master’s theses

52 See The Fourth International Prison Congress, St. Petersburg Russia, C.D. Randall, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1891). 53 Mümin Yıldıztaş, ‘Mütareke Dönemi Suç Unsurları ve İstanbul Hapishaneleri’, (MA thesis, İstanbul Üniversitesi, 1997); Saadet Tekin, “19. Yüzyıl Sonu 20. Yüzyıl Başlarında Nazilli Hapishanelerine Kısa Bir Bakış”, Tarih ve Toplum, Ocak 2001, v. 205, 11-14; Gültekin Yıldız, ‘Osmanlı Devleti’nde Hapishane Islahatı (1839-1908), MA thesis, Marmara Üniversitesi, 2002; Alev Çakmakoğlu Kuru, Sinop Hapishanesi, (Ankara: Atatürk Kültür Merkezi, 2004); Hasan Şen, ‘Transformation of Punishment Politics and Birth of the Prison in the Ottoman Empire (1845-1910)’, MA thesis, Boğaziçi Üniversitesi, 2005; Ufuk Adak, ‘XIX. Yüzyılın Sonları XX. Yüzyılın Başlarında Aydın Vilayeti’ndeki Hapishaneler’, (MA thesis, Ege Üniversitesi, 2006); Hapishane Kitabı, eds. Emine Gürsoy Naskali and Hilal Oytun Altun, (İstanbul: Kitabevi, 2005); Zindanlar ve Mahkumlar, eds. Emine Gürsoy Naskali and Hilal Oytun Altun, (İstanbul: Babil, 2006); Anthony Gorman, “Regulation, Reform and Resistance in the Middle Eastern Prison”, in Cultures of Confinement: A History of The Prison in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, eds. Frank Dikötter-Ian Brown, (New York: Cornell University Press, 2007), 95-147; Ömer Şen, Osmanlı’da Mahkum Olmak: Avrupalılaşma Sürecinde Hapishaneler, (İstanbul: Kapı Yayınları, 2007); Kent Fielding Schull, ‘Penal Institutions, Nation-State Construction, and Modernity in the Late Ottoman Empire’, (PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 2007); Osmanlı’da Asayiş, Suç ve Ceza, eds. Noémi Levy and Alexandre Toumarkine, (İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2007); Kent F. Schull, “Identity in the Ottoman Prison Surveys of 1912 and 1914”, IJMES, 41:3, 2009, 365-367; Saadet Tekin, “Dr. Polliç Bey’in 1918 Tarihli Raporuna Göre Berlin ve Aydın Vilayeti Hapishanelerine Genel Bir Bakış”, Osmanlı Tarihi Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Dergisi (OTAM), n. 24/2008, (Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi, 2010), 205-223; Ahmet Çiçen, ‘II. Meşrutiyet Dönemi Cezaevi Islahatı’, (MA thesis, Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi, 2010); Muharrem Uslu, ‘Erzincan’da Suç, Suçlu ve Hapishane’, (MA thesis, Erzincan Üniversitesi, 2010); Zafer Atar, “20. Yüzyılın Başlarında Turgutlu Hapishanesi’nin Genel Durumu”, Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, v. 9 n. 1, (Manisa: 2011), 87-101; Mücahit Özçelik, “Mütareke Dönemi’nde Osmanlı Hapishanelerinin Durumu”, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Cumhuriyet Tarihi Araştırmaları Dergisi, year 7, n. 14, (Ankara: 2011), 16-40; Ali Rıza Gönüllü, “Osmanlı Devleti’nin Son Döneminde Isparta 13

and articles examining Ottoman prisons and the transformation of punishment politics in the Empire were written in Turkey. No doubt these works contributed to the

Ottoman prison literature although some of them were descriptive rather than analytical. However, Gültekin Yıldız’s master’s thesis (2002)54 and Kent Fielding

Schull’s doctoral dissertation (2007)55 were the first solid works to analytically and empirically contextualize the history of Ottoman prison reform, and open a path for students of Ottoman penal reform.

Yıldız’s master’s thesis, an edited version of which was published later as

Mapusâne (2012), examines the transformation from corporal punishment to imprisonment in the Ottoman Empire by using extensive archival and secondary sources. Yıldız analyzes the shift from mahbes (dungeon) to hapishane (prison) within the context of reform, modernity, criminal law and prison architecture from

1839 to 1908. Yıldız offers numerous case studies regarding prison conditions and applications of prison reform in different provinces throughout the Empire. Yıldız argues that Ottoman bureaucrats attempted to reform prisons in the Empire, simultaneously as other contemporary states, in order to link ‘civilization’ and penal

Hapishanesi (1867-1920)”, Selçuk Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Enstitüsü Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, n. 29, (Konya, 2011), 349-393; Ayşe Özdemir Kızılkan, ‘Osmanlı’da Kadın Hapishaneleri ve Kadın Mahkûmlar (1839-1922)’, (PhD Dissertation, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi, 2011); Suha Oğuz Baytimur, ‘Osmanlı Devleti’nde Hapis ve Sürgün Cezaları (1791-1808)’, (PhD Dissertation, Fırat Üniversitesi, 2011); Gültekin Yıldız, Mapusâne: Osmanlı Hapishanelerinin Kuruluş Serüveni (1839- 1908), (İstanbul: Kitabevi, 2012); Kurtuluş Demirkol, ‘II. Meşrutiyet Döneminde Edirne Vilayeti Hapishaneleri’, (PhD Dissertation, Sakarya Üniversitesi, 2012); Çiğdem Oğuz, Negotiating the Terms of Mercy: Petitions and Pardon Cases in the Hamidian Era, (Istanbul: Libra, 2013), Emel Demir, ‘Osmanlı Devleti’nde Hapishane Reformu: Çanakkale Hapishanesi Örneği’, (MA thesis, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi, 2013); Abdulkadir Gül, “Osmanlı Taşrasında Suç ve Suçlular (1919 Ocak Ayı Erzincan Sancağı Örneği), Erzincan Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, v. XVII, n. 1-2, (Haziran 2012), 1-29; Sevcan Öztürk, ‘XIX. Yüzyıl Osmanlı Ceza Sisteminde Dönüşüm: Zindandan hapishaneye geçiş’, (MA thesis, Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi, 2014); Kent F. Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire: Microcosms of Modernity, (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2014), Mustafa Eren, Kapatılmanın Patolojisi: Osmanlı’dan Günümüze Hapishanenin Tarihi, (İstanbul: Kalkedon, 2014). 54 See Gültekin Yıldız, ‘Osmanlı Devleti’nde Hapishane Islahatı (1838-1908)’, MA thesis, (Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul, 2002). 55 See Kent Fielding Schull, ‘Penal Institutions, Nation-state Construction, and Modernity in the Late Ottoman Empire, 1908-1919’, PhD Dissertation, (University of California, Los Angeles, 2007). 14

reform. Yıldız’s argument challenges the Orientalist discourse by offering proof that there was not a simple cause and effect and time lag between East/West prison reform.56

In his dissertation, Schull examines the development of Ottoman prisons and their role in state formation during the late Ottoman Empire (1908-1919). By providing very detailed statistical data based on rich primary sources, Schull opens new windows into the field of the history of Ottoman prisons. In his recently published book, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire: Microcosms of Modernity

(2014), Schull argues that in addition to the notions of social control and discipline,

Ottoman prisons were “microcosms of Ottoman modernity” that played a crucial role for the Committee of Union and Progress’ (CUP) nation-state construction projects.57

In his comprehensive and analytic work, Schull elucidates his arguments through a range of sub-topics such as “administrative reform and centralization, the role of punishment in the rehabilitation of prisoners, economic reform and industrialization, issues of gender and childhood, the implementation of modern concepts of time and space, identity, social engineering, the rationalization and standardization of Islamic criminal law, and the role of the state in caring for its population.” 58 Schull approaches Ottoman prisons from both imperial and local perspectives in order to challenge the state-centric works on Ottoman imperial reform. 59 Schull also challenges Foucault’s methodological approach. By criticizing Foucault’s emphasis merely on power and knowledge, Schull offers a socio-legal approach to Ottoman prison reform that covers laws, regulations, reforms, and the agency of prisoners and

56 Yıldız, Mapusâne, 168-169. 57 Kent F. Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire: Microcosms of Modernity, (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2014), x. See Chapter 2, “Prison Reform in the Late Ottoman Empire: The State’s Perspective”, 42-67; Chapter 3, “Counting the Incarcerated: Knowledge, Power and the Prison Population”, 67-111, in Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire. 58 Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire, x. 59 Schull, ibid., 4. 15

prison cadres.60 Schull builds his arguments on extensive primary sources from the archives in Turkey, Great Britain, and the United States.61

Furthermore, edited volumes, such as Hapishane Kitabı (2005) and Zindanlar ve Mahkûmlar (2006), included articles exploring the history of prisons and prisoners in a wide range of perspectives and time, from the Mamluks62 to the Seljuks, from the

Ottoman Empire to the Republican Era. There is also burgeoning literature on the institutionalization of Ottoman prisons and security forces (bekçi, jandarma, polis) that contributes new perspectives, debates, and also methodological and historiographical questions to the field of crime, punishment, and prisons in the

Ottoman Empire.63

Sources

This dissertation is heavily based on primary sources drawn from the collections of the Prime Ministry’s Ottoman Archives (BOA) in Istanbul. I made extensive use of various collections of documents from Zabtiye Nezareti (Department of Police) to Dahiliye Nezareti Mebani-i Emiriyye ve Hapishaneler Müdiriyeti (The

Directorate of Prisons and Building Construction, Ministry of Interior) to Hariciye

Nezareti (the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) as can be seen in detail in the bibliography.

Although the BOA contains numerous documents on Ottoman prisons and prisoners, they are fragmented due to lack of systematic record keeping in Ottoman prisons until

60 Schull, ibid., 8-11. 61 Schull, ibid., 14. 62 See Cüneyt Kanat, Ortaçağ Türk Devletlerinde Suç ve Ceza, (İstanbul: Küre Yayınları, 2010). 63 See Osmanlı’da Asayiş, Suç ve Ceza, eds. Noémi Levy and Alexandre Toumarkine, (İstanbul: TTVY, 2007); Jandarma ve Polis: Fransız ve Osmanlı Tarihçiliğine Çapraz Bakışlar, eds. Noémi Levy, et. al., (İstanbul: TVYY, 2009); Noémi Lévy-Aksu, Ordre et désordres dans l’Istanbul ottomane (1879-1909), (Paris: Karthala, 2013); Noémi Lévy-Aksu, “Building Professional and Political Communities: The Value of Honor in the Self-Representation of Ottoman Police during the Second Constitutional Period”, European Journal of Turkish Studies, 18 (2014), (Hi)stories of Honor in Ottoman Societies, http://ejts.revues.org/4895. 16

the establishment of the Prison Administration in 1911.64 Most Ottoman prisoners were illiterate, and the lack of prisoners’ memoirs, letters, or notes pushes the historian to use state-centric documents penned by Ottoman bureaucrats and local officials. However, a close investigation of Ottoman archival sources, particularly interrogation reports (istintaknâme) 65 and petitions, 66 helps us to hear prisoners’ voices although these voices are not very loud.

In addition to the archival sources, I rely heavily on Ottoman newspapers published in Izmir. Specifically, I examined all issues of Ahenk and Hizmet newspapers printed between the 1890s and 1910s, in order to examine the establishment of Izmir Prison and the debates around the urbanization of the city.

Although newspapers can be manipulated sources, especially during the Hamidian period due to censorship 67 and political pressure on press, in some cases, the newspapers, particularly the private-owned ones such as Ahenk68 and Hizmet, offer us more insightful perspectives regarding urbanization than state-centric documents.

These late-Ottoman newspapers cover a wide-range of stories on the construction of

64 See Schull, ibid., 50-61; Schull, “Identity in the Ottoman Prison Surveys of 1912-1914”, IJMES, 41:3, 2009, 365-367. 65 For a comprehensive usage of istintaknâmes see Ebru Aykut Türker, ‘Alternative Claims on Justice and Law: Rural Arson and Poison Murder in the 19th Century Ottoman Empire’, PhD dissertation, (İstanbul: Boğaziçi University, 2011). For a theoretical discussion on the limits of the ability of Western discourse about the subaltern see Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, “Can the Subaltern Speak?”, in Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, eds Cary Nelson-Lawrence Grossberg, (Urbana: University of Illionis Press, 1988), 271-313; J. Maggio, “Can the Subaltern Be Heard”: Political Theory, Translation, Representation, and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Alternatives, v. 32, 2007, 419-443. 66 See Çiğdem Oğuz, Negotiating the Terms of Mercy: Petitions and Pardon Cases in the Hamidian Era, (Istanbul: Libra, 2013). 67 For censorship in the late Ottoman Empire see Elizabeth Frierson, ‘Unimagined Communities: State, Press, and Gender in the Hamidian Era’, PhD dissertation, Princeton University, 1996, 58-67; Fuat Süreyya Oral, Türk Basın Tarihi: Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Dönemi (1728-1922, 1831-1922), Yeni Adım Matbaası, 152-153; Hıfzı Topuz, II. Mahmut’tan Holdinglere Türk Basın Tarihi, (İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2003), 53-57; M. Nuri İnuğur, Basın ve Yayın Tarihi, (İstanbul: Çağlayan Kitabevi, 1982), 255-272; Korkmaz Alemdar, İstanbul (1875-1964): Türkiye’de Yayınlanan Fransızca Bir Gazetenin Tarihi, (Ankara: Ankara İktisadi ve Ticari İlimler Akademisi Yayınları, 1978), 51-57. 68 See Ziya Somar, Yakın çağların fikir ve edebiyat tarihimizde İzmir, (İzmir: Nefaset Matbassı, 1944); Ziya Somar, Bir Şehr’in ve Bir Adam’ın Tarihi: Tevfik Nevzat: İzmir’in İlk Fikir ve Hürriyet Kurbanı, (İzmir: Ahenk Matbaası, 1948). 17

new governmental buildings and spaces, the appointment of their officials, criminal cases, charity organizations for prisoners, and also prison breaks.

In this work, particularly in the first chapter, I also use British newspapers and journals in order to illustrate the ways in which British publications created and disseminated Orientalist discourse regarding Ottoman penal policies in the nineteenth century. Of course, measuring to what extent these publications affected British inspectors and ambassadors in the Ottoman Empire, who constantly criticized

Ottoman prisons for not being ‘humane’, is impossible. My intention is to use these sources and references, mostly given as block quotes and longer excerpts, only to show the details of depictions, exaggerations, mystifications, and distortions of

Ottoman penal practices. Some of the travel books used in this work also serve this purpose to some extent.

Furthermore, this work benefits from the imperial and provincial yearbooks

(salnâme) that show the turning points of bureaucratization and urbanization. I also used the Record of the Sessions of the Ottoman Parliament (Meclis-i Mebusan Zabıt

Ceridesi) to show ‘live’ discussions on crime, punishment, prisons, and urbanization among Ottoman representatives.

Moreover, I extensively use prison architectural and city plans, photographs and illustrations. While the city plans show the expansion of Izmir and the site of the governmental space, photographs, mostly drawn from the Ottoman police journals

(Polis Mecmuası) visualize Ottoman prison life. The illustrations drawn from the

British journals could be read as a part of the Orientalist discourse mentioned above.

Focus and Method

This dissertation deals with the ways in which Ottoman prison reform was perceived and conducted in the three major port cities of the Empire, as noted above

predominantly Izmir, and as secondarily Istanbul, and Salonica. I have chosen these cities for several reasons. First, I aim to broaden my research on the Ottoman prison reform that I explored in my M.A. thesis entitled the Ottoman Prisons in the Province of Aydın at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. Further research will allow me to evaluate Ottoman discourses and policies of justice and punishment as they transformed from traditional perceptions of justice to ‘modern’ penal codes.

Secondly, Izmir, Istanbul, and Salonica are all major port cities and trade hubs of the

Empire, and, therefore, represent the diverse characteristics of the multi-ethnic and religious populations of the Empire. I have chosen these cities as case studies for this work not only because of their mixed populations but also because of their high crime rates. 69 Moreover, these port cities offer us the opportunity to examine both cosmopolitanism and the globalization of capitalism and culture in the nineteenth century. Thirdly, faced with the numerous folders and sheer volume of documents about Ottoman prisons in the Prime Ministry’s Ottoman Archives (BOA) in Istanbul,

I decided to choose specific test sites in order to explore the applications of prison reforms in different localities. I use historical and modern names of the cities –

Istanbul/Constantinople, Izmir/Smyrna, and Salonica/Thessaloniki/Selanik – depending on the original language of the source that I analyze.

In this work, I examine the modalities of social and political transformation of

Izmir by focusing on crime, punishment, social control, prisons, and urbanization in the late Ottoman Empire. The long nineteenth century saw transformations in the world and local economies, the expansion of cities and their populations, and urban adaptations to capitalism in the Ottoman Empire. The centralization of the Ottoman government affected urban centers throughout the Empire. Newly built roads,

69 See Osmanlı Devleti’nin İlk İstatistik Yıllığı 1897, Tarihi İstatistikler Dizisi, v. 5, ed. Tevfik Güran, (Ankara: Başbakanlık Devlet İstatistik Enstitüsü, 1997). 19

telegraph lines, steamships and railroads sped up not only communication but also the flow of goods and people faster than ever before. Furthermore, the Ottoman reformers clearly showed their intention to regulate justice and the rights of the subjects living in the Empire and improve the poor conditions of Ottoman prisons. In the second half of the nineteenth century, the goals of prison reform in the Empire came into line with the prison standards of Europe: distributing justice and incarcerating criminals in a

‘modern’ way, building large prisons similar to those in European centers, and attempting to rehabilitate prisoners and use them as a workforce.70

Fortresses, government palaces, military barracks, caravansaries, and, for female prisoners, imams’ houses were all used as prisons until the late Ottoman

Empire. In this dissertation, I intend to illustrate the shifts, or in many cases attempts to make shifts, in state policy from the long-standing tradition of mahbes (dungeon) to

‘modern’ prisons by focusing on the example of Izmir Prison. Throughout the dissertation, I use the term ‘modern’ to mean contemporary and ‘European’ in order to stick with and refer to the language of the Ottoman archival documents and correspondence among government departments. We encounter numerous Ottoman documents stating that Ottoman prisons should be built in a European

(Avrupai/Avrupalı) style. However, in many cases, it was not very clear what was meant by the term “European.” In most of the cases, “European” referred to the prison architecture models found in several countries of Europe, mostly in England, France,

Belgium, and Russia, but in some cases, it referred to the organization and governance of those prisons including using prisoners as a workforce, imprisonment in separate

70 See Kent F. Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire: Microcosms of Modernity, (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2014); Gültekin Yıldız, Mapusâne: Osmanlı Hapishanelerinin Kuruluş Serüveni (1839-1908), (İstanbul: Kitabevi, 2012); Kent Fielding Schull, ‘Penal Institutions, Nation- State Construction, and Modernity in the Late Ottoman Empire’, (PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 2007); Gültekin Yıldız, ‘Osmanlı Devleti’nde Hapishane Islahatı (1839- 1908), MA thesis, Marmara Üniversitesi, 2002. 20

wards, and hygienic conditions. This work is not an attempt to analyze the Ottoman prisons through either a Foucauldian perspective or modernization theory. Instead, I attempt to approach a history of Ottoman prisons from micro historiographical perspective by focusing on the three port cities, with the greatest emphasis on Izmir, in terms of reforms, order, justice policies, hygiene, architecture, surveillance, social control, crimes, and the profiles of individual prisoners, within the limits of the archival and printed sources. This approach does not intend to draw general conclusions regarding the history of Ottoman prisons that has already been examined, instead, it aims to make a contribution to the recent literature on Ottoman prisons and prison reform by offering an urbanization perspective and by providing examples of the application of Ottoman prison reform in different port cities.

I limit the time frame of this work within the late Ottoman Empire, a period referring to the years 1839-1922, based on commonly accepted periodization of the history of the Empire. The history of Ottoman prison reform has several breaking points. In addition to the Tanzimat decree in 1839, the memorandum penned by

British ambassador Stratford Canning and sent to Ali Pasha on the improvement of the prisons in the Ottoman Empire in 1851 marked one of these points. The year 1858 was another important point marking the recurrent legal reforms of the nineteenth century-Ottoman Empire. The Penal Code of 1858 (Ceza Kanunnâme-i Hümâyunu), which included some parts adopted from European legal concepts, was another, and aimed to hasten the institutionalization of Ottoman prisons. 71 Its drafting was particularly influenced by the French Penal Code of 1810.72 For the first time, torture

71 See Avi Rubin, “Legal Borrowing and its Impact on Ottoman Legal Culture in the Late Nineteenth Century”, Continuity and Change, v. 22, Issue 2, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 297-303; Ekrem Buğra Ekinci, Osmanlı Mahkemeleri: Tanzimat ve Sonrası, (Arı Sanat, 2004), 53. 72 Gülnihâl Bozkurt, Batı Hukukunun Türkiye’de Benimsenmesi: Osmanlı Devleti’nden Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’ne Resepsiyon Süreci (1839-1939), (Ankara: TTK, 1999), 100. According to Bozkurt, the Ottoman Imperial Penal Code was a translation of the French Penal Code. Akgündüz does not accept 21

was taken into account as a crime, which could be seen in the 103th article of the Code of 1858. The Regulation of 1880 and the establishment of the Directorate of Prisons

(Hapishaneler Müdiriyeti) after the promulgation of the Second Constitution of 1908 were other watersheds of the prison reform.

Content

The first chapter aims to provide a historical overview and background of the politics of punishment, with a special focus on imprisonment, from the classical ages of the Empire to the first decades of the twentieth century, within the context of criminal law, prison reform, and imperial transformation. Mostly relying on the secondary literature on Ottoman criminal law and prisons, this chapter illustrates the intertwined relationship between legitimacy, justice, and order through the penal codes and also the political concept of the ‘Circle of Justice’. In addition to the examination of the shift from corporal punishment to confinement in the Ottoman

Empire within the limits of criminal law, regulations, and orders, this chapter also investigates the Orientalist discourse and rhetoric on the politics of punishment in the

Ottoman Empire through the nineteenth-century British newspapers and journals.

Following this line, one of the sections of this chapter stresses the reports of the western prison inspectors and ambassadors in terms of improving poor conditions of

Ottoman prisons and detention centers. This chapter concludes with the Empire’s attempts to institutionalize Ottoman prisons during the Hamidian and the Committee of Union and Progress era.

this argument. Akgündüz claims that seventy percent of the Code was based on Islamic law and the old Ottoman criminal codes. Akgündüz, ibid., 806. Regarding the debate over the ‘Frenchness’ of the Code see Halil Cin-Ahmet Akgündüz, Türk Hukuk Tarihi, v. 1, (Konya, 1989), 288-290, Mustafa Şentop, “Tanzimat Dönemi Kanunlaştırma Faaliyetleri”, TALİD, 3:5, 2005, 647-672. Hanioğlu, ibid., 34. According to Hanioğlu, borrowing from French legal codes also resulted in opening the Ottoman market to European materials and techniques. Hanioğlu states that the shari’ah courts lost ground to the civil court system after the establishment of this code. 74. 22

The second chapter provides a case study by examining the ways in which

Ottoman prison reform was implemented in Izmir in the late Ottoman Empire through a discussion of security, crime, punishment, urbanization, and imperial transformation. I argue that the new nizam policies resulted in the construction of a new governmental and urban space in Izmir in the late Ottoman Empire. The transition from Cezayir Hanı, a khan used as prison in the 1850s, to Izmir Prison in

1873, marked the institutionalization of imprisonment in Izmir in terms of the new penal codes and prison architecture and also centralization attempts of the Ottoman government. Moreover, Izmir Prison from its construction in 1873 to its demolition in

1959 triggered many debates among local officials about its position and role in the city, which was growing economically and expanding due to increase of population.

This chapter aims to illustrate these debates based on archival sources and Ottoman local newspapers, specifically Ahenk and Hizmet. City and architectural plans and photographs were extensively used in this chapter.

The third chapter is an attempt to make a contribution to the recent literature on Ottoman prisons by providing examples from Izmir, Istanbul, and Salonica in terms of social life and living conditions in Ottoman prisons. In addition to a variety of issues from nutrition to health, from female prisoners to non-Muslim prisoners, the chapter also attempts to provide some brief information about those incarcerated in

Ottoman prisons who were understood to have mental disorders. Furthermore, this chapter discusses the relationship between prison officials and prisoners through exploring cannabis (esrar) trafficking inside Ottoman prisons. In some cases this trafficking illustrate prisoners’ agency in prisons. The chapter includes a series of photographs, mostly taken from the interior of the general prison in Istanbul, published in police journals (Polis Mecmuası) in order to shed light on the social life

of prisoners from workshops to classrooms in the first decades of the twentieth- century Ottoman Empire.

The fourth chapter is dedicated to security, prison escapes, and pardons and amnesties in the late Ottoman Empire with special focus on Izmir and Salonica. This chapter provides accounts of several prison escapes from Salonica prison in order to illustrate the overall lack of security in Ottoman prisons. The chapter concludes with pardons and amnesties that were used as a tool by Ottoman sultans to show their mercy and grace to “the forgotten ones”. Finally, based on prison inspections by

Ahmet Şerif, Ottoman journalist, and Dr. Paul Pollitz, German prison inspector, the conclusion attempts to illustrate the conditions of Ottoman prisons in the first decades of the twentieth century and draws links between the politics of punishment, urbanization, and the institutionalization of prisons in the late Ottoman Empire.

Chapter 1

The Politics of Punishment in the Late Ottoman Empire

“It is justice which is necessary for the world”73 Kınalızâde Ali Çelebi

The politics of punishment in the Ottoman Empire were, in part, derived from

Ottoman criminal codes that were an amalgamation of Islamic, customary, and imperial law from the classical ages of the Empire. According to the political theory of the ‘Circle of Justice’ (dâire-i adliye), there was a strong link between sovereignty, justice, and harmony in society.74 The Ottoman sultan as the sole sovereign of the state was the embodiment of justice. The sultan attempted to disseminate his justice and establish social harmony through courts that had the authority to judge and punish criminal subjects who acted against rules, customs, or laws of the state.

Punishments were mostly corporal and discretionary in the classical ages of the Empire. By the eighteenth century, punishments started to shift from corporal to non-corporal, including fines and incarceration. In the nineteenth century, incarceration became even more common, and by the late nineteenth century it was

73 Halil İnalcık, “State Ideology under Sultan Süleyman I”, in The Middle East and the Balkans under the Ottoman Empire-Essays on Economy and Society, (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993), 71. 74 The first appearance of this concept was in an anonymous Arabic encyclopedic work, the Sirr al- asrār, and later it was also discussed in Kutadgu Bilig. Centuries later from these works, in the sixteenth century, this concept was named the ‘Circle of Justice’ by Kınalızade Ali Çelebi in his work Ahlak-ı Ala’i, and can also be seen in the risales penned by Koçi Bey in the seventeenth century. An apt summary of the interrelationship between Middle Eastern states and their societies is the general formula of “[n]o power without troops, no troops without money, no money without prosperity, no prosperity without justice and good administration.” See Wael B. Hallaq, An Introduction to Islamic Law, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 72-82; Halil İnalcık, “Adâletnameler”, in Osmanlı’da Devlet, Hukuk, Adâlet, (İstanbul: Eren Yayınları, 2005), 75; Linda T. Darling, A History of Social Justice and Political Power in the Middle East, (New York: Routledge, 2013), 2; See Linda T. Darling. "Circle of Justice" Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE. eds., Gudrun Krämer, Denis Matringe, John Nawas, Everett Rowson. (Leiden: BrillOnline, 2013), accessed, September 27, 2013, http://referenceworks.brillonline.com.proxy.libraries.uc.edu/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-3/circle-of- justice- COM_24405; Rifa’at ‘Ali Abou-El-Haj, Formation of the Modern State: The Ottoman Empire, Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries, (New York: Syracuse University Press, 2005). 25

increasingly standardized and centralized with the promulgation of the regulations and the construction of new prisons throughout the Empire. 75 There is no doubt that alongside the dominance and tradition of Islamic law, the concurrent criminal codes and regulations issued in the nineteenth century hastened this shift. Furthermore, as mentioned in the introduction, the shift in punishment policies cannot be excluded from ‘the age of prison reform’. The nineteenth century, for many states, was a time during which there were attempts to find new and modern ways of punishment, to use scientific investigations to trace criminal cases, to explore the nature of criminals, to determine the ways in which the states benefited from prisoners as workforce, and to search for ‘humane’ and applicable prison architecture models.76 Thus, the Ottomans, specifically after the Tanzimat Edict, attempted to redesign their punishment policies based on the new penal codes, regulations, ordinances, and, of course, on the global trends regarding prison reform.

This chapter aims to provide a historical overview and a broad picture of the politics of punishment, specifically imprisonment, from the classical ages of the

Empire to first decades of the twentieth century, within the context of criminal law, prison reform, and imperial transformation. The history of the shift from corporal, discretionary punishment to ‘modern’ incarceration has been extensively examined by scholars77, thus, this chapter heavily relies on the burgeoning literature on Ottoman penal history rather than archival documents with the exception of the sections on the perceptions of Ottoman punishment in the British press, and western reformers who

75 Kent Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire, 18-19. 76 Patricia O’Brien marks “the golden age for penology”, particularly in France, as the period from 1820 to 1840 when the new prison system was established. Patricia O’Brien, The Promise of Punishment: Prisons in the Nineteenth-Century France, (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1982), 13. 77 See Kent F. Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire: Microcosms of Modernity, (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2014); Gültekin Yıldız, Mapusâne: Osmanlı Hapishanelerinin Kuruluş Serüveni (1839-1908), (İstanbul: Kitabevi, 2012). 26

inspected Ottoman prisons and penned detailed reports to improve the conditions of these prisons. The section on the British press is only an attempt to shed light on the

Orientalist discourse on Ottoman punishment and prisons in nineteenth-century

British newspapers that illustrated and detailed depictions, exaggerations, mystifications, and distortions of Ottoman penal practices and prisons.

Criminal Law and Imprisonment: From the Classical Age to the Age of Prison Reform

Justice was the linchpin of Ottoman state legitimacy from the outset. Thus, a systematic analysis of the evolution of Ottoman criminal law presents us with a complex, intertwined relationship between sovereignty, law, and punishment in the

Empire.78 The Ottoman Empire can be seen as the continuation of Turco-Mongol and

Indo-Iranian political traditions, specifically in the classical ages of the Empire that glorified the absolute authority of the sultan, which was limited only by justice.79

Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire, therefore, hinged on law and order. It’s not surprising then that Mehmed II (r. 1444-6, 1451-81), Bayezid II (r. 1481-1512), and

Suleiman I (r. 1520-66) (the Lawgiver) were all legislators.80 Besides the dominance of Islamic law (shari’a) in Ottoman law, all three sultans made laws that were an amalgamation of customary law (urf) and imperial law (kanun) in order to strengthen and expand the limits of their power.81 Particularly, the era of Mehmed II was a

78 For an analysis of the Ottoman criminal justice system see Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire, 17-21. 79 See Halil İnalcık, “Kutadgu Bilig’de Türk ve İran Siyaset Nazariye ve Gelenekleri”, in Osmanlı’da Devlet, Hukuk, Adâlet, (İstanbul: Eren Yayınları, 2005), 11-27; Halil İnalcık, “Türk Tarihinde Türe ve Yasa Geleneği”, Doğu Batı, Hukuk ve Adalet Üstüne, 4:13, 2000-01, 157-179. 80 İnalcık, “Kutadgu Bilig’de”, 21; Halil İnalcık, The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age (1300-1600), (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1973), 70-75. İnalcık states that according to the old Ottoman chronicles, Osman Ghazi, the founder of the Ottoman dynasty, was also a legislator. See İnalcık, “Türk Tarihinde Türe”, ibid., 161; İnalcık, “Suleiman the Lawgiver and Ottoman Law”, Archivum Ottomanicum, 1, 1969, 105-138. For a selection of legal documents and treaties authored by Suleiman I and the şeyhülislam Ebu’s-Su’ûd, the prominent jurist in his time, see Snjezana Buzov, ‘The Lawgiver and his Lawmakers: The Role of Legal Discourse in the Change of Ottoman Imperial Culture’, PhD dissertation, the University of Chicago, 2006. 81 See Colin Imber, Şeriattan Kanuna: Ebussuud ve Osmanlı’da İslami Hukuk, (İstanbul: TVYY, 2004), 30-70; Rudolph Peters, Crime and Punishment in Islamic Law: Theory and Practice from the 27

turning point in the development of Ottoman law. Mehmed II used the law to enforce order (ahvâl-i saltanata nizam) but also to impose the will of the sultanate.82 Mehmed

II’s Teşkilat Kanûnnâmesi, and the two other kanunnames (law book), included laws regarding the ways in which government officers would be appointed and what their responsibilities would be and contained of articles on punishment mostly based on the

Sultan’s will, not shari’a.83 According to Ahmet Akgündüz, Ottoman kanunnames aimed not only to fill the legal ‘gaps’ left by shari’a but also regulated ‘unclear’ judicial practices predominantly hinged on shari’a.84 In his seminal work on crime and punishment in Islamic law, Rudolph Peters also states that Ottoman law was a

“unique combination of Hanafite doctrine, transformed by the state into an unambiguous body of legal rules, and of state-enacted laws, the qanunnames”. 85

Sixteenth to the Twenty-first Century, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 70-75; Dina Rizk Khoury, “Administrative Practice Between Religious Law (Shari’a) and State Law (Kanun) On the Eastern Frontiers of the Ottoman State”, Journal of Early Modern History, 5:4, 2001, 305-330. For the definitions of the terms of kanun and ‘urf see Uriel Heyd, Studies in Old Ottoman Criminal Law, ed. V.L. Ménage, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973), 167-171; Halil İnalcık, “Osmanlı Hukukuna Giriş: Örfi-Sultanî Hukuk ve Fatih Kanunları”, Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, v. XIII, June 1958, 102; Haim Gerber, State, Society, and Law in Islam: Ottoman Law in Comparative Perspective, (New York: State University of New York Press, 1994), 65-66. Unlike Heyd, Gerber argues that kanun was partially implemented in the classical age. 82 İnalcık, “Osmanlı Hukukuna”, 110. Nizam-ı âlem, the Ottoman concept of world order, was linked to the Ottoman discourse of legitimacy and justice. According to this concept, the sovereign should follow the divine guidance of the Quranic call to “command right and forbid wrong”, as seen in the writings of Tursun Beg, a high-ranking bureaucrat, and the ülema Kınalızade, and Hasan Kafi al- Akhisari in his commentary on al-Farabi’s political theories. All of these scholars proposed an ideal social structure and emphasized ways to combat zulm (injustice). Gottfried Hagen, “Legitimacy and World Order”, in Legitimizing the Order: The Ottoman Rhetoric of State Power, eds. Hakan T. Karateke-Maurus Reinkowski, (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 59-61, 82; Heyd, ibid., 169-170. 83 İnalcık, “Türk İslam Devletleri’nde Devlet Kanunu Geleneği”, Osmanlı’da Devlet, Hukuk, Adâlet, (İstanbul: Eren Yayınları, 2005), 34. Mehmed II’s criminal code was divided into three chapters respectively related to fornication; brawls, wounding, and homicide; and drinking, defamation, and theft. Halil Cin-Ahmet Akgündüz, Türk Hukuk Tarihi, c. 1, (Konya: Selçuk Üniversitesi Yayınları, 1989), 283. The classical Islamic law (fiqh) classifies punishments in three categories: hadd, qisas, and tazir. The crimes such as theft, banditry, and fornication were stipulated in the hadd, offences committed against persons in the qisas, and crimes endangering public order and state security were in the ta’zir and siyasa categories. 84 Ahmet Akgündüz, Mukayeseli İslam ve Osmanlı Hukuku Külliyatı, (Diyarbakır: Dicle Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Yayınları, 1986), 804; Ahmed Akgündüz, Islamic Law in Theory and Practice: Introduction to Islamic Law, (Rotterdam: IUR Press, 2010), 23. 85 Peters, ibid., 71. 28

Peters notes that kanuns covered fiscal law, land law, and criminal law, which were not within the scope of shari’a.86

The oldest Ottoman criminal law code dates back to Mehmed II’s era.87 Uriel

Heyd argues that the aim of the Ottoman criminal codes in the classical age was not necessarily to protect society from criminals but instead from oppressive officials and fief-holders.88 Furthermore, Leslie Pierce argues that there was a strong link between sultanic sovereignty and punishment and the invisible bond between the Ottoman regime and local society.89 However, since local authorities mostly abused siyaset (the right to punish), severe corporal punishment in general, Ottoman sultans since the sixteenth century made an effort to control and curb their power of punishment and promote checks and balances in local governance through dissemination of law books, special penal codes (siyasetname), and justice decrees (adâletnâme).90

In order to strengthen their legitimacy, Ottoman sultans claimed to be rightful sovereigns by presenting themselves as ‘Zıll Allah’ (God’s shadow on Earth).

Ottoman sultans were configured by the state as patrimonial and divine figures for establishing justice, protecting taxpaying subjects (re’aya), and fighting against zulm, or injustice in a broad sense. After 1517, the Ottoman sultans became the protectors of the three holy cities Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem, which contributed to a significant shift in the status of the sultans. After the fall of the Mamluks, the Ottoman sultans

86 Peters, ibid., 72. 87 Heyd., ibid., 7. For a short bibliography of the Ottoman criminal law see Mehmet Akman, “Osmanlı Ceza Hukuku Çalışmaları Üzerine Bir İcmal”, TALİD, 3:5, (İstanbul, 2005), 489-512. 88 Heyd., ibid., Heyd, ibid., 176. For a discussion of to what extent the Ottoman criminal law applied see Heyd, ibid., 148-157; for a brief discussion about the Ottoman penal codes see Fariba Zarinebaf, Crime and Punishment in Istanbul (1700-1800), (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010), 152- 154. 89 Leslie Peirce, Morality Tales: Law and Gender in the Ottoman Court of Aintab, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003), 312. 90 Peirce, ibid., 318-331; Heyd, ibid., 259-271; Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire, 21. For siyaset punishment see Ahmet Mumcu, Osmanlı Devleti’nde Siyaseten Katl, (Ankara: Phoenix, 2007); Mustafa Avcı, Osmanlı Hukukunda Suçlar ve Cezalar, (İstanbul: Gökkubbe, 2004). See Halil İnalcık, “Adâletnameler”, in Osmanlı’da Devlet, Hukuk, Adâlet, 75-194; İnalcık, “Adâletnâme”, TDNVİA, v. 1, 1988, 346-347. 29

began to use the titles ‘Caliph’ and ‘Khadimü’l-Harameyn’, servant of the two sacred cities. These titles were reserved for illustrating non-genealogical lineage to the

Prophet; the Ottoman dynasty did not claim kinship ties with the Prophet Muhammad, but used the titles to define themselves as the protectors of Islam and Muslims. These were notable symbols referring to religious and political authority in the early modern world, and these titles were even used until the first decades of the twentieth century. 91 The title of Caliph and the Shadow of God symbolized the Ottoman sultan’s ‘divine right’ to rule, and supported the legitimacy of the Ottoman sultans who ruled the Empire for six hundred years.92 The monumental ‘Tower of Justice’ at the Topkapı Palace in the imperial city, İstanbul, was symbolic of the Sultan’s justice and his ‘God-given’ power made visible for residents and visitors at the center of the

Empire.93

The sultanic laws influenced not only subjects of the Empire, but also government officials regardless of their class. Thus, erkan-ı erbaa, a class which included warriors, bureaucrats, agriculturists, merchants-guild members, and even religious scholars (ülema), who were privileged because of their religious status and not in any way ‘slaves’ of the Sultan, were to be punished in response to any act of oppression, injustice, or corruption.94 In addition to several codifications of customary and imperial law, Ottoman sultans disseminated decrees of justice (âdaletname), as

91 See Selim Deringil, “Legitimacy Structures in the Ottoman State: The Reign of Abdulhamid II (1876-1909)”, IJMES, 23:3, Aug. 1991, 345-359. 92 Hakan Karateke, “Legitimizing the Ottoman Sultanate: A Framework for Historical Analysis”, in Legitimizing the Order: The Ottoman Rhetoric of State Power, eds. Hakan T. Karateke-Maurus Reinkowski, (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 21. See Colin Imber, “Ideals and legitimation in early Ottoman history”, in Süleyman the Magnificent and His Age: The Ottoman Empire in the Early Modern World, eds. Metin Kunt-Christine Woodhead, (New York: Longman, 1995), 138-153. 93 Norman Itzkowitz, Ottoman Empire and Islamic Tradition, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), 57-59. 94 Boğaç A. Ergene, “On Ottoman Justice: Interpretations in Conflict (1600-1800)”, in Islamic Law and Society, v. 8, n. 1, (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 55-62. Suleiman I (the Magnificent) did not hesitate to execute his famous grand vizier and also close friend, İbrahim Pasha, due to his designs on the sultanate. Peirce, ibid., 315. 30

mentioned above, in which the sultan promised justice and redress of the subjects’ grievances in order to prevent injustice. These decrees addressed compulsory work

(corvée) and bribery in the provinces, and also aimed to enforce criminal law throughout the Empire.

As Pierce argues, Ottoman legal administration is a system of two justices,

“one for members of the ruling class and one for ordinary citizens of the Empire”.95

While high-ranking state officials and military commanders were subject to the sultan’s judgment and could be executed without trial by a judge, ordinary citizens as well as these notables, were subject to a judge and his court.96 The Ottoman courts, governed by the judge (kadı) and the judge’s deputy (na’ib), who both served as mediators between the state and society, were the stages for disseminating justice throughout the Empire.97 The Ottoman courts were also used as local councils to solve local issues.98 The testimonies and oaths of the members of local communities also played an important role in a judge’s jurisdiction in criminal trials.99 The Ottoman court records (sijills), which are invaluable sources specifically for historians writing social, economic, and legal history of the Empire, are full of these types of

95 Peirce, ibid., 314. 96 Peirce, ibid., 314. 97 Heyd, ibid., 208-258. As İnalcık has shown, Ottoman kadıs and na’ib frequently abused their legal and executive power. İnalcık, “Adâletnâmeler”, 106-110. See Ebru Boyar-Kate Fleet, eds., A Social History of Ottoman Istanbul, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 110-111. Fleet and Boyar notes that in 1590, kadis were arrested due to abuse of their positions and some danişmends (assistans to the kadis) and theological students gathered in Fatih mosque in order to protest these arrests, but seven kadis were imprisoned in Yedikule. 98 Zarinebaf, ibid., 5. For an anthropological perspective of dispute resolution in Ottoman courts see Haim Gerber, State, Society, and Law in Islam; Boğaç Ergene, “Pursuing Justice in an Islamic Context: Dispute Resolution in Ottoman Courts of Law”, in Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 27, (Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 2004), pp. 51-71; Iris Agmon-Ido Shahar, “Theme Issue: Shifting Perspectice in the Study of Shari’a Courts: Methodologies and Paradigms”, Islamic Law and Society, v. 15, 2008, 1-19. See İlber Ortaylı, “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Kadı”, TDNVİA, v. 24, 69-73. For non-Muslim courts see Zarinebaf, ibid., 146-148. For consular jurisdiction see Maurits H. Van Den Boogert, The Capitulations and The Ottoman Legal System: Qadis, Consuls and Beratlıs in the 18th Century, (Leiden: Brill, 2005). For kadı in the late Ottoman Empire see Iris Agmon, Family and Court: Legal Culture and Modernity in the Late Ottoman Palestine, (New York: Syracuse University Press, 2006). 99 For several examples driven from the cases in the Ottoman Court of Aintab see Peirce, ibid., 251- 375. Peters, Crime and Punishment, 70-71; ibid., 84-85. 31

testimonies dating back to the late fifteenth century.100 These testimonies exemplify to what extent Ottoman society surveilled itself. This type of surveillance can be related to the term ‘göz hapsi’, which can be defined as being under surveillance without being incarcerated. For instance, if a corpse was found in a village or neighborhood and the murderer was not known, at least fifty residents, mostly old and religious ones chosen by the relatives of the victim, should give an oath (kasame) to the kadı that they would help to find the murderer.101 These types of formalisms in Ottoman law pushed Ottoman subjects to surveil each other. Moreover, as Pierce notes, “The notables (ehl-i örf) were responsible for applying penalties, including capital punishment. They had the authority to torture certain suspects, primarily thieves, although they could not proceed to punishment without the judge’s green light.”102

Halil İnalcık states that Mehmed II’s criminal code was also applied during the reigns of Selim I and Suleiman I. 103 Moreover, the Ottoman penal code took its completed form during the reign of Suleiman I under the guidance of Şeyhülislam

Ebussuud Efendi.104 The Ottoman criminal code of the classical period covered a great range of punishments, from capital to corporal. The capital punishments included hanging, impaling, decapitating, cutting the criminal into two, and throwing

100 See Boğaç A. Ergene, “Evidence in Ottoman Courts: Oral and Written Documentation in Early Modern Courts of Islamic Law”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, v. 124, n. 3, Jul.-Sep. 2004, 471-491. “Sid̲ j̲ ill.” Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Eds. P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs. Brill Online, 2013. Reference. University Of Cincinnati. 30 September 2013 http://referenceworks.brillonline.com.proxy.libraries.uc.edu/entries/encyclopaedia-of- islam-2/sidjill-COM_1069; Fethi Gedikli, “Osmanlı Hukuk Tarihi Kaynağı Olarak Şer’iyye Sicilleri”, TALİD, 3:5, İstanbul, 2005, 189-213; Gerber, ibid., 175. According to Gerber, sidjills are the best sources for examining the social history of the common people in the Middle East before the nineteenth century. Pierce notes that unlike the abundant records of court hearings, there is a lack of records regarding punishments in the classical age of the Empire. Pierce, ibid., 312. 101 Colin Imber, Şeriattan Kanuna, 251-254. The kasame procedure continued after the Tanzimat. For several cases see Ebru Aykut Türker, “Alternative Claims on Justice and Law: Rural Arson and Poison Murder in the 19th Century Ottoman Empire”, PhD dissertation, Boğaziçi University, 2011, 90-100. 102 Pierce, ibid., 327. 103 İnalcık, “Osmanlı Hukukuna Giriş”, 122. See Halil İnalcık, “State, Sovereignty and Law During The Reign of Süleymân”, in Süleymân The Second and His Time, eds. Halil İnalcık-Cemal Kafadar, (İstanbul: The ISIS Press, 1993), 59-92. 104 Zarinebaf, ibid., 154. For a detailed bibliography on Şeyhulislam Ebussuud see Pehlul Duzenli, “Şeyhülislâm Ebussuûd Efendi: Bibliyografik Bir Değerlendirme”, TALİD, 3:5, 2005, 441-475. 32

the criminal into the sea, while some notable corporal punishments included the bastinado (falaka), flogging, and banishment.105 Beginning in the sixteenth century, the Ottoman Empire began to rely heavily on the punishment of kürek, literally “oar”, a penal servitude on the galleys of the Ottoman naval fleet with an average duration of eight years as a forced laborer. 106 This was a common punishment in many

Mediterranean states with large navies such as Venice and France, and in the Ottoman

Empire this punishment persisted even after the Tanzimat.107 This type of punishment was undoubtedly related to the growing need of the Ottoman government for oarsmen on warships, as well as on boats for the transportation of stone, corn, and other

105 See Kemal Daşçıoğlu, İskân, Suç ve Ceza: Osmanlı’da Sürgün, (İstanbul: Yeditepe, 2007); Ali İhsan Karataş, Osmanlı Dönemi Bursa Sürgünleri (18.-19. Asırlar), (İstanbul: Emin Yayınları, 2009); Osman Köksal, “Osmanlı Hukukunda Bir Ceza Olarak Sürgün ve İki Osmanlı Sultanının Sürgünle İlgili Hatt-ı Hümayunları”, Osmanlı Tarihi Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Dergisi, v. 19, Ankara, 2006, 283-341. 106 “Kürek Cezası”, Pakalın, ibid., 342. 107 Suraiya Faroqhi, The Ottoman Empire and the World Around It, (London: I.B. Tauris, 2004), 127- 128; Zarinebaf, ibid., 6; Neşe Erim, “Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Kalebendlik Cezası ve Suçların Sınıflandırılması Üzerine Bir Deneme”, Osmanlı Araştırmaları, v. IV, (İstanbul, 1984), 81; Omri Paz, ‘Crime, Criminals, and the Ottoman State: Anatolia between the Late 1830s and the Late 1860s’, PhD dissertation, Tel Aviv University, 2010, 162-163. Faroqhi, ibid., 129, “Michael Heberer of the small Neckar town of Bretten, near Heidelberg in today’s south-western Germany, who rowed on Ottoman galleys during the 1580s/987–98, described a remarkable scene in which the owner of a galley, a powerful bey, demanded that the captain (re’is) increase his beatings of the slaves in order to make them row harder. The captain refused, replying that the slaves needed more food, not beatings. When the owner was unwilling to see reason, the captain resigned his post in protest, saying that the slaves were people just as he himself, and that he wanted to treat them as men and as not as animals.” Article 19 and its addendum of the Ottoman Penal Code of 1858 was about the kürek punishment. “Art. 19.- Kyurek is employment in arduous services with chains on one’s feet. With regard to the person who incurs the punishment of kyurek the system of exposal in public is also carried out; that is to say, an abstract of the Mazbata of the tribunal which has awarded the punishment is written in very large letters; the person to be punished is taken to a square or a place which is public thoroughfare in the town where he is found; and this abstract being placed on his breast, he is-after being detained and exhibited to the people for two hours there-sent to the place of his punishment, chains being placed on his feet. Criminals who are under eighteen years or over seventy years of age are held excused from this rule of exposal in public.” “Art 19 was amended by the following addendum dated 7 Zilhijjeh, 1278 (5 June 1862). The text is as follows: - Addendum.-Amongst Moslems and the Ulema and Sheykhs and Khatibs and Imams and amongst other communities the clergy are held excused and expected from the rule of exposal in public.” The Imperial Ottoman Penal Code: A Translation from the Turkish Text, eds. John A. Strachney Bucknill-Haig Apisoghom S. Utidjian, (London: Oxford University Press, 1913), 16. For a list of kurek centers see Yasemin Saner, “Osmanlı’nın Yüzlerce Yıl Süren Cezalandırma ve Korkutma Refleksi: Prangaya Vurma”, in Osmanlı’da Asayiş, Suç ve Ceza (18.-20. Yüzyıllar), (İstanbul: TVYY, 2007), 186. For galleys in the Mediterranean see John Francis Guilmartin, Gunpowder and Galleys: Changing Technology and Mediterranean Warfare at Sea in the Sixteenth Century, (London: Conway Maritime Press, 2003); Paul W. Bamford, Fighting Ships and Prisons: Mediterranean Galleys of France in the Age of Louis XIV, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1973); Fernand Braudel, The Mediterranean and The Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II, (London: Folio Society, 2000). 33

commodities.108 Another type of confinement was called kalebendlik, where prisoners were confined in fortresses such as in Foça, Bodrum, Amasra, and Sinop. This practice was not a very common punishment in the first centuries of the Empire but became widespread by the eighteenth century.109

As inherited from Islamic law110, imprisonment was mostly applied in the categories of discretionary punishment (ta’zir) and justice (siyaset) in the Ottoman

Empire. 111 Many Ottoman fetvas set the length of imprisonment with an unclear formula such as “the criminal is to stay in prison until ‘his repentance and moral improvement have become manifest’ (tövbe ve salahı zâhir olunca)”.112 Şeyhülislam

Ebussuud Efendi’s foundational fetva on the subjects also failed to provide a clear answer to the question regarding the limits of imprisonment.113 In the classical age, monetary fines were more common and also cheaper to implement than nonmonetary forms of punishment such as imprisonment. Especially in scantily populated rural areas, provisioning a prison to punish offenders and monitoring their functionality seemed costly to the Ottomans.114

108 Heyd, ibid., 304-307; Peters, Crime and Punishment, 99. For the Ottoman naval history see See Salih Özbaran, Ottoman Expansion Towards the Indian Ocean in the 16th Century, (İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2009); İdris Bostan, Osmanlı Bahriye Teşkilatı: XVII. Yüzyılda Tersane-i Amire, (Ankara: TTK, 2003). 109 Alev Çakmakoğlu Kuru, Sinop Hapishanesi, (Ankara: Atatürk Kültür Merkezi Başkanlığı Yayınları, 2004), 14. 110 Peters, Crime and Punishment, 65-68, Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire, 21; Yıldız, Mapusâne, 11-15. 111 Franz Rosenthal, İslam’da Özgürlük Kavramı: İslam Düşüncesinde Özgürlük Sorunu ve Boyutları Üzerine Bir İnceleme, (İstanbul: Ayışığı Kitapları, 2000), 56-65; Esra Yakut, “Tanzimat Dönemi’ne Kadar Osmanlı Hukuku’nda Taziri Gerektiren Suçlar ve Cezaları”, Türkiye Hukuk Tarihi Araştırmaları, 2, 2006 (Güz), 25-40; Metin Hülagu, İslâm Hukukunda Hapis Cezası, (Kayseri: Rey Yayıncılık, 1996); Necdet Öztürk, “Osmanlılarda Hapis Olayları (1300-1512”, in Hapishane Kitabı, eds. Emine Gürsoy Naskali-Hilal Oytun Altun, (İstanbul: Kitabevi, 2005), 101-129. 112 Heyd, ibid., 301-303. 113 “Habs-i medid için bir hadd-i mu’ayyen var mıdır? el-Cevâb: Yoktur, re’y-i hâkime müfevvazdır. Ve mahbûsun sebeb-i habsine göre takdîr olunur.”, Pehlul Düzenli, ‘Osmanlı Hukukçusu Şeyhülislâm Ebussuûd Efendi ve Fetvâları’, unpublished PhD. Dissertation, Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Temel İslam Bilimleri Anabilim Dalı İslam Hukuk Bilim Dalı, Konya, 2007, 106. 114 For economics of crime in the Ottoman Empire see Metin M. Coşgel, Boğaç Ergene, Haggay Etkes, Thomas J. Miceli, “Crime and Punishment in Ottoman Times: Corruption and Fines”, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, XLIII:3, Winter, 2013, 353-376, ibid., 356-357. 34

The seventeenth century was the era of the critiques written by the chroniclers such as İbrahim Peçevi and Koçi Bey who presented their works to Murad IV (r.

1623-40) regarding the increase of corruption, ‘a decline in lawfulness, and a failure of leadership in the post-Süleymanic empire.’ 115 As Karen Barkey eloquently underscores, the fluctuations in the monetary system, the price revolution, and increase of the population, particularly in Istanbul, were the major reasons for this corruption in the post-Süleymanic era that also led the emergence of banditry and rebellions throughout the Empire.116 Although both banditry and theft were in the hadd (fixed punishment for certain crimes) category in Islamic law, and while bandits were executed, in some cases crucified after their execution, petty criminals were either amputated or imprisoned in the seventeenth century.117

Ebru Boyar and Kate Fleet argue that Ottoman sultans “used the imperial city as a canvas for the graphic illustration of the application of punishment, where visuality and violence were intended to terrify and deter.” 118 Boyar and Fleet exemplifies the violent punishments in Istanbul as follows:

The decapitated heads of rebels were displayed on the ibret taşı, the ‘example stone’, situated in front of Orta Kapı, the middle gate within Topkapı palace. Traitors, such as the seventeen non-Muslim Ottomans who had helped the enemy on a campaign in 1790, were hanged from various city gates ‘as an example to the others’. The bodies of prostitutes, protected from male gaze by being put first into sacks, were also hanged.119

115 Daniel Goffman, The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 112-113; Koçi Bey Risalesi, ed. Zuhuri Danışman, (İstanbul: MEB, 1972). 116 See Karen Barkey, Bandits and Bureaucrats: The Ottoman Route to State Centralization, (New York: Cornell University Press, 1994); Christoph K. Neumann, “Political and Diplomatic Developments” in The Cambridge History of Turkey Volume 3: The Later Ottoman Empire, 1603- 1839, ed. Suraiya Faroqhi, (New York: Cambridge University, 2006), 44-62; Mustafa Akdağ, Türk Halkının Dirlik ve Düzen Kavgası “Celâlî İsyanları”, (İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2013); Mustafa Akdağ, “Genel Çizgileriyle XVII. Yüzyıl Türkiye Tarihi”, Ankara Üniversitesi DTCF Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4:6, 1966. For a post-revisionist approach of the sixteenth and seventeenth- century Ottoman Empire see Baki Tezcan, The Second Ottoman Empire: Political and Social Transformation in the Early Modern World, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010). 117 Peters, ibid., 37-38; Ömer Menekşe, ‘XVII. ve XVIII. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Devletinde Hırsızlık Suçu ve Cezası’, PhD dissertation, İstanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi, 1998, 130-134. 118 Boyar-Fleet, ibid., 111. 119 For other examples of violent punishment see Boyar-Fleet, ibid., 111-116. 35

As Boyar and Fleet point out, willingly or unwillingly the population of the imperial center was part of these violent scenes in the classical ages. For instance, the population of Istanbul closely watched and some attended the brutal spectacles of fighting and killing during the Patrona Halil Revolt in 1730 when Patrona Halil, an

Albanian soldier, and his friends revolted against the State and demanded the execution of the grand vizier Nevşehirli Damad İbrahim Paşa from Ahmed III (r.

1703-30).120 The eighteenth century was also remarkable for the rise of local dynats and notables (âyân) whose responsibilities were “to combat brindage, safeguard tax collection, and recruit soldiers” in their regions, and who also eventually became mediators between the imperial government and its subjects.121 To borrow a phrase from Bruce McGowan, during ‘the age of the âyâns’, these notables abused their authority to use discretionary punishment against Ottoman subjects.122

The aim of punishments such as the bastinado, imprisonment, fines, or penal servitude on the galleys was to reform the soul of the criminal (ıslah or ıslah-ı nefs), but the death penalty and corporal punishments were imposed ‘for the public order’

(nizam-ı memleket içün) in the Ottoman Empire.123 In her work on the legal history of the Ottoman capital, using mostly the early eighteenth-century galley and court registers as primary sources, Fariba Zarinebaf argues that the correctional ideas of the nineteenth century originated in the eighteenth century when the Ottoman penal

120 Boyar-Fleet, ibid., 118-119; Karen Barkey, Empire of Difference: The Ottomans in Comparative Perspectives, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 213-217. See Rifa’at Ali Abou-el-Haj, The 1703 Rebellion and the Structure of Ottoman Politics, (Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch- Archaeologisch Instituut, 1984). 121 Şükrü Hanioğlu, A Brief History of the Late Ottoman Empire, (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2008); 17-18. See Yücel Özkaya, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Âyânlık, (Ankara: TTK, 1994). 122 Bruce Mcgowan, “The Age of the Ayans”, in An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1600-1914, eds. Halil İnalcık-Donald Quataert, v.2, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 637-743; Özcan Mert, “Ayan”, Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Ansiklopedisi, IV, 1991, 195-198; Mustafa Akdağ, “Osmanlı Tarihinde A’yânlık Düzeni Devri”, Ankara Üniversitesi DTCFD, 34, 1966, 195-231. 123 Heyd, ibid., 312. According to the Article 22 of the Imperial Ottoman Penal Code of 1858 “The punishment of death and exposal in public are not carried out on the feast days of the faith and religion to which the criminal belongs.”, Bucknill-Utidjian, ibid., 17. 36

system started shifting from corporal punishment to correction, isolation, and rehabilitation. 124 Zarinebaf states that migrations, economic crises, fiscal and administrative reforms, and urban rebellions in the eighteenth century, increased the numbers of marginal groups in the Empire, particularly in Istanbul, which led

Ottoman officials to enhance control, surveillance, and policing of this vagrant population. According to Zarinebaf, flogging, penal servitude in the galleys, banishment, and imprisonment became common and took the place of shari’a penalties such as amputation and stoning to death in the eighteenth century.125

Eighteenth-century military, economic, and administrative challenges provided the ultimate impetus for reforms in the nineteenth century. Nizam, or order, was also a key term of nineteenth-century legal reforms. Selim III’s reform movements, particularly those known as new order (nizam-ı cedid) in the Ottoman military, were a definitive moment in the establishment of a new type of order in the nineteenth century. The new orders emphasized that if anyone would act against these orders, he/she would be declared a betrayer of Islam and the state. Local officials and power holders were specifically warned by the imperial center to apply the new orders strictly in their regions.126 Ultimately, the main motivation behind the new order was to create a centralized state in the nineteenth century.

The reforms of Selim III (r. 1789-1807) and Mahmud II (r. 1808-39) shared a common aim of reforming a number of the Empire’s institutions - from the military to law - in order to strengthen the centralization of the Ottoman government.127 Selim

124 Zarinebaf, ibid., 2-3. 125 Zarinebaf, ibid., 174. 126 For one of these orders, the Timar ve Zeamet Kanunnamesi of 1792-93, introduced serious warnings and threats to the fief holders in order to prevent acts of injustice in the Empire see Nizâm-ı Cedid Kanunları (1791-1800), eds. Yunus Koç-Fatih Yeşil, (Ankara: TTK, 2012), 3. 127 Eric Jan Zürcher, Modernleşen Türkiye’nin Tarihi, (İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2003), 63-64. See Carter V. Findley, Bureaucratic Reform in the Ottoman Empire: The Sublime Porte, 1789-1922, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980); Niyazi Berkes, Türkiye’de Çağdaşlaşma, (İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2002). 37

III’s reforms paved the way to establish the consecutive legal reforms, including a new body of law and a new system of courts (nizamiye) in the nineteenth century.128

The Ottoman government issued Gülhane Hatt-ı Hümayunu in 1839, the Hatt-ı

Hümayun in 1856, the codes including Code of Lands in 1858, the Law of the

Vilayets in 1864, the Law on the establishment of the nizamiye courts in 1869, and the Ottoman constitution (Kanun-ı Esasi) in 1876.129

Starting with the Tanzimat, the legal term “legitimacy” became part of

Ottoman law.130 The power of the Ottoman sultans to punish someone based on kanun and urf morphed into the principle that “there can be no crime or punishment without law (nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege)”.131 It was the starting point of the shift from the sovereign’s right to punish at his own discretion to formalized codes guaranteeing the rights of all subjects living in the Empire regardless of their religious background.

Thus, from now on, every defendant shall be entitled to a public hearing, according to the rules of the Şeriat, after inquiry and examination; and without the pronouncement of a regular sentence no one may secretly or publicly put another to death by poison or by any other means. […] we grant perfect security to all the populations of our Empire in their lives, their honor, and their properties, according to the sacred law.132

128 See Avi Rubin, Ottoman Nizamiye Courts: Law and Modernity, (New York: Palgrave, 2011); Sedat Bingöl, Tanzimat Devrinde Osmanlı’da Yargı Reformu (Nizâmiyye Mahkemeleri’nin Kuruluşu ve İşleyişi, 1840-1876), (Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2004); Avi Rubin, “From Legal Representation to Advocacy: Attorneys and Clients in the Ottoman Nizamiye Courts”, IJMES, 44, 2012, 111-127; Carter V. Findley, ‘Mahkama’, Encyclopaedia of Islam (2nd ed., Leiden: Brill, 1986); Milen V. Petrov, “Everyday Forms of Compliance: Subaltern Commentaries on Ottoman Reform, 1864-1868”, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 46:4, Oct. 2004, 730-759. 129 Hıfzı Veldet noted that the movement of ‘modern’ codification in the Ottoman Empire started with the Tanzimat and the Hatt-ı Humayun that marked the shift from the old nizam to the new one. Hıfzı Veldet, “Kanunlaştırma Hareketleri ve Tanzimat”, in Tanzimat 1, (İstanbul: MEB, 1999), 165. In his Ottoman history, Abdurrahman Şeref Efendi, the last official chronicler (vakanüvis) of the Ottoman Empire, stated that the Tanzimat reforms were not successful in terms of fulfilling the contemporary legal requirements of the Empire. As such, he argued that the Ottomans needed to follow the legal paths set down by the West to strengthen the Empire’s position among European states. Son Vak’anüvis Abdurrahman Şeref Efendi Tarihi: II. Meşrutiyet Olayları (1908-1909), eds. Bayram Kodaman-Mehmet Ali Ünal, (Ankara: TTK, 1996), 3. 130 İlber Ortaylı, İmparatorluğun En Uzun Yüzyılı, (İstanbul: Hil Yayın, 1983), 98. 131 Bülent Tanör, Osmanlı-Türk Anayasal Gelişmeleri, (İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2004), 89-90; Farhat J. Ziadeh, “Criminal Law”, http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t236/e0170; Bülent Tahiroğlu, “Tanzimat’tan Sonra Kanunlaştırma Hareketleri”, Tanzimat’tan Cumhuriyet’e Türkiye Ansiklopedisi, v. 3, (İstanbul: İletişim, 1985), 588-601. 132 Akram Fouad Khater, Sources in the History of the Modern Middle East, (Boston: Wadsworth, 2004), 13-14. 38

This excerpt from the Gülhane Hatt-ı Hümayunu illustrates not only the glorification of securing justice for Ottoman subjects but also the legal responsibilities of the

Ottoman government.133 The Tanzimat reforms paved the way for a series of criminal codes issued in the nineteenth century. Consecutive criminal codes, specifically the

1840 Ceza Kanunnâmesi, the 1851 Kanun-ı Cedid, and the 1858 Ceza Kanunnâme-i

Hümayunu, echoed the continuation of the ideals of the Tanzimat era, which stressed that all subjects of the Empire “from vizier to shepherd” were equal before the law.134

The Ceza Kanunnâme-i Hümayunu issued on May 3, 1840 included forty-two sections in thirteen articles and an epilogue. The Code of 1840 was prepared under the influence of the French penal code of 1810. Therefore, the code can be read as an amalgamation of shari’a, kanun, urf, and the French penal code. The new Ottoman code consisted of laws which “dealt with a variety of matters such as treason, incitement to rebellion, embezzlement of the public revenue, refusal to pay taxes, resistance to authority and some few alterations in penalties and procedure.”135 The fifth article of the third section of the code defined the punishment of committing violence regardless of the status of the perpetrator: anyone, regardless of status who committed any act of physical violence would be imprisoned from fifteen days to

133 In his prominent four-volume work of Ottoman history, Netayic ül-Vukuat (The Consequences of Events), published in 1877, Mustafa Nuri Paşa, an Ottoman bureaucrat who wrote the history of the Ottoman Empire from an Ibn Khaldunian perspective, emphasized the importance of the Tanzimat by pointing out that the framework of the Tanzimat aimed to protect security of life, property, and honor regardless of individual status and also to ban the torture of detainees. Mustafa Nuri Paşa, Netayic ül- Vukuat: Kurumları ve Örgütleriyle Osmanlı Tarihi, c. III-IV, ed. Neşet Çağatay, (Ankara: TTK, 1992), 288. See Taner Akçam, Siyasi Kültürümüzde Zulüm ve İşkence, (İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 1995). 134 Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire, 25-36; Paz, ibid., 47-74; Gülnihal Bozkurt, “Review of the Ottoman Legal System”, Osmanlı Tarih Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Dergisi, n. 3, (Ankara: 1992), 121, Gülnihal Bozkurt, “Tanzimat ve Hukuk”, in Tanzimat’ın 150. Yıldönümü Uluslararası Sempozyumu (31 Ekim-3 Kasım 1989), (Ankara: TTK, 1994), 271-277, Sulhi Dönmezer-Sahir Erman, Nazarî ve Tatbikî Ceza Hukuku: Umumî Kısım, v.1, (İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi, 1965), 127-134; Serpil Bilbaşar, “19. Yüzyıl Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’ndan Cumhuriyet’e hapis cezasının örgütsel ve hukuksal gelişimi: Hapishaneden Cezaevine”, Birikim, 136, 2000, 44-48. 135 The Imperial Ottoman Penal Code, ibid., xii. 39

three months. 136 The first article of the ninth section of the Code proposed imprisonment against offenses of unpaid taxes, one of the most common crimes in the

Empire.137

The Kanun-ı Cedid (New Code) issued in 1851 provides some interesting examples of the beginnings of a transition from corporal punishment to imprisonment within Ottoman systems of justice. This code consisted of three sections and forty- three articles and was almost a duplicate of the Code of 1840 with minor changes. The fifteenth article of the second section of the Code stipulated the punishment for women murderers. According to the Code, female murderers should be punished as male and confined in a separate prison designated solely for female criminals.

According to the law, if a convict, in this context, a murderer, did not have relatives, the Ottoman government would subsidize him or her with subsistence and clothes.138

This provisional intervention by the Ottoman government in the 1840s-50s shows that the state did not take responsibility for providing for the daily needs of prisoners except in desperate circumstances. Most prisoners did not have even a bed, but slept on the floor. The nineteenth article of the third section is also interesting: if a grocer, butcher, baker or other such provider of foodstuffs were found to have manipulated the substances they sold, they would have been bastinadoed in front of the prison. If they continued their manipulations, they would be imprisoned. This article depicts the blurry line of the shift from corporal punishment to imprisonment in the mid-

136 “…her hangi sınıfdan olur ise olsun, bir kimse diğer bir kimseye el kaldırıp döğecek veyahut bir alet ile darbedecek olur ise, ber minval-i muharrer iktiza eden mahalde davası görüldükten sonra kabahatinin derecesine göre onbeş günden üç aya kadar hapis oluna…” Akgündüz, Osmanlı Hukuku Külliyatı, 813. 137 “..ez-cümle büyük ve küçük herkes kuvvet-i maliye ve kemiyet-i emlâkine göre tayin olunacak vergisini vakit ve zamaniyle vermesi farîza-i zimmeti olmakla bu hususda muhalefeti vukuunda ahz ve habs ile icbar oluna.” Akgündüz, Mukayeseli İslam, ibid., 817. 138 Akgündüz, ibid., 824. 40

nineteenth century, even as it hearkens back to the earliest shari’a punishments for malfeasance in the marketplace.139

The Hatt-ı Hümâyun of 1856, which delegated all civil and criminal matters between Muslims and non-Muslims to the jurisdiction of mixed tribunals, was followed by the Ceza Kanunnâme-i Hümayunu (Imperial Ottoman Penal Code) issued on August 9, 1858. The Code included an introduction and three sections and two hundred-sixty four articles.140 Although the Code was modified several times, as a foundational document it was valid until the first decade of the twentieth century. The codifications of law in the Tanzimat period, especially the 1858 Ceza Kanunnâme-i

Hümayunu, sped up the institutionalization of Ottoman prisons.141

The Ottoman prison reform was a significant part of Tanzimat reforms designed to reconstruct the legal and bureaucratic institutions of the Empire. As Kent

Schull states, the Ottomans’ attempts to centralize and standardize its governmental apparatus was also related to the strategies of the empire’s survival.142 As Omri Paz has observed the criminal cases from the era of Tanzimat, internal dynamics and forces were at the core of the Tanzimat reforms.143 The Tanzimat reformers mainly

139 Akgündüz, ibid., 830. 140 See Ahmet Akgündüz, “1274/1858 tarihli Osmanlı Ceza Kanunnamesinin Hukuki Kaynakları, Tatbik Şekli ve Men’i İrtikâb Kanunnamesi”, Belleten, v. 199, 1987, 153-191. 141 Avi Rubin, “Legal Borrowing and its Impact on Ottoman Legal Culture in the Late Nineteenth Century”, Continuity and Change, 22:2, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 297-303. Rubin notes that in the nineteenth century countries throughout the world borrowed from the Napoleonic codes. Rubin, ibid., 281. Ekrem Buğra Ekinci, Osmanlı Mahkemeleri: Tanzimat ve Sonrası, (İstanbul: Arı Sanat, 2004), 53. See Dora Glidewell Nadolski, “Ottoman and Secular Civil Law”, IJMES, 8: 4, Oct. 1977, 517-543; İştar B. Gözaydın, “Türkiye Hukukunun Batılılaşması”, in Modern Türkiye’de Siyasi Düşünce: Modernleşme ve Batıcılık, (İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2007), 286-297; Gabriel Baer, “The Transition to Western Criminal Law in Turkey and Egypt”, Studia Islamica, 45, 1977, 139-158. In his Tezâkir, a compilation of historical notes or memoranda, Cevdet Paşa evaluated the transformation of the Ottoman legal system. According to Cevdet Paşa, the main causes of the need to translate, and then apply, French penal codes into Ottoman Turkish were the intensified commercial relations between the Ottomans and the West and the dissatisfaction of non-Muslims having their petitions heard at Ottoman courts that hinged on Islamic law. See Cevdet Paşa, Tezâkir 1-12, (Ankara: TTK, 1991), 62-63; Christoph K. Neumann, “Tanzimat Bağlamında Ahmet Cevdet Paşa’nın Siyasî Düşünceleri”, in Cumhuriyet’e Devreden Düşünce Mirası: Tanzimat ve Meşrutiyet’in Birikimi, (İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2009), 83-87. 142 Schull, ibid., 42-43. 143 Paz, ibid., 41

focused on penal elements: legal procedures, modes of punishment, and the conditions of Ottoman prisons. Furthermore, these reform attempts aimed to acquire the international respect to be counted as an equal of the European great powers.

Equality before the law in terms of judgment and punishment regardless of religious background became a more sensitive issue than ever before because of the heavy critiques of British Orientalists and officials. Evidence of the prevalence of this issue could be seen in news reports in British newspapers published in the nineteenth century and also correspondence between ambassadors and Ottoman officials. The

Ottoman Empire’s informal alliance with Great Britain, based on a set of shared interests, including enmity and wariness towards Russia, also increased the role of

British ambassadors and inspectors in the Ottoman Empire. 144 While the French influenced the Ottoman penal code and prison architecture, it was actually the British who were entitled to, and often did, inspect Ottoman prison conditions throughout the

Empire in the nineteenth century. Before going into the details of the reports from western prison inspectors, I would like to provide a glimpse of the Orientalist discourse and representations of Ottoman punishment and prisons through an examination of the nineteenth-century British press.

Punishment and Prisons in the Ottoman Empire in the Eyes of the British Press

The literature on Orientalism and the western representation of the Orient, grew markedly after the success of Edward Said’s famous work Orientalism

(1978).145 As this body of literature illustrates, the West’s interest in the East included

144 Hanioğlu, ibid., 77-78. 145 Edward Said, Orientalism, (New York: Vintage Books, 1978); Timothy Mitchell, Colonising Egypt, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988); Edges of Empire: Orientalism and Visual Culture, eds. Jocelyn Hackforth-Jones-Mary Roberts, (Malden: Blackwell, 2005); Gerald MacLean, Looking East: English Writing and the Ottoman Empire before 1800, (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007); Reina Lewis, Rethinking Orientalism: Women, Travel, and the Ottoman Harem, (London: I.B. Tauris, 2004); Irvin Cemil Schick, The Erotic Margin: Sexuality and Spatiality in Alteritist Discourse, (New 42

a wide-range of themes. Western paintings, travelogues, newspapers, and journals were full of stories from erotic representations of Ottoman harem to horror stories in

Ottoman prisons. However, thus far, we do not have a systematic analysis of the representation of punishment, prisons, and prisoners in the Ottoman Empire through western press, or comparative histories using both western newspapers and journals and Ottoman counterparts.146 The representation of ‘uncivilized’ punishment in the

Ottoman Empire and the ways in which its effects on the creation of the nineteenth- century rhetoric of ‘Oriental despotism’ through British press remain understudied as well. This section does not attempt to cover these broad topics instead it is only scratching the surface by providing a glimpse of the representation of Ottoman punishment in the nineteenth-century British press.

As Botsman argues, the nineteenth-century horror stories about ‘Oriental despotism’ served not only to appease the curiosity of western audiences about the

East but also position the East “behind the nations of the West”. 147 Moreover, according to Botsman, these representations and stories strengthened extraterritoriality of the West that helped to secure Western commercial, political, and

York: Verso, 1999); Leslie Peirce, The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993); Imperialism and Orientalism: A Documentary Sourcebook, (Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers, 2000); Gülgûn Üçel-Aybet, Avrupalı Seyyahların Gözünden Osmanlı Dünyası ve İnsanları (1530-1699), (İstanbul: İletişim, 2010); Oryantalistlerin İstanbul’u, eds. Zeynep İnankur-Semra Germaner, (İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2008), Victor Haki, “Orientalism on the Margins: The Ottoman Empire under Russian Eyes”, Kritika: Exploration in Russian and Eurasian History, 12:2, Spring 2011, 321-351; Susan Beth Taylor, ‘Ruining Oppositions: Orientalism and the Constructions of Empire in British Romanticism’, PhD dissertation, Brown University, 1993; Pamela D. Toler, ‘Building the Orient of the Imagination: Excess, Confusion, and Violence in Orientalist Painting and Literature’, PhD Dissertation, the University of Chicago, 2003; Stephen R. Jankiewicz, ‘The Intimate Orient: British Cross-Cultural Encounters, 1850-1950’, PhD dissertation, The State University of New Jersey, 2005. 146 Most of the works use British press only within the context of political history. For instance, Aytül Tamer, ‘Birinci Dünya Savaşı’nda İngiltere ve ABD’nin Osmanlı Devleti’ne Karşı Yürüttüğü Propaganda Faaliyetlerinin Amerika ve İngiliz Basını Bağlamında İncelenmesi’, PhD dissertation, Ankara Üniversitesi, 2010; Mehmet Yetişgin, “Batı basınından Osmanlı Devleti’ne yaklaşımlar ve Osmanlıların bu yaklaşımlara tepkileri”, Ankara Üniversitesi Osmanlı Tarihi Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Dergisi, 28, 2010, 119-162. 147 Botsman, ibid., 131-140. I would like to thank Dr. Raja Adal for drawing my attention to the extraterritoriality and unequal treaties in nineteenth-century Japan. 43

imperial interests in the East through “unequal treaties”.148 In his comparative work on the emergence, function, and abolition of extraterritorial courts in non-Western states, particularly in Japan, the Ottoman Empire, and China, Turan Kayaoğlu argues that non-Western states attempted to use legal institutionalization for the abolition of the western extraterritoriality and these types of unequal treaties.149 Thus, did horror stories about Ottoman courts, penal system, and the poor conditions of Ottoman prisons published in the British press play any role for justification of the western

‘legal orientalism’150, as Kayaoğlu refers to the idealized superiority of western law, regarding the Ottoman Empire? Was there any kind of link between these stories and the civilized/uncivilized rhetoric of western officials? How did the Ottoman officials react and respond to these stories that undermined the image of the Empire?

Horror and torture stories spread from the Ottoman Empire about European captives, mostly envoys and tradesmen confined in the dungeons of the Empire, and circulated throughout the territories of Europe from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century. Moreover, the boost of the metropolitan and local press in Britain particularly in the mid-nineteenth century with the widening demand of European readers and the improvement of the printing technology played a significant role in spreading these stories.151

148 Botsman, ibid., 139. 149 See Turan Kayaoğlu, Legal Imperialism: Sovereignty and Extraterritoriality in Japan, the Ottoman Empire, and China, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010); Eliana Augusti, “From Capitulations and Unequal Treaties: The Matter of an Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in the Ottoman Empire”, Journal of Civil Law Studies, 4:2, 285-307; Halil İnalcık, “Osmanlı’nın Avrupa ile Barışıklığı: Kapitülasyonlar ve Ticaret”, Doğu Batı, 6:24, 2003, 55-81; Nevin Ünal Özkorkut, “Kapitülasyonların Osmanlı Devleti’nin Yargı Yetkisine Getirdiği Kısıtlamalar”, Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Dergisi, 53:2, 2004, 83-94. 150 Kayaoğlu, ibid., 30-35. 151 For the history of the nineteenth-century British press see Kevin Williams, Read All About It!: A history of the British newspaper, (New York: Routledge, 2010), 1-23, 75-151; Stephen E. Koss, The Rise and Fall of the Political Press in Britain, v. 1, The Nineteenth Century, (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1981); Andrew Hobbs, ‘Reading the local paper: Social and cultural functions of the local press in Preston, Lancashire, 1855-1900’, PhD dissertation, the University of Central Lancashire, 2010. 44

On December 1, 1813, the Scots Magazine, published a long article on the

Seven Towers (Yedikule) and the Bagnio (Tersane) in Istanbul. 152 This article reprinted excerpts from French diplomat, writer, traveler, and historian F.C.

Pouqueville’s travels153, in which he depicted the horrific conditions of the prisons in the imperial city when he was taken as a prisoner by the Ottomans during Napoléon’s invasion of Egypt in 1798 and imprisoned in the Seven Towers. 154 Pouqueville provides a detailed and literary description of the tower such as:

Towers filled with irons, with chains, with ancient arms, tombs, ruins, horrible dungeons, cold and silent vaults, a pit bearing the name of the well of blood, the funereal cry of owls and of vultures, mingled with the roar of the waves,-such are the objects, such the sounds, with which the eye and ear are familiarized in these dreary abodes.155

Pouqueville continues by stating that the Seven Towers was the prison particularly for the ambassadors of the states with whom Ottomans were at war. He claims that the

Sultan accepted these ambassadors even though they were prisoners of war as guests

(misafir).156 Pouqueville provides us information about the personnel (aga, bölükbaşı, imam) of the towers and gives its architectural details. In order to emphasize the cold, horrific, and violent nature of the towers, Pouqueville uses literary voice as he writes:

It is impossible to enter it without shuddering: never did the light of heaven penetrate into this abode of tears and groans; never did it echo with the voice of a friend come to console the victim whom despotism had condemned to death. The melancholy glare of a torch scarcely casts of a dying light, so entirely is the air enclosed in this abyss deprived of its vivifying particles [...]157

152 “Description of the Castle of the Seven Towers, or Turkish State Prisons”, the Scots Magazine, 1 December 1813, 889-894. 153 F.C. Pouqueville, Travels in the Morea, Albania, and Other Parts of the Ottoman Empire, (London, 1813). 154 For an extensive use of Pouqueville’s travelbook in the context of Ottoman prisons see Yıldız, Mapusâne, 37-48. Yıldız states that the Seven Towers resembled the European towers such as Tower of London of England, Bastille of France, and so forth. Yıldız, ibid., 39-40. 155 “Description of the Castle of the Seven Towers”, ibid., 889. 156 For Ottoman diplomacy see Namık Sinan Turan, İmparatorluk ve Diplomasi: Osmanlı Diplomasisinin İzinde, (İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2014). 157 “Description of the Castle of the Seven Towers”, ibid., 891. 45

Pouqueville also depicts the Bagnio, a part of the Tersane dungeon, where

“malefactors condemned to the galleys” were housed.158 He emphasized the ways in which the Bagnio was a part of ‘uncivilized’ world.

[...] this place has another destination unknown in civilised countries: it is used as a place of confinement for prisoners of war, and slaves taken on board Maltese vessels, the Porte [Istanbul] being always at war with Malta.159

Cambridge Chronicle and Journal echoes Pouqueville’s descriptions of the conditions of the Bagnio:

[...] Here are confined alike the ragged urged by famine to steal a loaf, and the rich banker instigated by avarice to deny a deposit; the bandit who uses open violence, and the baker who employs false weights; the land robber and the pirate of the seas, the assassin and the cheat. Here, as in the infernal regions, are mingled natives of every country-Turks, Greeks, Armenians, Jews and Gipsies; and here are confounded individuals of every creed- the Mahommedan, the Christian, the Hebrew, and the Heathen. Here the proud and the humble, the opulent and the necessitous, are reduced to the direst of equalities, the equality of torture. [...] Every day a capital fertile in crimes pours new offenders into this dread receptacle; and its high walls and deep recesses resound every instant with imprecations and curses, uttered in all the various idioms of the Ottoman Empire. Deep moans and dismal yells leave not its dismal echoes a moment’s repose.160

Almost two decades later, Devizes and Wiltshire Gazette published an article emphasizing the miserable conditions of prisoners in an Ottoman prison in Istanbul.

Imagine human beings of a pale greenish yellow colour, then conceive a skeleton, with a skin the thickness of parchment stretched over it, the bones being as visible as if there was no covering drawn over them. [...]They had no clothing, except such as decency demanded. To the waist, they were generally naked; and the scorching sun’s rays were shining on their bare shoulders, when men, who had clothes to repel the intensity of the heat, were carrying umbrellas in the streets. [...] I [an unfound, on enquiry, that they were mostly Kurds, or natives of Kourdisthan, a district that has always been rebelling against the Turkish government; and the poor wretches, doomed to drag on a living death in the bagnio, were peasants who were compelled to follow their chiefs to the field, when they have rebelled against the porto [porte?], and having been taken prisoners, they know not whether their incarceration be for life, or for what period.161

These types of descriptions of dungeons and prisons in Istanbul intermittently filled the pages of the British newspapers and journals. As seen above, sometimes they published excerpts from travel books, and in some cases, these stories were drawn

158 Ibid., 891-892. 159 Ibid., 892. 160 “State Prison at Constantinople”, Cambridge Chronicle and Journal, 24 December, 1819, 4. 161 “Turkish Prison”, Devizes and Wiltshire Gazette, 16 November 1837, 4. 46

from literary works.162Often, the exact same stories were published in various papers at different times.

The trade agreements between the Ottoman Empire and European states, such as the Anglo-Ottoman trade agreement signed by Mustafa Reşid Paşa, the Minister of

Foreign Affairs of the Ottoman Empire, and British ambassador Ponsonby in 1838, which offered trade privileges to Britain, resulted in strengthening the integration of the Ottoman economy to the European markets. 163 However, economic privileges and capitulations paved the way for European political interventions to the Empire.164

After the Crimean War, the Ottomans were indebted particularly to Great Britain and eventually in 1876 they faced bankruptcy. 165 Thus, in this weakened financial and political state, the Ottoman Empire became an arena of power struggles for the

European great powers. Ottoman prison reform was also a part of ‘the Eastern

Question’ in European politics or, as it was mostly called by the British press, ‘the

Turkish question’.166 British newspaper columns of the 1830s and 1840s heralded news coming from the imperial center that addressed the ways in which Tanzimat reforms would benefit non-Muslim subjects of the Empire, however, the focus of

162 See “Literary Selections”, The Newcastle Guardian, 4 January 1862, 6. 163 Şevket Pamuk, Osmanlı Ekonomisinde Bağımlılık ve Büyüme (1820-1913), (İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı, 2005), 17-22; Sevim Ünal, “Tanzimat Döneminde Dış Politika”, in Tanzimat’ın 150. Yıldönümü Uluslararası Sempozyumu, Ankara: 31 Ekim-3 Kasım 1989, (Ankara: TTK, 1994), 203-210. 164 Albert Hourani, “Ottoman Reform and the Politics of Notables”, in Beginnings of Modernization in the Middle East: The Nineteenth Century, eds. William R. Polk-Richard L. Chambers, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968), 64-68. 165 For the bankruptcy of 1876 see Emine Kıray, Osmanlı’da Ekonomik Yapı ve Dış Borçlar, (İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 1995), 144-180; Murat Birdal, The Political Economy of Ottoman Public Debt: Insolvency and European Financial Control in the Late Nineteenth Century, (London: I.B. Tauris, 2010). 166 Schull, ibid., 42-43; Roderic H. Davison, Reform in the Ottoman Empire (1856-1876), (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963), 8-9. According to Davison “the Tanzimat period cannot be considered simply as a phase of the Eastern Question, and examined from the outside looking in. The changes within the empire cannot be measured solely in terms of the amount of prodding from European powers.” On the Eastern Question in the late Ottoman Empire see Nazan Çiçek, The Young Ottomans: Turkish Critics of the Eastern Question in the Late Nineteenth Century, (London: I.B. Tauris, 2010); James Phillips, ‘The Eastern Crisis 1875-1878 in British and Russian Press and Society’, PhD dissertation, the University of Nottingham, 2012; Samuel Sullivan Cox, Bir Amerikan Diplomatının İstanbul Anıları, 1885-1887, (İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2010), 678- 681. 47

these columns later shifted to pages filled with the news of horror and torture, and also stories of ‘anti-Christian barbarities’, occurring in what the papers called

“Turkish prisons.”

In addition to the descriptions of prisons in the Empire, the British newspapers gave considerable publicity to the Tanzimat reforms167 and its executive figures as well. For instance, the Hereford Times published an article on November 17, 1838, on

Reşid Paşa, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Empire, and later the Ambassador of the Ottoman Porte in London. After mentioning his ‘novel’ achievements during

Mahmud II’s reign, Reşid Paşa was represented as a savior of the Ottoman Empire.

According to the article, “Turkey was infested by three scourges-monopolies, the plague, and the depredations of public functionaries” before Reşid Paşa introduced

“important innovations” such as the Penal Code “was published by his direction, which enacts severe penalties against the officers of Government who, forgetting their duties, are guilty of prevarcaration.” 168 Furthermore, on June 2, 1840, Morning Post published the articles of the first penal code, Ceza Kanunnamesi, issued one year after the promulgation of Tanzimat. The article emphasized not only the importance of the

167 “The Levant Mail”, The Morning Post, 7 May 1841, 5; “The East”, The Freeman’s Journal, 31 January 1842, 2; “Turkey”, The Morning Post, 21 April 1842, 3; “Turkey”, The Morning Post, 29 December 1846, 5; The Daily News, 3 November 1846, 2; “The Tanzimat and the Railway”, Wells Journal, 31 January 1852, 5. 168 “Redschid Pasha”, Hereford Times, 17 November 1838, 2. Cheshire Observer and General Advertiser published Reşid Paşa’s obituary on November 17, 1858. In this obituary, he was depicted as follows: “European in his habits and predilections, knew several European languages, kept no harem, and was ‘the husband of one wife’” and “beyond comparison the ablest among Turkish statesmen, and throughout his career was truly patriotic and consistent”. Cheshire Observer and General Advertiser, 16 January 1858, 5. The other British newspaper Elgin Courant also emphasized that “Reschid Pasha was European in his opinions, habits, and tastes.” after mentioning the benefits of the Tanzimat reforms for the subjects of the Empire. “Death of Reschid Pasha”, Elgin Courant, 15 January 1858, 7. See Tuncer Baykara, “Mustafa Reşid Paşa’nın Medeniyet Anlayışı”, in Mustafa Reşid Paşa ve Dönemi Semineri Bildiriler, Ankara, 13-14 Mart 1985, (Ankara: TTK, 1994), 49-52; Reşat Kaynar, Mustafa Reşit Paşa ve Tanzimat, (Ankara: TTK, 2010); Edhem Eldem, “Mustafa Reşid Paşa”, Toplumsal Tarih, 192, 2009, 6-7. 48

Tanzimat but also its notion of equal administration of justice and its emblematic motto “all men were declared to be equal in the eye of the law”.169

On the other hand, the British press frequently published any kind of acts injustice, real or perceived, against non-Muslim subjects, particularly English subjects, within the territories of the Ottoman Empire.170 For instance, on April 15,

1842, The British newspaper Morning Post reported a note penned by Stratford

Canning171, the British ambassador of the Ottoman Empire, and sent to the Porte calling “the attention of the Ottoman Government to the improper conduct of the

Pacha of Smyrna with regard to one of her Majesty’s subjects imprisoned by him and his Highness the Grand Vizier, acceding to the request of the undersigned, addressed a letter to that Governor in the desired sense.”172 According to the note, an innocent

English subject was in a Turkish prison on mere suspicion for eleven days without any proof of guilt and the Pasha of Smyrna (İzmir) was famous for torturing prisoners. These kinds of inhumane acts were seen as a violation of the Gülhane Hatt-

ı Hümayunu. Therefore, Canning blamed the Pasha of Smyrna by stating:

The Pacha of Smyrna has dared to inflict the cruel punishment of the bastinado upon a British subject without the knowledge of his Court, without trial, and upon a mere suspicion of having, in his trade of a butcher, sold meat below the proper weight. This action, which throws criminality upon the Pacha instead of the accused, is in direct convention of the 42d article of the convention and the undersigned demands, in the name of his Government, a distinct satisfaction adequate to the injury which has been committed in this as well as in the preceding case.173

169 “Turkish Penal Code”, Morning Post, 2 June 1840, 6. 170 The administration of justice and lack of security in the nineteenth-century Ottoman Empire were also among the hot topics in the western non-serial publications. See Alfred de Bessé, The Turkish Empire; its historical, statistical, and religious condition; also its manners, (Philadelphia: Lindsay- Blakiston,1854), 215-216. 171 For Canning’s reform attempts in the Ottoman Empire see Stanley Lane Poole, The Life of the Right Honourable Stratford Canning Viscount Stratford De Redcliffe: From His Memoirs and Private and Official Papers, (London: Longmans, Green, 1888); Leo Gerald Byrne, The Great Ambassador, Ohio State University Press, 1964; Michael Warr, A Biography of Stratford Canning: Mainly His Career in Turkey, (Oxford: Alden Press, 1989), 75-89; Allan Cunningham, “Stratford Canning and the Tanzimat” in in Beginnings of Modernization in the Middle East: The Nineteenth Century, eds. William R. Polk- Richard L. Chambers, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968), 245-264. 172 “British Interest in the East. Note from Sir Stratford Canning to the Porte”, Morning Post, 15 April 1842, 4. 173 “British Interest in the East”, Morning Post, 15 April 1842, 4. 49

On November 8, 1843, the Freeman’s Journal gave details about the story of an Armenian who arrived from Smyrna in Constantinople. According to the article, he was new to the customs of the capital and was condemned to hard labor in the Bagnio prison for four days followed by the punishment of the bastinado all simply due to standing with his coat unbuttoned in the imperial presence in Constantinople. He was released with the help of the principal Armenian bankers. The paper reports the incident as follows:

The Sultan, as I have already observed, has the privilege of looking at his subjects, who, on their part are forbidden to gaze upon him. Ignorance or neglect of this regulation brought an unlucky Armenian, a few days ago, into a serious scrape. Dressed in the height of Parisian elegance, and only to be distinguished as a Turkish subject by the fez he wore, he had the audacity to stand with his coat unbuttoned in the imperial presence, and look at his Majesty with as much unconcern as any other mortal. This indignity was forthwith resented, and the unfortunate wight dragged by the cavashes [kavas] to prison.174

As mentioned before, besides shari’a and kanun, the sovereignty of Ottoman sultans was based on urf that could be read as non-written rules and long standing traditions going back to the tribal origin of Ottomans. Although the Tanzimat curbed the sultan’s authority at some level by strengthening legal structures, the Daily News exaggerated the role of urf by claiming that the sultan “put to death fourteen persons every day by divine inspiration”.175

In 1855, while the York Herald published a vivid description of the police jail and its prisoners, some of them were under the British protection, by emphasizing the horrific conditions such as “rooms were jammed full of human life. Squatting against the walls, and extended in every posture on the floor were prisoners of all ages, of all dyes of crime, many heavily ironed [...]”176, the Caledonian Mercury covers an article on the prisons of St. Petersburg and made a comparison between Russian and Turkish prisons. According to the latter article, prisoners of all kinds and ages -criminals and

174 “The Ramazan-Turkish Fanaticism”, Freeman’s Journal, 8 November 1843, 3. 175 The Daily News, 29 January 1852, 3. 176 “Turkish Prisons”, York Herald, 22 December, 1855, 11. 50

debtors men and women, adults and children - were not housed together in Russia,

“like those in the Turkish prisons.” It seems a misrepresentation of Ottoman prisons at the time. In Ottoman prisons, prisoners were mixed regardless of their crime but men and women prisoners were definitely separated from each other.177

After many similar articles published in British newspapers and journals on the horrific and inhumane conditions of Ottoman prisons, and also the criminal procedure and treatment of prisoners in the Ottoman Empire, Paul Gadban, Ottoman

Consulate General in London, sent a note to the London Standard, on February, 29,

1864 as a response to the accusations and claims. The note attempted to repair the image of the Ottoman government in the eyes of European public. After referencing the ‘advanced civilization’ of the Ottoman Empire, Gadban noted that “by Imperial decree, torture is a punishable offence in Turkey.” His note argues for the Ottoman government’s respect towards non-Muslim prisoners:

The Ottoman government has been swayed by such sentiments in its conduct towards criminals as much as any other enlightened government in the world. The priests of every denomination are and always have been allowed free access to their imprisoned co- religionists, and they have every requisite facility to administer to them the consolations of religion. That such is the case is evident from the fact that, within the walls of the Bagnio attached to the Imperial Arsenal at Constantinople, there is a handsome Greek chapel, covered inside with rich ornaments and pictorial decorations, which is under the spiritual jurisdiction of a bishop and has several priests permanently attached to it. A government which exhibits so much solicitude for the mental comfort and spiritual welfare of the inmates of its prisons is surely incapable of the barbarous practice imputed to it in the statement to which I have referred.178 As seen in the excerpt, Gadban emphasizes the religious liberty in Ottoman prisons and more importantly sees religion as a rehabilitative tool for prisoners. As we will see in the upcoming chapters, as a common application in contemporary prisons, the

Ottomans used religious education as a part of this rehabilitative mission.

177 The article also discussed the prison system in Russia within the context and discourse of European civilization and architecture, and concluded by stating even “[…] the despotic and ruthless character of the Government” prisons in Russia seemed liberal. “[…] debtors may see their relatives every day, and criminals theirs on Sundays and holidays. There is, in most of the prisons, a Greek chapel for Russians, and a Lutheran for foreigners.” “The Prisons of St. Petersburg”, Caledonian Mercury, 20 December 1855, 4. These types of comparisons between prison systems in Europe continued in the nineteenth- century British press. See “How They Hang A Prisoner in Turkey”, the Star, 10 May 1890, 4. 178 “The Treatment of Prisoners in Turkey”, London Standard, 29 February 1864, 3. 51

The horror stories regarding the Ottoman punishment and prisons were attached to internal dynamics and politics of the Empire. Particularly, in the 1870s, the British press closely followed Ottomans’ attempts to deal with nationalistic and revolutionary movements in the Balkans. In the 1870s, the Balkans saw diplomatic and military tensions between separatist movements influenced by pan-Slavism supported by Russians, the Ottomans, and the Great Powers. The Russians put immense pressure on the Ottomans to reform the rights of Bulgarians, in particular.

When rebellion broke out in Bulgaria in April 1876, it was suppressed heavily by the

Ottomans. Hanioğlu states that this event changed the British imagination of the

Ottomans as “bloodthirsty Muslim tyrants brutally oppressing defenseless

Christians”.179 The numerous articles published under the titles of “The Horror in

Bulgaria”, “The Turkish Outrages in Bulgaria”, and “The Horrors of Turkish Misrule” in the year of 1876 in the British press clearly confirm Hanioğlu’s statement. The promulgation of the First Constitution (Kanun-ı Esasi) promulgated in 1876, gave constitutional rights to every subject of the Empire regardless of their religion or ethnicity, but this did not stop Russia’s declaration of war against the Ottoman Empire on April 24, 1877. The caricature depicting an Ottoman bastinadoing a man, probably

Bulgarian, with the caption of “The Unspeakable Turk inflicting an unspeakable punishment” published on the cover of The Graphic’s, a British journal, on December

1, 1877 [Fig. 1.1.] is an exemplary representation regarding the stories of ‘Turkish horror’ mentioned above.

179 Hanioğlu, ibid., 111; Zürcher, ibid., 113-115. 52

Figure 1.1. - “With the Turks – Summary Punishments”, the Graphic, December 1, 1877.

In his article based on consular and diplomatic reports on British perceptions of Ottoman judicial reform in the late nineteenth century, Avi Rubin examines anti-

Ottoman discourse in Britain. Similar to Botsman’s arguments regarding ‘Oriental despotism’ mentioned before, he notes that although free trade treaties integrated the

Ottoman economy with Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom, events such as national uprisings in the Ottoman Balkans in the 1870s spurred depictions of

“the Turks” as despot, cruel, corrupt, and anti-Christian by journalists, politicians, and intellectuals in Britain.180 Moreover, Rubin states that the British consulate in Istanbul and its consular representative in the provinces, specifically from urban centers such as Izmir, Salonica, Edirne, Beirut, Cairo, Damascus, and Aleppo where the commercial tribunals were established, sent reports to Britain. These reports

180 Avi Rubin, “British Perceptions of Ottoman Judicial Reform in the Late Nineteenth Century: Some Preliminary Insights”, Law&Social Inquiry, 37:4, Fall 2012, 994-995. 53

illustrated the skepticism, lack of confidence and deep concerns regarding the

Ottoman judicial reforms and its implication.181

Alongside this symbiotic relation between politics and these news and stories, religion was an issue that the British press stressed. For instance, in 1881, Mr.

O’Donovan, the Central Asian correspondent of the Daily News, was arrested in

Istanbul for insulting the Sultan and declared all the Turks as thieves in a public coffeehouse. 182 As the Graphic informs us, he was sentenced to six months imprisonment in Istanbul. As depicted in the [Fig. 1.2.], Mr. O’Donovan had to eat his

Christmas dinner in the prison under the stare of other prisoners. The Graphic gives very little information about his imprisonment and the conditions of the gaol as follows:

By paying a lira a day he was allowed to be in the room of the better class of convicts or those awaiting trial. In the ceiling may be noted a hole made by a prisoner who once tried to escape. The room is lit by a solitary lamp and one candle, placed on the stool which answered for a dinner-table. In the course of dinner Mr. O’Donovan remarked that he was accustomed to eat his dinner in durance vile, though never in such a vile place as the present.183

Shortly after his imprisonment, with the help of some influential friends, Mr.

O’Donovan was pardoned and released. 184 Apparently, Mr. Donovan’s Christmas dinner in prison drew more attention from the British newspapers and journals than the rest of his short period of imprisonment.

181 Rubin, ibid., 997-998. 182 “The Arrest of Mr. O’Donovan”, The Evening Telegraph, 23 December 1881, 3. 183 “Mr. O’Donovan Eating His Christmas Dinner in a Turkish Prison”, The Graphic, 21 January 1882, 51. 184 “Mr. O’Donovan Sentenced and Pardoned”, Morpeth Herald, 31 December 1881, 7; The Sheffield Daily Telegraph, 27 December 1881, 3; The Dundee Advertiser, 24 December 1881, 6. 54

Figure 1.2. “A Christmas Dinner in A Turkish Prison”, the Graphic, January 21, 1882, 52.

Nevertheless, the stories and numerous news articles about “the despot Turks” and their “horrible” prisons continued in the British press through the course of the nineteenth century. On August 3, 1890, Reynolds’s Newspaper reported that in addition to flogging and bastinado, some of the prisoners in Skopje, Macedonia, which had the largest prison in the province with its 149 prison cells and 1,811 prisoners, were tortured with ants.

The official who conducted me told me with a cynical smile, how this class of offenders [the worst offenders] is brought to confess. Hands and feet are bound together, and the man is placed at a pillar, to which his head his fastened. The victim is thus absolutely unable to move. There is always a stock of large ants kept ready in little boxes, and of these about fifty are placed upon the body of the poor wretch. The tortures he endures from the bites of these insects seldom fail to make him confess, no matter whether guilty or innocent. 185

185 “Horrible Scenes in a Turkish Prison”, Reynolds’s Newspaper, 3 August 1890, 8. 55

Figure 1.3. “A New Facts About Turkish Prisons and Practices”, The Illustrated Missionary News, September 1, 1893, Issue 9, 136.

In 1893, the Illustrated Missionary News made a contribution to the series of horrible prison and punishment stories by publishing a self-explanatory image and article [Fig. 1.3.]. As also seen in the Graphic’s caricature above [Fig. 1.1.], bastinado

(falaka) seems a common representation of punishment and torture in the Ottoman

Empire in general.186

Furthermore, on November 28, 1896, The Graphic, covers a story of the prisons in Istanbul and attempts to give insider information about the poor conditions of these places. In addition to the physical descriptions of the prisons, the article, written by their special correspondent whose name was not given, also aims to sheds light onto the miserable life in Ottoman prisons as follows:

[...] During the day the prisoner sits squatted against the wall, and at night he stretches himself out in the same place. Many have lived like this for years without a trial; many without knowing even the charges on which they were arrested. Once a day the food pedlar makes his round and takes the order for bread and cheese, which are brought in towards night. Those who have no money are allowed a loaf of heavy black bread each day. With all their misery, however, the prisoners do what they can to while away their time. [...]187

As seen in the [Fig. 1.4.], two prisoners were racing cockroaches or water bugs with a bit of straw, and according to the article that was a common game in these prisons, and the champion of the game also wins the day’s bread. Moreover, the article continues with more insider information about prison life.

Formerly prisoners of a more respectable class were put in separate and more comfortable apartments. Now all are herded together indiscriminately. For some time also there has been no forced labour, even the prison work at the arsenal being given up. Friends are allowed to send in or give clothes or small amounts of money. At the present time there is so much fear of bribery that no prisoner is permitted to receive more than one medjedieh [mecidiye] at a time, and that not oftener than once a week [...]188

As seen in the excerpts from the nineteenth-century British press, these news and stories played a significant role in terms of disseminating the Orientalist representations of punishment and prisons in the Ottoman Empire. The British press’

186 Almost twenty years before this news, some of the British newspapers covered Ali Nazmi’s story, a 22 years-old student of the Military School at Pangaltı, who was bastinadoed and beaten to death in Seraskeriate prison in Istanbul due to writing a letter to the Turkish journal Vakit, denouncing the illegality of Midhat Paşa’s banishment by Abdülhamid II. The Sheffield and Rotherham Independent’s correspondent gives the details of bastinado (falaka) punishment. “[...] that horrible instrument of torture known in Turkey as the falca-on which the sufferer’s body is stretched with his feet upwards, and the blows of the stick are administered on the sides of both feet [...]”,The Sheffield and Rotherham Independent, “A Turkish Student Beaten to Death”, 17 April 17 1877, 8; The Southern Reporter, 19 April 1877, 2. 187 “A Visit to a Turkish Prison”, the Graphic, 28 November 1896, 676. 188 “A Visit to a Turkish Prison”, 676. 57

main focus was on the Ottomans’ treatment against British subjects of the Empire and also any unjust acts against non-Muslims living in the Empire. The engravings and caricatures attached to these stories aimed to strengthen the image of ‘Oriental despotism’ among the eyes of their readers. Interestingly, these images did not include any illustration of the general prison (hapishane-i umumi) built in 1871 in Istanbul.

Instead, the British press in general preferred to make reference to the towers and dungeons, such Yedikule and Bagnio, which had been used as prisons since the classical age, in order to illustrate the time lag between the West and the East in terms of the application of prison reform that seems misleading.

Figure 1.4. “A Visit to a Turkish Prison”, the Graphic, November 28, 1896, 677.

‘Western’ Reformers for ‘Eastern’ Problems

While the nineteenth-century British newspapers and journals disseminated news about Ottoman prisons and the stereotypical horror and punishment stories from the Empire, British inspectors, mostly invited by Ottoman officials in order to

improve the standards of Ottoman prisons, penned reports stressing the need for more humane, civilized, and modern prisons in the Ottoman Empire. The Hatt-ı Hümayun of 1856 emphasized that for the sake of human rights (hukuk-ı insaniyye) and justice of law (hukuk-ı adalet), those who committed crimes should be imprisoned or detained for a short amount of time; further, corporal punishment and torture were abolished.189 The ferman also warned local officials to obey the new set of laws. The

British inspection reports also shared this kind of critical and suggestive language.

In the 1850s, Ottoman officials invited Major Gordon, an officer of the British government, from London to the Ottoman Empire in order to design the scope of

Ottoman prison reform. The Ottoman government provided him a generous budget and a house for 25,000 kuruş for rent per annum.190 The detailed report, based on the inspections of Major Gordon in Meclis-i Muvakkat (Interim Cabinet) founded at the

Meclis-i Ali-i Tanzimat (Tanzimat Cabinet), was read in the Meclis-i Vükela (Ottoman

State Cabinet). According to his report, the lack of division of prisoners based on their committed crimes and the overcrowding of prisoners caused disorder, as well as the death of many prisoners, in Ottoman prisons.191 In his report, Gordon also stated that prisoners became demoralized in Ottoman prisons rather than being rehabilitated and educated. Gordon noted that Europeans were worried about these poor conditions in

Ottoman prisons. To Gordon, the need for prison reform was a “humanitarian” one for the Ottoman government.

189 Türk Anayasa Metinleri: Sened-i İttifaktan Günümüze, eds. Suna Kili-A. Şeref Gözübüyük, (İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Yayınları, 2000), 27. 190 BOA., İ.HR. 155/8216 28 N 1274 (May 12, 1858). In 1864, Major Gordon’s stipend and benefits were discussed by Ottoman officials considering the abolition of his contract as inspector in the Ottoman Empire. BOA., İ.DH. 529/36582 17 R 1281 (February 13, 1865). 191 “[…]Habshanelerin şimdiki rabıtasızlığı töhmet-i hafife erbabıyla ceraim-i cesimeyi müterekkib olanların birlikde bulunmalarında kabil-i terbiye ve ıslah olan adamların dahi ahlaklarının bozulmasına sebeb verilmesi ve mahbusinin fena halde bulundurulmalarından naşi bir hayli adamın daima fevt ve telef olmakda bulunması kifayetine dair [...] Ecnebiler tarafından buna hayret ve taacüble bakılarak [...] insaniyetce pek muktezi ve mühim[...]evvel emrde dersaadet hapishanelerinin bir yoluna konulması zımnında bab-ı zabtiyede tevkifhane ve bir büyük hastahane ile sair zabtiye merkezlerine bir küçük tevkifhaneler yapdırılması […]” BOA., İ.MMS. 12/497 1 Ş 1274 (February 13, 1859). 59

On June 24, 1851, Stratford Canning, the British ambassador of the Ottoman

Empire, sent a memorandum to Ali Pasha, famous bureaucrat of the Tanzimat, on the improvement of the prisons in the Empire.192 Canning’s memorandum stressed the importance of humane principles and the progress of good administration of prisons throughout the Ottoman Empire. 193 Canning started his memorandum by giving examples from “the most civilized nations of modern Europe” and also the United

States and how they made great progress in the science of prison improvement.

Canning continued his memorandum as below:

All unnecessary rigour is gradually disappearing in those countries from public places of confinement. The health of every prisoner is there made an object of refined attention. Even that degree of comfort which is consistent with personal restraint, and the end for which penal laws are enacted, is by no means overlooked. Where matters of this kind are […] understood every prison is gradually becoming more and more a house of penitence and industry, a school of moral and religious instruction.

Canning praised these penal systems for treating crime like a disease, arguing this approach would benefit not only society but also criminals. Canning saw the improvement of Ottoman prisons as a requirement for Ottoman admission to the

European club of the ‘civilized’ states in the nineteenth century.

In Turkey, where prisons exist in every city and town of a certain extent, and where little attention has hitherto paid to the science of constructing and administering them, there is ample room for improvement without any considerable outlay […] in the present advanced state of human knowledge and public opinion, no government when it respects itself and claims a position among civilised communities can shut its eyes to the abuses which prevail, or to the horrors which past ages may have left in that part of its administration which regards the repression of crime and the personal constraint of the guilty or the accused.

Canning’s memorandum included the inspection reports on the conditions and management of the prisons, gathered from various parts of the Empire, collected by the British Embassy at Constantinople. Based on the reports, Canning’s formula resulted in five measures that needed to be taken to reform and improve the prisons in the Ottoman Empire. These measures applied to:

1. the building themselves, their position, dimensions, and internal distribution;

192 Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire, 26, 42-43; Yıldız, Mapusâne, 110-161. 193 BOA., HR.TO. 215/58 24.6.1851 (June 24, 1851); MVL. 246/49 4 R 1268 (January 24, 1852). 60

2. the means of lighting, warming, ventilating, and keeping the premises clean and dry; 3. the prisoners. Their safe-custody, health, fair treatment, moral amendment, and separation in classes; 4. authority within the prisons or over them. Its regulation. The responsibility of its exercise, and facility for carrying complaints to the controlling magistrate; 5. the means of religious consolation enjoyed by prisoners of the different forms of worship.

Canning further emphasized the importance of the separation of prisoners due to their crimes, and added that “boys and youths cannot be confined in the same room with offenders of mature age”. Regarding the health precautions in prisons, Canning states that:

Whatever relates more particularly to the regulation and control of authority in the prisons to the health of the prisoners in the point of cleanliness, diet, exercise, and medical aid, to their religious consolation and protection from arbitrary and cruel violence, is also capable in a great degree of immediate or early execution.

The analysis of the Consular reports attached to the memorandum also illustrated the conditions of prisons throughout the Empire in detail. According to the reports, criminals convicted of serious crimes were not generally confined with small offenders and debtors, although in some places they were. The prisons were generally situated either in or near the official residence of the Governor. These major criminals were sometimes confined in fortresses and dungeons at some places such as Salonica and Aleppo and the prisons were partially underground. The author of the report indicated that the space allotted to prisoners appeared to be very limited.

On March 3, 1860, another important memorandum on the conditions of

Ottoman prisons was penned by Henry Bulwer, the ambassador of England in

Istanbul, and sent to Fuad Paşa, one of the prominent figures of the Tanzimat reforms.194 His report was translated from English into Ottoman Turkish and sent to

Meclis-i Tanzimat. In his report, Bulwer stated that after he received information regarding Ottoman prisons from the British government, he aimed to draw Ottoman officials’ attention to the inhumane conditions of the prisons in Istanbul. He stated

194 BOA., HR.TO. 233/54 30.3.1860 (March 30, 1860); Yıldız, Mapusâne, 197-201. See Laurence Mark Guymer, ‘Curing the Sick Man: Sir Henry Bulwer and the Ottoman Empire, 1858-1865’, PhD dissertation, University of East Anglia, 2003. 61

that the conditions of the prisons were not only against humanity but also contrary to the obligations that the Sultan promised to fulfill for his subjects. According to the report, these bad conditions in prisons affected British subjects as well. After asserting that he was aware of the financial difficulties that the Ottoman government faced at that time, Bulwer made his suggestions to improve prison conditions in the Empire.

Firstly, he emphasized the importance of public work for prisoners, particularly in the summer season, to make them ‘useful’. According to Bulwer, the Ottoman government should let prisoners work in order to treat their physical and moral conditions instead of confining them “like wild animals in unhealthy cages”.

According to Bulwer’s report, using prisoners as a labor force could not only solve the problem of the overcrowded population in Ottoman prisons but also benefit the economy of the Ottoman government. 195 Furthermore, Bulwer emphasized the benefits of putting Ottoman prisoners to work as follows:

I call this subject particularly to your attention because it bears on the public finances, and offers a means for improving them but there are also various pressing demands of the same kind which nothing is at present being done by the government and people of this country to satisfy. The possibility of constructing rail-roads thro the means of foreign capital mislead of operating as an impediment should operate as a reason for establishing ordinary roads by native effort and industry: The one not only feeding but furnishing an inducement for making other. In the meantime the next four months might be occupied in at least cleaning the present prisons and adding in some degree to their comfort and convenience, as well as in framing much plans for prison discipline as are practicable without deferring all reforms unlike some system of reform which you may not be able to execute can be carried out.196

According to Bulwer, working at mines and on road construction would help

Ottoman prisoners to improve their morals, as similar work had done with prisoners in

Europe.

The nineteenth, twentieth and the thirty-fourth articles of Ceza Kanunname-i

Hümayunu of 1858 gave details about using prisoners as a workforce. According to

195 BOA., İ.DH. 468/31279 25 B 1277 (February 6, 1861). “[...] uygunsuz hapishanelerde tahminden ziyade bulunan mahbusinin görmekde oldukları ızdırabın adem-i vuku ve sıhhat-i ahalice kaidelü olmasıyla beraber menafi-i mülkiye ve maliye istihsali için mahbusların öyle(?) maden ve tesviye-i tarik hidmetlerinde kullanılması vakıa pek ala bir şey olacağından […]” 196 BOA., HR.TO. 233/54 30.3.1860 (March 30, 1860). 62

the related articles, prisoners could be used for hard labor (hidemat-ı şakka) such as carrying stones and digging at mines chosen by the Ottoman government. Although the Ottoman officials had a commitment to prison reform and agreed with Bulwer’s points on the improvement of prisons, correspondence between the departments of the

Empire and application of the reform took months. Therefore, the British Consulate sent another report penned by Edmund Stanley in 1861 about establishing ferme pénale (ceza çiftliği) in the Empire in order to use prisoners as workforce to simultaneously improve the health of the prisoners and improve agricultural methods in the Empire.197

Furthermore, much like Canning, Bulwer closely followed the cases of British subjects living in the Ottoman Empire. The Supreme British Consular Court also drew

Bulwer’s attention to the cases of British subjects, such as that of Angelo Corfiati, a

British subject from Corfu, who died in the Zaptiye prison on the 10th of February in

1861. According to Bulwer, “The charge was not proved against him but as Angelo was a man of indifferent character and antecedents, the Council, instead of ordering his release, decided that he should be referred to the Commission of the “Serseri”

(vagabond), who ordered him to be detained in prison awaiting an opportunity of sending him out of the Country with several other prisoners similarly situated.”

Bulwer closed his letter sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Ottoman Empire with a threatening tone as follows:

I should also add that if any person under British protection is hereafter kept for months in prison without some offence having been substantiated against him, I must consider such a case as wholly irregular, unjustifiable and illegal, and demand the prisoner’s immediate release, and some atonement for the imprisonment he will have undergone.198

The consulates in the Empire also used this type of threatening and critical tone in their complaint letters regarding the legal processes, punishment, and

197 Yıldız, Mapusane, 200-201. 198 BOA., HR.TO. 235/19 20.2.1861 (February 20, 1861). 63

confinement of foreign criminals, non-subjects, or those who were not subjects of the

Empire in this sense. The Ottomans generally confined foreign criminals in Ottoman prisons without regard to their citizenship. 199 Of course, this created diplomatic tensions between consulates and the Ottoman government, and also caused occasion for numerous correspondences between Ottoman officials and consulates. The

Ottoman prisons were also sites that were being visited and inspected by European ambassadors, consuls, and journalists.200 The consulates mostly criticized the poor conditions of Ottoman prisons that were against “humanity” and “civilization.”

Prison Reform in the Late Ottoman Empire

Although new criminal codes were issued in the first half of the nineteenth century, the establishment of ‘modern’ prisons in the Ottoman Empire could not be realized until the year of 1871 when the first public prison (hapishane-i umumi) was founded in Istanbul as noted before. The grand vizier and high officials attended the opening of the prison. The public was also allowed to visit the prison in its first days. 201 It seems that the Ottoman government aimed to show off the Empire’s genuine intention to modernize prisons to its subjects and to European representatives alike.202 Interestingly, the first prison was located in Sultanahmet in the center of the historic peninsula of the imperial city.

The Ottoman Turkish word hapishane, or prison, was formed etymologically through a combination of habs in Arabic and hane in Persian. In Arabic, mostly habs, sidjn, and sometimes cubb, which means deep well or pit, were used in reference to

199 G.B. Berridge notes that since the consulate did not have a proper prison, the British consulate was “obliged to used the Turkish prisons in criminal, and even in police cases.” G.R. Berridge, British Diplomacy in Turkey, 1583 to the present: A Study in the evolution of the residen embassy, ed. Jan Melissen, (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009), 18. 200 In 1857, the British consul visited Tersane-i Amire, and in 1858 Mösyö Voranceki from Russian notables visited the mosques, palaces, and also prisons in Istanbul. BOA., HR.MKT. 193/57 22 L 1273 (June 15, 1857); HR.MKT. 237/10 21 N 1274 (May 5, 1858). 201 Yıldız, ibid., 275-276. 202 Yıldız, ibid., 308. 64

prisons.203 The Ottoman Turkish language had twenty-four different words to refer to prison. The terms hapishane (prison) and mahpus (prisoner) were associated with the meaning of separation, which may have referred to a separation of the criminal from society.204 The term mahbes was also used to refer to the confinement of criminals not in purposefully built prisons but in the towers, arsenals, dungeons, shipyards, local officials’ palaces, and houses in the classical age of the Ottoman Empire.205 In his work on the establishment of prisons in the Ottoman Empire, Yıldız emphasizes the comparison between mahbes and hapishane. The terms “zindan”, “tomruk dairesi”, and “mehterhane” also referred to prisons. 206 According to Yıldız, since palaces, fortresses, towers such as Baba Cafer Zindanı, and Yedikule in İstanbul, dockyards such as Tersane-i Amire, and pashas’ houses symbolized the mindset of the ‘old’ world, they should be considered part of the category of mahbes. In contrast, hapishane aimed to transform prisoners and thus its purpose went well beyond merely locking up prisoners. 207 Although the Ottomans used these terms interchangeably even in the late Ottoman Empire, specifically the term hapishane came to symbolize the changed expectations represented by new sets of rules and regulations.

The promulgation of the Ottoman Constitution (Kanun-ı Esasi) in 1876 signaled the establishment of the Ottoman parliament. In his speech at the opening ceremony of the parliament in 1877 at the Dolmabahçe Palace, Abdülhamid II (r.

1876-1909) made references to Mehmed II and Mahmud II while stressing the significance of justice and law in order to strengthen order and reforms in the

203 Samira Kontantamer, “Memluklerde Hapishaneler”, in Hapishane Kitabı, 93. 204 Özkan Öztekten, “Türkçe’de Mahpus ve Hapishane”, in Hapishane Kitabı, 616. 205 See Murat Yıldız, “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Bir Saray Hapishanesi: 18.-19. Yüzyıllarda Bostancıbaşı Mahbesi”, Türkiyat Mecmuası, v. 22, Bahar, 2012, 239-275. 206 “Zindan”, in Mehmet Zeki Pakalın, Osmanlı Tarih Deyimleri ve Terimleri Sözlüğü, v.1, (İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Basımevi, 1971), 663. Pakalın noted that various buildings were used as prisons in the Ottoman Empire. 207 Yıldız, Mapusâne, 8-9, 188. 65

Empire.208 The Hamidian era also represented the establishment of nizam policies and several codifications of penal laws, such as Ceza Usul Kanunu of 1879 describing the role of the courts and justice personnel.

Schull emphasizes that the era of Abdülhamid II was an important breaking point in the course of Ottoman prison reform. Schull clearly underlines that the

‘Instructions for Administration of the Provinces’ issued during the reign of Sultan

Abdülaziz (r. 1861-76) provided a base for the prison reform package realized during

Abdülhamid II’s reign including the construction of new prisons, the inspections of the current conditions and needs of prisons, promulgation of new ordinances and regulations, and attendance at the international prison congresses.209

The concurrent reforms including the establishment of Zabtiye Müşirliği (the

Directorate of Police) and its regulations in 1846, 210 the founding the first municipality in the Empire in 1855, the regulation of general education in 1869 continued with the regulation of prisons in 1880. The Regulation for Prisons and

Houses of Detention (Tevkifhane ve Hapishanelerin İdarelerine Dair Nizamname) was issued by the Ministry of Justice in May, 1880. 211 It included ninety-seven articles, some of which were adopted from the French prison administrative regulations that generally aimed to improve the quality of the living conditions of prisoners, regulate the daily routines of prisoners, and set the requirements for prison personnel appointments. According to the Regulation, every province throughout the

Empire would possess a public prison (hapishane-i umumi) for the convicts who were

208 For the full text of Abdülhamid II’s speech see Türk Anayasa Metinleri, ibid., 56-61. 209 Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire, 46-47. 210 For the establishment of Zaptiye Müşirliği see Musa Çadırcı, Tanzimat Döneminde Anadolu Kentleri’nin Soyal ve Ekonomik Yapısı, (Ankara: TTK, 1997), 317-223. 211 For a detailed analysis of the 1880 nizamname see Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire, 47- 57; Yıldız, Mapusâne, 253-259. For the 1880 nizamname see BOA., A.DVN.MKL. 19/28 29 Z 1297 (December 2, 1880). For the transcription of the nizamname see Yıldız, ibid., 475-489. For similar suggested nizamname see Hatice Akın, “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Hapishane Islahatına Dair 1893 Tarihli Bir Nizamname Önerisi”, History Studies: International Journal of History, 3/3, 2011, 23-36. 66

charged with a sentence of more than five years.212 Moreover, the 1880 regulation constrained the possessions and practices of those confined in Ottoman prisons.

Henceforth, prisoners were allowed to carry no more than twenty-five kurush and were obliged to pray together at the same time. Their behavior and actions were recorded in personal prison records (ahlak sicili), which could be contributed to by wardens, guardians, and religious dignitaries.213 However, based on many external reports illustrating the conditions of prisons in the late Ottoman Empire, the regulation of 1880 aimed at improving conditions in the prisoners may have existed only on paper.214 According to Schull, the 1880 Regulation “signifies the Ottoman process of appropriation and adaptation of European prison regulations” and “served as the template for prison reform and administration throughout the rest of the empire’s existence.”215

The Tanzimat and post-Tanzimat reforms in the Empire were part of a larger process occurring for the most part on a global scale.216 As Selim Deringil states, the

Empire was interested in “minimizing the exotic and appearing as a member of the civilized family of nations”; to this end the Empire participated in international congresses focusing on issues from the “preservation of wild species in Africa” to world health, and prison reform.217 International prison congresses mostly held in

212 Edip Ünalerzen, “1296’dan beri Hapishaneciliğimiz ve Ceza Sistemimiz”, İstanbul Barosu Mecmuası, v. 8, (İstanbul, 1943), 483. 213 Ünalerzen, ibid., 485. 214 For the limits of Ottoman penal law and its application see Cengiz Kırlı, Yolsuzluğun İcadı: 1840 Ceza Kanunu, İktidar ve Bürokrasi, İstanbul: Verita Kitap, 2015; Cengiz Kırlı, “Yolsuzluğun İcadı: 1840 Ceza Kanunu, İktidar ve Bürokrasi”, Tarih ve Toplum: Yeni Yaklaşımlar, 4, Güz 2006, 45-119. 215 Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire, 47-48. 216 Ibid., 17. 217 Selim Deringil, The Well-Protected Domains: Ideology and the Legitimation of Power in the Ottoman Empire (1876-1909), (New York: I.B. Tauris, 1999), 153-154. There were also national meetings to improve prison system in the United States. The National Prison Association was founded in the year 1870 in order to facilitate the discussion of experiences between prison managers of the prisons in the United States and also to continue the prison reform under the light of penology and criminology. The first meeting of the organization where 24 states of the Union were represented was held at Cincinnati in October, 1870. Index to the Reports of the National Prison Association, 1870, 67

Europe were a stage to discuss not only the problems of the contemporary prison models in the world (including penal legislation and prison administration), but also methods to prevent crime and the treatment of young delinquents. In the process of prison reform, the Ottoman government sent its representatives, first as observers in

1872, and later as full members, to several international prison congresses such as the ones held in Petersburg in 1890, Brussels in 1900, and Washington in 1910 not only for sharing contemporary developments in modern prisons in other countries but also to illustrate that modernizing prisons was genuinely on the Empire’s agenda. 218

Although the Ottoman government did not send a representative to the international penal and prison congress held in Rome in 1885, later Ottoman officials realized that attending these congresses was essential in terms of illustrating their interest and motivation of having “modern” penal systems such as the Great Powers had implemented. Participants at this congress included Britain, Austria, Belgium,

Denmark, Spain, France, Greece, Italy, Japan, Norway, Sweden, and the USA. After much correspondence on who should attend the international prison congress in St.

Petersburg in 1890 on behalf of Sultan Abdülhamid II, Celal Bey, an Ottoman officer, was sent to the congress.219 This was a chance for the Ottoman government to present the prison reforms that had been occurring in the Ottoman Empire.220

In 1896, as Schull states, Abdülhamid II’s prison reform package also included the establishment of ‘The Commission for Expediting Initiatives and

1873, 1874, 1883-1904, compiled by Mary V. Titus, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1906), 5. 218 BOA, I. HR., 366/64 23 Z 1317 (April 24, 1900); BOA, BEO, 3704/277785 6 S 1328 (February 17, 1910). See Fatmagül Demirel, “1890 Petersburg Hapishaneler Kongresi”, Toplumsal Tarih, 89, (May 2001), 11-14; Nir Shafir, “The International Congress as Scientific and Diplomatic Technology: Global Intellectual Exchange in the International Prison Congress, 1860-1890”, Journal of Global History, 9:1, (March 2014), 72-93. 219“[…] Hapishanelerin tanzim ve ıslahı esbabının istihsali hükümet-i seniyyece düşünülecek en mühim maddelerden biri olmasına göre […]” BOA., İ.MMS. 86/3707 10 S 1304 (November 8, 1886); BOA., İ.MMS. 108/4616 16 Ra 1307 (November 10, 1889); Schull, ibid., 48. 220 Fatmagül Demirel, “1890 Petersburg Hapishaneler Kongresi”, Toplumsal Tarih, 2001, sayı 89, 11- 14. 68

Reforms’ (Tesri-i Muamelât ve Islahât Komisyonu). 221 The commission was responsible to inspect Ottoman hospitals, prisons, and other urban areas particularly with the focus of hygiene and health. Schull argues that Abdülhamid II’s prison reform attempts “strengthened the connections between the concepts of civilization” and “the centralization of administrative power.”222 Systematic intelligence reports

(jurnal) and ‘modern’ police forces were also part of the story of the Hamidian way of establishing power, nizam, and social control in the big cities of the Empire. Göz hapsi (being under surveillance without being incarcerated) was still a very active concept even as the numbers of official enforcers of morality and justice expanded dramatically. Intelligence reports on criminal and seditious activity were mostly collected by surreptitiously listening to the conversations, gossips and criticisms of ordinary people at coffeehouses, mosques, and khans. This practice dated to the sixteenth century, as Cengiz Kırlı has documented, but it reached perhaps its greatest extent under the anxious, watchful eye of the Hamidian political elite.223 Moreover, policemen, gendarmes, and soldiers also participated in night patrols that could be read as an indication of efforts to increase surveillance of the public by the state.224

Spy reports and censorship of newspapers created an atmosphere paranoia and

221 Schull, ibid., 49. 222 Schull, ibid., 49. 223 See Cengiz Kırlı, Sultan ve Kamuoyu: Osmanlı Modernleşme Sürecinde Havadis Jurnalleri (1840- 1844), (İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2009); Cengiz Kırlı “Coffeehouses: Public Opinion in the Nineteenth-Century Ottoman Empire”, in Public Islam and the Common Good, eds. Armando Salvatore-Dale F. Eickelman, (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 75-97. 224 Paz, ibid., 169-292; Roger A. Deal, Crimes of Honor, Drunken Brawls and Murder: Violence in Istanbul under Abdülhamid II, (İstanbul: Libra, 2010), 46; Ferdan Ergut, Modern Devlet ve Polis: Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyet’e Toplumsal Denetimin Diyalektiği, (İstanbul: İletişim, 2004), 145-151; Son Vak’anüvis Abdurrahman Şeref Efendi Tarihi, 5-8; Noémi Lévy-Aksu, « Building Professional and Political Communities: The Value of Honor in the Self-Representation of Ottoman Police during the Second Constitutional Period », European Journal of Turkish Studies [En ligne], 18 | 2014, mis en ligne le 03 février 2014, Consulté le 21 septembre 2014. URL : http://ejts.revues.org/4895. For the role of bekçi (watchman) in public spaces see Noémi Lévy, “Yakından Korunan Düzen: Abdülhamid Devrinden İkinci Meşrutiyet Dönemine Bekçi Örneği”, in Osmanlı’da Asayiş, Suç ve Ceza (18.-20. Yüzyıllar), eds. Levy-Toumarkine, 135-145. 69

constant surveillance in the Empire.225 Elizabeth Frierson eloquently states that “the

[Ottoman] press also was a site of new Muslim entrepreneurship operating within what was perhaps the most dense and manipulable matrix of society-state interactions, censorship carried on by three branches of government: Education, Interior, and

Police.”226 Frierson illustrates that the ways in which the Hamidian censorship was itself manipulated and in some cases bypassed with bribes and not always successful to suppress critical rhetoric against Abdülhamid’s regime.227 As shown by Palmira

Brummet, the satirical cartoons published particularly after the Second Constitution of

1908 illustrated the punitive actions and oppressions of police wearing western style uniforms under Abdülhamid’s rule.228 Brummet notes “the police in these images were accused of brutality, inefficiency, laziness, taking bribes, and looking the other way while citizens were victimized by criminals.” 229 Thus, according to these cartoons the criminals and Ottoman police were similar, and Ottoman subjects should be wary of both of them.

225 See Orhan Koloğlu, “Osmanlı Basını: İçeriği ve Rejimi”, in Tanzimat’tan Cumhuriyet’e Türkiye Ansiklopedisi, v. 1, (İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 1985), 68-93. 226 Elizabeth Brown Frierson, ‘Unimagined Communities: State, Press, and Gender in the Hamidian Era’, PhD dissertation, Princeton University, 1996, 49. 227 By examining Ottoman popular press, pocketbooks, and pamphlets, Frierson argues that the Hamidian cheap, illustrated press represents the expansion of Ottoman public sphere encompassing women and children through dictating and disseminating duties and responsibilities (vazife ve mesuliyet). See Elizabeth Brown Frierson, ‘Unimagined Communities: State, Press, and Gender in the Hamidian Era’, PhD dissertation, Princeton University, 1996; Elizabeth B. Frierson, “Unimagined Communities: Women and Education in the Late-Ottoman Empire, 1876- 1909”, Critical Matrix, v. 9, 1995, 57-92; Elizabeth B. Frierson, “Cheap and Easy: The Creation of Consumer Culture in the Later Ottoman Empire” in Consumption Studies and the History of the Ottoman Empire, 1550-1922: An Introduction, Donald Quataert, ed. (Albany: SUNY Press, 2000), 243-260; Elizabeth B. Frierson, “Mirrors Out, Mirrors In: Domestication and Rejection of the Foreign in Late-Ottoman Women’s Magazines (1875-1908)”, in Women, Patronage, and Self-Representation in Islamic Socities, eds. D. Fairchild Ruggles, (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001), 177-204; Elizabeth B. Frierson, “Gender, Consumption and Patriotism: The Emergence of An Ottoman Public Sphere”, in Public Islam and the Common Good, eds. Armando Salvatore-Dale F. Eickelman, (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 99-125; Elizabeth B. Frierson, “Women in Late Ottoman intellectual history”, in Late Ottoman Society: The Intellectual Legacy, ed. Elisabeth Özdalga, (New York: Routledge, 2005), 135-161. 228 For satirical cartoons depicting the police and criminals see Palmira Brummett, Image and Imperialism in the Ottoman Revolutionary Press (1908-1911), (New York: State University of New York Press, 2000), 266-273; Orhan Koloğlu, Türkiye Karikatür Tarihi, (İstanbul: Bileşim Yayınevi, 2005). 229 Brummet, ibid., 267. 70

Ottoman prison reform was linked to social policies that emerged in the late

Ottoman Empire. Surveillance, the keeping of records, disciplining, and using prisoners as a workforce were some of the outcomes of ‘modern governance’.230 The shift from corporal punishment to disciplinary policies illustrates the Ottoman government’s concern with its population in terms of security. Beginning in 1879, the centralized police force became a surveillance tool of the regime to track its opponents as well as to control the daily lives of ordinary people. In particular, one task of the police force was to regulate occurrences of vagrancy and other undesirable behavior. In reference to the Ottoman press of the 1890s, Nadir Özbek noted that the

Ottoman elite complained about beggars and idle vagrants who filled public spaces and the ways in which they could damage the image of the Empire in the outside world. According to the Ottoman elite, these groups were socially and morally ill.

Thus, the idle urban poor should be disciplined and put to work in order to strengthen the productive capacity of the Empire.231 The regulation on vagrancy and suspected criminals drafted by the Ministry of Justice in 1890 also represented the idle poor as

‘potential criminals’.232

The autocratic tone (istibdâd) of Abdülhamid II’s governance resulted in the establishment of strong opposition groups inside and outside of the Empire. As Şükrü

Hanioğlu states, these “opponents of the sultan were a motley array of ulema, bureaucrats, and nationalists who shared a common enemy, but not a common agenda.”233 However, the agenda of Young Turks who were a group of students organized a secret society called the Ottoman Unity Society (İttihad-ı Osmani

230 Nadir Özbek, “’Beggars’ and ‘Vagrants’ in Ottoman State Policy and Public Discourse (1876- 1914)”, Middle Eastern Studies, vo. 45, n. 5, September 2009, 784. 231 Özbek, ibid., 786-788. The concern of the elite regarding the dangerous classes (muzır eşhas) could also be seen in crime stories such as Aman Vermez Ali published in 1913. Ferdan Ergut, “Policing the Poor in the Late Ottoman Empire”, Middle Eastern Studies, vol. 38 n. 2, April 2002, 154. 232 Özbek, ibid., 789-790. 233 Hanioğlu, ibid., 145. 71

Cemiyeti) in 1889 was to topple down the sultan, open the general assembly (Meclis-i

Umumi) and promulgate the constitution again, both of which had not been in effect since 1878 when Abdülhamid II abolished the parliament and suspended the constitution. On July 24, 1908, with a well-planned and organized military revolution, the Young Turks, renamed as the Committee of Progress and Union later as the

Committee Union and Progress (hereafter CUP) by the time, achieved their goals and overthrew the Hamidian regime and promulgated the Second Constitution.234

The CUP put new effort into policing vagabonds, who were mostly defined as criminals.235 Based on the earlier regulation of vagrancy, the Ottoman parliament approved the law, “Law on Vagabonds and Suspected Persons” (Serseri ve Mazanna-i

Su-i Eşhas Hakkında Kanun) on May 8, 1909. The law represented the General

Directorate of Police’s concerns with idleness throughout the Empire. However, the vagueness of the terms used in the articles gave the police wide use of discretionary power against vagabonds and ‘suspects’; it also strengthened their institutional autonomy in the Empire. 236 This newfound power further blurred the distinction between public and private places as Ferdan Ergut noted, “...anybody who did not pursue a family life was accepted as a potential criminal and thus would be under police control...the places where these people resided-even though they rented them- were not accepted as ‘private residences’ and the police were thus not restricted while

234 The academic literature on the Young Turks is vast. For some of the works see Feroz Ahmad, The Young Turks and the Ottoman Nationalities: Armenians, Greeks, Albanians, Jews, and Arabs, 1908- 1918, (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2014); Eric Jan Zürcher, The Young Turk Legacy and Nation Building, (London: I.B. Tauris, 2010); Şükrü Hanioğlu, Preparation For a Revolution: The Young Turks, 1902-1908, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001); Şükrü Hanioğlu, The Young Turks in Opposition, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995); Feroz Ahmad, The Young Turks: The Committee of Union and Progress in Turkish Politics, (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1969); Şerif Mardin, The Genesis of Young Ottoman Thought: A Study in the Modernization of Turkish Political Ideas, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1962). 235 Ergut, ibid., 149-150. 236 Ibid., 154, 157. 72

controlling them.” 237 According to the law, if a suspect were convicted, the prosecutor, in collaboration with the police, should try to find employment for the convict. 238 These procedures were not restricted only to Istanbul, but were also implemented in other cities such as in Izmir, Salonica, and Beirut.239 The convicted vagrants were exiled from city to city, but finding a decent job for them was mostly impossible in any city. The major tasks of the police were keeping cities secure and protecting the community of commerce including western investments, capital, and goods in Ottoman cities.240

Ergut argues that “punishment was integrated into a general discourse of

‘reform’, which in fact enlarged the police discretion over the poor”.241 However, the nearly unrestricted authority of the police, one of the remnants of the despotic regime of Abdülhamid II, was increasingly feared by the Ottoman political elite. Therefore, the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Justice worked collaboratively to curb the discretionary power of the police to a great extent in 1909. 242

However, in contrast to the famous motto of the CUP, ‘Liberty, Equality,

Fraternity, and Justice’, as Ottoman chronicler Abdurrahman Şeref Efendi noted, crime rates increased in the Empire, particularly in Istanbul, after the promulgation of the Second Constitution. Thus, controlling the population and establishing prison reform became more urgent than before.243 Those who did not have a regular place to stay were defined as vagrant (serseri), and their increasing numbers drew the attention

237 Ibid., 155. Ergut states that “Article 19 of the law required that beating be done under the supervision of a doctor and only to those parts of the body that he would determine. This was meant to force doctors to participate in the crime of torture rather than to limit police misconduct.”, 156-157. 238 Özbek, ibid., 796. 239 Özbek, ibid., 796. 240 Ergut, ibid., 153. 241 Ergut, ibid., 162. 242 Ergut, ibid., 159-160. 243 Son Vak’anüvis Abdurrahman Şeref Efendi Tarihi, 17. 73

of the Ottoman government as mentioned above.244 The prisoners released after the general pardon followed by the Second Constitution greatly impacted the increase of the vagrant population in the Empire.245 The prisoners (adi mahkumlar) were released after they took an oath (meşrutiyet yemini).246 On the other hand, although it was called the general pardon (aff-ı umumi), some of the political prisoners were not actually released, such as the Young Turks, who were banished to Egypt.

Furthermore, for some of the released political prisoners the pardon was merely temporary as they were re-imprisoned.247

As Schull analyzes, the Imperial Ottoman Criminal Code transformed from

1858 to 1911.248 On June 4, 1911, the Ottoman parliament made extensive revisions of the 1858 Code based on the current circumstances of the state. These revisions included stipulations of new crimes with fixed punishments and regulations setting the limits of these punishments. Schull argues that these legal revisions illustrate the

CUP’s attempts to strengthen the state’s power, sovereignty, and social control of public order.249 According to Schull, there was a link between these criminal law revisions and the CUP’s prison survey in 1912. 250 After the annexation of the

Ottoman Prison Administration (Hapishaneler İdaresi) (established in May 1911) to the Ministry of the Interior on January 18, 1912, the Ottoman government started to collect detailed statistical information such as “crimes committed, sentences served, marital and familial status, occupation, education level, age, and the ethno-religious and national identity” of prisoners from every prison and detainees in house of

244 Deal, ibid., 57-58. 245 Nadir Özbek, “II. Meşrutiyet İstanbul’unda Dilenciler ve Serseriler”, Toplumsal Tarih, Nisan 1999, İstanbul, 34-43, Nadir Özbek, “Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda İç Güvenlik, Siyaset ve Devlet (1876- 1909), Türklük Araştırmaları Dergisi, 16, Güz 2004, 59-95. 246 II. Meşrutiyet’in İlk Yılı (23 Temmuz 1908-23 Temmuz 1909), (İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2008), 42. 247 Taner Aslan, “II. Meşrutiyet Dönemi Genel Af Uygulamaları”, Akademik Bakış, 3:5, (2009), 44. 248 For a very detailed analysis of the penal code revisions in 1911 see Schull, ibid., 28-36. 249 Schull, ibid., 30. 250 Schull, ibid., 52. 74

detention within the Empire.251 Close analysis of these documents can help us to approach an understanding of life behind prison walls.

Although the CUP started to reform prisons in terms of focusing on education and prison work, Ottoman prison reform came to a halt due to the Balkan Wars and, more significantly, due to the political turmoil caused by the electoral scandal in

1912.252 Starting from 1913, the CUP consolidated its power again and continued prison reform through collecting questionnaire (suâl varakaları) from every prison in the Empire. 253 Schull notes that the 1912 and 1914 versions of the Ottoman prison surveys provide insights for the CUP’s conceptualization of national identity. 254

Furthermore, the shift in the governance of prisons from the Ottoman Prison

Administration to the Directorate of Prisons (Hapishaneler Müdiriyeti) within the

Ministry of the Interior illustrates the CUP’s genuine intention regarding administrative and penal reform.255 This intention could also be seen in the CUP’s prison reform attempts even during the Great War. For instance, in 1916, with financial support and loans from Germany, the Ottoman government appointed

German Dr. Paul Pollitz as prison inspector. He wrote many inspection reports from

251 Schull, ibid., 53. 252 Schull, ibid., 54. 253 For comprehensive analyses of Ottoman prison statistics see Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire, 67-110; Schull, ‘Penal Institutions, Nation-state Construction, and Modernity in the Late Ottoman Empire, 1908-1919’, PhD Dissertation, University of California, 2007, 115-171; Schull, “Identity in the Ottoman Prison Surveys of 1912 and 1914”, IJMES, Cambridge 2009, 365-367; Schull, “Tutuklu Sayımı: Jön Türklerin Sistematik Bir Şekilde Hapishane İstatistikleri Toplama Çalışmaları ve Bunların 1911-1918 Hapishane Reformu Üzerine Etkileri”, in Osmanlı’da Asayiş, Suç ve Ceza, 18.-20. Yüzyıllar, eds. Noémi Lévy-Alexandre Toumarkine, (İstanbul: TVYY, 2007), 212-238. For crime statistics see Ahmet Uysal-Nurgul Bozkurt, “Crime in the Late Ottoman Empire, 1910-1911”, Research Journal of Social Sciences, 3, 2008, 49-59. 254 Schull, ibid., 55. For the CUP’s demographic engineering, and Armenian genocide see Taner Akçam, The Young Turks’ Crime against Humanity: The Armenian Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing in the Ottoman Empire, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013); A Question of Genocide: Armenians and Turks at the End of the Empire, eds. Ronald Grigor Suny, Fatma Müge Göçek, et. al., (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011); Fuat Dündar, Crime of Numbers: The Role of Statistics in the Armenian Question (1878-1918), (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2010); Fuat Dündar, Modern Türkiye’nin Şifresi: İttihat ve Terakki’nin Etnisite Mühendisliği (1913-1918), (İstanbul: İletişim, 2008). 255 Schull, ibid., 55. 75

different parts of the Empire regarding the improvement of the conditions of prisons and the construction of new ones.256

The defeat of the Ottomans in the war resulted in the occupation of Istanbul by the Entente forces in 1918.257 According to the fourth article of the Armistice of

Mudros of October 30, 1918, “All allied prisoners of war and Armenian interned persons and prisoners to be collected in Constantinople and handed over unconditionally to the Allies”.258 Based on this article, many prisoners regardless of their crimes were released from Ottoman prisons. In 1919, the commissionaires of

Entente powers decided to inspect prisons in some of regions of the Empire.259 These reports illustrate the lack of hygiene, personnel, and security in Ottoman prisons.260

Schull states that, according to the 1919-20 prison statistics, the number of prisoners in the Ottoman Empire was 27,759.261

256 Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire, 56-60; Yasemin Saner Gönen, “Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Hapishaneleri İyileştirme Girişimi, 1917 Yılı”, in Hapishane Kitabı, 173-183; Oya Şenyurt, “20. Yüzyılın İlk Çeyreğinde Anadolu ve İstanbul’da Hapishane İnşaatları”, Arredamento Mimarlık Tasarım Kültür Dergisi, 3, 2009, 76-80; Saadet Tekin, “Dr. Poliç Bey’in 1918 Tarihli Raporuna Göre Berlin ve Aydın Vilayeti Hapishanelerine Genel Bir Bakış”, Ankara Üniversitesi Osmanlı Tarihi Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Dergisi, 24, 2008, 205-222. 257 See Bilge Criss, İşgal Altında İstanbul, 1918-1923, (İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2000). 258 Nihat Erim, Devletlerarası Hukuku ve Siyasi Tarih Metinler, v. 1 (Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Andlaşmaları), (Ankara: TTK, 1953), 519-524. For Ottoman prisoners of war see Yücel Yanıkdağ, Healing the Nation: Prisoners of War, Medicine and Nationalism in Turkey, 1914-1939, (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2013); Yücel Yanıkdağ, “Ottoman Prisoners of War in Russia, 1914-22”, Journal of Contemporary History, 34:1, Jan. 1999, 69-85. 259 Mücahit Özçelik, “Mütareke Dönemi’nde Osmanlı Hapishanelerinin Durumu”, Cumhuriyet Tarihi Araştırmaları Dergisi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Atatürk İlkeleri ve İnkilâp Tarihi Enstitüsü, 7:14, Güz 2011, 23; Mümin Yıldıztaş, ‘Mütareke Döneminde Suç Unsurları ve İstanbul Hapishaneleri’, MA thesis, İstanbul Üniversitesi, 1997; Mümin Yıldıztaş, Yaralı Payitaht İstanbul’un İşgali, (İstanbul: Yeditepe, 2010), 201-239; Yüksel Çelik, “Hapishane Tarihimizden Bir Kesit: Üsküdar Paşakapısı Tevkifhanesi ve Mütareke Dönemi’nde İşgali”, Belleten, 264/LXXII, 2008, 603-627; Tülay Alim Baran, “Mütareke Döneminde İtilaf Devletlerinin Hapishaneler Üzerindeki Denetimi”, Belleten, 263/LXXII, 2008, 155-174. 260 I would like to thank Dr. Kent F. Schull for his generosity in sharing these archival sources with me. FNO 608/52, FNO 608/14, FO 608/103. Reports on Conditions in Turkish Prisons, Miscellaneous Papers N:6, (London: 1919), House of Common Parliamentary Papers Online. For the details of the inspection reports see Özçelik, ibid., 22-36. 261 Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire, 80-81. For the conditions of Ottoman prisons in Istanbul in 1922 see Clarence Richard Johnson, Constantinople To-day or The Pathfinder Survey of Constantinople: A Study in Oriental Social Life, (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1922), 336- 354. For an analysis of this source see Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire, 197-199. 76

In this chapter, I provided an overview of the Ottoman politics of punishment from the classical age of the Empire to the first decades of the twentieth century. The link between sovereignty, justice, and law was effective not only in the classical age but also in the nineteenth century. Since the first Ottoman criminal code issued during

Mehmed II’s era to the consecutive criminal codes of the nineteenth-century, the

Ottoman penal system aimed to protect the order and punish any kind of criminal acts threating social, political, and economic ‘harmony’ of Ottoman society. In addition to corporal punishments such as the bastinado, flogging, and banishment, fines and imprisonment was also common in the Empire.

The shift from corporal punishment to imprisonment started in the late eighteenth century and continued in the nineteenth century with the promulgation of new criminal codes and regulations and the establishment of new prisons in the

Ottoman Empire. As noted before, Ottoman prison reform was a part of the global trend of modernizing penal systems and prisons in the world. The internal political dynamics of the Empire such as the Tanzimat reforms and the Ottoman government’s centralization attempts played a significant role in this process as well. Furthermore, as shown in the examples drawn from the British press, there was a strong criticism and Orientalist rhetoric regarding the penal system and forms of punishment in the

Ottoman Empire. It is hard to argue that the Ottomans took all of these criticisms serious, but in some cases, they did. At some point, Ottoman officials found themselves making statements and clarifications in order to protect the Empire’s judicial dignity (haysiyet-i adliye/menafi-i devlet) on the European stage.

In addition to the centralization attempts of the Tanzimat reformers in terms of military, education, law, health, and bureaucracy, Ottoman prisons started to become a major segment of the institutionalization project in the nineteenth century. The aim

of prison reform was not only to standardize places of confinement in terms of architecture but also to improve the living conditions of prisoners. By the mid- nineteenth century, prison populations spurred by rapid urbanization grew quickly in both Europe and the Ottoman Empire. Although the Tanzimat reformers aimed to set consistent requirements for prisons262, including separating prisoners on the basis of their crimes, one of the main administrative problems was the lack of classification for prisoners that would allow prison administrators to divide prisoners conceptually and physically by the types of crimes that they committed. In fact, most often prisoners were only divided by gender as seen in the sketch [Fig. 1.5.] of an Ottoman prison including separate wards for prisoners, detainees, and female prisoners. To borrow a few lines from Ahmet Mithat Efendi’s 1910 novel Jöntürk might help us to point out the pace and mode of the Ottoman prison reform. As he depicts the ways in which old (eastern style) and the new (western) furniture were used side by side in the homes of the late Ottoman Empire, prison reform likewise symbolized the old and new legal applications that existed together and also transformed one another.263

To some extent, the standardization of prisons was mostly realized in the second half of the nineteenth century. Before the promulgation of the 1880 Regulation stressing that every province throughout the Empire would possess a public prison

(hapishane-i umumi) for the convicts who were charged with a sentence of more than five years, the public prison in Istanbul was established in 1871. Izmir as the other major port city followed the imperial center in 1873. Chapter two will focus on Izmir

Prison, the general prison of Izmir, within the context of the application of Ottoman prison reform, urbanization, and imperial transformation.

262 BOA., İ.DH. 321/20811 20 N 1271 (June 6, 1855). 263 Ahmet Mithat Efendi, Jöntürk, (İstanbul: Beyaz Balina Yayınları, 2005), 8-9. 78

Figure 1.5. A sketch of Ottoman prison including separate wards for prisoners, detainees, and female prisoners, (BOA., DH. MB. HPS., 143/3, March 11, 1911).

Chapter 2

The Politics of Space and Prison Reform in Izmir in the Late Ottoman Empire

This chapter changes the scale of analysis from the macro to the micro level, examining the application of Ottoman prison reform in Izmir, one of the major port cities of the Ottoman Empire, and the institutionalization of Izmir Prison through discussion of punishment, urbanization, and imperial transformation. Izmir Prison represents not only the implementation of a new set of criminal codes and the centralization attempts of the Ottoman government but also allows us to re-think the margins of the city particularly the reach of ‘governmentality’ 264. In terms of the politics of space, Izmir Prison shifted from being on the periphery of the city in the late nineteenth century to occupying the ‘marginal' spatiality within the new governmental and public space in the first decades of the twentieth century. How did the imperial governance affect prison administration in Izmir? What do local newspapers tell us about Izmir Prison? Do we see a shift of Smyrniots’ perceptions regarding Izmir Prison from Abdülhamid II’s era to the Second Constitutional Era when the prison was more central to the city than before?

The Tanzimat reforms’ emphasis on security and control of Ottoman subjects necessitated building new governmental, administrative, and carceral spaces.265 In this chapter, I argue that the centralization project of the Ottoman government, which started in the first decades of the nineteenth century, resulted in the construction of a new governmental and urban space in Izmir, which included the Amber Barracks

(Sarı Kışla-1829), the Hospital (Gureba-yı Müslimin Hastanesi-1851), the

264 Here I use ‘governmentality’ in a Foucauldian sense particularly as “complex of power, which has its target population, as its principal form of knowledge political economy, and as its essential technical means apparatuses of security”. See Michel Foucault, “Governmentality” in The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality: with Two Lectures by and an Interview with Michel Foucault, eds. Graham Burchell, et. al., (Chicago: the University of Chicago Press, 1991), 102. 265 ), 35. 80

Reformatory (Islahhane-1868), the governor’s palace (1868-72), Izmir High School

(İzmir İdadisi-1886) and later the Clock Tower (1901). In addition, a key part of this governmental complex, Izmir Prison, built in 1873, symbolized the ‘new order’ and the application of the Ottoman Imperial Penal Code.266 This new prison exemplified the shift from corporal punishment to imprisonment that was occurring throughout the

Empire. Izmir Prison signaled a ‘modern’ and ‘standardized’ way of punishment and a new method of prison governance. With urbanization and the shifting politics of space in Ottoman localities shaped mostly by municipal regulations, Izmir Prison, once built on the margins of the city, later occupied a space at the heart of the city.

The discussions about the location of Izmir Prison and whether it should be demolished or relocated started to a great extent after the Second Constitution and was closely followed by the Ottoman press in Izmir.

Izmir Prison was the general prison (hapishane-i umumi) in the province of

Aydın; thus, examining this prison helps us to analyze the effects and applications of

Ottoman prison reform, as well as to illustrate the shift from mahbes to hapishane in one of the major port cities of the Empire. Furthermore, this research also contributes to the literature on the history of the Mediterranean port cities267 by viewing crime, punishment, prisons, urbanization, and imperial transformation in the late Ottoman

Empire through the lens of the center-province relationship(s).

266 For the other examples of the governmental complex including prisons in the Ottoman Empire see Yıldız, Mapusane, 392. 267 See Fernand Braudel, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II, v. 1, (New York: Harper&Row, 1972); David Abulafia, “Introduction: What is the Mediterranean?” in The Mediterranean in History, ed. David Abulafia, (London: Thames & Hudson, 2003), 11-26; Leslie Peirce, “Changing Perceptions of the Ottoman Empire: the Early Centuries,” Mediterranean Historical Review 19:1 (2004): 6-28; Port Cities: Dynamic Landscapes and Global Networks, ed. Carola Hein, (London: Routledge, 2011); and Cities of the Mediterranean: From the Ottomans to the Present Day, eds. Biray Kolluoğlu-Meltem Toksöz, (London: I.B. Tauris, 2010). 81

As the center of Aydın province, after the Vilayet Nizamnamesi (Provincial

Regulation) issued on November 7, 1864268, Izmir was caught up in a number of rapid transformations: bureaucratization, economic growth, population changes, including new flows of migrants269, and a rise in crime rates, especially in the second half of the nineteenth century. The first statistical yearbook of the Ottoman Empire of 1897 reveals that in terms of the numbers of prisons found in each province, the province of

Aydın was at the top of the list.270 The rise of banditry in the region was one of the major causes of this phenomenon.271 Thus, news about security, crime, punishment, and prisons comprised popular themes in Izmir’s local press in the late Ottoman

Empire.

268 Vilayet Nizamnamesi (Provincial Regulation) was issued in 1864 as a part of the Tanzimat’s administrative reforms. The regulation reorganized the hierarchy of administrative units of the Empire. See İlber Ortaylı, Tanzimat Devrinde Osmanlı Mahallî İdareleri (1840-1880), (Ankara: TTK, 2000), 53-69; Selda Kılıç, “1864 Vilayet Nizamnamesinin Tuna Vilayetinde Uygulanması ve Midhat Paşa”, Ankara Üniversitesi Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi, 24/37, 3, 2005, 99-111. According to the Regulation, the province of Aydın was composed of the three sub-divisions (sancak); Saruhan, Aydın, and Menteşe and Izmir was the center of Aydın province (vilayet). For the administrative divisions see Vital Cuinet, La Turquie d’Asie: Géographie Administrative Statistique Descriptive et Raisonnée de Chaque Province de l’Asie - Mineure, v. 5, Le Vilayet de Smyrne et le Mutesaariflik de Bigha, (İstanbul: ISIS, 2001), 7; Engin Berber, Yeni Onbinlerin Gölgesinde Bir Sancak: İzmir (30 Ekim 1918-15 Mayıs 1919), (İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 1999), 5-10; Özer Ergenç, “Salnamelerde İzmir”, in 1885-1985 Türkiye Ekonomisinin 100 Yılı: İzmir ve İzmir Ticaret Odası Sempozyumu, 21-23 Kasım 1985, (İzmir: İzmir Ticaret Odası, 1985), 141-152; Tuncer Baykara, İzmir Şehri ve Tarihi, (İzmir: Akademi Kitabevi, 2001), 72-75. 269 See Kemal H. Karpat, Ottoman Population, 1830-1914: Demographic and Social Characteristics, (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1985); Cuinet, ibid., 74, Baykara, ibid., 75-82. 270 According to the statistics, the province of Aydın had 54 prisons; forty-three of them were for male prisoners, eleven of them were for female prisoners. The statistics illustrate that by the beginning of the year the number of prisoners was 3,416 but by the end of the year this number increased up to 8,353. According to the statistics, 7,960 of 8,353 prisoners were male, and 393 of them were female prisoners. The province of Hudavendigar, Kastamonu, Manastır, and Selanik respectively followed the province of Aydın in terms of the number of prisoners. See Osmanlı Devleti’nin İlk İstatistik Yıllığı 1897, Tarihi İstatistikler Dizisi Cilt 5, (Ankara: Başbakanlık Devlet İstatistik Enstitüsü, 1997), 59-91. For earlier statistics of crime in the Province of Aydın see İstatistik, Mevadd-ı Cezaiyeye Müteallik, (Dersaadet: Matbaa-i Amire, 1312 (1894), 29-30; Omri Paz, ‘Crime, Criminals, and the Ottoman State: Anatolia between the late 1830s and the late 1860s’, PhD dissertation, Tel Aviv University, 2010, 352. 271 See Sabri Yetkin, Ege’de Eşkıyalar, (İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2003); Halil Dural, Bize Derler Çakırca: 19. ve 20. Yüzyılda Ege’de Efeler, (İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 1999); Alp Yücel Kaya, “19. Yüzyıl Ortasında İzmir’de Mülkiyet, Emniyet ve Zaptiyeler”, in Jandarma ve Polis: Fransız ve Osmanlı Tarihçiliğine Çapraz Bakışlar, eds. Noémi Lévy, et. al., (İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2009), 189-212; Olcay Pullukçuoğlu Yapucu, Modernleşme Sürecinde Bir Sancak: Aydın, (İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2007), 173-207; for banditry in Izmir in the classical age see Daniel Goffman, İzmir ve Levanten Dünya (1550-1650), (İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2000), 20-28. 82

The chapter begins by providing a very brief historical background of Izmir with special focus on its economy, society, and governance, and continues with the examination of the western perceptions of crime, security, and punishment in Izmir through nineteenth-century travel literature and the British press. The third section of this chapter is dedicated to the shift from mahbes (Cezayir Hanı), a khan used as a prison, to hapishane (Izmir Prison), an established ‘modern’ prison in Izmir. This section also explores Izmir Prison’s function and role within the governmental and administrative complex in Izmir in the late Ottoman Empire.

This chapter heavily relies on Ottoman archival documents and also Ottoman newspapers and journals printed in the late nineteenth and the first decades of the twentieth centuries. In addition to the Record of the Sessions of the Ottoman

Parliament (Meclis-i Mebusan Zabıt Ceridesi), which illustrates discussions on crime, punishment, prisons, and urbanization among Ottoman representatives, the imperial and provincial yearbooks (salnâme)272 were helpful in exploring the questions posed in this chapter as well. Finally, British newspapers and travel books were used in order to illustrate western and mostly orientalist perceptions of the city in terms of security, punishment, and prisons in Izmir.

In addition to the sources detailed above, the chapter uses nineteenth-century city plans and maps to investigate the institutionalization of Izmir Prison and the architectural and spatial dynamics of the prison. This analysis will illustrate the intertwined relationship between the prison and the city’s newly developed governmental and urban spaces.

Historical Background of the City

Smyrna, an important and strategic port in Western Anatolia, changed hands

272 See Ahmet Zeki İzgöer, “Osmanlı Salnâmelerinin Şehir Tarihi Bakımından Önemi”, Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi, 3:6, 2005, 539-552. 83

from the Greeks, to the Romans, and then to the Byzantines between the ninth and early fourteenth centuries. Later, the city was controlled by the Turcoman Çaka Bey, the Genoese, the Seljuks, the Crusaders, Timur the Lame, and the Aydın Principality, before finally becoming part of the Ottoman Empire.273 The Ottomans conquered

Smyrna in 1426, and at that time the city’s name became known as İzmir.274 Izmir remained a small town during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries before growing in size and population during the seventeenth century as a result of its increasing importance as a center of trade.275 Suraiya Faroqhi states that seventeenth-century

Izmir could easily be separated from its contemporaries because its existence was based largely on international trade. 276 As Daniel Goffman has shown, with the integration of Western trade, the structure of trade, economy, and demography of

Izmir drastically changed in the seventeenth century.277 The economic interest of the

West, particularly the French, Dutch, British, and Venetians, revolved around exporting raw materials, such as cotton278 and tobacco, which were grown in the hinterland of Izmir in western Anatolia. This interest and resulting trade led to the establishment of their consulates in the city.279 Necmi Ülker argues that in addition to the Ottoman government’s interest in Izmir, the rivalry between the French and

English merchants benefited and boosted the city’s economic capacity in the

273 For the chronology of the history of Izmir see Çınar Atay, Tarih İçinde İzmir, (İzmir: Yaşar Eğitim ve Kültür Vakfı Yayını, 1978), 119-134; Yaşar Aksoy, Smyrna İzmir: Efsaneden Gerçeğe, (İzmir: İBBKKY, 2002), 169-183. For the ancient history of Smyrna, see Ekrem Akurgal, Eskiçağ’da Ege ve İzmir, (İstanbul: Yaşar Holding Yayınları, 1993); Konstantinos Oikonomos-Bonaventure F. Slaars, Destanlar Çağından 19. Yüzyıla İzmir, (İzmir: İletişim Yayınları, 2001). 274 The name of the city was transformed into different forms such as Smyrne, Esmiro, Smira, Lesmit, Yesmir, İzmir etc. throughout its history. Necdet Sakaoğlu, 20. Yüzyıl Başında Osmanlı Kentleri, (İzmir: DenizKültür Yayınları, 2010), 77. 275 Daniel Goffman, “Izmir: From Village to Colonial Port City”, in The Ottoman City between East and West: Aleppo, Izmir, and Istanbul, eds. Edhem Eldem et. al., (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 81-87. 276 Suraiya Faroqhi, Osmanlı Dünyasında Üretmek, Pazarlamak, Yaşamak, (İstanbul: YKY, 2003), 60- 61. 277 Daniel Goffman, İzmir ve Levanten Dünya (1550-1650), (İstanbul: TVYY, 2000), 127-130. 278 On the cotton trade in Izmir, see Suraiya Faroqhi, Osmanlı’da Kentler ve Kentliler, (İstanbul: TVYY, 1993), 169-171. 279 Tuncer Baykara, İzmir Şehri ve Tarihi, (İzmir: Akademi Kitabevi, 2001), 123-126. 84

seventeenth century.280 Izmir was also the last stop of caravans carrying silk and other goods from Anatolia, Syria, and Iran. Izmir’s geo-political advantage as a port city drew not only goods from different parts of the Empire but also a flow of merchants from different states into the city.281 In addition to Muslim, Christian, and Jewish communities, the opening of the consulates in the seventeenth century, as mentioned above, enriched the cultural diversity of the city while also sometimes bringing intercommunal conflicts.282

As a result of Izmir’s growing importance as a center of trade, Goffman notes that particularly during the Köprülü Vizierate from the 1650s forward the imperial center looked at Izmir with closer attention in order to control and regulate commerce in Izmir and also to start a campaign for public construction in Izmir thorough religious endowments (vakıf).283 Moreover, the imperial center attempted to suppress brigandage and an insecure atmosphere for trade, mostly caused by North African corsairs’ attacks on Izmir.284 Although a disastrous earthquake and resulting fire on

August 10, 1688 damaged and destroyed many parts of Izmir, the Ottoman government, and to a greater extent foreign traders and their companies, worked for the restoration of the city in order to secure the continuation of its vibrant economic

280 Necmi Ülker, ‘The Rise of Izmir (1688-1740)’, PhD dissertation, the University of Michigan, 1974), 1-2. For rivalry between Ottoman and Dutch merchants see İsmail Hakkı Kadı, Ottoman and Dutch Merchants in the Eighteenth Century: Competition and Cooperation in Ankara, Izmir, and Amsterdam, (Leiden: Brill, 2012). 281 Goffman, “Izmir: From Village to Colonial Port City”, 89-104. 282 On the creation of the Frank quarter, see Goffman, From Village, 93-97. For the Jewish community in nineteenth-century Izmir, see Haim Gerber-Jacob Barnai, The Jews in Izmir in the 19th Century: Ottoman Documents From the Shar’i Court, (Jerusalem: Misgav Yerushalayim, 1984); Henri Nahum, İzmir Yahudileri, 19.-20. Yüzyıl, (İstanbul: İletişim, 2000). For the discussion of cosmopolitanism and conflict see Urban Governance Under the Ottomans: Between Cosmopolitanism and Conflict, eds. Ulrike Freitag-Nora Lafi, (London: Routledge, 2014). 283 Goffman, From Village, 105-110, Ülker, ibid., 36-39. For a discussion on the increase in vakıf, see Amy Singer, İyilik Yap Denize At: Müslüman Toplumlarda Hayırseverlik, (İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2012). 284 Baykara, ibid., 124; Elena Frangakis-Syrett, 18. Yüzyılda İzmir’de Ticaret (1700-1820), (İzmir: İBBKKY, 2006), 49-50. For state centralization and banditry in the classical age of the Ottoman Empire, see Karen Barkey, Bandits and Bureaucrats: The Ottoman Route to State Centralization, (New York: Cornell University Press, 1994). 85

life.285

The city also survived despite the negative effects the plague and other contagious diseases had on population growth in the eighteenth century. In fact, the city's economy continued to strengthen during this time when an increased demand from Europe for cotton and other textiles bolstered Izmir's economy. Izmir was called

‘the pearl of the Aegean Sea’, and ‘Petit Paris’ by many western travellers286, and as mentioned above, it was the last stop of caravans loaded with agricultural goods and raw materials coming from Anatolia.287 Consequently, eighteenth-century Izmir was an important trade hub and financial center of the Empire.288

In the late eighteenth century, the Ottoman Empire faced extensive territorial losses mostly to Austria and Russia, which resulted in economic and administrative challenges for the Ottoman government. Starting with Selim III289 and continuing during Mahmud II’s reign, the Ottoman government attempted to employ imperative

285 Goffman, From Village, 114-116. For the impact of the 1688 earthquake and the rebuilding of Izmir, see Ülker, ibid., 42-53; Konstantinos Oikonomos-Bonaventure F. Slaars, Destanlar Çağından 19. Yüzyıla İzmir, (İstanbul: İletişim, 2001), 201-207. 286 See Vassilis Kardasis, “Smyrna Through the Eyes of European Travellers” in Smyrna: Metropolis of the Asia Minor Greeks, (Alimos: Center for Asia Minor Studies, 2002), 41-62; İlhan Pınar, Gezginlerin Gözüyle İzmir XVIII-XIX v. I, v. II,-XX. Yüzyıl, İzmir: Akademi Kitabevi, 1996; 1994-1996; 1997; Orkun Kocabıyık, Nineteenth Century British Travel Writing on the Levant: Izmir as the Oriental Other in British Travel Writing Tradition, (Lambert: Saarbrücken, 2012). For similar descriptions for Salonica see Mark Mazower, “Travellers and the Oriental City, c. 1840-1920”, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Sixth Series, 12, (2002), 59-111. 287 For İzmir’s engagement with the Levant trade in the classical ages of the Ottoman Empire, see Daniel Goffman, İzmir ve Levanten Dünya (1550-1650), (İstanbul: TVYY, 2000); for the rise of trade in İzmir in the eighteenth century, see Elena Frangakis-Syrett, 18. Yüzyılda İzmir’de Ticaret (1700- 1820), (İzmir: İBBKY, 2006); Elena Frangakis-Syrett, “Uluslararası Önem Taşıyan Bir Akdeniz Limanının Gelişimi: Smryna (1700-1914)”, in İzmir (1830-1930) Unutulmuş Bir Kent mi?: Bir Osmanlı Limanından Hatıralar, ed. Marie-Carmen Smyrnelis, (İstanbul: İleşitim, 2009), 27-58; for the nineteenth century trade in İzmir see Reşat Kasaba, “İzmir”, in Doğu Akdeniz Liman Kentleri, Çağlar Keyder et.al., (İstanbul: TVYY, 1994), 1-22; Alp Yücel Kaya, “19. Yüzyıl İzmir’inde Tüccarlar ve Esnaflar veya ‘Hacıağalar, Beyler ve Frenkler’”, in Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyet’e Esnaf ve Ticaret, ed. Fatmagül Demirel, (İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2012), 79-103. 288 Syrett, ibid., 229-230. On the growth of Izmir’s economy in the eighteenth century, see Elena Frangakis-Syrett, "Commercial Growth and Economic Development in the Middle East: Izmir from the early 18th to the early 20th centuries", in Ottoman Izmir: Studies in honour of Alexander H. de Groot, ed. Maurits H. van den Boogert, (Nederlands Institut voor Het Nabije Oosten, 2007), 1-38; A. Mesud Küçükkalay, Osmanlı İthalatı: İzmir Gümrüğü (1818-1839), (İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2007). 289 For the internal dynamics of Selim III’s reforms and social features of the new order (nizam-ı cedid), see Betül Başaran, “İstanbul’da Asayiş ve Karışıklık – Aktörler ve Yöntemler”, in Osmanlı’da Asayiş, Suç ve Ceza (18.-20. Yüzyıllar), eds. Noémi Lévy-Alexandre Toumarkine, (İstanbul: TVYY, 2007), 116-134. 86

and radical reforms in order to centralize its control and power throughout the Empire.

The reform packages first included military and fiscal reform, but it expanded to include administrative and legal reforms through the first half of the nineteenth century. Şükrü Hanioğlu argues that from the strict dress codes for state officials to newly opened schools, Mahmud II’s reform attempts differed from his predecessors.

According to Hanioğlu, the institutionalization of westernization, as Hanioğlu calls it, now became “a formal policy [of the Empire] linked to extensive bureaucratic reform and implemented with brutal force”.290

The Beginnings of the Construction of Governmental Space in Izmir

Due to their economic importance for the imperial center, port cities were the first centers in which efforts to control public spaces emerged in the late Ottoman

Empire.291 The yearbook of Aydın Province of 1881 provides a list of important dates for Izmir (İzmir’in Vakayi-i Meşhuresi) on which these new public spaces emerged.292

One of the dates was the construction of the military barracks, İzmir Kışla-i

Hümayunu, also known as Sarı Kışla (Amber Barracks), which began in 1827. The establishment of the military barracks signified the establishment of the new order

(nizam-ı cedid) and the new governance model designed after the abolition of the

Janissary corps in 1826. The construction of the U-shape military barracks [Fig. 2.1.] was finished in 1829. The military barracks had the capacity to shelter five to six

290 Şükrü Hanioğlu, A Brief History of the Late Ottoman Empire, (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2008), 63. 291 Donald Quataert, The Ottoman Empire (1700-1922), (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 157. See Cânâ Bilsel, “The Ottoman Port City of İzmir in the 19th Century: Cultures, Modes of Space Production and the Transformation of Urban Space”, in 7 Centuries of Ottoman Architecture: A ‘Supra-National Heritage’, International Congress Papers, ed. Afife Batur, (İstanbul: Yapı Endüstri Merkezi, 2001), 225-233; Fatma Cânâ Bilsel, ‘Cultures et Fonctionnalités: L’Evolution de la Morphologie Urbaine de la Ville d’Izmir aux XIXe et début XXe Siècles’, PhD dissertation, the Université de Paris X, Nanterre, 1996. 292 Aydın Vilayet Salnamesi, 1298 (1881), 25-27. 87

thousand soldiers and symbolized the central government and embodiment of military presence in Izmir.293

Figure 2.1. General View of Izmir in the nineteenth century. The Amber Barracks (Sarı Kışla) on the left. Courtesy Institut national d’histoire de l’art. NUM PH 4221.

As mentioned in the first chapter, the Tanzimat Edict of 1839 paved the way for the centralization and application of the new laws in the Empire. The main goal of

Tanzimat reformers, as Hanioğlu notes, was realizing uniformity and standardization of local administration throughout the Empire. 294 The new governance model attempted to educate military and bureaucratic cadres in the European style. As

Donald Quataert notes, the Ottoman government also attempted to eliminate intermediaries between state and subjects, including guilds, tribes, and Janissaries, in the process of consolidating its power throughout the Empire.295 Stefan Yerasimos argues that the Tanzimat reformers not only aimed to modernize the institutions of the

293 Sibel Zandi-Sayek, Ottoman Izmir: The Rise of a Cosmopolitan Port (1840-1880), (London: University of Minnesota Press, 2012), 35; Léon Kontente, Symrne et l’Occident, (Montigny-le- Bretonneux: Yvelinédition, 2005), 443. In regards to the barracks, traveler John Murray wrote: “The new barracks, capable of containing 3000 men, are well organised, and well situated. They are enclosed on the sea-side by a high palisade of iron, and consist of three tiers of apartments, communicating with each other by very long open galleries.” John Murray, A Handbook for Travellers in Turkey: Describing Constantinople, European Turkey, Asia Minor, Armenia, and Mesopotamia, (London, 1854), 164. 294 Hanioğlu, ibid., 86. 295 Quataert, The Ottoman Empire, 65. 88

Empire but also to strengthen its centralized power in order to struggle with European contemporaries by using their own tools.296 Yerasimos saw urbanization as one of many tools the Ottomans used to prevent European economic and diplomatic interventions in the Empire. On the other hand, increasing the security of Ottoman port cities, which were experiencing irregular flows of people 297 due primarily to territorial losses and seasonal workers, was on the agenda of the Ottoman reformers in the long nineteenth century.

Furthermore, after the 1840s, the periodical press, published in many different languages, including Hebrew, Armenian, Turkish, Greek, and French, played a key role in disseminating news from business to crime in Izmir.298 Undoubtedly, the press shaped people’s perceptions of the fast changes in the urban space of Izmir. Sibel

Zandi-Sayek argues that news such as the erection of a new monument, building new or additional public spaces, like hospitals, schools, and in our case prisons, fostered the development of a consciousness of being a resident of the city or in other words, a

Smyrniot (İzmirli). The Smyrniots did not just witness the urbanization of their city, they also actively became participants in the construction of Izmir’s new urban space via charities and other organizations.299 For instance, Gureba-yı Müslimin Hastanesi

296 Stefanos Yerasimos, “Tanzimat’ın Kent Reformaları Üzerine”, Modernleşme Sürecinde Osmanlı Kentleri, eds. Paul Dumont-François Georgeon (İstanbul: TVYY, 1996), 2-4. 297 See The City in the Ottoman Empire: Migration and the making of urban modernity, eds. Ulrike Freitag-Malte Fuhrmann, et.al., (New York: Routledge, 2011). 298 Sayek, ibid., 32. For the newspapers and journals published in İzmir in 1876, see İzmir 1876 ve 1908: Yunanca Rehberlere Göre Meşrutiyette İzmir, ed. Engin Berber (İzmir: İBBKY, 2008), 39-40; for the papers printed in 1905, see İzmir 1905, ed. Erkan Serçe (İzmir: İBBKY, 2000), 178. See Ileana Moroni, O Ergatis, 1908-1909: Ottomanism, National Economy and Modernization in the Ottoman Empire, (İstanbul: Libra, 2010); Albert Kharatian, “The Armenian Communities of Smyrna and the Aegean Region from the Middle Ages to the Nineteenth-Century Tanzimat”, in Armenian Smyrna/Izmir: The Aegean Communities, ed. Richard G. Hovannisian, (Costa Mesta, California: Mazda Publishers, 2012), 55-80. 299 See Emilia Themopoulo, “The Urbanisation of An Asia Minor City”, in Smyrna: Metropolis of the Asia Minor Greeks, (Alimos: Center for Asia Minor Studies, 2002), 77-114; Köksal, ibid., 47. For the examples from the European provinces of the Empire, see Alexandra Yerolympos, “Urban Transformations in the European Provinces of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the 19th Century”, in in Economy and Society on Both Shores of the Aegean, eds. Lorans Tanatar Baruh-Vangelis Kechriotis, (Athens: Alpha Bank Historical Archives, 2010), 449-487. 89

[Fig. 2.2.] (hospital for poor Muslims), the imperial hospital, built in 1851, and the

Greek-Orthodox Hospital were the results of one of these charities.300

Figure 2.2. Gureba-yı Müslimin Hospital in the front. APIKAM.

The yearbook of Aydın Province informs us about the Gureba-yı Müslimin hospital.

According to the yearbook, this hospital was built with the support of the Vizier Emin

Muhlis Paşa from Izmir and other benevolent people in the city. The hospital had one hundred-thirty beds in seventeen wards of which only three of them were reserved for prisoners, four of them were for poor females, and eleven of them were for poor males.301

During the Crimean War, Izmir accommodated wounded and sick French soldiers, leading to the foundation of the French Military Hospital in Izmir in 1856.302

300 The Nevsal-i İktisat of 1905 penned by Cevat Sami and Hüseyin Hüsnü also gives information about the establishment of the hospital. See İzmir 1905, ed. Erkan Serçe, (İBBKY: İzmir, 2000), 141-145. This type of charity was active in the first decades of the twentieth century as well. In 1912, the income from the İzmir lottery was also used for the repair of the prison and karakolhane, as well as for the needs of the schools and hospitals. See M. Kâmil Dursun, İzmir Hatıraları, ed. Ünal Şenel, (İzmir: Akademi Kitabevi), 24-25; Georgelin, ibid., 73-127. BOA.,BEO. 4005/300309 2 Ra 1330 (February 20, 1912). For the Greek-Orthodox Hospital see Vangelis Constantinos Kechriotis, ‘The Greeks of Izmir at the End of the Empire: A Non-Muslim Ottoman Community Between Autonomy and Patriotism’, PhD Dissertation, Leiden University, 2005, 66-73. Kechriotis states that the hospital was open to all communities in Izmir. The hospital included several departments; the department for patients who had mental illnesses, the department for old people, the women’s workhouse, and the department for epidemics. Kechriotis noted that the deparment for mental illnesses was depicted as “a real prison and disgrace for the community” in Greek press. In Salonica, there was a lottery organized for building Hamidiye Hospital in 1905. BEO.NGG.d. 104 204836/2989. 301 Aydın Vilayet Salnamesi 1313 (1895), 138. 302 Kontente, ibid., 501-504. 90

As seen in Italian engineer Luigi Storari’s plan303 of Izmir of 1856 [Fig. 2.3.] and

Lamec Saad’s plan of 1876 [Fig. 2.4.], each community living in Izmir, including the

Greek, Armenian, Jewish, Catholic, Dutch, and British communities, had their respective hospitals.304 Rauf Beyru states that particularly Greek, Catholic, Dutch, and

British hospitals were built side by side at the heart of the city and because of this hospital complex. The street passing between the hospitals was called as “the street of hospitals” (Hastaneler Sokağı).305

Figure 2.3. Luigi Storari’s plan of Izmir (1856). APIKAM.

303 For Luigi Storari see Fatma Cânâ Bilsel, “Modern Bir Akdeniz Metropolüne Doğru”, in İzmir (1830-1930) Unutulmuş Bir Kent mi?: Bir Osmanlı Limanından Hatıralar, ed. Marie-Carmen Smyrnelis, (İleşitim: İstanbul, 2009), 146; Emin Canpolat, İzmir: Kuruluşundan Bugüne Kadar, (İstanbul: İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, 1953), 53. 304 For a list of hospitals in Izmir in the nineteenth century, see Rauf Beyru, 19. Yüzyılda İzmir Kenti, (İstanbul: Literatür, 2011), 73; F. Rougon, Smyrne: Situation Commerciale et Économique, (Paris: Berger-Levrault, 1892), 58-63. See Mehmet Karayaman, ‘İzmir’de Sağlık (1920-1938)’, PhD Dissertation, Ege Üniversitesi, 2005. 305 Beyru, ibid., 78. For the Quarantine in Izmir (Karantina) see Kontente, ibid., 522-523. 91

Figure 2.4. Lamec Saad’s plan of Izmir (1876). APIKAM.

Nineteenth-Century Izmir

As a significant port-city of the Levant, Izmir’s population was formed from a mix of various religious and ethnic backgrounds. Based on a millet system, Izmir was divided into Muslim, Greek, Armenian, and Frank quarters [Fig. 2.5.], which created an intense dialogue between the West and the Ottoman Empire through trade.306 By engaging with the global economy through fast transportation and communication tools such as steamships, trains307, and telegraphs,308 Izmir, alongside cities such as

306 See Hervé Georgelin, Smyrna’nın Sonu: İzmir’de Kozmopolitizmden Milliyetçiliğe, (İstanbul: Birzamanlar Yayıncılık, 2008), 48-53; Maurice M. Cerasi, Osmanlı Kenti: Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda 18. ve 19. Yüzyıllarda Kent Uygarlığı ve Mimarisi, (İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 1999), 87-88; Philip Mansel, Levant: Splendour and Catastrophe on the Mediterranean, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010), 1-2; Rauf Beyru, “XIX. Yüzyılın İlk Yarısında İzmir’de Sosyal Yaşam”, in Üç İzmir, (İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 1992), 145-219; N. Feryal Tansuğ, ‘Communal Relations in İzmir/Smyrna, 1826-1864: As Seen Through The Prism of Greek-Turkish Relations’, PhD Dissertation, University of Toronto, 2008; Marie-Carmen Smyrnelis, Une Ville Ottomane: Smyrne Aux XVIIIe et XIXe Siécles, (İstanbul: ISIS, 2006); Marie-Carmen Smyrnelis, Une société hors de soi: Identités et relations sociales à Smyrne aux XVIIIe et XIXe siécles, (Paris: Peeters, 2005). 307 See A. Nedim Atilla, İzmir Demiryolları, (İBBKY: İzmir, 2002); Wolfang Schievelbusch, The Railway Journey: The Industralization of Time and Space in the 19th Century, (Berkeley: University of 92

Istanbul, Salonica 309 , and Beirut 310 , became a theater of international trade and contained a multiplicity of space, population, and culture in the nineteenth century.311

Omri Paz states that with these new technologies, such as advancements in transportation and communication, also came new tools for surveillance and control, which could be utilized by the imperial center. 312 Furthermore, the commercial interests and economic activities of the port cities also resulted in restructuring and creating new urban spaces that incorporated the styles of nineteenth-century architecture and governance models. 313 Foreign investors from France, Britain,

Germany, and the United States helped to realize the nineteenth-century urban transformation in Izmir via concessions given by the Ottoman government. 314 For instance, in 1856, a British company built the Izmir-Aydın railway line, which was the second line of the Empire.315 According to Malte Fuhrmann, these investors and

California Press, 1986); Orkun Kocabıyık, Nineteenth Century British Travel Writing on the Levant: Izmir as the Oriental Other in British Travel Writing Tradition, (Lambert: Saarbrücken, 2012), 43-44. For the train lines in Izmir see Kontente, Symrne et l’Occident, 528-529. 308 “İzmir şehri saltanat-ı seniyyenin birinci derecede ticaretgah bir iskelesi olduğundan oraya telgraf hattının vaz ve inşası tüccar ve saire hakkında ezher-i cihet menafi ve suhuleti muceb olacağından taraf-ı devlet-i aliyyeden olarak mahall-i mezkure bir münasib mevkiden telgraf hattı vaz ve temdidi zımnında..”, BOA., İ.HR., 9144, 3 C 1275 (3 January 1859). For the postal service in İzmir, see Çınar Atay, İzmir’in İzmiri, (İzmir: ESİAD, 1993), 160-173. 309 See Meropi Anastassiadou, Tanzimat Çağında Bir Osmanlı Şehri: Selanik (1830-1912), (İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 1998). 310 See Jens Hanssen, Fin de Siécle Beirut: The Making of an Ottoman Provincial Capital, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). 311 See Abdullah Martal, Değişim Sürecinde İzmir’de Sanayileşme (19. Yüzyıl), (İzmir: Dokuz Eylül Yayınları, 1999); Köksal, ibid., 36. For an analysis of dynamics of changing trade relations and their influence on spatial characteristics of port cities, see Port Cities: Dynamics Landscapes and Global Networks, ed. Carola Hein, (London: Routledge, 2011). “İzmir ve Selanik şehirleri beyninde yeni bir postahane küşadı nezaret-i umumiye-i aidesince mukarrerdir ki öylelikle İzmir ve Avrupa muhaberesinde otuz saat iktisar eylemiş olur.” Hizmet, 18 June 1893, 1. 312 Paz, ibid, 7. 313 See Filiz Çalışlar Yenişehirlioğlu, “Urban Texture and Architectural Styles after the Tanzimat”, in Economy and Society on Both Shores of the Aegean, eds. Lorans Tanatar Baruh-Vangelis Kechriotis, (Athens: Alpha Bank Historical Archives, 2010), 487-526. 314 Daniel Goffman, “Izmir”, in The Ottoman City between East and West: Aleppo, Izmir, and Istanbul, ed. Edhem Eldem, et.al., (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 130; Musa Çadırcı, Tanzimat Döneminde Anadolu Kentleri’nin Sosyal ve Ekonomik Yapısı, (Ankara: TTK, 1997), 361-365. “İzmir ve Selanik beldelerinde elektrik tenviratı ve elektrikli tramvay imtiyazlarını taleb etmekde olan Sir (Esmet Barlet)den daire-i aidesince iktidar-ı malisini mübeyyen bir şehadetname taleb edilmiş olduğu istihbar kılınmışdır.” Ahenk, 25 December 1898, 1. 315 For the conditions of the contract, see BOA., İ.MEC.MAH., 304, 6 February 1856. By 1909, Europe and the Ottoman Empire were connected with 1.682 kilometres of railroad. Vilma Hastaoglu- 93

their local partners created a “symbolic networks”, as Fuhrmann calls it, between

Izmir and Europe for the residents of Izmir.316

Figure 2.5. Démétrius Georgiadés’ plan of Izmir (1885) 317

Çağlar Keyder argues that the modernization of the port cities came about to a great extent from below.318 According to Keyder, the primary population of cities such as Izmir and Salonica were merchants and their employees; therefore, securing the goods, flow of money and the people living in those cities was one of the major duties of the local authorities. However, due to their highly mixed populations, which included various backgrounds from pan-Islamist to socialist, the port cities were also the sites of political conflict.319 The population of Izmir became even more diverse in

Martinidis, “The Advent of Transport and Aspects of Urban Modernisation in the Levant during the Nineteenth Century”, in The City and the Railway in Europe, eds. Ralf Roth-Marie Noël Polino, Ashgate Publishing: Great Britain, 2003, 66. 316 Malte Fuhrmann, “Staring at Sea, Staring at the Land: Waterfront modernisation in nineteenth century Ottoman cities as a site of cultural change”, in Port Cities: Dynamic Landscapes and Global Networks, ed. Carola Hein, (London: Routledge, 2011), 140. 317 Démétrius Georgiadés, Smyrne et L’Asie Mineure, (Paris, 1885), 93. 318 Çağlar Keyder, “Port-cities in the Belle Epoque”, in Biray Kolluoğlu-Meltem Toksöz, eds., Cities of the Mediterranean, (New York: I.B. Tauris, 2010), 15. 319 Keyder, ibid., 18. See Vangelis Kechriotis, “The Enthusiasm Turns to Fear: Everyday Life Relations Between Christians and Muslims in Izmir in the Aftermath of the Young Turk Revolution”, in “L’ivresse de la liberté”. La révolution de 1908 dans l’Empire ottoman, ed. François Georgeon, (Paris: Peeters, 2012), 295-316; Vangelis Kechriotis, “Protecting the city’s interest: the Greek Orthodox and 94

terms of ethnicity with the flow of thousands of Bulgarian, Circassian, and later

Cretan refugees in the late nineteenth century. The influx of these new groups led to an increase in tensions and incidents in the city.320

Nineteenth-century Izmir also saw the transformation of municipal services including paving, lighting, sewage, and water lines. Lighting was particularly important to secure the residents of the city at night.321 The governors of the city organized a night watch via the regular army (nizami), but the police department took on this responsibility after the 1860s.322 Sayek notes “during the tenures of Halil

Pasha in 1850 and Kayserli Ahmed Pasha in 1863, carrying lanterns was further enforced, [with] violators risking arrest by night patrols”. 323 Gas lamps were introduced to some residents of the city in 1864, on pace with some quarters of

Istanbul, and electricity replaced these gas lamps very late in the nineteenth century.

The port cities were the first places to test the new and reformed laws and institutions of Ottoman legal reforms, as well. For instance, Izmir and Salonica were the first places “of modern cadastral efforts that provided a basis to enforce a new real-estate and income tax”.324 After Istanbul, Izmir, Salonica, and Beirut were the first cities where municipalities were founded in the Ottoman Empire.325 İlber Ortaylı states that the establishment of municipalities in port cities was also related to the

the conflict between municipal and vilayet authorities in İzmir (Smyrna) in the Second Constitutional Period”, Mediterranean Historical Review, 24:2, December 2009, 207-221. 320 Kechriotis, ‘The Greeks of Izmir’, 240-249. 321 Pakalın notes that before the Tanzimat, those who wandered the streets at night without a lantern were taken into custody by Ottoman security officers. Pakalın, ibid., 340. Ortaylı states that the Imperial Ottoman Penal Code of 1858, particularly the 254th article defines the punishment and municipial prohibitions (beledî yasaklar) for artisans who do not obey the rule of having lanterns at night. Ortaylı, ibid., 202. 322 Sayek, ibid., 88. 323 Sayek, ibid., 88. For police stations and number of their personnel in 1857, see Paz, ibid., 211-213. Paz notes that there were sixteen police stations in the city. 324 Sayek, ibid., 5. 325 Ortaylı, ibid., 31. For municipal punishments see Ortaylı, ibid., 201-204. For the regularization of streets in Beirut based on the Municipal Code of 1867 see Malek Sharif, Imperial Norms and Local Realities: The Ottoman Municipal Laws and the Municipality of Beirut (1860-1908), (Beirut: Orient- Institut Beirut, 2014), 63-64. 95

economic integration of the Ottoman Empire into the nineteenth century world economy. Both Erkan Serçe and Ortaylı note that the first attempt to establish the municipality (belediye) in Izmir was a result of the requests of local and foreign merchants for improving roads and bazaars in the city in 1868.326

Another example of foreign investments in Izmir was the construction of a massive stone quay along Izmir’s central location during the period 1867-76. 327

Dussaud Fréres, a private company out of Marseille, built the quay known as the

Kordon.328 Soon, the Kordon would be filled with cafés and clubs that made the city into an attractive choice for visitors.329 Moreover, shifting from the shabby wooden piers to the actual harbors constructed in Izmir between 1869 and 1875 boosted the economic activities of the city and also enabled greater flows of people. The railroads that were linked to the harbor helped transport gardeners and cultivators and made their goods more accessible to the western markets.330 Ottoman officials were proud of the improvement of urbanization in Izmir, but hundreds of porters lost their jobs after the installation of the railroad lines and trams in Izmir.331 This massive job loss

326 Ortaylı, ibid., 123; Beyru, ibid., 319-335; Erkan Serçe, Tanzimat’tan Cumhuriyet’e İzmir’de Belediye (1868-1945), (İzmir: Dokuz Eylül Yayınları, 1998), 54. In his work based on extensive archival research, Serçe examines the establishment and function of municipality in Izmir from the Ottoman Empire to the Republican era. See Abdülhamit Kırmızı, “19. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Taşra İdaresi”, in Selçukludan Cumhuriyete Şehir Yönetimi, eds. Erol Özvar-Arif Bilgin, (İstanbul: Türkiye Belediyeler Birliği, 2008), 299-319; Tarkan Oktay, “Osmanlı Döneminde Modern Belediye Kurumunun Doğuşu ve Gelişimi”, in Selçukludan Cumhuriyete Şehir Yönetimi, 377-402. For the history of Izmir municipality, see İzmir Şehir Rehberi, 1941, ed. Suad Yurdkoru, (İzmir: İzmir Belediyesi Neşriyatı, 1941), 182-194. 327 See Sibel Zandi-Sayek, “Struggles Over the Shore: Building the Quay of Izmir”, City and Society, 12:55, 55-78; Georgelin, ibid., 53-55; Cevat Korkut, Örnek Bir Yap-İşlet-Devret Modeli: Belgelerle İzmir Rıhtım İmtiyazı, İzmir, 1992; Ceylan İrem Gençer, ‘1840-1912 Yılları Arasında İzmir ve Selanik’teki Kentsel ve Mimari Değişim’, PhD dissertation, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, 2012, 210- 237. 328 Çınar Atay, Mansel, ibid., 156-157. 329 Fuhrmann, “Staring at Sea”, 146-149. 330 Quataert, ibid., 131. See Gülçin Uzuntepe, ‘Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda İlk Demiryolu: İzmir- Aydın-Kasaba (Turgutlu), (1856-1897), MA thesis, Eskişehir Anadolu Üniversitesi, 2000. 331 Martinidis, 71. For strikes in Izmir during the era of the Second Constitution, see Engin Berber, “İkinci meşrutiyet döneminde domino etkisi Yapan bir eylem: İzmir liman işçileri”, European Journal of Turkish Studies [Online], 11 | 2010, Online since 14 October 2010. http://ejts.revues.org/index4303.html; Mehmet Emin Elmacı, “II. Meşrutiyet’in İlk Yıllarında İzmir 96

might help explain the increased number of vagabonds, a group that, as we saw earlier, troubled Ottoman prison reformers deeply. Urban transformation also affected the economic balance in Izmir and even created a discrepancy within the city. For instance, the rent of houses in the Frank quarter increased, especially after the construction of the harbor.332

In 1878, during the Russo-Turkish War, the Pall Mall Gazette illustrated the transformation of Izmir in the second half of the nineteenth century as follows:

In Smyrna itself one seemed to be out of the atmosphere of war. At all events there are no traces there of the impoverishment which has smitten Constantinople. The Smyrniotes have plodded away at their profitable trade; they have had few holdings of Turkish stocks and no dealings with the Treasury, and it is palpable that they are thriving. The splendid quay and harbour which have been built by Messrs. Dusseaud, and with which no public work in Turkey can compare except the docks at Suez, are now finished; and those who remember the ragged sea-face of the town ten years ago, with tumble-down buildings on rotten piles overhanging all the water-edge, would scarcely know it now, with its good mile and a half of quay, 150 feet wide, with tramway and carriage-way, with piles of warehouses, stately mansions, alhambras, and casinos springing up on its shore side.333 Furthermore, the governmental constructions of Izmir in the nineteenth century linked to the overall reform movement and its standardization attempts. In addition to the construction of the military barracks (Sarı Kışla) in 1829, to a great extent, the physical transformation of Izmir was realized in the second half of the nineteenth century. The new governmental constructions such as Gureba-yı Müslimin

Hospital (1851) as noted before, the Reformatory (Islahhane-1868) for orphans334, the

Limanında Hamalların Boykotu”, I. Uluslararası Akdeniz Ticareti ve Liman Kentleri Sempozyumu, (İzmir: İzmir Ticaret Odası Yayınları, 2008), 309-317. 332 BOA., YEE., 40/101, 1296 (1880). 333 “Turkish Notes”, Pall Mall Gazette, 24 January 1878, 10. 334 See Nazan Maksudyan, Orphans and Destitute Children in the Late Ottoman Empire, (New York: Syracuse University Press, 2014); Nazan Maksudyan, “Orphans, Cities, and the State: Vocational Orphanages (Islahhanes) and Reform in the Late Ottoman Empire”, IJMES, 43:3, August 2011, 493- 511; Nazan Maksudyan, “State ‘Parenthood and Industrial Orphanages (Islâhhanes): Transformation of Urbanity and Family Life”, The History of the Family, 16:2, Spring 2011, 172-181; Nazan Maksudyan, ‘Hearing the Voiceless-Seeing the Invisible: Orphans and Destitute Children as Actors of Social, Economic, and Political History in the Late Ottoman Empire’, PhD Dissertation, Sabancı University, 2008; Sadiye Tutsak, İzmir’de Eğitim ve Eğitimciler (1850-1950), (Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı, 2002); 175-190; Erdoğan Keleş, “II. Abdülhamid Devrinde Aydın Vilayetinde Sanat ve Meslek Okulları”, History Studies: International Journal of History, 5:2, A Tribute to Prof. Dr. Halil İnalcık, March 2013, 199-241. According to the yearbook of Aydın Province of 1881, the Reformatory (Islahhane) was opened in 1868 but shortly thereafter for some reasons, probably due to budgetary problems, it was closed. The yearbook informs us that the Reformatory was opened again in 1871. Maksudyan notes 97

governor’s palace (1868-72), Izmir Prison (1873), and Izmir High School (Izmir

İdadisi-1886)335 formed the new public space of Izmir. As Goffman states, these public buildings were western-inspired in both form and function.336 Izmir Prison, built based on a model of French architectural style, was the provincial and urban institution. Before going into details about the shift from mahbes (Cezayir Hanı) to hapishane (Izmir Prison), it is worth exploring crime, security, and punishment in

Izmir in the nineteenth century.

Crime, Security, and Punishment in Izmir

Izmir, the center of Aydın Province, recorded one of the highest occurrences of criminal cases, from banditry to murder and rape, in the late Ottoman Empire.337

As a major port city of the Empire, Izmir was a constant site of tensions and criminality, and thus, the province of Aydın was one of the first provinces to have units of the Directorate of Police (Zabtiye Müşirliği), which were established in the

1840s in the Ottoman Empire.338 As mentioned earlier, the British newspapers and also western travellers paid attention to the implications of the Tanzimat reforms in the Empire. Reinhold Schiffer warns us that British travelers, particularly to Istanbul, mostly misrepresented Ottoman judiciary procedures, including public punishment,

that “the Orphanage of Izmir, although referred also as Izmir Industrial School in the 1880s, and Hamidiye Industrial School after 1891, and was still called an ıslâhhane as late as 1908, on the fortieth anniversary of the institution.” Maksudyan, PhD dissertation, 201. See BOA., ŞD. 2509/47 14 R 1305, “...erbab-ı cemiyetden bir hayli iane toplanub bugünkü hali hakikaten ıslahhane denilecek bir dereceye gelmiş ve elhaletülhazihi İslam Hristiyan yüz yirmi kadar yetim orada talim ve terbiye edilmekde bulunmuş...” 335 For the history of the school and its architecture, see Tutsak, ibid., 147-164. For the link between architecture and discipline in schools of the late Ottoman Empire, see Benjamin C. Fortna, Mekteb-i Hümayûn: Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun Son Döneminde İslâm, Devlet ve Eğitim, (İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2005), 165-203. 336 Goffman, From Village, 130. 337 Its dubious honor as the city with the highest incidents of crimes was noted in the first statistical yearbook of the Empire in 1897. See Osmanlı Devleti’nin İlk İstatistik Yıllığı 1897, Tarihi İstatistikler Dizisi Cilt 5, (Ankara: Başbakanlık Devlet İstatistik Enstitüsü, 1997). 338 See Ali Sönmez, “Zaptiye Teşkilatı’nın Düzenlenmesi (1840-1869)”, Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi, Ankara Üniversitesi, Mart 2006, 39, 199-219; Ali Sönmez, ‘Zaptiye Teşkilatının Kuruluşu, 1846- 1879’, PhD Dissertation, Ankara Üniversitesi, 2005. 98

due to their lack of knowledge of Ottoman justice and law.339 Having kept that in mind, Charles Macfarlane, a traveler and writer, notes as follows:

... on the day I landed at Smyrna in 1847, a clever, observing old Frank whose life had been passed in Turkey.. (M: and he said) “Tanzimat has put down the use of the bastinado, but this is only in the great seaport towns where there are European consuls. Up in the country the stick goes its round just as usual: so does the use of torture, so does the extortion of the governors and sub-governors, so does every other irregularity!”340

Macfarlane also states:

[...] the old Frank did not think that the morality of Smyrna had been improved by the recent reforms. A good many murders had been recently committed, and the murderers had all been Mussulmans who had taken to the mountains as banditti [bandit]. My old Frank confessed that capital punishments had become less summary and far less frequent than they had been a few years previously. This struck me on my first arrival in Constantinople in 1847. In 1827-8 all the sentences were summary and the punishments dreadful. Somewhere or other-in the capital or in the provinces-the yataghan or the bowstring was constantly at work. It was not often that you could go by the gate of the Seraglio without seeing a ghastly exhibition of bleeding heads…On the accession of Abdul Medjid a milder spirit on the part of government certainly began to manifest itself. As executions became rare, the Turks began to consider them with emotion, and even with horror.341

According to the British newspapers, the biggest problem in Izmir in the first half of the nineteenth century was the inadequate numbers of the security forces to prevent the high levels of banditry, despite the obvious importance of protecting the resources of a major port and trade center of the Empire. In 1855, Wells Journal covered a story of banditry in Izmir as follows:

One Sunday morning, a few weeks ago, an unusual sight was presented at the entrance gate of the large building at Smyrna, which serves as police-office, prison, and Pasha’s house. A man’s head was suspended about seven feet above the ground, and it soon appeared that it was the head of Simon, the chief of the gang, of brigands who lately carried off Dr. M’Graith to the mountains, burned the French model farm, robbed the mails, and murdered unoffending country people. […] Hamid Bey proved a complete failure, so that it was determined to scatter the forces, to offer rewards for the robber either alive or dead, and to imprison all persons suspected of harbouring or sheltering them, supplying them with food or ammunition. Accordingly rural police stations are established about the various roads and passes, some 200 picked men being employed on this duty. A reward of 100 l. was offered for Simon or his head, and 20 l. for any of his band. Nearly a hundred people known to have had communication with the robbers were brought in from different villages. Some were imprisoned, other fined, and about fifteen sent to the Bagnio at Constantinople […]342

339 Reinhold Shiffer, Oriental Panaroma: British Travellers in the 19th Century Turkey, (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1999), 325. 340 Charles Macfarlane, Kismet:, or the doom of Turkey, (London: Thomas Bosworth, 1853), 148-149. For “judicial torture” see Paz, ibid., 278-293. 341 Macfarlane, ibid., 150. 342 “Capture of Brigands at Smyrna”, Wells Journal, 1 September 1855, 3. 99

As Sabri Yetkin states, these kinds of banditry stories were common in Izmir in the nineteenth century. For instance, Katırcı Yanni’s gang, one of the popular bandit gangs in the region, attacked caravans and stagecoaches343 and also kidnapped and held tradesmen and farmers for ransom.344 Alp Yücel Kaya notes that the Ottoman government attempted to curb the power of brigands in Izmir by using various methods, including putting a fifty thousand guruş bounty on their heads and raising collective responsibility among Ottoman society through bail bonds (kefalet senedi) that ensured the prevention of aiding and abetting bandits.345 The captured brigands faced various punishments from execution, imprisonment, banishment to hard labor

(kürek).346

Moreover, Yetkin emphasizes that especially after the Russo-Turkish War of

1877-78, Izmir received many immigrants and this flow of people increased crimes, such as banditry, in the city.347 For instance, on April 27, 1877, the reporter of the

Times also drew the attention of English readers to insecurity in the Ottoman Empire.

The reporter started his coverage with these lines: “I have so often laid before English readers quotations from provincial newspapers and from private correspondence all tending to prove the prevalence of the same scourges throughout the Ottoman Empire, that I think a repetition of the same recitals, almost in the same words, might prove tedious to English readers.” His report continued as follows:

343 For a detailed robbery story of a stagecoach going from Muğla to Izmir robbed by Sarı Yani and his gang in 1842, see BOA., İ.MEC.VALA, 680, 1258 (1842). 344 Yetkin, ibid., 55-62; A.MKT.UM., 70/66, 21 L 1267 (19 August 1851); BOA., İ.MVL., 236/8328, 23 B 1268 (18 December 1851); BOA., A.AMD., 34/64, 25 S 1268 (20 December 1851); BOA., İ.HR., 90/4428, 16 Za 1268 (1 September 1852); BOA., A.MKT.MVL., 58/29, 15 S 1269 (15 November 1852); BOA., A.AMD., 41/84, 13 R 1269 (24 January 1853); BOA., İ.DH., 281/17631, 13 M 1270 (16 October 1853); BOA., A.MKT. MVL., 74/75, 27 Z 1271 (10 September 1855). Katırcı Yanni and his gang were arrested in 1855 and sent to Tersane-i Amire. Kaya, ibid., 193-194. 345 See Alp Yücel Kaya, “19. Yüzyıl Ortasında İzmir’de Mülkiyet, Emniyet ve Zaptiyeler”, in Jandarma ve Polis: Fransız ve Osmanlı Tarihçiliğine Çapraz Bakışlar, eds. Noémi Lévy, et. al., (İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2009), 189-212. 346 Yetkin, ibid., 64. 347 Yetkin, ibid., 65-66. 100

[...] this country is in the most deplorable state as regards the utter insecurity of life and property. It proves its assertion in the same number by a series of letters from its correspondents in the Provinces, dated Gallipoli, Enos, Smyrna, and other places, all complaining of rampant brigandage, of the inefficiency of the armed force, of the corrupt administration of justice, and, finally, of the unparalleled wretchedness of the poorer classes.348

Midhat Pasha, governor of the province of Aydın in 1880, noted that gendarmerie (vilayet zabıtaları) were responsible for this chaotic atmosphere since they were not fulfilling their responsibilities to secure the prison, which often led to prison breaks. As governor, Midhat Pasha was responsible for the regulation of gendarmerie and police organization in Izmir, but he also occasionally engaged in his own enforcement of the law, ordering some bandits to be hanged in Izmir square.349

Yetkin quotes from a report of Kamil Paşa, the governor of Izmir in 1883, on the security issues in Izmir. According to the report, Levantine families who spent their summer at their summerhouses in Bornova350 and Buca were particularly panicked because of this insecure atmosphere and these kidnap for ransom stories disseminated through gossip.351 In 1887, the Pall Mall Gazette covered one of these stories as follows:

After a week’s detention (writes our Constantinople correspondent) the young Englishmen captured by brigands at Bournabat, near Smyrna, have been released on payment of a ransom of 750 Turkish pounds. This the telegraph has already told you. I now send the account given by Mr. William Wilkin, one of the prisoners. He says: - “On the evening of Saturday, the 24th ult., we were returning from our day’s partridge shooting to Bournabat, riding back on mules, with the muleteer and our gamekeeper, Leonidhi. Dusk was falling as we crossed the Palamout Valley, and here I spied two men running after us as hard they could. I asked Leonidhi who they were, but before he had time to answer me two fellows jumped out from behind a tree, and placing themselves in front of us, cried out, “Teslim!” (“Surrender”!). They were instantly joined by two other highwaymen, so there we were, hemmed in on all sides by six evil-looking ruffians armed with rifles. It seemed to me easy enough to show fight, and I was going to load my gun and have a pot shot at one of them. But my brother Charles called

348 “Public Security in Turkey”, The Times, 27 April 1877, 4. 349 Zeki Arıkan, “Midhat Paşa’nın Aydın Valiliği”, Uluslararası Midhat Paşa Semineri: Bildiriler ve Tartışmalar, (Ankara: TTK, 1986), 135-144; Yetkin, ibid., 65-67; Kontente, ibid., 560. 350 See Susan Heuck Allen, “’In Great Style and Magnificence’: Mapping the British Communities in Smyrna and Bournabat from the 18th to the Early 20th Centuries”, in City in Culture in City, Proceedings, Ninth Cultural Studies Symposium, May 2004, Ege University, Izmir, eds. Ayşe Lahur Kırtunç, et. al., (İzmir: Ege Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları, 2005), 177-189. 351 Yetkin, ibid., 67-68. For several ransom cases in Izmir see Jan Schmidt, “Banditry and the Dutch Colony in the Vilayet of Aydın”, in Through The Legation Window, 1876-1926: Four Essays on Dutch, Dutch-Indian and Ottoman History, (Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaelogisch Institut, 1992), 1- 24. 101

out to me not to do anything, adding that if we fired we should probably get the worst of it, as there might be a whole lot of other brigands in hiding not far off. That moment of reflection or of hesitation was fatal. I believe if we had all leveled our rifles at their heads the brigands would have bolted. As it was they came up rapidly; and making signs to show us that resistance was useless, seized the barrels of our rifles and took them from us. There we were, disarmed and prisoners. The chief, dressed in Greek costume, was most courteous in manner and invited us to write a letter that should be at once sent on to our parents, by the muleteer[…]352 The brigands later released his brother Charles and sent him back to Bournabat

(Bornova) to inform their parents that they would have to pay 3000 Turkish liras in cash for his brother’s release.

[…]It was in vain to try and convince the brigands that such a price was beyond the resources of our parents, who were far from rich. Our arguments were met by grave tosses of the head, which with Orientals is a sign of negation or of doubt. Up went the brigand’s chin in the air, and that meant, “Don’t try and bamboozle us. You’re English, so can pay. And pay you shall!”. “I must briefly describe the six brigands. Two were European costume, three were in bag-hose and fez; while the chief of the band, Capitan Dhimo, wore the Greek national fustanella. Three of the crew had Martini-Henry rifles; the others were armed with seedy old muzzle-loaders. All the brigands were young, and they talked Greek the whole time, being curiously careful never to call each other by name by fear we should know them […] The prisoners were released when Mr. Richard Whittall paid the ransom money after bargaining it down to a discount of 750 Turkish liras. If these brigands were ever caught they would have faced the punishments outlined for banditry in the Ottoman

Imperial Penal Code. The sixty-second article of the Ottoman Imperial Penal Code defines the punishment for banditry as follows:

Art. 62-Whosoever assumes the leadership of an armed band of ruffians formed for the purpose of seizing, pillaging or raiding the emlak [property] or emval [assets] or cash of the Imperial Ottoman Government or the emlak of a large number of the people or of opposing the Imperial Ottoman troops moving against the perpetrators of such Jinayets or holds any command in such band is put to death; and such of those included in this sort of bands of ruffians as are not holders of authority or command in such bands are placed in kyurek temporarily if they are caught at the place of the disorder.” Art. 62 was amended by an addendum dated 3 Jemazi’ul-Akhir, 1277 (17 December, 1860), of which the text is as follows:-Persons who, going about armed on the mountains or in the open country, commit the infamous act of catching and stripping the travelers whom they encounter-which such persons are styled highway robbers-are punished with the punishment of temporary or perpetual kyurek [hard labour] according to their condition and character and to the gravity of their ruffianism; but those amongst them who are old offenders in this Jinayet or are men of habitual ruffianism, or who torture or cruelly torment the persons whom they catch, or who have killed any one in the course of highway robbery are condemned to death.353

352 “A Week with the Brigands of Smyrna: An Interview with One of the Captives”, Pall Mall Gazette, 13 October, 1887, 2; “The Brigands of Smyrna”, Bristol Mercury, 15 October 1887, 5. It seems changing costume among brigands was common in the nineteenth century., Raif Nezihi, ibid., vol. 16, 2-3. 353 Bucknill-Utidjian, ibid., 56-57. 102

However, capturing brigands wandering from mountain to mountain was not an easy task for an inadequate number of gendarmerie equipped with few supplies.354

Arms trafficking was one of the major ways of getting pistols and guns for bandits.

Thus, the local officials in Izmir tried to find ways in which to stop this trafficking and prevent banditry in the region. As Yetkin notes, bandits mostly obtained arms through foreign ships anchored in Izmir’s bay. Thus, the Directorate of Izmir

Safeguard (İzmir Muhafaza Müdiriyeti) was established in 1901 with eight boats in order to track any kind of trafficking activities along the long bay of the city.355

Yetkin demonstrates that although the Tanzimat reforms attempted to lessen corporal punishment in the Empire, this new rule was rarely applied when it came to cases involving the punishment of brigands. Yetkin notes that in addition to capital punishment, brigands were crucified (çengel, çarmıh), decapitated, and displayed to people in front of the governor’s palace in Izmir even after the Second Constitution.356

The insecurity caused by banditry would be a hot topic at the Ottoman Parliament, as we will see in their debates, but first, let us focus on the institutionalization of imprisonment in Izmir.

From Cezayir Hanı to Izmir Prison: Institutionalization of Imprisonment in Izmir

On December 6, 1851, Saturday, around 1 a.m., forty-eight prisoners, only one non-Muslim, broke the shackles on their ankles and attempted to break out from

Cezayir Hanı. Due to overcrowding in the mahbushane (prison) at the governor’s

354 Yetkin, ibid., 74-82. 355 Yetkin, ibid., 77-80. 356 Yetkin, ibid., 44-48. For gruesome images of beheaded brigands exposed to people in İzmir in 1895, see Yetkin, ibid., 212. Raif Nezihi quotes from Ruzname-i Ceride-i Havadis for illustrating the exposure of dead bodies of Yörük Ahmed and his friend to the public after the clash between gendarmerie and their gang. Raif Nezihi, ibid., v. 14, 8. For banditry in the Province of Aydın during the Second Constitution see Engin Berber, “İkinci Meşrutiyet Döneminde Aydın Vilayeti’nde İç Güvenlik Sorunu”, in Engin Berber, Bir İzmir Kâbusu: Mütareke ve İşgal Dönemi Üzerine Yazılar, (İzmir: İBBKKY, 2002), 1-22. For an example of display of chained brigands kidnapped a woman in Yalova see Musavver Nevsal-i Servet-i Fünun, 1313 (1897), 49. 103

palace (Bab-ı Vali) in Izmir, this trade center had been used as a secondary prison.

The security forces caught twenty-three prisoners, but the rest, mostly thieves and brigands, succeeded in escaping from the Han.357 As mentioned earlier, there were no specially designated buildings to function as a prison in the Ottoman Empire until the middle of the nineteenth century. In addition to trade centers such as Cezayir Hanı in

Izmir, a large variety of buildings from towers to imam’s houses were used as places of confinement.358

Cezayir Hanı was at Yemişçiler Bazaar in the bazaar district, known as

Kemeraltı in Izmir.359 The introverted design of the building tells us that the Han was designed to protect itself from the outside. The upstairs rooms of the Han functioned as prison cells during the middle of the nineteenth century.360 Residents of the city also referred to Cezayir Hanı as “punishment place” (ceza yeri).361 Unfortunately, archival evidence does not reveal detailed information about the Han. 362

Cezayir Hanı was deemed secure for confining prisoners by the year 1855, when Ottoman officials stated that there was not a proper place at the governor’s

357 BOA, A.MKT.NZD. 58/66 23 Za 1268 (8 September 1852). 358 Some of the hans in İzmir were also used as a slave market. “...enzâr-ı ecnebiyede gayet çirkin görünen ve bey’ ve şirasına dürlü manalar verilen üsera-yı zenciyenin İzmir gibi Avrupalının kesretî olan bir mahalli nazikede han-ı mahsusda alınub satılması ser ü pay-rehne sokaklarda ashabı arkalarında koyun sürüsü gibi gezdirilmesi yakışıksız göründüğüne...” BOA., A.MKT.UM., 226/53, 29 Ca 1272 (February 6, 1856); also see BOA. ŞD., 1378/14, 27 Şubat 1296 (10 March 1881). 359 We do not have sufficient information about the construction of this building. Some authors date the building to the end of the eighteenth century, and some date it to the middle of the nineteenth century. Bozkurt Ersoy, İzmir Hanları, (Ankara: Atatürk Kültür Merkezi Yayını, 1991), 82; Çınar Atay, Kapanan Kapılar İzmir Hanları, (İzmir: İBBKKY, 2003), 275. There was also another han called Cezayir Hanı, but that was in the east part of the section in between Hacı Hüseyin Camii and Kestane Pazarı Camii. Bozkurt Ersoy, ibid., 81. 360 BOA., DH. MB. HPS., 45/34, 1 C 1334. In 1916, due to sanitary issues in İzmir prison, some of the prisoners were transferred to Menekşeli Han (Yovakimoğlu Hanı). 361 Münir Aktepe, İzmir Yazıları, (İzmir: İBBKKY, 2003), 135. 362 One of the documents dated May 10, 1850 illustrated the poor conditions of the Han by noting the need to repair its water lines. The estimate for the repair was 18.700 kuruş. BOA., İ.DH., 214/12506, 27 C 1266 (May 10, 1850). Another archival document dated 1853 refers to Izmir mahbesi, stating that prisoners were chained there due to crimes including theft and banditry. While the document is not clear about this location, it must be a reference to Cezayir Hanı. BOA., A. MKT. MVL. 64/42 11 L 1269 (July 18, 1853). 104

palace for confining prisoners and designated the Han as an alternative.363 However, we know that even after this time one of the ground floor rooms of the governor’s palace was still used for locking up criminals. 364 In his reports of 1856, George

Rolleston, assistant physician of the British Civil Hospital at Izmir, also stated that in the mid-nineteenth century, there were two punishment places, one in the governor’s palace and the one in Cezayir Hanı in Izmir. Rolleston illustrated the prisons in Izmir as follows:

Imprisonment is the punishment awarded to every variety of crime, except to such cases as, by their flagrant character, or by their affecting some individual under European protection, compel the authorities to inflict capital punishment. Criminals condemned to death are decapitated, and this punishment is, if possible, inflicted near the place where the offence was committed. If the offender be a Greek it is sometimes found necessary to execute him by night for fear of an outbreak on the part of his countrymen. There are two places for the imprisonment of criminals, exclusive of those attached to the several consulates for the confinement of offenders under their protection.365 One, the Turkish, is in the pasha’s residence, and was formerly the only establishment of the kind in existence in Smyrna. It consists of three or four small rooms, and is used for the confinement of offenders before they are tried, for punishment of debtors, and of petty criminals. There is no arrangement apparently for separating criminals guilty of one order of crime from those guilty of another, but it is seen that the richer offenders generally contrive to obtain either complete privacy or the company of men of their own rank in life. The second prison is on a more extensive scale, and can contain 100 prisoners. It was formerly a khan, and when the want of increased prison accommodation made itself felt, the strong doors and walls of that kind of building made its conversion to that use easy and obvious; most of the prisoners here are homicides of one sort or another, and by nationality Greeks.366

Due to overcrowding, and illness and death among prisoners, five other rooms in the downstairs were also dedicated as wards, and the two other rooms were also

363 “İzmirin hükümet konağında habshane ittihazına elverişli mahal ve civarında dahi münasib sair ebniye-i miriye olmayub mezkur hanın habshane olarak kullanılması mevki ve maslahatca emr-i zaruri hükmünde olmağla..” BOA., İ.DH. 336/22029 14 R 1272 (24 December 1855). 364 In the 1830s, Joseph Michaud wrote that he had permission to visit the prison at the governor’s palace. Michaud noted that there were twenty prisoners in a narrow room known as the prison at the palace. Joseph Michaud, Correspondence d’Orient, v. III., 1830-1831, (Paris: Ducollet, 1834), 354. 365 For the consulate prisons in Izmir and Istanbul in the nineteenth century see Johannes Berchtold, Recht und Gerechtigkeit in der Konsulargerichtsbarkeit: Britische Exterritorialität im Osmanischen Reich, 1825- 1914, (München: Oldenbourg, 2009), 160-169. I thank Onur İnal for drawing my attention to this source. 366 George Rolleston, Report on Smyrna, (London: G.E. Eyre and W. Spottiswoode, 1856), 27. Rolleston noted that he prepared his report with the assistance of the medical officers at the British hospital and presented it to the Secretary of State for War of Britain. His reports included a geographical description of the city, political history, and information about population, languages, climate, health, and commerce in Izmir. Rolleston notes that the khans in Izmir were used for various purposes. Some merchants used khans as offices for the transaction of their business, and resident artisans such as shoemakers used them as shops. Rolleston, ibid., 84-85. See Martha Nicol, Ismeer, or Smyrna, and its British hospital in 1855, (London: James Madden, 1856). 105

used as infirmary. Two officials were responsible for the medical care of prisoners, but the number of the personnel later decreased to one.367 The prisoners in Cezayir

Hanı were quite literally in a miserable situation. Most of them did not even have proper clothes. Thus, in 1856, Ottoman officials decided to distribute shirts (Acem gömleği) and pants (dizlik)368 as well as rush mats and bed sheets to seventy-two prisoners for the sake of ‘humanity’.369 In 1856, Cezayir Hanı housed two hundred fifty two prisoners, and according to the memorandum (arz tezkeresi) sent by

Süleyman Paşa, governor of Izmir, the number of prisoners was more than the physical capacity of the Han. Not surprisingly, due to this overcrowding and lack of hygiene, many prisoners fell ill. Many of these illnesses proved to be fatal. As Beyru states, the ‘outside’, or the city in general, was not very clean and neat either. In addition to disasters such as earthquake and fire, the residents of Izmir suffered in great numbers from plague, cholera, and syphilis in the nineteenth century.370

367 “İzmir’de kain Cezayir hanının fevkani odaları mukaddeme hapishane ittihaz olunmuş ise de işbu odalar gayet zıyyık ve müteaffin olarak mevcud olan mahbusinden çoğu telef olmakda olduğundan mezkur hanın alt katındaki odalardan dahi beş bab oda ilave ve diğer iki bab oda hastahane...”, BOA., A.MKT.MHM. 82/60 7 CA 1272 (15 January 1856). 368 “Eskiden giyilen kısa don hakkında kullanılır bir tâbirdir. Dize kadar olduğu için bu ad verilmiştir.” Pakalın, ibid., 470. 369 “…mahbusin meyanında olan donsuz ve gömleksiz bulunan eşhasın makşufülavre bırağılmaları dahi insaniyetin helakı bulunduğuna mebni bu makule makşufülavre bulunan yetmişiki nefere birer dizlik ile birer Acem gömleği ilbas ve iksa ve mezkur odalara lüzumu mikdar hasır ferşi ve hastalara dahi yorgan misillü şeyler ahziyle emr-i tedavi ve muhafazalarına itina olunduğu beyanıyla bunlardan müddet-i mahdude ile mahbus olan onbeş neferin tersane-i amirede istihdamlarına müsaade buyurulması ve bu babda vukubulan mesarif-i zaruriyenin hazine-i celileden tesviyesi hususu..” BOA., A. MKT. MHM. 82/60 7 Ca 1272 (15 January 1856). 370 For the statistics of deaths caused by several diseases in İzmir see Rauf Beyru, 19. Yüzyılda İzmir’de Sağlık Sorunları ve Yaşam, (İzmir: İBBKKY, 2005), 14-59. See Memduh Say, İjiyen Bakımından İzmir Şehri, (İzmir: Bilgi Matbaası, 1941); Abdullah Martal, “19. Yüzyılın Sonlarında Zührevî Hastalıklar”, in Belgelerle Osmanlı Döneminde İzmir, (İzmir: Yazıt, 2007), 117-132; Rolleston, ibid., 57-73. For the health commission formed for preventing syphilis in the city see BOA., A.MKT.MHM., 502/23, 20 Temmuz 1307 (1 August 1891). 106

Figure 2.6. Cezayir Hanı (114) and Menekşeli Han (123) were used as prison in Izmir. Charles E. Goad, Plan d’Assurance de Smyrne, (Londres: C.E.Goad, 1905)371

We should note that each community in Izmir had its own special hospitals for its members.372 The two rooms at the Gureba-yı Müslimin Hospital were rented for British soldiers and its income was allocated for the prisoners in the Cezayir Hanı.

It seems that prisoners were treated at their respective hospitals based on their citizenship. However, Ottoman officials found that the transfers of prisoners who committed major crimes from the prison to the hospitals were often insecure undertakings. According to Ottoman officials, it was crucial to locate a proper place inside prisons or in military barracks, as in Rusçuk prison, to act as a hospital or

371http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/15525295?n=8&imagesize=1200&jp2Res=.125&printThumbnail s=true 372 See Beyru, ibid., 59-86; Rolleston, ibid., 71-73. Yıldız quotes from British ambassador Canning’s report that non-Muslim prisoners in Izmir were lucky in 1850s since they had their community hospitals (cemaat hastaneleri) where they could receive medical treatments. It needs to be mentioned that in 1851, the Gureba-yı Müslimin Hospital was opened and also served sick prisoners. Yıldız, Mapusâne, 117-118. 107

infirmary. This way, officials could treat sick prisoners without transferring them from their place of confinement and risking escape.373

Keeping prisoners in the Han was not an easy task for Ottoman officials. In his

İzmir Tarihi (the History of Izmir) published in 1926, Raif Nezihi wrote an account of the riot that started among the prisoners in Cezayir Hanı on March 26, 1869. İnegöllü

Hakkı, as the leader of the riot, managed to convince other prisoners to revolt against the prison administration. Prisoners, “like monsters in a cage”, attacked the gendarmerie under the command of Yasin Bey, killing seventeen of them. The prison revolt turned into a ‘street fight’ between the rebellious prisoners and the gendarmerie. In the end, however, the gendarmerie succeeded in capturing the leaders of the revolt, İnegöllü Hakkı and Deveci Yusuf, and suppressed the riot. The ninety- two rebellious prisoners were chained and sent to Istanbul via ferry (Muhbir-i Sürur

Fırkateyni).374

The blurry history of this khan at least informs us that there were several attempts of Ottoman officials to sell the khan in the second half of the nineteenth century. For instance, on September 27, 1867, Mehmed Sabri Paşa, the governor of

Aydın province, sent a memorandum complaining about the physical conditions of the governor’s palace. According to his memoranda, the governor’s palace (konak) was a wooden and crumbled building. Sabri Paşa requested permission to sell Cezayir Hanı and the farm in Bornova (Bornova’daki emlak-ı miriyeden Balıkçıbaşı Çiftliği) on behalf of the imperial center and to use this money to rebuild the palace. Sabri Paşa noted that the number of officers in the city had increased after Izmir became the

373 “…İzmirde her milletin espetalyaları olub hastegan-ı mahbusin gönderilerek bakdırılmakda ise de bazı ağır kabahatlü olan hastaların kefil ve müteahhidi bulunamayacağından espetelyaya gönderilmesi uyamayub o makuleler için habshane yanında münasib bir mahallin hastahane ittihazıyla tedavi olunması zımnında mukaddema mahalline tahrirat tastir kılındığı...” BOA., İ.DH. 336/22029 14 R 1272 (24 December 1855). 374 Raif Nezihi, İzmir’in Tarihi, ed. Erol Üyepazarcı, (İzmir: İBBKKY, 2001), booklet 15, 4-5. Yıldız also quotes this news from Basîret newspaper. See Yıldız, Mapusâne, 157-158. 108

center of the province of Aydın by the 1864 Vilayet Nizamnamesi, and the palace did not meet the expectations for a palace in a provincial capital. Furthermore, Sabri Paşa also attached to his memoranda a report penned on October 5, 1867 by Mösyö Vitali, who previously inspected the palace, listing the reasons a new palace was needed.

Vitali’s report, originally in French and translated into Ottoman, included a project of building a new palace out of stone (kargir) but also an additional three-storied prison close to the palace. This proposed prison would have thirty four rooms for prisoners and guards.375 In 1874, selling the Han was still on the agenda. However, for some reasons this sale was not realized; the Han was used as prison for many more years and eventually lay in ruins, making its sale in the future unprofitable and unrealistic. 376 In 1874, another attack occurred against the guards in the Han.

Transferring some of the prisoners to other prisons was the solution for the prison officials in this instance, as well.377

The fate of Cezayir Hanı after its time as a prison is somewhat unclear. The

Han might have retained its place as a khan in Izmir. According to the English civil engineer Charles E. Goad’s insurance plan of Izmir dated 1905 [Fig. 2.6.], the building was still there in the first decade of the twentieth century.378

As the yearbooks of the province suggest, Izmir was repeatedly described as one of the biggest (cesim) cities of the Empire and due to increasing criminal activities in the region, building a general prison based on modern prison architectural plans was essential for the city. The correspondence between the imperial center and the governor of Izmir in the 1850s illustrates that the debates revolved around the

375 BOA., İ.MVL. 581/26075, 14 R 1272 (24 December 1855). 376 BOA., İ.MMS., 51/2215, 29 Z 1291 (6 February 1875). “Cezayir Hanının bilmüzayede füruhtu lazım gelir ise de bu han derununda müddet-i medidedenberi mahbusin ikame olunmasından ve layıkınca tamirine bakılamamasından dolayı..” 377 BOA., Ayn., 812, 290/2 (24 November 1874). 378 Atay, ibid., 274-275. The Han was finally demolished in 1960. 109

main question of which part of the city was suitable for building the new prison and how much it would cost. According to the imperial center’s point of view, the prison should be built close to the governor’s palace [Fig. 2.7.], and the prospective cost was calculated as 47,135 Ottoman kuruş.379 It seems that for some reasons, this plan remained on paper for at least a decade. In 1863, we learn that the imperial center sent

Rıfat Efendi to Izmir as inspector to scout around for a place to locate the new prison in Izmir.380 We do not have the details about Rıfat Efendi’s inspection, but we know the debates on constructing a public prison in Izmir resulted in allocating part of the governor’s palace as a prison in 1869. However, the capacity of this building was insufficient for use as a prison; therefore, the convicts were transferred back to

Cezayir Hanı later. Predictably, as a result of continued overcrowding, on March 18,

1870, one hundred and twenty prisoners who had been charged for committing several crimes attempted to break out from the Han. The prisoners were sent to

Lesbos and Rhodes islands because of the inadequate capacity of the building.381

379 BOA, A. MKT. MVL., 65/30, 19 Za 1269 (24 August 1853). 380 BOA., A.MKT.MHM. 281/42 8 Ca 1280 (21 October 21 1863). 381 BOA, DH. MKT., 1310/72, 16 Z 1286 (19 March 1870). “İzmirde cinayat-ı mütenevvia ile mahbus bulundukları halde firar etmek üzere habshane muhafazasına memur zabtiyelerin silahlarını alarak arbedeye cesaret etmiş olan yüzyirmi nefer eşhasın İzmir limanında aramsaz olan vapur-ı hümayuna gönderilüb...” 110

Figure 2.7. The governor’s palace (Hükümet Konağı) in Izmir. Aydın Vilayet Salnamesi, 1891.

Figure 2.8. Izmir Prison – Military Barracks – The Government Palace (Lamec, 1876)

Yıldız states that prisons built at the center of cities throughout Ottoman cities in the nineteenth century illustrate a breaking point from traditional Ottoman city plans that were shaped by placement of the mosque, bazaar, and bathhouse at the city center. The new city plans were based on the governor’s palace, prison, and

111

post/telgraph offices.382 Paz argues that “the fusion of powers” of Ottoman authorities in the Tanzimat period resulted in the creation of a provincial government complex, which included the governor’s house (konak) and the police compound (kapı altı) composed of barracks and detention facilities in Ottoman provinces.383

After longstanding debates on how to construct Izmir’s new prison, a French prison model was chosen and construction of the triangle-shaped prison began in

1873.384 As could be seen on the 1876 plan of Izmir by Dr. Lamec Saad [Fig. 2.8.],

Izmir Prison was built close to the military barracks and the governor’s palace. A seventeenth-century panoramic engraving of Izmir published in the yearbook of

Aydın province of 1891 marked the spots that Izmir Prison occupied and demonstrate that the prison was built on the lands which were formerly the cemeteries of Greeks and Europeans, but this seems like very misleading information.385 To date, I have found no other primary or secondary source on Izmir prison that mentions anything about this particular placement of the prison. As in many parts of the Empire, Izmir

Prison was built as a part of the new governmental center in the city. The prison on

Sabunhane Street (later İnönü Caddesi) was connected to the Amber Barracks and the governor’s palace. As seen in the architectural plan [Fig. 2.9.], Izmir Prison had a radial shape that mirrored many nineteenth-century architectural plans for new prisons

382 Yıldız provides several examples from different regions of the Empire such as Aleppo, Diyarbakır, and Sivas that illustrate the engagement of prisons into the new governmental spaces in nineteenth- century Ottoman cities. Yıldız, Mapusâne, 390-393. For an example of ‘spatialisation of incarceration’ of Karesi’s central prison see Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire, 111-141. For maps of spatial organization of governmental spaces, particularly prisons, in Islamic cities between the 7th-9th centuries see Yılmaz Can, İslâm Şehirlerinin Fizikî Yapısı (H. I-III/M. VII.-IX Yüzyıl), (Ankara: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Yayınları, 1995), 203-216. 383 Paz, ibid., 31-32. 384 Sayek, ibid., xvi-xvii. One of the documents sent from the province of Aydın to the Ministry of Interior Affairs on 17 March 1912, indicates that the reports about Europe prison were sent to Aydın province as an example for the interior regulation of İzmir prison. BOA, DH. MB. HPS., 71/30, 28 R 1330 (16 April 1912). 385 Aydın Vilayet Salnamesi (1891), 560. See Appendices. 112

in Europe.386 According to the plan, in addition to the rooms allocated for guards, the infirmary, laundry, and the kitchen, Izmir Prison had a section for female prisoners, wards for misdemeanors, and wards for solitary confinement (tecrid koğuşları). As

Fig. 2.9.], [Fig. 2.10.], and [Fig. 2.11.] demonstrate, the two structures in front of the prison were built as guardhouses.

Figure 2.9. The plan of Izmir Prison (BOA, DH.MB.HPS.M. 52/21, undated)

The local officials’ involvement in prison issues was defined by provincial laws and ordinances such as the Ordinance for the General Governance of Provinces

(İdare-i Umumiyye-i Vilâyât Hakkında Talimat) of 1876. As Abdülhamit Kırmızı states, the Ordinance defines the responsibilities of the governor in the nineteenth- century Ottoman Empire. According to the sixth article of the Ordinance, Tasks for

386 I have not encountered any sources that reveal the architect of Izmir Prison. For a detailed analysis of architectural prison plans around the world see Norman Johnston, Forms of Constraint: A History of Prison Architecture, (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2000). 113

Reform (vazâif-i ıslahiyye), governors were required to reform prisons, control prison administration, and appoint guards. 387 The tenth article was about prison reform.

According to the article, there were two reasons for reforming prison conditions and improving prison governance. One of them was to attempt to distinguish between detainees and prisoners, and the other one was to prevent imprisonment of someone without a trial. According to the article, the prisons in the provinces (vilayet) were under the control of the sub-division governor (mutasarrıf) in sub-divisions (liva) , and under the district governor (kaymakam) in districts (kaza). The eleventh and twelfth articles were related to prison administration. According to the eleventh article, governors were responsible for appointing prison wardens and guards as mentioned in the sixth article. More interestingly, according to the article, governors had to form a committee (terfi cemiyyeti) including a chief (reis) and two members

(âzâ); one Muslim, and one non-Muslim, in order to monitor guards’ activities and behaviors. The committee was responsible for requesting information about each detainee and prisoner from guards every day, and if any misconduct, abuse of authority or unlawful confinement was observed, this committee then had the authority to release the affected detainee or prisoner on bail.388

The local newspapers in Ottoman Turkish were also very interested in a wide range of news including appointment of guards, security issues at the prisons, charity organizations for prisoners, and any kind of improvements such as repairs inside

Izmir Prison. For instance, on October 11, 1895, Ahenk published a column illustrating the conditions of Izmir Prison. Interestingly, the paper reported that two prisoners who had been imprisoned in Izmir Prison for a number of years visited the newspaper’s bureau in Izmir after they were released in order to show their

387 Kırmızı, ibid., 315-316. 388 See Erkan Tural, “Bir Belge: 1864 ve 1871 Vilayet Nizamnameleri ve 1876 İdare-i Umumiyye-i Vilâyât Talimâtnâmesi”, Çağdaş Yerel Yönetimler, 14:1, Ocak 2005, 71-91. 114

appreciation for the prison officials, including the prison warden, guards and, of course, the Ottoman sultan. According to these prisoners, Izmir Prison had approximately eight hundred prisoners by 1895. They declared that the prison was very clean, and the prison officials treated prisoners very kindly.389 Of course, we should be skeptical about this news because we know that nineteenth-century editors were known for making up fictional characters especially under periods of heavy censorship such as in the late Ottoman Empire.390 In fact, a great deal of archival evidence contradicts the claims of these prisoners; archival documents illustrate the prison’s unhygienic conditions and its need for repair. 391 In 1897, Ahenk, again, informed its readers that 38,000 kuruş had been sent from the imperial center to reform the prison and expand the prison’s capacity.392 In the same year, Abdülkadir

Paşa, member of the governing assembly of the province (meclis-i idare-i vilayet azası), Kantarağasızade Ali Bey, member of the assembly of the municipality (meclis- i belediye azası), and Manolaki Efendi, engineer at Izmir municipality (belediye

389 “...Mahbusin habshanede o kadar istirahatdedir ki hakikaten insan ahval-i umumiyesi itibariyle habshane demek istemez. Her gün tanzifat ve tathirata riayet edilir. Habshanenin hiç bir noktasında hıfzsıhhate muhalif bir hal yokdur. Abdesthanelerine kireç dökülür. Her taraf temiz süpürülüyor. ...Zindandan memnun olmuş adam var mı deniliyorsa işte biziz. Habshaneden değil idareden, memurların mükemmeliyet ve nezaketinden memnun olduk. Bundan dolayı evvel emrde padişahımız efendimiz hazretlerine dua eder ve habshane müdürü sergardiyan Hasan ve Reşad efendilere beyan-ı teşekkürat eyleriz.”, Ahenk, 11 October 1895, 2. 390 The 138th article of the Imperial Ottoman Penal Code set the extent of censorship. “In the case of a person who dares to print and publish a newspaper or book or offensive papers (evrak-ı muzırra) in printing houses, which have been opened by order or permission to the Ottoman Empire or Government authorities or a nationality subject to the Ottoman Empire, the things which he has caused to be printed are first seized and after the closing of his printing house temporarily or altogether according to the gravity of his offence, a fine of from ten Mejidieh gold pieces to fifty Mejidieh gold pieces is taken.”, the Imperial Ottoman Penal Code, 105. For censorship in the late Ottoman Empire see Fuat Süreyya Oral, Türk Basın Tarihi: Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Dönemi (1728-1922, 1831-1922), Yeni Adım Matbaası, 152-153; Hıfzı Topuz, II. Mahmut’tan Holdinglere Türk Basın Tarihi, (İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2003), 53-57; M. Nuri İnuğur, Basın ve Yayın Tarihi, (İstanbul: Çağlayan Kitabevi, 1982), 255-272; Korkmaz Alemdar, İstanbul (1875-1964): Türkiye’de Yayınlanan Fransızca Bir Gazetenin Tarihi, (Ankara: Ankara İktisadi ve Ticari İlimler Akademisi Yayınları, 1978), 51-57. 391 BOA., ŞD., 1378/10, 9 S 1296 (2 February 1879); BOA., BEO. 1828/137027, 4 M 1320 (13 April 1902); BOA., BEO., 1960/146978, 8 N 1320 (9 December 1902); BOA., ŞD., 2714/20, 4 B 1320 (7 October 1902); BOA., ŞD., 2723/8, 28 L 1321 (17 January 1904); BOA., DH. MKT. 2010/91 24 Ra 1310 (April 16, 1912). 392 Ahenk, 12 May 1897, 2. 115

mühendisi), were appointed to inspect the repair of the floor covering in Izmir Prison.

The newspaper does not give us the outcome of their inspection.393

Figure 2.10. Izmir Prison in the nineteenth century. Courtesy Institut national d’histoire de l’art. NUM PH 4221.

Figure 2.11. Izmir Prison in the 20th century. Courtesy APIKAM.

The official capacity of Izmir Prison was four-hundred prisoners [Table 2.1.]

Twenty-eight guards were responsible for governing these prisoners and securing the

393 Ahenk, 22 July 1897, 2. 116

prison. However, in 1905, the population of the prison reached one thousand one hundred prisoners, and continued to increase day by day. The correspondence between Ottoman ministries emphasized the necessity of appointing more guards to secure this “huge” prison and described their duties. Guards were responsible for sick prisoners under their supervision, securing the ward for women prisoners, controlling the visitors at the entrance, and surveilling and controlling the prison population, but the twenty-eight guards in Izmir prison in the first decade of the twentieth century seemed insufficient to carry out all of these tasks. 394 Moreover, the physical capacity of Izmir Prison was also inadequate compared to the number of prisoners it held. In fact, prison officials requested permission to build four extra wards and then transfer some of the prisoners to the new wards. However, the Ministry of Interior did not accept this request or the concurrent appeal to hire ten more guards for the prison, due to the lack of a budget for these kinds of applications.395

Izmir Prison, one of the symbols of the centralization attempts of the Ottoman government, later turned into a symbol of surveillance, especially during the reign of

Abdülhamid II. As Funda Adıtatar illustrates, based on reports of the British

Consulate in Izmir, the number of political prisoners who had any connection with the

Young Turks increased in the prison population in Izmir in the late Ottoman

Empire. 396 Some of these prisoners were banished to Bitlis and Kastamonu. The arrests of those involved in any kind of anti-Hamidian acts, such as communicating with the Young Turks in Paris through letters, continued until to the promulgation of the Second Constitution.397

394 BOA., ŞD. 2749/59 27 S 1324 (22 April 1906). 395 BOA., ŞD. 2749/59 27 S 1324 (22 April 1906). 396 Funda Adıtatar, ‘İzmir İngiliz Konsolosluğu ve Siyasi Faaliyetleri (1878-1914)’, PhD Dissertation, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, 2011, 201. 397 Adıtatar, ibid., 202. 117

In 1906, due to the celebration of the third decade of Abdülhamid II’s sultanate, a general pardon was issued and many prisoners in Izmir Prison including brigands were released. 398 As Yetkin argues, these general pardons were a reconciliation method of the Ottoman government to deal and even bargain with brigand gangs and also a method for decreasing the number of prisoners.399 To relieve the problem of overcrowded population and the resultant high mortality rates among prisoners, the administration of Izmir Prison also requested a transfer of some of the prisoners to the county prisons.400 In 1907, there was also a debate about enlarging the capacity of Izmir Prison by adding a couple of wards that could hold an additional three hundred total prisoners. 401 The correspondence between the Ministry of the

Interior and the Province of Aydın illustrated the urgent need to build new wards due to the risk of spreading communicable disease among the prisoners in overcrowded spaces.402 By 1907, the number of prisoners reached one thousand-five hundred.403 In

1907, the officials of the general prison in Izmir planned to transfer the prisoners to other kürek centers to reduce the prison population, but according to the Ministry of

Justice, prison transfers could not solve the problem because security forces captured brigands each day, which led to constant increases in the prisoner population.404

398 Yetkin, ibid., 112-117. 399 Yetkin, ibid., 95. 400 BOA, DH. TMIK. S., 65/61, 18 L 1324 (5 December 1906). In order to reduce the overcrowded prison population in Izmir, officials transferred some of the prisoners to other prisons, including Rhodes and Bodrum, several times in the late Ottoman Empire. Ahenk, 16 Teşrin-i sani 1313 (28 November 1897), 2; Ahenk, 21 September 1899, 2. 401 BOA., BEO. 2955/221601 18 L 1324 (5 December 1906) BEO. 3031/227291 28 S 1325 (12 April 1907); BEO. 3038/227825 8 Ra 1325 (21 April 1907); BEO. 3039/22 227918 10 Ra 1325 (23 April 1907). 402 BOA., BEO. 3013/225957 3 S 1325 (18 March 1907). 403 BOA., BEO. 3039/22 227918 10 Ra 1325 (23 April 1907). 404 “..takib-i eşkıyaya memur kuvve-i zabıta tarafından peyderpey derdest ve tevkif edilmekde olan eşhasdan dolayı mahbusin-i mevcudenin pek ziyade teksir ederek elyevm bunlardan birine mahbus nakli gayr-i kabil bulunduğu cihetle bilhassa İzmir hapishanesinin tadil-i izdihamı için mevcud hapishaneye üç yüz kişilik bir kaç koğuş ilave ve hemen inşasına mübaşeret olunmak üzere..” BOA., BEO. 2989/224171 21 Z 1324 (5 February 1907). In 1912, Mehmed Nazım, governor of Salonica, wrote to the Ministry of Interior and complained about how the Bulgarian gangs increased the prison population in Salonica prison. BOA., DH. MB. HPS. 51/53 30 Za 1330 (10 November 1912). 118

In 1908, as mentioned in the first chapter, after the promulgation of the

Second Constitution, most of the prisoners, including bandits such as the popular

Çakırcalı Mehmet, in Izmir Prison were released with the general pardon [Fig.

2.12.]405 Moreover, the members of parliament extensively discussed the pardon for vagrants (eyyam-ı inkılabiyede hilaf-ı kanun hapishanelerden çıkan ceraim-i âdiye mahkûmin ve maznunini hakkında kanun lâyihası) and its consequences in terms of the Empire’s security.406 Kirkor Zöhrap Efendi from Istanbul presented his concerns about the application of pardons and its effects on crime rates.407 The excerpt below drawn from the discussions illustrates an example of the diversity of thought and mindsets of the members of the Ottoman parliament in terms of justice, imprisonment, and pardons in the first decade of the twentieth century.408

Kozmid Efendi from İstanbul: ...if the aim was to apply justice, justice would not be ensured if the [notion] of equality would be violated.. Mehmet Ali Bey from Canik: ...today if someone sees his/her brother’s or parent’s murderer outside of prison after he/she had sentenced and imprisoned, it intensely affects the victim’s relatives... Mehmet Talât Bey from Ankara: Sir, let’s take account of the conditions of prisons. Imprisoning a man for three five years means dying over there, his face pales and he gets tuberculosis. Lütfi Fikri Bey from Dersim: ...if it is a pardon, let’s pardon all of them...During the era of oppression (istibdâd), nobody was confident about the courts...

405 See Zeki Arıkan, “II. Meşrutiyet Döneminde İzmir”, in Üç İzmir, (İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 1992), 219-227. For a literary work on Çakırcalı see Yaşar Kemal, Çakırcalı Mehmet Efe, (İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2007). 406 MMZC, İ: 37 5 Ağustos 1325 (5 August 1909), c: 1, 530-538. 407 MMZC, İ: 37 5 Ağustos 1325 (5 August 1909), c: 1, 532. 408 MMZC, İ: 37 5 Ağustos 1325 (5 August 1909), c: 1, 536. 119

Fig. 2.12. The release of the prisoners in Izmir.409

Even with the drop in the prison population, the conditions in the prison and the role of the prison in the city remained. In fact, local newspapers published in the first decades of the twentieth century in Izmir continued to include critical articles pointing out the poor conditions of Izmir Prison, as well as debates among city officials and journalists about the location of the prison now at the heart of the city. In

1908, a Hizmet columnist complaining about the prison suggested that Izmir Prison should be demolished and replaced with a public garden.410

What will the prison be? Let’s look at the site where the prison is located. Isn’t this site worth being a public park instead of being a prison? Having considered the deprivation of contemporary medical treatment of prisoners, keeping culprits and prisoners in this dungeon built such as inquisition [engizisyon] is against the mercy..411

Demolishing the prison, some believed, would help to erase some of the bad memories of the oppressive regime. Vangelis Kechriotis notes that tearing down the

409 http://www.delcampe.net/page/item/id,226746771,var,SMYRNE-DELIVRANCE-DES- PRISONNIERS-PAR-LE-COMITE-CONSTITUTIONNEL-PROGRESES-UNION---2- SCANS,language,F.html 410 Hizmet, 20 November 1908, 2. The article also makes comparisons between the European prison and İzmir prison in terms of their locations in cities. This debate was still active in 1936. Yeni Asır, 26 July 1936, 2. 411 Ibid., 2. 120

Clock Tower (Saat Kulesi) 412 [Fig. 2.13], built in 1901 at the center of the governmental complex of Izmir to symbolize the twenty-fifth anniversary of

Abdülhamid II’s ascension to the throne, was on the agenda of anti-Hamidian groups in Izmir during the Second Constitution era.413 On August 8, 1908, Ahenk newspaper published an article entitled “Millet Bağçesi” (the Nation’s Garden). The newspaper attempted to convince its readers that the old, “sinister”, and “ugly” prison inside the city was a danger to the health of the public. The doctors and the officials from the municipality also affirmed this unhygienic situation in their reports. According to the news, Ispartalızade Estapan Efendi, an Armenian merchant, was the first notable of the city who attempted to disseminate the idea of demolishing the prison and building a public garden on the land. Erecting a monument of liberty (abide-i hürriyet) was also in the plan. Moreover, the administration of Ahenk promised to donate fifteen liras for this purpose.414 Mustafa Enver, the chief doctor of the Gureba-yı Müslimin

Hospital, also supported the project. According to Enver, the prison polluted the air that was critical for patients’ health, therefore, demolishing the prison and building a

“Hürriyet Bağçesi” (the Garden of Liberty) as he called it, would benefit the hospital and its patients.415 Ahenk continued to publish news about the conditions and needs of

Izmir Prison in the first decade of the twentieth century.416

412 See İnci Kuyulu Ersoy, “İzmir Saat Kulesi”, Türk Dünyası İncelemeleri Dergisi, 4, 2000, 277-287; Orhan Koloğlu, “İzmir Saat Kulesi’nin Yapım Tarihi Tartışması”, Tarih ve Toplum, 36:214, 2001, 250- 251; Kontente, ibid., 629. Kamil Dursun states that Kamil Paşa’s son Said Paşa gave a silver miniature of the clock tower to Abdülhamid II before it was built. Dursun, ibid., 30-33. 413 Vangelis Kechriotis, “Contesting the Old Order: Greek Orthodox and Muslims in Izmir Welcome the Ottoman Constitutional Revolution”, CAS Working Paper Series, Issue 1, Centre for Advanced Study Sofia, Sofia 2007, 7. 414 Ahenk, 8 August 1908, 3. 415 “İzmir habshane-i umumisinin temelinden hedmiyle yerine bir (Hürriyet Bağçesi) yapılacağını kışla meydanında bir merasim ifasını müteakib yüzbaşı Ruşen Bey Efendi efrad-ı ümmete tebşir(müjde) eyledi.. hastaların herkesden fazla muhtaç olduğu hava-yı safi-yi ihlal eden bu menba-i taaffün artık ortadan kalkacak, yerinde yeller esecek, bu sayede hem memleketimizin, hem de hastahanemizin manzara ve şerefi artdıkça artacak 25 Temmuz 324 Gureba Hastahanesi Sertabibi Mustafa Enver”, Ahenk, 8 August 1908, 3. 416 Ahenk, 25 June 1909, 2. 121

Fig. 2.13. The governmental square of Izmir in the late Ottoman Empire. Courtesy APIKAM.

Despite the willingness of the imperial center and the general assembly of the province, as seen in their decision of 1909 to use that space by building a public park, the plan remained only an idea on paper.417 Finding a wide space outside the city which could encompass a prison and military barracks might have been an obstacle.

Another reason not to apply the plan might have been the cost of building new sites of this size.418 The first decade of the twentieth century also saw the continuation of debates on the role of prisons in the Ottoman Empire more generally. For instance,

Kevakibizade Abdülhalik Mithat published an article entitled “Hapishaneler”

(Prisons) in İstişare journal on March 11, 1909. According to Mithat, prisoners were incarcerated in order to be rehabilitated. Therefore, prisons should have been built in a

“humanitarian way” (insanlığa muvafık). What did he mean by “humanitarian way”?

417 “...İzmir habshanesi esasen harab oldukdan başka kavaid-i sıhhiyece son derece münafi olub mahbusine bir maktel makamına geçdiği ve mahbusinin nısfı verem, nısf-ı diğeri de uyuz hastalığına giriftar olduğu cihetle zaten mail-i inhidam olan binasının bütün bütün hedm ve ref edilerek arsasının umumi bir bağçe haline ifrağı ve her hangi bir suretler olursa olsun karşılık tedarikiyle kavaid-i fenniyeye muvafık yeni bir habshane inşası...” Ahenk, 3 April 1909, 2. 418 In 1912, Ahenk was still publishing news illustrating the need for repairs to Izmir Prison. Ahenk, 10 March 1912, 2. 122

Mithat elaborates by arguing that prisons should remind prisoners that they were in prison but also protect the body and health of the prisoner.419

Demolishing the military barracks was also part of the plan that the newspapers discussed. According to the correspondence between the Ministry of the

Military and the Ministry of the Interior on February 21, 1910, after the demolition a new military barracks, a military school holding six hundred gendarmeries, and a new prison would be built somewhere outside the city. The plan included building a nation’s garden, an Ottoman club, a library, and a theatre on the fields of the prison and the military barracks. 420 Moreover, the aforementioned efforts to reduce the prison population in Izmir Prison were finally effective, and by 1910, the prison population had dropped to around seven hundred prisoners, and two hundred of them were convicted of misdemeanors (ceraim-i hafife).421

As Schull has explored, the CUP attempted to apply the 1880 regulation until

1917 by building new prisons in central locations of the Empire such as Istanbul,

Damascus, Beirut, and Baghdad.422 In addition to finding ways to finance building these prisons, in 1912, the CUP started an extensive campaign for collecting statistical information from every prison as mentioned in the first chapter.423 Schull further notes that the CUP’s modernization attempts were a part of the symbiotic relation

419“...tekmilat-ı beşeriye iktizasıyla habshanelere mahbuslar, insan olmak için konuluyor. Terbiye için getiriliyor. Böyle olunca habshanelerde insanlara, insanlığa muvafık bir tarzda tesis ve bina olunmalıdır. Habshaneler tarz-ı ve inşa ve suret-i taksimatda, bir tarafdan mahbusun habsde olduğunu anlatacak, diğer taraftan hayat ve sıhhatini ve atalet ve cehlden mütevellid ahvali izale edebilecek suretde olduğu halde mukteza-yı kanuna iktiza-yı medeniyete muvafık düşmüş olur...”, Kevakibizade Abdulhalik Mithat, “Hapishaneler”, İstişare, 26 Şubat 1324 (11 March 1909), 1109-1113. According to Mithat, prisoners should be able to work inside the prison. Prisons should also have recreation sites such as in Philadelphia in the United States where prisoners could take a walk within the prison. Mithat concludes his article by noting that building this type of prison could cost more than a prison built with only four walls (dört duvar). 420 BOA., DH. MUİ., 1-7/48 (21 February 1910). 421 BOA., DH.MUİ., 106/54 2 B 1328 (10 July 1910). 422 Schull, Tutuklu Sayımı, 230-231. 423 Schull, ibid., 231. 123

between civilization and prison widely accepted in contemporary states.424 Schull calls Ottoman prisons a “social laboratory” 425 and “microcosm of Ottoman modernity” by emphasizing the CUP’s social engineering and the implementation of modern concepts of time and space in Ottoman prisons during its reign.426 Moreover,

Schull notes that Ottoman prisons were part of “the CUP’s larger plans to meld the

Empire’s population and administration into a modern nation-state.” 427 Therefore, even during the harsh conditions of the First World War, the CUP attempted to continue prison reform throughout the Empire.428

The Prison Population in Izmir in the late Ottoman Empire

1500 1500

1300 1222* 1100 1100 900

Prisoners 800 700 700 500 1895 1905 1907 1910 1919

Year

* The number of the released prisoners

Table 2.1. The Prison Population in Izmir in the late Ottoman Empire429

World War I and the Great Fire in 1922 were the major decisive and catastrophic moments in the transformation of Izmir. The British High Commissioner in the Empire sent Commander Heathcote-Smith, a member of the High Commission,

424 Schull, ibid. 232. 425 Schull, ibid., 229. 426 Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire, 4, 44. 427 Schull, ibid., 53. 428 Schull, Tutuklu, 57. 429 Ahenk, 11 October 1895, 2; BOA., ŞD. 2749/59 27 S 1324 (22 April 1906); BOA., BEO. 3039/22 227918 10 Ra 1325 (23 April 1907); BOA., DH.MUİ., 106/54 2 B 1328 (10 July 1910).

124

to Izmir in order to inspect the prisons in Izmir in 1919. Smith’s report on the conditions of Izmir Prison was as follows:

In the first part of the prison visited 106 men were found who had been there for three months and more without trial; of these, fifty-nine had been there for ten months and more, and it can only be presumed that in the remainder of the prison there were many similar cases. Many of the prisoners were Greeks and Armenians, and the charge against the majority was that of desertion [any military and political offence]. A large number of the sick were housed in insanitary cells; food conditions were inadequate and primitive, and there were authenticated cases of ill-treatment.430

On March 20, 1919 one thousand two hundred and twenty prisoners, particularly

Greeks and Armenians, in Izmir Prison were released with the order of the

Commander Heathcote-Smith.431 By quoting from Ottoman newspapers, Köylü and

Hukuk-ı Beşer, Engin Berber notes that by shouting “Long live the Sultan!” Muslim prisoners tried to hold Greek and Armenian prisoners back in order to stop the British authorities from releasing them, and during the clash between soldiers and prisoners one Muslim prisoner was killed and one got wounded.432

The military occupation of Izmir by Greek forces in 15 May 1919 resulted in a transfer of the city’s entire governmental power to Greece. Thus, the prison administration also changed hands from the Ottoman Empire to Greece.433 The reports of the Inter-Allied Commission of Inquiry states the events that took place in Izmir

Prison during the occupation was as follows:

Several hundred prisoners from different backgrounds escaped from prison near barracks [Sarı Kışla] a few hours before the occupation. The Turkish authorities did not take effective steps

430 Reports on Conditions in Turkish Prisons, House of Commons Parliamentary Papers, Online, Miscellaneous N.6 (1919), (London, 1919), 7-8. 431 Evangelia Achladi, “Savaştan Yunan İdaresine: Kozmopolit Smyrna’nın Sonu”, in İzmir (1830- 1930) Unutulmuş Bir Kent mi?: Bir Osmanlı Limanından Hatıralar, ed. Marie-Carmen Smyrnelis, (İleşitim: İstanbul, 2009), 221; Engin Berber, Sancılı Yıllar: İzmir 1918-1922, Mütareke ve Yunan İşgali Döneminde İzmir Sancağı, (İstanbul: Ayraç Yayınevi, 1997), 96; Engin Berber, “Bağımsızlık İlkesi Bağlamında Taşra Yönetiminden Osmanlılara Bakmak: İzmir Örneği”, in Engin Berber, Bir İzmir Kâbusu: Mütareke ve İşgal Dönemi Üzerine Yazılar, (İzmir: İBBKKY, 2002), 38. 432 Berber, Sancılı Yıllar, 96; Berber, Bağımsızlık İlkesi, 38; Onur Gülsün Vere, ‘Mütareke’den İşgale İzmir’de Rumlar’, MA thesis, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, İzmir, 2007, 77-78; Zeki Arıkan, İzmir Basınından Seçmeler (1872-1922), v. 1, (İzmir: İBBKKY, 2001), 347-348. 433 Oya Şenyurt, “20. Yüzyılın İlk Çeyreğinde Anadolu ve İstanbul’da Bazı Hapishane İnşaatları”, Arredamento Mimarlık: Tasarım Kültür Dergisi, 9, (Boyut Yayıncılık: İstanbul, 2003), 76-80. 125

to guard against or stop these escapes. Some of the prisoners were able to procure weapons from the arsenal near the barracks.434

On July 4th, 1919, James Morgan, representative of British High Commissioner in

Izmir, reports about the Greek mistreatment of Muslim prisoners in Izmir Prison. His report concludes as follows:

Cases of beating in prison were common enough during the Turkish regime but it had been hoped that the Greek regime would have shown some improvement on that of the Moslems.435

The International Research Committee of the American College in Izmir, consisting of the college teachers S. Ralph Harlow, Vincent L. Humeston, Pandelis

Raptarkis, and İsmail Hakkı Bey, carried out a survey in 1921. This survey, titled A

Survey of Some Conditions in Smyrna - Asia Minor and coinciding with collection of data for the famous Pathfinder Survey published in 1922, collected data about Izmir’s social, administrative, economic, and judicial structure while the city was under occupation. The committee visited public and local prisons, as well as the courts in

Izmir. The section regarding the prison shows that all the prisons and police stations were in a very poor state in Izmir, and further indicates that the prisoners were living in a place with no fresh air and limited natural light.436 The basement of the prison was used for torture, and most of the prisoners were chained by their legs or necks.

The guards carried large truncheons, and some of them had guns. There was no workplace, school, or library for the prisoners. Women prisoners were kept in a separate place in the prison. According to the report, under Greek administration,

434 Çağrı Erkan, Greek Occupation of Izmir and Adjoining Territories: Report of the Inter-Allied Commission of Inquiry (May-September 1919), (Ankara: SAM, 1999), 56. 435 FO 608/103, 269-272. I owe a thank you to Dr. Kent Schull for accessing these British reports. İzzet Bey, the governor of Izmir, echoes the British report. See Mehmet Karayaman, “İzmir Valisi İzzet Bey’in Kaleminden İzmir’in İşgali”, Çağdaş Türkiye Araştırmaları Dergisi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, VI:15, 2007, 3-18. 436 See the questionnaire regarding the juridical system of İzmir, Uluslararası Amerikan Koleji Araştırma Komitesi, İzmir’de Bazı Sosyal Koşullar Hakkında Bir Araştırma, İzmir 1921, (İzmir: İBBKKY, 2000), 88-103. For the original reprint of the survey see A Survey of Some Social Conditions in Smyrna, Asia Minor, May 1921, ed. Rıfat N. Bali, (İstanbul: Libra, 2014). 126

Izmir Prison turned into a small village, and henceforth every prisoner started to learn a profession. The Committee also included a chapter regarding their suggestions about the courts, police institution, and the prisons in Izmir. They suggested that civil authorities should govern the prison, and prisoners should be segregated depending on their crime.437 The reports on the conditions of Izmir Prison penned by Morgan and the Committee seem contradictory.

A couple of days after Ottoman troops entered Izmir on September 9, 1922, the Great Fire of Izmir started on September 13, 1922 and destroyed almost half the city including thousands of houses, shops, and many schools, hospitals, banks, churches, charity buildings, and theaters. Since Izmir Prison was located in the

Turkish quarter of the city, the fire did not affect it, but the fire devastated the silhouette of the city and more importantly the cosmopolitan nature, which had emerged in the city particularly since the eighteenth century.438

Conclusion

Izmir as one of the major port cities of the Empire saw immense and fluctuating flows of people due to wars, migration, territorial losses of the Empire, and was faced with increased crime rates in the late Ottoman Empire. Nineteenth- century Izmir also saw the restructuring of its urban and governmental space with new military barracks, hospital, governor’s palace, prison, reformatory, and school that all

437 This survey is not accepted as a reliable historical source for some historians since most of the questions in the survey were asked only of specifically chosen people. Engin Berber, Yeni Onbinlerin Gölgesinde, 53-54. 438 Reşat Kasaba, “İzmir 1922: A Port City Unravels”, in Modernity and Culture: From the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean, eds. Leila Tarazi Fawaz-C.A. Bayly, (New York: Columbia University Press, 2002), 204-229; Marie-Carmen Smyrnelis, “Yangın, Bir Yaşam Modelinin Sonu”, in İzmir (1830-1930) Unutulmuş Bir Kent mi?: Bir Osmanlı Limanından Hatıralar, ed. Marie-Carmen Smyrnelis, (İleşitim: İstanbul, 2009), 235; Engin Berber, The Izmir Fire: Preliminary Report: Case Study: The Burning of Ödemiş and Birgi, (Ödemiş Kent Arşivi ve Müzesi, 2013); Mustafa Kırışman, “Fransız Basınında İzmir Yangını Üzerine Bazı Değerlendirmeler”, Çağdaş Türkiye Araştırmaları Dergisi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, 10:22, 2011, 77-93; Georgelin, ibid., 255-284;. For the damage of the Great Fire and the reconstruction of the city see Küllerinden Doğan Şehir, eds. Erkan Serçe, et.al., (İzmir: İBBKKY, 2000); Serçe, İzmir’de Belediye, 176-186. 127

symbolized the presence of the ‘centralized’ government. The uniformity of state architecture provided visual and physical representations of progress and modernity through which the Ottoman imperial government strove to ‘enlighten’, ‘modernize’, and homogenize cities and their provincial hinterlands.

The public sphere of Izmir was foundationally shaped in the period from

1825-1901. In the beginning of the nineteenth century, the area today known as

Konak Meydanı functioned as a collection of workplaces. In the midst of the nineteenth century, this public square became the administrative and public space of

Izmir with the construction of buildings that represented military and political power in Izmir, such as the Amber Barracks (Sarı Kışla-1829), the Hospital (Gureba-yı

Müslimin Hastanesi-1851), the Reformatory (Islahhane-1868), the governor’s palace

(1868-72, reconstruction), Izmir Prison (1873), Izmir High School (İzmir İdadisi-

1886) and later the Clock Tower (1901).439

Izmir Prison, constructed in 1873, remained until the disintegration of the public space in Izmir in 1959.440 From its construction to destruction, Izmir Prison as

439 See for the similar example in Egypt, Timothy Mitchell, Colonising Egypt, (California: University of California Press, 1988), 34-36. Salim Tamari notes that the iconic clock towers throughout the Empire such as in Izmir, Tripoli, Jaffa, and Jerusalem were a part of public monumental planning of Abdülhamid II’s era and expansion of public squares. According Tamari, the clock towers represented more than commemorating the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Sultan. For instance, Tamari states that the clock tower in Jerusalem was forcefully removed during the British Mandate. Salim Tamari, “Confessionalism and Public Space in Ottoman and Colonial Jerusalem”, in Cities and Sovereignty: Identity Politics in Urban Spaces, eds. Diane E. Davis-Nora Libertun de Duren, (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2011), 62-63. Mehmet Bengü Uluengin notes that “clock towers were also instruments of rapprochement for foreign governments” such as in the case of the Izmir clock tower. The clock mechanism of the Izmir clock tower was a gift from Emperor Wilhelm II of Germany and this was related both to Wilhelm’s goals and Germany’s “drive toward the East” politics. Mehmet Bengü Uluengin, “Secularizing Anatolia Tick By Tick: Clock Towers in the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic”, IJMES, 42, (2010), 24-25. Biray Kolluoğlu Kırlı argues “the omnipresent tower in the old centre brought about an externalized and objective conception of temporality to this city whose socio-economic rhythm was already synchronized with other shores of the Mediterranean.” Biray Kolluoğlu Kırlı, “Cityscapes and Modernity: Smyrna Morphing into İzmir”, in Ways to Modernity in Greece and Turkey, Encounters with Europe, 1850-1950, eds. Anna Frangoudaki-Çağlar Keyder, (London: I.B. Tauris, 2007), 226. 440 For İzmir prison’s condition in 1953, please see Ziyaeddin Fahri Fındıkoğlu, "İzmir Hapishanesi Hakkında Bir Rapor", İş, Türkiye Harsi ve İçtimai Araştırmaları Derneği, v. 146, 1953, 2-5; “Tarihi İzmir Hapishanesinin Yıkımına Dün Başlanıldı”, Yeni Asır, 6 December 1959, 1-3. For the city planning in Izmir see Mehmet Bengü Uluengin-Ömer Turan, “İmparatorluğun İhtişam Arayışından 128

the part of the new Ottoman public space presented not only a threatening (punitive) and reassuring (order) image to the people living in the city, but also symbolized an apparatus of power in terms of the legitimatization of social control, even at the increasingly well-known cost of inhumane treatment of prisoners. As in many other cities of the Empire, the major obstacles to improved prison standards in Izmir in the late Ottoman Empire were the limited budgets allocated for modernization of the prison and the lack of a professional prison administration. 441 In addition to the budgetary problems of Aydın province, the high density of prisoners within the limited physical capacity of Izmir Prison also had a negative impact on conditions and daily life within prison walls.442 While in the 1870s building Izmir Prison was a remarkable event for the officials of the city and its residents, with the expansion of the city, the military barracks and later the prison became undesirable parts of the governmental space specifically after 1908 and until their demolition in 1953 and in

1959 respectively.443

Furthermore, it seems that even in the midst of the twentieth century, the prison did not meet the requirements of the ‘modern’ prisons mentioned in one of the columns of Yeni Asır in 1934.444 For instance, the subsistence of the prisoners was still an ongoing problem. In 1937, the Turkish Red Crescent (Kızılay) took the responsibility of feeding prisoners in Izmir.445 On October 1937, Akşam covered the

Cumhuriyet’in Radikal Modernleşme Projesine: Türkiye’de Kentsel Planlamanın İlk Yüzyılı”, TALİD, 3:6, (2005), 353-436. 441 For prison budgets see Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire, 51-60. 442 BOA., BEO., 3022/226593 12 S 1325 (27 March 1907), BEO 3013/225957 3 S 1325 (18 March 1907). 443 For the city planning of Izmir in the 1930s-40s see Le Corbusier en Turquie: Le plan directeur d’Izmir (1939-1949), Catalogue de l’exposition présentée dans le cadre de la Saison de la Turquie en France, 2009. 444Yeni Asır, “Hapishanemizin Vaziyeti Cidden Yürekler Acısıdır, Bahtsız Mahkumları Kendi Elimizle Ölüme Sürüklüyoruz Demek Caizdir”, 27 November 1934, 2. According to the column, the prison has nine hundred prisoners at that time, and the prisoners could only take a bath biweekly. 445 “Valinin bir muvaffakiyeti: Kızılay mahkumlara sıcak yemek verecektir”, Yeni Asır, 6 May 1932, 1- 2. 129

situation in Izmir Prison. According to the news, Izmir Prison had 592 prisoners, most of whom worked as carpenters and shoemakers and knit socks at the workshops inside the prison.446 These workshops were still active in the 1950s and prisoners had a chance to sell their products to the residents of Izmir at the shop in the prison.447

As shown in this chapter the capacity of the triangle-shaped Izmir Prison was mostly insufficient to hold the growing number of prisoners. The prisoners in Izmir

Prison were a reflection of the multi-cultural, ethnic, and cosmopolitan nature of the city in terms of having prisoners from different religious and ethnic backgrounds.

Even after the Prison was demolished, the legacy, memories and prison sub-culture live on in Greek rebetikas448 and Turkish folk songs.449

446 Akşam, 17 October 1937, 6. 447 An interview with İrfan Sakızlı, 27 September 2014. Irfan Sakızlı who is İsmail Hakkı Sakızlı’s (1315/1897/98-1962), the head guard (Başefendi) of Izmir Prison since 1936, son is living in Izmir. I would like to thank İrfan Sakızlı for his time and patience for hours of interviews about Izmir Prison, which he visited numerous times when he was a child. I would also like to thank him for his generosity in sharing his father’s personal notebooks and photographs with me. 448 See Elias Petropoulos, Songs of the Greek Underworld: The Rebetika Tradition, (London: Saqi, 2000). Rebetika was “the music of the poor, the dispossessed, the refugees and the migrants who came to Greece from Asia Minor before and after the First World War.” The prison life and hashish were the common themes of these songs. See (http://www.rebetiko.gr/en/index.php) 449 “Düştüm mahpushanelere yanar ağlarım, Dördüncü Ferhanede derdime yanarım”. A folk song about the fourth ward of Izmir prison where serious offenders were imprisoned such as famous brigand Çakırcalı Mehmet Efe who stayed there in 1897. Dördüncü Ferhane Türküsü, in Halil Dural, Bize Derler Çakırca: 19. ve 20. Yüzyılda Ege’de Efeler, (İstanbul: TVYY, 1999), 70. 130

Chapter 3

The “Forgotten Ones”: Ottoman Prisoners in Port Cities

“Prisons are for real men”.450

As shown in the second chapter, the Tanzimat reforms attempted to reorder and transform the urban fabric of Ottoman cities by building new institutions ranging from hospitals to prisons. The port cities such as Istanbul, Izmir, and Salonica451 were among the first sites where these physical transformations took place. The spatial change of these cities included the purpose-built institutions, such as prisons, built upon regulations, legislations, and codes that created their own bureaucratic, administrative, and social settings within the general framework of reform. Moreover,

Ottoman prison reform affected not only the physical appearances and architectural design of Ottoman prisons but also attempted to organize and improve the living conditions and spatial divisions of prisons.

As Roger Matthews argues, space, time and labor were the three essential elements of prisons.452 By borrowing Henri Lefebvre’s terms, Matthews considers prisons as a mixture of ‘real’ and ‘ideal’ spaces.453 Ottoman prisons represented this mixture of spaces and shifted, and shifted back and forth between the two, in the late

450 An Egytian saying. Peters, "Marginalisation", 31. 451 Yıldız, Mapusane, 148. Yıldız notes that one of the first prisons in the Empire might have been built in Salonica in 1852. 452 Roger Matthews, An Introduction to the Sociology of Imprisonment, (London: MacMillan Press, 2009), 26. 453 “Real space refers to material phenomena such as buildings, rooms, and furniture. Ideal space, on the other hand, is more abstract, referring to different forms of social ordering produced through the formulation of mental categories which involve, for example, different architectural designs and forms of organization.” Matthews, ibid., 27. See Henri Lefebvre, The Production of Space, (Cambridge: Blackwell, 1991), 14. 131

Ottoman Empire in terms of prison architecture, hygiene and prison work.454 Ottoman prisoners lived literally on the edge of the reality of prisons as they lived in non- hygienic and overcrowded confinement places with little in the way of sustenance, typically only a piece of bread and water daily. This reality was in stark contrast to the prison regulations and ordinance sent from the imperial center to localities. As the architectural models differed throughout the Empire, the establishment of the

‘rehabilitative’ and medical structures (hospitals, infirmaries) was not uniformly applied in every Ottoman prison. In this regard, particularly, the general prison in

Istanbul and the prisons in major cities such as Izmir and Salonica could be read as role models or ‘ideal’ carceral spaces for other prisons in the Empire.

This chapter attempts to illustrate the living conditions of Ottoman prisoners,

“the forgotten ones”, specifically in the general prisons of three major port cities in the late Ottoman Empire: Istanbul, Izmir, and Salonica. We mostly encounter descriptions of and references to Ottoman prisoners in newspaper articles about prison breaks, or in demographic information in administrative records. In addition to the sources drawn from the Ottoman archives, this chapter investigates daily life in

Ottoman prisons through newspapers, journals, and official documents of the Empire, as well as photos published in several police journals (Polis Mecmuası) in the first decades of the twentieth century. These rare photos are particularly important not only for depicting the ‘real space’ of the general prison in Istanbul but also for showing us the role model of ‘ideal space’ for other Ottoman prisons.

The fragmented nature of archival sources on Ottoman prisons turns into a challenge for the historian who attempts to examine life behind the walls. Until the establishment of the Directorate of Prisons after the promulgation of the Second

454 For the application of Lefebvrien approach of the ‘production of space’ to Ottoman prisons see Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire, 120-127; Schull, ‘Penal Institutions’, 215-224. 132

Constitution of 1908, the governance of prisons was not centralized, and in localities, governors and later mayors and municipal officials were involved in governing and inspecting prisons.455 This multi-head governance of prisons resulted in a vast amount of correspondence between localities and the center and much of it consisted of complaints about the lack of food and inadequacy of spaces used as prison. This chapter attempts to reconcile the state archive with Ottoman journals and newspapers published in the late Ottoman Empire in order to illustrate resonances and implications of reform in localities.

The other challenge for the historian is a significant gap resulting from the dearth of diaries or notes penned by Ottoman prisoners in the historical record.456

Although the literacy rate among Ottoman prisoners was pretty low 457 , Ottoman prisoners were allowed to receive letters from their families and friends under the control of prison officials. 458 However, so far I have not encountered any of them in the archives. This chapter based on fragmented archival pieces is only an attempt to examine life in Ottoman prisons with special focus on the three Eastern

Mediterranean port cities using what sources are available. The eclectic topics and cases in this chapter aim to contribute to the bourgeoning literature on Ottoman prisons. Although these three port cities carried diverse qualities, especially Istanbul

455 See Abdülhamit Kırmızı, “19. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Taşra İdaresi”, in Selçukludan Cumhuriyete Şehir Yönetimi, eds. Erol Özvar-Arif Bilgin, (İstanbul: Türkiye Belediyeler Birliği, 2008), 299-319. The third article of Vilâyât Belediye Kânunu (The Law of Provincial Municipalities) stresses that one of the major tasks of municipalities was to control and inspect the gathering places (mecma-ı nâs) such as theatres, hospitals, schools, and reformatories. Thus, by extension, prisons could also be deemed one of the gathering places that needed to be inspected and regulated. See Ahmed Akgündüz, Osmanlı Devleti’nde Belediye Teşkilâtı ve Belediye Kanunları, (İstanbul: Osmanlı Araştırmaları Vakfı, 2005), 583. 456 For some of the rare examples of prisoners’ memoirs see A. Solakyan, Bantayin Husher: Vani Kentronakan Banti Zndan, (Erevan: Zangak-97, 2002); “Khalil Sakakinis Ottoman Prison Diaries: Damascus (1917-1918)”, editorial, Jerusalem Quarterly, 20, January 2004, 7-23. I owe a thank you to Yektan Türkyılmaz who generously shared A. Solakyan’s memoir on the conditions of Van Prison in 1914-5. For the literarcy statistics of Ottoman prisoners in 1911-1912 see Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire, 104. 457 Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire, 105. 458 BOA., ZB. 474/49 1323 (1905/1906). 133

because the imperial center played a unique role in terms of governance of the

Empire, these cities connected to each other regarding the implications of Ottoman prison reform from health issues to prison work. The pace and implications of prison reform differed within these cities and it did not result in simultaneous practices or outcomes. Moreover, the fragmentary nature of the sources leads to disparate examples and cases from each city. Since the general prison in Istanbul represented the role model, and more sources are available, Istanbul is the main focus in this chapter.

This chapter basically asks the following questions: To what extent did

Ottoman prison reform affect the lives of Ottoman prisoners in these three port cities?

How was the sustenance for Ottoman prisoners? To what extent did prisoners receive medical attention? Why did the Ottomans use prisons for lunatics? What was the link between the usage of esrar (hashish) and prisoners’ agency? To what extent can prison work be read as attempts of Ottoman officials to ‘humanize’ prisoners?

Sustenance for Ottoman Prisoners

The prisoners’ menu provided by the Ottoman government did not change much from the sixteenth-century dungeons to the nineteenth- century prisons. It was mostly a piece of bread (katıksız ekmek, nan-ı aziz) and water.459 In the 1850s, the imperial center sent notices to local officials stating that they had to provide bread, coal, rush mat, and olive oil for lamps to criminals (ashab-ı töhmet) because the center received constant complaints stressing the lack of bread in prisons located in different parts of the Empire.460 In some cases, this problematic situation became harder due to abuse of the distribution of these limited supplies in local prisons by

459 Yıldız, Mâpusane, 33-34; Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire, 118. 460 BOA., MVL. 97/44 9 Ra 1267 (January 12, 1851). 134

prison officials. 461 İsmet Paşa, an inspector in Anatolia in 1851, wrote a report could be seen as an example of the Ottoman government’s reluctance to provide food to prisoners. In the report he states, İsmet Paşa’s report recommended that olives should be given to prisoners in addition to bread.462 In his memorandum based on the British consular reports of 1851, Stratford Canning also illustrates the inconsistent distribution of bread in Ottoman prisons by stating that “The prisoners are generally allowed a ration of about ½ lbs [226 gr] of bread daily. At Constantinople 2 lbs [907 gr] of wholesome bread. [...] at some places less bread is allowed.”463

The provision of food in prisons was also on British ambassador Henry

Bulwer’s agenda in 1860. Bulwer aimed to draw the attention of Ottoman officials toward the importance of improving food and also hygiene in prisons. He hoped that officials would work to reform Ottoman prisoners’ diets and overall hygiene. His suggestions included distribution of soup at least once a day, and a provision for special diets for Muslims during Ramadan and forty para daily for Christian prisoners during Muslim religious days. 464

According to the 53th article of the 1880 Regulation, prisoners were supposed to get two loaves of bread, each 300 dirhem (975 gram), and soup, and women prisoners who were breast-feeding were allowed to get more food than others. The menu included legumes (kuru zahire), vegetables, and meat seasonably. The article considers special provisions for religious days for all prisoners, thus implementing

Bulwer’s suggestions of twenty years earlier. The Regulation established that prisoners regardless of religious background would receive special diets during

461 BOA., A.MKT. UM. 289/54 25.Z.1272 (August 11, 1856). 462 “...yevmiye verilmekde olan yarımşar kıyye nan-ı azizden maada katık olarak bir mikdar zeytin verilmesi hususu...”, BOA., C.ZB. 36/1752, 21 B 1267 (May 22, 1851). 463 BOA., MVL. 246/49 4 R 1268 (January 27, 1852). 464 BOA., İ.DH. 468/31279 25 B 1277 (February 6, 1861). 135

religious days. 465 However, the discrepancy between the Regulation and its application was obvious as can be seen in several examples of local prisons throughout the Empire.466

Prisoners were often termed poor and miserable (zavallı, bedbaht, biçare) in

Ottoman archival documents that underline both the horrible situation they lived in and the ways in which they were helpless subjects waiting for mercy (merhamet-i seniyye) from the Ottoman sultan. The language of the archival documents, which stress the misery in prisons, are supported by a review of Abdülhamid II’s charitable activities, which indicates that the subsidy for prisoners was “0.62 % while it was

32.86 % for mosques, and 11.49 % for lodge and convents”. 467 Thus, it seems that

Ottoman prisoners were not a priority on the benevolence list of the sultan and so little was done to improve the misery of prisoners at the time. The unwillingness of the Ottoman government to allocate a budget for feeding the accused in detention centers triggered a vast amount of correspondence between the center and the provinces.468 As a result, some generous Ottomans organized charitable activities in order to distribute food for poor prisoners. Ottoman officials also organized public lotteries for the benefit of prisoners in Izmir Prison in 1887 and 1890. 469 On

September 5, 1891, Nevzad Bey, a merchant, granted two sheep and one hundred sixty packets of tobacco to be given to the prisoners in Aydın prison for celebrating

465 “...ramazan-ı şerife mahsus olmak üzere imsakiye olarak elli dirhem pirinç ve altı dirhem revgan-ı çerviş ve dört dirhem tuz ve et tayını verilmeyen günlerde dört dirhem revgan-ı çerviş ve iftariye olarak lüzumu kadar zeytun danesini tecavüz etmeyecekdir ve milel-i sairenin perhiz günlerinde dahi bu usule riayet olunacakdır.” BOA., A.DVN.MKL. 19/28, 1297 (1880), 12. 466 Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire, 118. BEO. 285/21321 20.Ra.1311; BEO. 851/63813 06 Ca 1314; DH.MKT. 2076/37 22 M 1314; DH. EUM. MH. 19 L 1327 3/121; DH.MB.HPS. 51/12 9 Ra 1330; BEO. 4473/335458 20.Ş.1335. 467 Nadir Özbek, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Sosyal Devlet (1876-1914), (İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2002), 185. 468 One of the correspondences between the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Treasury illustrated that Ottoman officials attempted to make a budget for providing bread to the detainees. In 1880, there was one hundred thirty five detainees in Salonica, and the only food they had every day was 300 dirhem of bread. BOA., İ.ŞD. 52/2922 24 Z 1297 (October 27, 1880). 469 Hizmet, January 26, 1887, 1; Hizmet, March 15, 1890, 2. 136

the anniversary of the sultan’s enthronement.470 We do not know the details of these charities, some of them as mentioned above appeared in newspaper columns that stressed the generosity and humanity of these people towards ‘poor’ and ‘miserable’ prisoners.

Yıldız notes that the general prison in Istanbul was more privileged in terms of the diet than local prisons in the Empire. The diet in the general prison included beans, rice, vegetables, and meat.471 Most of those in detention centers, except the ones in Istanbul, only had stale bread for their daily meal. 472 The unpredictable amount and quality of food items distributed to prisoners most certainly led to additional illnesses in places that already experienced illness as a result of unhygienic conditions. In 1893, some of the prisoners in Salonica prison got scurvy due to lack of nutrition and vitamins. The prison officials attempted to prevent the disease by providing some vegetables and fruits such as oranges and lemons, and meat to prisoners that cost three thousand kuruş per year.473

The living conditions of Ottoman prisoners depended on their families’ or relatives’ level of income. Wealthy prisoners had the chance to get whatever they needed from outside, but poor ones were obliged to survive on the rations given by the prison administration. As seen in the Kassam register (kassam sicili) of Izmir dated 1893-1896 some of the prisoners did not have any relatives. According to the register, the possessions of these prisoners (âhirde varis-i ma`ruf ve ma`rufesi olmadığı halde) who passed away in prison were only mats, pillows, and old clothes

470 Hizmet, September 5, 1891, 2. According to Ahenk, two non-Muslim women (Madam Eleni ve Propajena(?) namında) made a donation including bread, pasta, rice, oil, and money to be given to the prisoners in Izmir in 1912. Ahenk, 20 Şubat 1912, 2. 471 Yıldız, Mapusane, 368. 472 BOA, DH. MB. HPS. 78/49; DH. MB. HPS. 78/50; DH. MB. HPS. 97/2, DH. MB. HPS. 97/11, DH. MB. HPS. 80/22; DH. MB. HPS., 97/37. 473 BOA., BEO. 285/21321 20 Ra 1311 (October 1, 1893). 137

(köhne melbusat).474 Even wealthy prisoners were not immune to potential shortages in food as the prison directors reserved the right to stop distributing food to wealthy prisoners.475 Interestingly, in 1896, Ottoman officials attempted to investigate this potential problem by reviewing the wealth of prisoners and detainees. The main goal of this study was to make a list of prisoners who were and were not eligible for 300 dirhem of bread. On the other hand, the imperial center warned prison officials not to curb supplying food to prisoners until the research was completed.476 For instance, one of the reports from the inspection committee in Rumelia (Rumeli-i Şahane Heyet-i

Teftişiyesi) in 1896 illustrated that prisoners and detainees in the region complained about not receiving any food from the prison officials so that they were weak due to hunger. 477 In the late Ottoman Empire, grocery stores (bakkal) were opened in prisons in Istanbul, Izmir, and Salonica, selling goods but generally at inflated prices.478

474 Fatma Erbay, ‘H.1311-1314 (M.1893-1896) (51 Numaralı) İzmir Kassam Sicilinin Transkripsiyonu’, MA thesis, Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi, 2009, 204-205; 252-254. This register is also important for tracking those who lost their lives at the Gureba Hospital. 475 BOA, DH. MB. HPS., 65/37. 476 BOA., DH. MKT. 2076/33 21 M 1314 (July 2, 1896). 477 “Şimdiye kadar gezilen vilayat ve elviye merkezleriyle kazalar hapishanelerinin ekserisinde mahbusin ve mevkufinden bazıların kendilerine nan-ı aziz tayinatı verilmemekde olduğundan şikayetle feryad ederek bazılarının açlıkdan bitab kaldıkları dahi görülmüş...” BOA., DH. MKT. 2076/37 22 M 1314 (July 3, 1896). 478 BOA, ZB. 7/30; BOA, TFR. I. SL. 178/17800; DH. MB. HPS., 136/25; DH. MB. HPS. 71/9; DH. MB. HPS. 2/18; Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire, 118. Schull notes that prisoners in the central prison in Karesi also cooked their own food. The rent of the grocery store in Izmir prison was 95 lira per annum in 1896. BOA., DH. MKT. 2073/80 13 L 1313 (March 28, 1896). “İzmir habshanesi bakkal dükkanının senevi elli iki lira icare ile talebi celb olunarak...” Ahenk, May 9, 1909, 3. 138

Figure 3.1. A Coupon for Bread (Nan-ı Aziz Pusulası) BOA., DH.MKT. 2077/58 1 C 1314 (November 7, 1896)

In 1896, Ottoman officials set a new rule for providing bread to prisoners and detainees in prisons and detention centers. The Ottoman government started to disseminate coupons for receiving bread to prisoners (Mahbusine Mahsus Nan-ı Aziz

Pusulası) [Fig. 3.1.] in order to prevent the abuse in its distribution.479 These coupons made it possible to count how many loaves of bread were distributed in each prison.

On the first day of the month, the coupons would be given to assistants of the prosecutors (müdde-i umumi muavinleri) who should give them to prisoners dependent on the state’s provisions. Ahenk newspaper documented that in 1898, the municipality of Izmir also made a decision to distribute bread for prisoners in Izmir prison from specific bakeries (numune fırınları). The municipality founded these bakeries in order to provide cheap bread to its residents and also prisoners. 480 This

479 “...ay başlarında tayin veren memur nezdindeki biletler alınıb zabıta memuru tarafından ekmekçinin defteriyle badettatbki muavin-i mümaileyha gönderilerek anın nezdindeki koçanların dahi tedkikiyle tasdik olunması...” BOA., DH. MKT. 2077/58 1 C 1314 (November 7, 1896); “...bazı gardiyanların mahbusinin ekmek ve suret-i saire ile de münasebetde bulundukları haber verildiğinden bu vechle vazifelerini su-i istimal edenlerin de kanunen tedib edilmesi zımnında icab edenlere tefhimat ve tebligat-ı müessire ifası tamimen tebliğ olunur...”, BOA., DH.MB.HPS., 145/30, 25 R 1330 (April 13, 1912). 480 ”Bu fırınlarda çıkarılan has ve pişkin ekmeklerin fırıncılar tarafından satılan fiyatdan ve verilen narhdan iki buçuk para noksanıyla füruht olunarak bu suretle ahali-i fukara dahi istifade etmekdedir. İstifade-i vakıanın daha ziyade tevsii ve habshanede bulunan mücrimlere kadar teşmili için şehrimiz 139

application shows us that local officials intervened in the provisioning of Ottoman prisons in terms of inspection and regulation of provisions.

In spite of these steps to regularize food provision in Ottoman prisons, in the first decade of the twentieth century, there were still complaints about the distribution of food, and hunger was common among Ottoman prisoners.481 For instance, in 1909, in Manisa prison, only ninety-two of three hundred twenty-nine prisoners received bread. This unfair distribution of bread resulted in a brawl among prisoners. 482

Interestingly, although prisoners in Izmir prison were in a miserable condition (dört duvar içinde mahsur mahbus kalmış bedbahtler), Ahenk reported that, with the support of the prison director, Cemal Efendi, prisoners made donations of 1273 kurush and 20 para for the Ottoman navy during the Turco-Italian War in 1911 as a national service (vazife-i vataniye). We do not have details whether it was voluntarily made or they were forced to make this donation.483

The Struggle for Health and Hygiene in Ottoman Prisons

Just as properly and fairly supplying food to prisoners was challenging, providing hygienic spaces and professional medical services for prisoners was a complicated endeavor in the nineteenth century. Most Ottoman prisons did not have their own medical facilities in the nineteenth century. 484 Sick prisoners were transferred to hospitals and in some cases to their homes for treatment. Since the government did not pay much attention to prisoners’ health, in some cases relatives of a prisoner or religious leaders attempted to find ways to take care of sick prisoners by sending petitions to Ottoman officials. For instance, in 1847, Hüseyin from Izmir, habshanesine verilen ve rayice tabi olan ekmeklerin bu numune fırınlarından itası hususuna...” Ahenk, August 14, 1898, 1. 481 Ahenk, 18 Haziran 1909, 2; BOA., DH.MB.HPS. 151/19, 17 L 1332 (September 8, 1914). 482 “...aç kalanlar feryad ve istimdada başlamışlar, tayın alanların boğazlarına sarılarak ekmeklerini almağa tasaddi eylemişlerdir.” Ahenk, July 31, 1909, 2. 483 Ahenk, October 25, 1911, 3. 484 For prison hospitals see Yıldız, Mapusane, 217-221. 140

imprisoned in Zabtiye prison in Istanbul, got sick due to living in poor conditions of the prison (düçar-ı sefalet) for seven or eight months, and his children requested his release. 485 After prison officials agreed that he had improved his soul (ıslah-ı nefs) and his relatives sent bail for him, he was released. In another case, in 1848, a ferman-

ı ali was issued by Seraskerlik (the Ministry of Defense) after the Rum Patriarchate requested permission to take non-Muslim prisoners who had health problems and send them to their respective hospitals. The prison officials (tomruk memurları) were supposed to ensure the recovery of sick prisoners who were sent to their homes or respective hospitals. 486

As Schull notes, due to overcrowded prison populations and the lack of hygiene in prisons, a vicious circle of diseases and deaths developed.487 In addition to suggestions for the improvement of Ottoman prisons, as mentioned in the first chapter, Stratford Canning’s memorandum of 1851 included the depiction of unhygienic conditions of the prisons in Izmir. These descriptions should be read with some suspicion due to possible exaggeration of consuls. The report illustrates the condition of the prisons in Izmir as follows:

The condition of the prisons in all these respects is very bad. They are in an extremely filthy state and swarm with vermin. The ventilation is very defective. The two of the prisons the apertures are so small as to admit very little air, but the others are better ventilated as the windows are somewhat larger and lookout on an open court. The floors are not boarded, the ground is damp, the temperature owing to their generally crowded state is warm even in winter and excessively hot in summer...washing for the sake of cleanliness is an operation rarely performed, and it is only when the prisoners are allowed to have access twice a day to the privies that they are able in a hasty manner to throw a little water over their faces and hands at a fountain in the enclosure where the privies are situated.

Under the title of “Any regulation for enforcing order, morality and cleanliness,” the report also noted that “At Smyrna there are no published regulations nor are any pains

485 BOA., A.MKT. 72/80 5 R 1263 (March 23, 1847). 486 BOA., A.MKT. 142/54 29 Ş 1264 (July 31, 1848). 487 Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire, 120-121. 141

taken to preserve either [morality and cleanness].” The report continues illustrating the conditions as follows:

At Smyrna prisoners when dangerously ill are removed; Christians and Jews to the hospitals of their respective communities under the guarantee of the Primates while if he be a Turk and poor, he is suffered to remain in prison until he recover or die, as there is no Turkish hospital there. If he possesses a house, he is permitted to go on bail. So likewise at Jerusalem.488

Such as the provision of food, similar exceptionalism could be seen in the imperial center in terms of having a permanent medical professional inside prison as the consular reports notes:

There is no regular, nor indeed any medical visiter [sic] or attendance at any of the prisons, except at the Bagnio, where a Jew doctor is established; and at the Zabtieh where however, it appears that he only visits patients when sent for. In Albania; at Rhodes and at Canea medical men are called in by the authorities on special occasions; and at Beyrout, by a recent arrangement with the moushir the French sisters of charity visit the prisons for which they receive 250 Piastres a month. But little benefit, however, is derived from these visits. At Adrianople within a few months the municipal doctor has been called in to visit the prisoners in consequence of the deaths occurring daily among them.

Overcrowded prison populations caused the spread of disease and high mortality rates in Ottoman prisons. Particularly, deaths due to lack of food, hygiene, light, and air, and also infectious diseases such as cholera, mange, and malaria were very common. For instance, the thieves who were going to be executed were imprisoned in Istanbul and generally passed away due to the overcrowded population of the prison in 1857 rather than from execution.489 Atnaş and Nikola, sentenced to kürek (hard labour) for fifteen years due to banditry, passed away due to lack of hygiene in a prison in Rumeli province in 1858.490 Interestingly, in the 1850s, some of the corpses of prisoners who passed away in prisons such as Tersane-i Amire and

488 BOA., HR.TO. 215/58 24.6.1851; MVL. 246/49 4 R 1268 (January 27, 1852). For the public health in İzmir in the 1870s, see Charles de Scherzer, La Province de Smyrne, Vienne, 1873, 26-29. “L’institution des médecins urbains ou de districts est absolument inconnue dans la province et les Memleket-tschekemi qui devraient s’ocuper de ces services, sont, pour la plupart, des docteurs sans diplômes, dont la seule occupation consiste â soigner des gendarmes malades et des prisonniers et à examiner les cas qui relèvent de la médecine légale. Par contre, Smyrne a, comme les autres villes maritimes, un médecin préposé aux quarantaines.”, Scherzer, ibid., 26. 489 Cevdet Paşa, Tezakir, 1-2, ed. Cavid Baysun, (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1991), 31. 490 BOA., A.MKT.UM. 304/87 26 Ca 1274 (January 12, 1858). 142

Bab-ı Zabtiye in Istanbul were sent to the imperial medical school (Mekteb-i Tıbbiye-i

Şahane) and became the cadavers used in medical students’ training.491

In the nineteenth century, a large body of correspondence between the imperial center and the provinces of the Empire focused on preventing diseases in

Ottoman prisons and setting up security measures inside prisons. 492 One of these notices sent to the officials of the province of Aydın in 1868 warned officials to take precautions against the spread of typhoid because many prisoners in Izmir prison had already suffered from it for ten days. 493 Prisoners who needed urgent medical treatment were sent to other cities. In Salonica, sick prisoners in Kanlı Kule (Bloody

Tower)494, a part of Salonica fortress used as a prison in the 1880s, were treated in their beds outside the prison, regardless of whether it was raining or sunny, because of the lack of an adequate medical facility in the prison.495 In 1888, due to filth caused by the overcrowded population of Izmir Prison and also the extreme hot weather, more than thirty prisoners were sent to the fortresses in Tripoli or Acre where they received medical treatment.496 However, it seems that some of the prisoners attempted to escape during the transfer to Tripoli. Some of them even joined gangs of bandits in

Izmir. Most sick prisoners, however, were treated at the Gureba-yı Müslimin Hospital close to Izmir Prison as mentioned in the second chapter. 497

491 BOA., A.MKT.MHM. 81/46 15 R 1272 (December 25, 1855). 492 BOA., A.MKT.UM. 463/36 15 N 1277 (March 27, 1861). 493 BOA., A. MKT. MHM. 404/34 18 Z 1284 (April 11, 1868). 494 Yıldız, Mapusane, 329-331. 495 “..hapishanelerin bazı mahalleri oturulamayacak derecede harab olmasıyla mahbusin haricde yatmakda ve hastahane ziyade harab olmasından dolayı hastagan açıkda bulundurulmakda idüğü anlaşıldığından..”, BOA., İ.ŞD. 52/2939 18 M 1298 (December 21, 1880). 496 BOA., DH. MKT. 1504/36 14 Ş 1305 (April 26, 1888). 497 The limited capacity of the hospital made it troublesome to treat more than a few prisoners at a time. BOA., DH.TMIK.S. 16/92 16 Ş. 1315 (January 10, 1898). 143

You will recall that Izmir’s prison population suffered from contagious and deadly diseases such as plague, cholera498, and smallpox in the nineteenth century. On

August 12, 1890, the health inspectorship of Izmir (Vilayet-i Sıhhiye Müfettişliği) published a list of precautions (Tanzifat-ı Belde için İktiza Eden Tedabir-i Sıhhiye) to keep the city clean in order prevent the further spread of diseases.499 According to the report of the committee that Hizmet covers, the walls of the prison were whitewashed, and carbolic acid and lime were also used for improving sanitation and hygiene in the prison. In that year, only two of the seven hundred prisoners were sick and neither was listed as in critical condition. The inspection committee appreciated the efforts of the director of the prison to limit the spread of disease, but they found that two wards were narrow with lack of air, and the ward for women prisoners needed repairs.500 On the other hand, in the 1890s, in addition to the attempts of “The Commission for

Expediting Initiatives and Reform” to regulate public health and hygiene, the imperial center continued to send notices to Izmir in order to reform the unhygienic conditions in Ottoman prisons.501 Although it remained largely a regulation only on paper, the proposal for “the Regulation for Prison Reform” in 1893 included an article about improving health conditions in Ottoman prisons.502

The treatment of prisoners’ “ill” bodies both in prisons in Salonica and Izmir remained one of the major problems in the prisons in the first decades of the twentieth

498 Prisoners in Istanbul Prison in the 1890s went on hunger strike due to refusal of their demand to be relocated because of fear of a cholera outbreak in the prison. Nanor Kebranian, “Imprisoned Communities: Punishing Politics in the Late Ottoman Empire”, in Ottoman Armenians: Life, Culture, Society, v. 1, ed. Vahé Tachjian, (Berlin: A Houshamadyan Publication, 2014), 137-138. 499 Hizmet, August 12, 1890, 2. For a description of the health measures in order to prevent communicable diseases in Istanbul Prison in the first decades of the twentieth century see Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire, 122. 500 Hizmet, August 19, 1890, 2. 501 Ahenk, March 15, 1898, 2; Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire, 49. In 1900, local officials were urged to act immediately to prevent the spread of plague in İzmir. BOA., DH MKT. 2374/95 19 Ra 1328 (April 30, 1910). 502 Hatice Akın, “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Hapishane Islahatına Dair 1893 Tarihli Bir Nizamname Önerisi”, History Studies: International Journal of History, 3:3, 2011, 27-29. 144

century. In 1903, one hundred thirty prisoners were ready to be transferred from the prisons in Kosovo, Manastır, Salonica, and Edirne to the kürek (hard labour) centers in Bodrum and Trablusşam in order to lessen the prison population and prevent the spread of diseases. However these kürek centers were already full of prisoners so there was likely little benefit in the transfer. 503 Other prisons also sought ways to lessen disease.

Despite these efforts, a report of the health inspectors (sıhhiye müfettişi) in

Salonica, indicates that twenty four prisoners died due to illness, and twenty nine prisoners were already sick and under the treatment at the hospital in the prison for a month and half in 1906.504 In some cases, sick prisoners requested their own transfer from one prison to another. Ali Vefa, a prisoner at Salonica prison, had tuberculosis and requested his transfer to the prison in Rhodes in 1906. According to his petition, which did not forget to pray for the Sultan, his treatment for more than two months did not help him at all due to Salonica’s weather. However, the Ottoman officials did not find his request compelling or appropriate enough to transfer him to Rhodes.505

Moreover, transferring sick prisoners over such a great distances was not very common in the Empire due to security reasons.506 By 1908, the officials of the general prison in Salonica again planned to transfer the dangerous prisoners (şerir mücrimler) to Bodrum not only to prevent diseases due to extreme crowdedness but also improve the security of the prison.507

503 “..mevaki-i mezkure şu sırada tevsi ve tamir olunacak ise icab eden mahallerde hapishane ittihazına elverişli bazı ebniye tedarik ve isticarıyla def-i ihtiyac olunması yahud başka bir tedbir ittihazıyla bu hale nihayet verilmesi lüzumu..” BOA., BEO. 2547/190991; BEO. 2130/159719 9 Ca 1321 (August 3, 1903). 504 BOA.,TFR.I.SL. 94/9399 4 Z 1323 (January 30, 1906). 505 BOA., TFR.I.AS. 35/3469 21 R 1324 (June 14, 1906). Another treatment case was Süleyman’s. He was imprisoned in Rhodes prison for fifteen years due to murder. He was transferred to Istanbul in order to receive medical treatment for his eyes, and later he was transferred back to Rhodes in 1910. BOA., DH. EUM. THR., 45/62 2 Ş 1328 (August 9, 1910). 506 Yıldız, Mapusane, 217. 507 BOA., BEO. 2914/218482 2 Ş 1324 (September 21, 1906). 145

Similar to Salonica, in the first decade of the twentieth century, prisoners in

Izmir Prison had to face several health issues. In 1908, Ahenk reports that the prison officials in Izmir transferred Tireli Kamış oğlu Mehmed, a twenty-year-old prisoner in

Izmir prison, who had smallpox, to the Gureba hospital. In addition to taking hygienic precautions in his ward, other prisoners were also vaccinated.508 In 1908, the prisoner population in Izmir Prison was almost twice that of its capacity, which resulted in the death of twenty-five prisoners despite efforts to improve hygiene. 509

The health conditions in Ottoman prisons were also on the Ottoman law journal Ceride-i Adliye. On May 3, 1912, Abdurrahman Asım, general director of

Otoman prisons, penned an article entitled “Prisons from the Perspective of Health”.

Asım stated that being a prisoner in an Ottoman prison could be read as a certainty that one would contract an illness or perhaps even suffer death.510 By following the longstanding tradition of perceiving Ottoman prisons through a lens of international comparison,511 in his article Asım illustrated the contemporary prison conditions in

Europe and the United States and also the system pénale by giving several examples particularly from France, Germany, England, Belgium and Philadelphia. Asım argued the importance of the cell system in European prisons in terms of preventing the spread of infectious diseases and also disciplining and educating prisoners. 512

According to Asım, prisoners should be rehabilitated, and needed to be forced to work

508 Ahenk, March 25, 1908, 2. 509 BOA., ŞD. 2757/25 21 Ş 1324 (October 10, 1906). 510 “Habshanelere girenler ekseriyetle sefalet ve mahrumiyet içinde yuvarlana yuvarlana bin dürlü sademat-ı hayatiyeye maruz ve zebun kalmış bir takım bedbahtlardır ki bunlar az çok bir zaman sonra müddet-i mahbusiyetlerini ikmal ederler. Şimdi her dürlü şürut-ı sıhhiyeden mahrum bir mevkide yıllarca bu biçarelerin habs edilmesinin hayat-ı uzviyeleri üzerine nasıl bir tesir-i muzırr ve meşum icra edeceği cüzzi bir teemmül ile anlaşılır.”, Ceride-i Adliye, “Hıfzıssıhha Nokta-i Nazarından Hapishaneler”, May 3, 1912, 2863. 511 For the photos from several European prisons and prisoners see “Mütekemmil Bir Hapishanede Ne Manzaralar Görülür?”, Şehbal, 15 Teşrin-i sani 1327 (28 November 1911), 410-412. 512 “Cemiyet-i medeniye ve beşeriye-i hâzıre bir takım bi lüzum ve her dürlü hudud-ı kavâid-i insâniyyet hâricinde bulunan işkenceleri hemcinslerine tatbikden ve bu gibi şeyleri vesâit-i cezâiyye olarak add ve kabulden ictinâb ve ihtirâz etmekde [...]”, Ceride-i Adliye, 2862. 146

during their imprisonment to strengthen their morals.513 At the same time, however, by giving statistics of prisoners who had hysterical attacks in prisons in Germany,

Asım expressed his concern about the effects of the cell system on prisoners’ mental health.514

Rehabilitation through Religious Education

Ottoman prison reform attempted not only to heal criminals’ ill bodies but also to improve prisoners’, particularly Muslim prisoners’, moral and religious spirit in the late Ottoman Empire. In his memorandum, Canning suggested that the priests should also have free access to the prisons. Thus, religion was one of the major tools and also yardsticks in terms of measuring whether or not a given criminal had cleansed his or her soul.515 Particularly during the Hamidian Era, religious education in Ottoman prisons might be read as a part of the political tool used by Abdülhamid II, who had special concerns regarding Islam in the late Ottoman Empire.516 Therefore, prison officials encouraged prisoners to recite or read religious books in prisons. In 1893,

Hizmet ‘proudly’ reported that the prisoners in Izmir prison fasted during Ramadan and recited the Qur’an. 517 According to Hizmet, punishments were based on protecting society from a criminal’s behaviors (şer’) until the criminal healed himself.

Encouraging them to practice religion and giving them technical education were also part of this healing process. According to Hizmet, a criminal who committed crime due to ignorance could be healed and be useful for society, therefore torture and violence against criminals were against the interest of the society.

513 “[...] ebnâ-yı cinsine fenâlık etmiş bir şahıs habs edilerek muvakkat bir zaman ânın cemiyet-i beşeriyyeye irâs-ı zararda devâmı men edilmekle beraber diğer cihetinden de ıslah-ı hâl ve tehzib-i ahlâka çalışılır [...]”,Ceride-i Adliye, 2862. 514 Ceride-i Adliye, 2866-2867. 515 The 91th, 92th, 93th articles of the 1880 regulation were related to religious ‘duties’ of Ottoman prisoners. 516 Hanioğlu, Brief History of the Late Ottoman Empire, 129-130. 517 Hizmet, April 22, 1893, 1. 147

Furthermore, the idea of rehabilitating prisoners through religious education continued during the Second Constitutional Era.518 In 1908, Ahmed Nabi Efendi, the director of the prison, and Naili Bey, the director of the education in province of

Aydın, collaboratively distributed the Qur’an (mesahif ve ecza-yı şerife) to the prisoners in Izmir prison. The prison officials also attempted to teach illiterate prisoners how to read and write (mekteb, medrese görmemiş ve terbiye-i dimağiye ve ilmiyeden bilkülliye mahrum).519

In addition to taking responsibility for rehabilitating prisoners, religious dignitaries520 were involved in carrying out death penalties and conducting burial ceremonies. Executions mostly occurred in governmental spaces such as in front of governor’s palaces. But, how were the death penalties realized? Did prisoners have a chance to ask for the opportunity to have a final conversation with an imam, priest, or rabbi before execution? Due to scarcity of sources, it is hard to confirm that there were presence of religious officials in all Ottoman prisons in the provinces during the executions of prisoners.521 According to the 17th article of the Imperial Ottoman Penal

Code 522 , prison officials were responsible for conducting a burial ceremony for desolate (kimsesiz) prisoners according to their religion. This process, whereby officials were responsible for conducting burials according to the religion of the deceased, also occurred at asylums, poorhouses (darülaceze), and hospitals. For instance, in 1910, after a religious ceremony orchestrated by an imam, the funeral of

Muslim prisoners who had no relatives or who were poor were brought with the help

518 Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire, 129. 519 Ahenk, June 3, 1908, 1. 520 Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire, 128. 521 BOA., A.MKT.UM., 373/96, 29 Ra 1276 (October 26, 1859). 522 Kanun-ı Ceza ve Teferruatı, ed. Nazif Bey, (İstanbul: Karabet Matbaası, 1318), 8. 148

of carriers (hamal) to the exterior of Edirne Kapısı in Istanbul for burial. The funerals for Christian prisoners were held via patriarchates.523

‘Lunatics’

As David Rothman notes “In Foucault’s analysis, the prison and the mental hospital became the most perfect representations of the modern state.”524 In the early nineteenth century, alongside penal reform, “a lunacy reform movement” was on the agenda of almost all of the European states and the United States. 525 The rationalization and medicalization of madness reinforced the idea that “madness could be cured given proper institutional treatment” and resulted in the construction of public asylums.526 Although the Ottomans started to intervene in public health issues in the first decades of the nineteenth century, despite Foucault’s argument, it seems that the Ottomans did not pay much attention to the contemporary phenomena of building asylums in the Empire.527

In the classical period, the pious foundations (vakıf)528 supported hospitals

(darüşşifâ) 529 and madhouses (bimarhâne) managed public health. By the first

523 BOA., DH.EUM. THR., 42/10 6 B. 1328 (July 14, 1910). 524 David J. Rothman, The Discovery of the Asylum: Social Order and Disorder in the New Republic, (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1990), xix. See Michel Foucault, Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason, (New York: Pantheon Book, 1965). For the relationship between power and medical professionalization in prisons in Europe and the United States see Joe Sim, Medical Power in Prisons: The Prison Medical Service in England, 1774-1989, (Philadelphia: Open University Press, 1990); Medicine, Madness and Social History: Essays in Honour of Roy Porter, eds. Roberta Bivins-John V. Pickstone, (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007); Andrew Scull, Social Order/Mental Disorder: Anglo-American Psychiatry in Historical Perspective, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1989); Insanity, Institutions, and Society, 1800-1914, eds. Joseph Melling-Billy Forsythe, (New York: Routledge, 2005). 525 Roy Porter, Madness: A Brief History, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 112; David Wright, “Getting Out of the Asylum: Understanding the Confinement of the Insane in the Nineteenth Century”, Social History of Medicine, 10:1, 1997, 137-138. For visual representations of madness see Sander L. Gilman, Seeing the Insane: A Visual and Cultural History of Our Attitudes Toward the Mentally Ill, (Vermont: Echo Point, 2014). 526 Porter, ibid., 112. 527 Porter notes that Russia also did not start building asylums for lunatics until the late 1850s. Porter, ibid., 94. According to Anton Chekhov’s exploration in Sakhalin Island, criminals and lunatics were in the same confinement places in late nineteenth century Russia. See Anton Pavlovich Chekhov, Sakhalin Island, (Richmond: Alma Classics, 2013), 317. 528 See Amy Singer, “Charity Legacies: A Reconsideration of Ottoman Imperial Endowment-Making”, in Poverty and Charity in Middle Eastern Contexts, eds. Michael Bonner, Mine Ener, et. al., (Albany: 149

decades of the nineteenth century, the state started to intervene in managing public health issues through the establishment of two hospitals (Tıbbhâne-i Âmire and

Cerrâhhâne) in 1827 and later quarantine spaces530 (tahaffuzhâne) in Istanbul. These were the first attempts to centralize health issues (umur-ı sıhhiye) in the Empire in order to prevent diseases such as plague, cholera, and typhus.531 Ottoman medical intervention in the midst of the nineteenth century particularly concerned communicable diseases and midwifery, but focused very little on the mentally ill and places reserved for their treatments.532

According to the 41th article of the Ottoman Imperial Penal Code, “If it is proven that the offender was in a state of insanity at the time when he committed an offence he is held exempt from legal punishment.”533 Furthermore, the 51th article of the Ottoman Land Code forbids “minors, lunatics, or imbeciles to buy and have land”.534 Although the nineteenth-century legal codes provided for legal aspects of mental illness, instead of building asylums for those with mental disorders, using

State University of New York Press, 2003), 295-313; Feza Günergun-Şeref Etker, “Waqf endowments and the emergence of modern charitable hospitals in the Ottoman Empire”, in The Development of Modern Medicine in Non-Western Countries: Historical Perspectives, ed. Hormoz Ebrahimnejad, (New York: Routledge, 2009), 82-107. 529 See Miri Shefer, “Hospitals in the Ottoman Empire in the Early Modern Period”, in Poverty and Charity in Middle Eastern Contexts, 121-143. 530 For quarantine spaces in Salonica see Gülay Tulasoğlu, “Humble Efforts in Search of Reform: Consuls, Pashas, and Quarantine in Early-Tanzimat Salonica”, in Well-Connected Domains: Towards an Entangled Ottoman History, ed. Pascal W. Firges, Tobias P. Graf, et. al., (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 188- 206. 531 Tuba Demirci-Selçuk Akşin Somel, “Women’s Bodies, Demography, and Public Health: Abortion Policy and Perspectives in the Ottoman Empire of the Nineteenth Century”, Journal of the History of Sexuality, 17:3, September 2008, 380. See Tuba Demirci, ‘Body, Disease and Late Ottoman Literature: Debates on Ottoman Muslim Family in the Tanzimat Period (1839-1908)’, PhD Dissertation, Bilkent University, 2008, 27-28. 532 See Gülhan Balsoy, The Politics of Reproduction in Ottoman Society, 1838-1900, (Vermont: P&C, 2013); Kâzım Arısan, “Geçen Yüzyılda İstanbul’da Ebeler ve Doğum”, in, I. Türk Tıp Tarihi Kongresi: Kongreye Sunulan Bildiriler (17-19 Şubat 1988), (Ankara: TTK, 1992), 229-253; Filiz Koçak, ‘Türkiye’de Sağlık Politikası’nın Gelişimi, 1850-1950’, PhD Dissertation, Yıldız Teknik University, 1995. 533 Bucknill-Utidjian, ibid., 30. For the discussion on the link between insanity, crime, and punishment see Richard F. Wetzell, Inventing the Criminal: A History of German Criminology, 1880-1945, (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000), 39-73. 534 F. Ongley, trans., The Ottoman Land Code, (London: William Clowes and Sons, 1892), 26. 150

prisons was the Ottoman solution.535 Specifically the prisons in Istanbul were used for this purpose.536

Furthermore, some of the Ottoman hospitals (bimarhane) 537 such as

Süleymaniye Bimarhanesi in Istanbul, housed these patients until the late Ottoman

Empire as a result of the limited capacity of this building. Instead, the general prison in Istanbul became in a way a center for patients. In 1856, an Italian doctor, Dr. Luigi

Mongeri, was appointed to reform Süleymaniye Bimarhanesi and he attempted to turn the bimarhane into a madhouse in the recently popular more ‘humane’ European style. Mongeri’s first action in the bimarhane was to set ‘lunatics’ free from their shackles.538 Furthermore, Mongeri, who stayed in Istanbul until his death, also penned

Bimarhaneler Nizamnamesi (the Regulation for Madhouses) in 1876 based on the law on the insane of June 30, 1838 of France.539 This regulation included twenty-two articles related to the institutionalization of madhouses in the Empire and their internal procedures.540

535 Before the public asylums, this was the case in the Western world. Particularly poor lunatics were mostly confined in local workhouses and gaols. Wright, ibid., 155. 536 For instance, Tesbihci Osman, a lunatic whose illness was confirmed by imam and notables (muhtaran) of his neighborhood (mahalle), not given any specifics about his illness, imprisoned in Bab-ı Ali prison (mahbes) in 1857. BOA., A.M., 16/24 17 L 1273 (June 10, 1857). 537 James Ellswort De Kay’s travelogue gives a detailed description of horrible conditions of a madhouse (tımarhane) in Istanbul. De Kay notes that patients were chained and they almost had no clothes on them. See James Ellswort De Kay, 1831-1832 Türkiye’sinden Görünümler, (Ankara: ODTÜ Yayıncılık, 2009), 273-274. For the full version of this travelogue see James Ellswort De Kay, Sketches of Turkey in 1831 and 1832, (New York: J.&J. Harper, 1833). 538 Fatih Artvinli, Delilik, Siyaset ve Toplum: Toptaşı Bimarhanesi (1873-1927), (İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2013), 42-51; Şeref Etker, “Toptaşı Bimarhanesi Eczanesi Son Dönemi, 1913- 1927”, Osmanlı Bilimi Araştırmaları, XII/1, 2010, 7-22. See Rüya Kılıç, Deliler ve Doktorları: Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyet’e Delilik, (İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2014). 539 Artvinli, ibid., 83. 540 For the articles of Bimarhaneler Nizamnamesi of 1876 see Artvinli, ibid., 74-79. 151

Figure 3.2. Toptaşı Bimarhanesi541

In the 1870s, ‘lunatics’ were transferred from Süleymaniye Bimarhanesi to

Toptaşı Bimarhanesi [Fig. 3.2.] in Istanbul. However, due to the limited capacity of the Bimarhane, criminals who had mental illness and also ‘lunatics’ from other asylums in the Empire were sent to Hapishane-i Umumi in İstanbul.542 Although in his report sent to the Medico-Psychological Society in 1886, Dr. A. de Castro, member of the Society and doctor at Toptaşı, claims that numbers of death at bimarhanes in Istanbul were exaggerated by its inspectors543, [Table 3.1] illustrates higher mortality rates in Bimarhane without giving much specificity. In order to support his argument that patients were well taken care of at the bimarhane, Castro gives details about the daily diet of the patients. Patients had “800 grams of bread,

192 grams of meat, 320 grams of vegetables, 64 grams of rice for soup, and 272

541 Mazhar Osman, Tababet-i Ruhiye, İkinci Cild, (İstanbul: Matbaa-i Hayriye, 1910), 584, 594, 605. 542 Artvinli, ibid., 68. 543 Annales Medico-Psychologiques Journal Destiné a Recueillir tous les Documents Relatifs a L’Alinéation Mentale aux Névroses et a La Médecine Légale des Aliénés, ed. G. Masson, (Paris: Librairie de L’Académie de Médicine, 1886), 265-269. 152

grams for pilaf, 47 grams of butter for pilaf and 6 grams for vegetables, 12 grams of salt.” per day.544 Castro notes that the Toptaşı Bimarhanesi included “the incurably insane, epileptic and the criminally insane”.545 In the late 1880s, its population was six hundred patients of whom only one hundred fourteen of them were from Istanbul, with the rest coming from different parts of the Ottoman Empire.546

Table 3.1. Mortality rates in Istanbul hospitals in 1890547

Particularly during the spread of cholera in the Ottoman Empire in the years of 1893 and 1895, Muslim, Christian and Jewish ‘lunatics’ were transferred to the general prison in İstanbul. 548 Until the first decades of the twentieth century, criminals suspected to be ‘lunatics’ were sent to the general prison in Sultanahmet in

İstanbul.549 For instance, Malatyalı Cemal Efendi went mad after he lost his money and belongings and he was kept in the hospital inside the general prison in İstanbul in

1910. 550 There were only ten mattresses and ten cushions for sixty ‘lunatics’; forty of them were men and twenty of them were women.551 As Ottoman prisoners, ‘lunatics’

544 Annales Medico-Psychologiques Journal, 266. 545 Annales Medico-Psychologiques Journal, 268. 546 Annales Medico-Psychologiques Journal, 268. 547 M. Hippolyte Faure, Étude sur les oeuvres hospitalières à Narbonne et Dans Une Partie de L’Europe, (Narbonne, 1890), 189-190. 548 Artvinli, ibid., 105-115. 549 Artvinli, ibid., 91. For ‘harmless’ lunatics (meczub) see Yavuz Selim Karakışla, Eski İstanbul’un Delileri: Pazarola Hasan Bey, (İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı, 2006); “Deli, Deliler” in Reşad Ekrem Koçu, İstanbul Ansiklopedisi, v. 8, (İstanbul: Koçu Yayınları, 1966), 4353-4354. 550 BOA., DH. EUM. THR. 42/45 10.B.1328 (July 18, 1910) 551 BOA., DH. EUM. THR. 30/50 26 Ra 1328 (April 7, 1910). 153

in the general prison in İstanbul were also left to their own fate, thus, they also came to occupy the category of the “forgotten ones”.552

The Usage of Esrar in Ottoman Prisons

The archival documents are not very fruitful in terms of shedding light on social life inside the prison walls. Ottoman prisoners had limited choices regarding social activity, but we know that smoking and gambling were common in Ottoman prisons. 553 However, in his memorandum of 1851, Stratford Canning, the British

Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, emphasized that smoking and gambling were not allowed in every prison in the Empire. Canning wrote as follows:

Smoking is universally allowed, except at the Capital where it is only permitted in the stone prisons, and forbidden to prisoners in solitary confinement.. Drunkenness does not seem to be a general vice among the natives. The consul at Salonica states with reference to this subject that when there was a more than usual number of British vessels at that Port in 1847 and 1848 he found that it was no punishment for turbulent seamen to confine them in the Zindan owing to the facility they had in procuring wine, spirits or anything else they sent for. Indeed masters of vessels complained that the men after leaving that prison were worse in their conduct than before, telling the rest of the crew that the Consul had put them in a place where they could get as much drink as they liked. Drunkness and gambeling [sic] are, however, forbidden in the prisons of Varna, Aleppo, Adana, Tarsous, Hums, Hama, Damascus, Erzeroum, Samsoun, Musoul, Trebizond and Cyprus. … At Jerusalem smoking is only allowed. It is too dark for the prisoners to see to gamble.

Not only tobacco, but other compounds (mevad-ı muzırra) giving pleasure (keyf),554 such as cannabis, were used in Ottoman prisons. In this subsection, I will attempt to examine the usage of cannabis in Ottoman prisons in the late Ottoman Empire.555 The examination of the cannabis trade in Ottoman prisons, specifically as cannabis use was represented in interrogation reports, indirectly helps us to capture low voices of

552 For the definition of madness in the late Ottoman Empire see Alexandre Toumarkine, “Adli Doktorlar, Ruh Doktorları ve Şeyhler: Kummerau Olayı (1880) ve Bilirkişilik Meselesi”, in Osmanlı’da Asayiş, Suç ve Ceza (18.-20. Yüzyıllar), (İstanbul: TVYY, 2007), 96-115. 553 Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire, 116. It needs to be noted that the history of the cultivation and usage of cannabis in the Ottoman Empire is still waiting to be written. Thus far, we have master thesis specifically on the cultivation of opium in the Ottoman Empire and during the Republican era. See Masako Matsui, ‘Production and trade of opium in the Ottoman Empire, 1828- 1838), Master Thesis, Boğaziçi University, 1995; Özgür Burçak Gürsoy, ‘The Opium Problem in Turkey, 1930-1945’, Master Thesis, Boğaziçi University, 2007. 554 See Zeki M. Barker, “Keyif Veren Zehirler, Tiryakilik ve Tiryakiler”, Ülkü Mecmuası, (Ağustos 1935), 437-447; Jan Schmidt, From Anatolia to Indonesia: Opium Trade and the Dutch Community of Izmir, 1820-1940, (Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologish Institut, 1998). 555 Yıldız, Mapusane, 321-322; 325; 154

Ottoman prisoners and brings us to the edge where the agency of prisoners in the late

Ottoman prisons seems clearer.

The use of cannabis was most common among heterodox dervishes that also lived outside of the social norms of Ottoman society (harabâtî ve işsiz takımından).556

Moreover, beside coffeehouses (esrarhane, esrar kahveleri), smoking cannabis

(esrar) was also a widespread habit among students of the military and medical schools in the late Ottoman Empire.557 Although the Council of State (Şura-yı Devlet) prohibited the cultivation of cannabis in 1889, and also warned the local governors

(vali) to take precautions against its consumption and sale, neither the penal code nor policemen were successful in stopping the cultivation and use of cannabis in the

Empire.558 Mazhar Osman559, the prominent neuropsychiatrist of the first decades of the twentieth century, claims that prohibitions against the usage of cannabis in the

Empire had made cannabis more popular. According to Osman, since carrying it was very easy, usage of cannabis was common at schools, particularly at night schools, prisons, factories, and coffeehouses. Osman notes that wardens and visitors could easily provide cannabis to prisoners.560 For instance, in 1892, there was a case of cannabis trafficking in the house of detention in Beyoğlu, Istanbul. Mustafa Efendi, warden of the house of detention, was responsible for the trafficking. Both Mustafa

556 See Muallim Şövalye Hasan Bahri, Esrarkeşler, ed. Suha Unsal, (İstanbul: Kebikeç Yayınları, 1997). Bahri’s book published in 1915 includes many poems, song lyrics, sayings, and also slang regarding cannabis culture in the Ottoman Empire. Suha Unsal, editor of the book, states that smoking cannabis was also defined as a “lower class” habit in Ottoman society. Bahri, ibid, 10; Doktor Yüzbaşı Besim Ömer, Mükeyyifat ve Müskiratdan Afyon, Kahve, Çay, Esrar, (İstanbul: Mahmud Bey Matbaası, 1305), 28-48; Reşat Saka, Uyuşturucu Maddeler [Afyon-Morfin-Eroin-Esrar-Kokain] Hakkında Milli ve Milletlerarası Hukukî ve Sosyal Durum, (İstanbul: Cumhuriyet Matbaası, 1948), 29-34; Abdülaziz Bey, Osmanlı Âdet, Merasim ve Tabirleri: Toplum Hayatı, (İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 1995), 327-329. Besim Ömer’s work gives very detailed information about the cultivation of cannabis in the Ottoman Empire, its usage, and its side effects to body. 557 Fahreddin Kerim, Esrar İstimalinden Mütevellit Ruhî Tagayyürler, (İstanbul: Kader Matbaası, 1930), 3-4. 558 BOA, DH. MKT., 1338/42, 7 S 1299 (December 29, 1889). 559 For the biography of Dr. Mazhar Osman see Esin Karlıkaya-Nilüfer Gökçe, “Modern Türk Psikiyatri Biliminin Kurucusu: Mazhar Osman Uzman”, Trakya Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi, 18:2, 2001, 149-157. 560 Mazhar Osman, Keyf Veren Zehirler, (İstanbul, 1934), 142. 155

Efendi and the guards working at the house of detention were interrogated regarding trafficking of the forbidden item (eşya-yı memnua). 561 The Ottoman state also attempted to prevent smuggling or transporting the item throughout the Empire.

According to the official correspondence between Ottoman offices, on March 12,

1895, the Messagerie ferry, which was going to Syria from Salonica via Izmir, was carrying prohibited goods including esrar, and before its arrival in Syria it needed to be stopped in Adana.562 We do not have further information about this attempt and its results.

As mentioned before, usage of cannabis was also common in the military.

According to the report of the Ministry of Justice (Adliye Nezareti), in 1902, usage of cannabis was spreading among military officers, which was very dangerous because it made it more difficult to establish discipline in the Ottoman army.563 The common usage of cannabis in the military would result in the enactment of the legislation regarding the prohibition of drug sales in the Ottoman army in 1911, in order to prevent its usage in the military.564

Cannabis was also used in prisons, and military personnel primarily provided cannabis for prisoners. 565 Prisoners, except those confined at Zabtiye Nezareti

(Ministry of Police), were allowed to meet their visitors at any time during day with most of these meetings behind bars.566 As seen in Salonica Prison in 1906, during prison visits, visitors, mostly women, brought cannabis and other harmful goods to prisoners by hiding it on their bodies. In order to prevent these kinds of acts in

561 BOA, ŞD., 1288/1, 29 M 1310 (August 23, 1892). 562 BOA, BEO, 475/35608, 15 Ra 1312 (September 16, 1894). 563 BOA, DH. İD., 87-1/30, 4 Ca 1329 (May 3, 1911). There is also another report sent from Yıldız Palace in 1891. According to the report, in order to prevent pervading cannabis among military students, the Supreme Military Command decided to prepare a code of rules regarding the prohibition of use of cannabis in the military. 564 Ibid., 87-1/30. 565 BOA., DH. İD., 4 Ca 1320 (August 9, 1902). 566 Yıldız, , ibid., 107. 156

prisons, two kiosks needed to be built to enable bod searches. 567 Although the

Ottoman criminal code states that “if a policeman caught someone carrying cannabis, he had to confiscate it from the suspect and dispose of it as prescribed by the law”, it seems that in some cases policemen did not obey the law and failed to dispose of it.568

In the first decades of the twentieth century, gambling and smoking cannabis was common in Hapishane-i Umumi in Istanbul. There was also a tendency to link usage of cannabis and lunacy. For instance, Said bin Asıf was imprisoned in

Hapishane-i Umumi on May 12, 1908 due to his usage of improper words (fazahat-ı lisaniye)569. It was not his first time in prison. A year later, on December 5, 1909, he hung himself from the window of his prison cell to commit suicide, but the wardens noticed his attempt and caught him immediately. Said was sent to the ward specially reserved for lunatics. In his examination, the prison doctor realized that Said bin

Asıf’s use of cannabis (esrar) may have caused his ‘lunatic’ acts.570 According to the directorate of Istanbul prison, the usage of esrar was forbidden in Ottoman prisons in order to rehabilitate the morals of prisoners (tehzib-i ahlak).571

As mentioned before prisoners used their meetings as a means to obtain goods from outside the prison walls with the help of their visitors. For instance, Selime

567 “Hapishanelerde bulunan eşhas ile görüşmeğe gelen erkek ve bilhassa kadınlardan bazılarının ümid edilmeyecek yerlerine esrar ve buna mümasil mevad-ı muzırra saklayarak mahbusine verdikleri meşhud olduğundan gerek erkek gerek kadınlar sıkı muayeneye tabi tutulmak suretiyle..”, BOA., TFR.I.SL. 113/11284-1 27 Ca 1324 (July 14, 1906). 568 BOA, ZB., 601/130, 2 Ş. 1324 (September 21, 1906); BOA, DH. MB. HPS., 132/10, 6 C 1329 (June 4, 1911); BOA, DH. EUM. VRK., 12/14, 9 S 1332 (January 7, 1914). The police reports show us that some of the policemen were arrested for their involvement in the cannabis trade. Abdulaziz Efendi, a policemen, was arrested in İstanbul because of his illegal activities in terms of cannabis trafficking. One of the reports written in 1909 by the Department of Police also states that selling or smoking cannabis at coffeehouses was also forbidden, and declares that those who act against the law were vagabonds and must be arrested. 569 For “fazahat-i lisaniye” see Kanun-ı Ceza ve Teferruratı, 131-133. 570 For an examination of the relationship between cannabis and madness see Isaac Campos, Home Grown: Marijuana and the Origins of Mexico’s War on Drugs, (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2012); James H. Mills, Cannabis Britannica: Empire, Trade, and Prohibition, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003); Ali N. Babaoğlu, Uyuşturucu ve Tarihi: Bağımlılık Yapan Maddeler, (İstanbul: Kaynak Yayınları, 1997), 83-84. 571 BOA., DH. EUM. THR. 22/19 3 M 1328 (January 15, 1910). 157

Behise, a woman who was trying to provide cannabis to her imprisoned husband during her visit to the general prison in Istanbul was arrested in 1921 for this offense. 572 Furthermore, the long ‘tradition’ or ‘natural’ way to obtain cannabis through prison officials was still active in the 1920s. On April 17, 1921, Kozanli Ali

Efendi, a guard at the general prison in Istanbul, was providing cannabis to prisoners, and therefore the prison commissioner had decided to have him fired.573 Similar to this case occurred on July 26, 1921, but it reveals us more interesting story of the

‘interior’ life of the prison.574 Prisoners at the general prison were complaining about bad acts, such as selling cannabis, by Said Hayri Efendi. Because of the large number of complaints and rumors among prisoners and also guards regarding Said Hayri

Efendi’s acts, the prison commissioner started to investigate the case and found that

Said Hayri Efendi was selling cannabis amounting to more than 100 dirhem (325 gram). Once his actions were discovered, he was forced to resign. This narrative illustrates that the cannabis trade might have created conflicts of interest among prison guards and prisoners’ agency was influential for shaping a prison guard’s career.

Ahmed Celal Efendi, a guard at the general prison, was accused of selling cannabis and taking bribes and had a similar fate as Said Hayri Efendi. In this case, the prison commissioner not only interrogated Ahmed Celal Efendi but also many prisoners. This interrogation report helps us to hear their voices. The interrogation report of Ahmed Celal Efendi and several prisoners include questions such as how much money Ahmed Celal Efendi took from prisoners and for what purposes.575 The

572 BOA., DH. MB. HPS., 83/42, 08 Ca 1339 (January 18, 1921). 573 BOA., DH. MB. HPS. 14 Ş. 1339 132/54 (April 23, 1921). 574 BOA., DH. MB. HPS. 20 Za 1339 133/51 (July 20, 1921). 575 BOA., DH. MB. HPS., 20 Za 1339 133/51 (July 26, 1921). From the statement of Ahmed Celal Efendi Q: Some of the prisoners are saying you took money from them, is that true? A: I did not take [money]. I took 800 guruş from Mehmed the Arab, and 35 158

report ends with this statement “Not being appropriate style for the duty of guardian

[...]”, and as a result, Ahmed Celal Efendi was fired. On the other hand, some guards like Emrullah Efendi, a chief guardian at Istanbul prison, actively worked to stop the spread of cannabis in the prisons. He was awarded a medal for capturing cannabis as well as prohibited cutlery tools in the prison in 1921.576

The Other “Forgotten” Ones: Female Prisoners

We do not have many accounts regarding female prisoners in the Ottoman

Empire. 577 Evliya Çelebi, famous Ottoman traveler of the seventeenth century, mentioned that there was a prison for female prisoners (avretler zindanı) in

İstanbul.578 Ottoman officials did generally not consider female prisoners important in the Ottoman prison reform period. Firstly, the number of female prisoners, as Schull has shown by focusing on the statistics of prison population in the late Ottoman

guruş from Hızır the Laz. Yes, I took it but they had an order from outside. Q: Do you not know that this is forbidden? A: I know. From the statement of the 15-year prisoner Mehmed son of Salim.Q: How much was the guard Mr. Ahmed Celal’s debt to you? A: I was to take 1350 guruş. I took 500 guruş and 850 guruş remain. Q: What kind of money was this? To what end was it allegedly given to Celal? A: It was money for this pair of boots. Q: Is there more that you are owed? A: No, there is not. The statement of Binali who is held for theft. Q:How much is the guard Mr. Ahmed Celal’s debt to you? A: Yes, I was to take 6 lira. I had ordered cannabis [he uses a slang or nonstandard word “taş” in Turkish instead of the formal “whatever the word is”], but he did not bring it, and he kept the money. Q: Do you swear to God that Celal Efendi kept your money for this reason [buying cannabis]? A: I swear to God. The statement of prisoner Hizir the Laz son of Mehmed condemned to three years for brigandage. Q: How much was the guard Mr. Ahmed Celal’s debt to you? Tell the truth. A: I was to take 35 guruş. I gave this money for purchasing me tobacco [for me], but he neither bought tobacco nor gave my money back. Q: Is there any debt to you? A: No, there is not Sir. The statement of the prisoner Rifat Efendi condemned to 5 years for embezzlement. Q: How much was the guard Mr. Ahmed Celal’s debt to you? Tell. A: I gave him 2 lira. The money was given by way of the prisoner Sacle the Bosniak. Q: Were you waiting in return of something from Celal Efendi? A: No, I was not. I gave it with the intention to be of help. 576 BOA., DH. MB. HPS. M., 127, 14 S 1340 (October 17, 1921). For the conditions of the prisons including consular jails in Istanbul in the 1920s see Charles Trowbridge Riggs, in Clarence Richard Johnson, Constantinople To-Day or The Pathfinder Survey of Constantinople: A Study in Oriental Social Life, (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1922), 336-354. 577 See Ayşe Önder Kızılkan, ‘Osmanlı’da Kadın Hapishaneleri ve Kadın Mahkûmlar (1839-1922)’, PhD Dissertation, Süleyman Demirel University, 2011; Yıldız, Mapusane, 360-361. 578 “Bir kerre bu Dîvânenin vâlidesin tütün içerken dutup haps ederler...Sultânım, Çelebi'nin vâlidesi borçlu olup haps etmişler ıtlâkın ricâya gelmiş" deyince "Yalan söyler anam borçlu değildir bok yer, anam tütün içerken dutup zindâna kodular, avretler zindânından çıkarup erler zindânına kosunlar zîrâ babam yokdur" deyü bu gûne ricâ edüp Çavuşbaşı ile bu gûne münâkaşa etdüğinden..”, Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahâtnamesi, v. 1, eds. Robert Dankoff et.al., (Yapı Kredi Yayınları: İstanbul, 2013), 724-725. 159

Empire, was low579 in relation to to male prisoners, and secondly, there were no special prisons for female prisoners in many provinces of the Empire. Female prisoners were kept in houses, mostly at imams’, priests’, and rabbis’, rented by the

Ottoman government, and female guards were appointed to those houses. 580

Ambassador Canning noted, “Female prisoners are generally handed over to the

İmam, the Rabbi, the priests or the Parish authorities. At the capital they are treated the same as the men and superintended by a woman called the Kolgee Khanum.”

After the Tanzimat, generally one of the rooms of public prisons was set aside for female prisoners so that they could be kept in separate places from male prisoners.

According to the 43th article of the Imperial Ottoman Penal Code, there was no difference between male and female on behalf of the criminal law.581 However, the article points out that for some special situations such as pregnancy, the application of punishment could be reevaluated. For instance, in some places, female prisoners were imprisoned with their children. Furthermore, the 18th article of the Penal Code stated that “When a woman who has incurred the punishment of death states that she is pregnant her punishment, if her pregnancy is proved to be true and has acquired certitude, the punishment should be carried out after she has been delivered.”582

Number of Prisoners Year 1898 1899 Gender Male 11122 12649 Female 95 114 Table 3.2. Male-female ratio in Ottoman prisoners in the years of 1898-1899583

Fewer women were apprehended for crimes committed in relation to men as seen in Kirkor Zohrabyan’s statistics [Table 3.2.], and were punished mostly for the

579 Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire, 76-79. 580 See Pakalın, ibid., “İmam Evi”, 60; 581 Kanun-ı Ceza ve Teferruatı, 17-18. 582 The Imperial Ottoman Penal Code, 16; Muzaffer Albayrak, “Osmanlı’da Kadın Mahkumlar”, Kültür, v. 16, 2009, 108-111. 583 Kirkor Zohrab, Hukuk-ı Ceza, , (İstanbul: Ahmed Saki Matbaası, 1325), 15-16. 160

crimes of robbery, prostitution, murder, assault, and petty theft.584 Both Schull and

Yıldız states that in some Ottoman prisons, prostitutes were separated from other female prisoners and imprisoned in other prisons.585 Interestingly, Yıldız notes that in some prisons such as in Salonica, female prisoners were imprisoned with men.586 In cases of murder, most had killed their husbands with poison or arson.587

Since the quantity of women prisoners was low, and the budget for the prison reform was very limited, the Ottoman government chose to build additional spaces attached to Ottoman prisons instead of building new prisons especially for female prisoners. The limited budget almost certainly also meant that prisons did not create separate work programs for women.

The “Ideal”ization of Ottoman Prisoners: Work, Uniforms, and Photography Michel Foucault noted that in nineteenth-century France, through the process of formation of modern punishment, prisoners came to be seen as revenue-generating property. With the shift of the approaches from corporal punishment to correction and detention in Europe, prisoners became punished twice; first, they were confined, and then, second, as a part of their confinement they were required to work with very little or no pay.588 Ottoman prisons also integrated some aspects of this emerging notion of the employment of prisoners. Ambassador Canning stated that in the 1850s, Ottoman prisoners were “in many places employed in sweeping the streets, repairing roads, and other public works. However, Ottoman prison officials did not utilize their prison

584 Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire, 123. 585 Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire, 125; Yıldız, Mapusane, 123. 586 Yıldız, ibid., 123. 587 For female criminals see Ebru Aykut, “Alternative Claims on Justice and Law: Rural Arson and Poison Murder in the 19th Century Ottoman Empire”, PhD dissertation, (Boğaziçi University: İstanbul, 2011). Ali Karaca, “XIX. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Devleti’nde Fahişe Hatunlara Uygulanan Cezalar: Hapis ve Sürgün”, in Hapishane Kitabı, ed. Emine Gürsoy Naskali-Hilal Oytun Altun, (İstanbul: Kitabevi, 2005), 156-157. Pakalın notes that before the Tanzimat, prostitutes were confined during Ramadan. See Pakalın, ibid., “Fahişe”, 582-583. For some murder cases see Ayşe Önder Kızılkan, ibid., 137-149. 588 Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 109-110. 161

populations for revenue. Thus, Ottoman prisons were not profit-making institutions such as their counterparts in Europe and prison work did not affect Ottoman labor markets in the nineteenth century.589

According to the 34th article of the Imperial Ottoman Penal Code, prisoners should be kept busy by letting them work based on their talents.590 The Ottoman government attempted to let prisoners work in order to lessen the expense for feeding criminals in the late 1880s.591 For instance, in 1876, the prison officials of Salonica prison planned to use the prisoners as a workforce, and attempted to let prisoners sew their own uniforms in order to lessen the expenses of the prison uniforms, which was four thousand kurush per year. However, due to the lack of physical space of the prison, this project seems to have remained only a plan on paper.592

The fourth chapter of the 1880 Regulation was related to prison work.

According to these articles, all prisoners were required to work, and wardens were responsible for organizing their shifts and assigning them to particular tasks.

Moreover, it was also required to inform justice inspectors about prisoners’ behavior, and if a prisoner would not want to work or would avoid being assigned prison responsibilities without any excuses, he would be punished by not being allowed to go outside for recreation for at least twenty four hours and up to a week or longer.

Prisoners received monetary compensation for their labor, and half of this money was taken for clothes and other expenses, and the rest of it would be given to them

589 Matthews, ibid., 43. 590 Kanun-ı Ceza ve Teferruatı, 13. 591 “[…]emr-i iaşeleri yalnız hazine-i devlete muhasır olmakda kalmakda olduğundan bu cihet dahi düşünüldükçe kanun ve nizamın müsaid oluğu üzere habshane havalisi derununda bir sanayihane yapılıyor ve mahbusin oradan (…) ve marangozluk ve emsali sanatlarla işletdirilir ise hem ekmek paraları çıkmakla hazinenin külli bir masrafdan kurtulmuş olacağı hem de sanatlarının toplana toplana ikmal-i müddet edinceye kadar kendileriçün birer mikdar sermaye hasıl ve kendileri de birer hafta malik ve nail edilmiş bulunacağı cihetle […]”, BOA., ŞD. 2509/47 14 R 1305 (December 30, 1887). 592 BOA., BEO. AYN.d. 901. 19 Rebiulahir 1293 (May 14, 1876). Some of the correspondences written in 1899 show debates about sending prisoners to Yemen and Trablusgarb for agricultural labor as in Russia, France, and England. BOA., Y. PRK. HR., 27/88, 17 R 1317 (August 25, 1899). 162

gradually. According to the article, depending on the season, pants made of wool, cotton, or linen, and shirts in two diffrent colors would be provided by prison officials every two years. 593 However, until the late nineteenth century, the Ottoman government did not provide standard uniforms to prisoners even in the general prison in Istanbul. Thus, it is not accidental that Polis Mecmuası in 1897 publishes photos of prisoners of war within their uniforms surrounded by guards proudly posing [Fig.

3.3.] since the journal was a representative tool for the Ottomans to show recent developments in security and punishment policies. Moreover, taking pictures of prisoners was not limited only to these prisoners. As Yıldız states that the issue of taking pictures of prisoners or criminals was related to Abdülhamid II’s surveillance methods since the Ottoman Assembly (Meclis-i Vükela) started to discuss its importance in 1893.594

In 1893, Ottoman officials attempted to prepare budgets for prisoners’ monotype uniforms and the expenses for photographers responsible for taking prisoners’ photos for prison logbooks. According to the police commissioner Şemsi

Efendi, 3,300 kurush would be enough for a newly built photography studio inside the general prison or the police station (daire-i zabtiye), and the required tools for photography would cost 2,103 kurush. Şemsi Efendi stated that these tools could be bought from the factories in Europe with around a twenty-percent discount. He suggested that the photography machine in the general prison could be repaired for

600 kurush and does the same job even better than the new machines. According to

Şemsi Efendi’s calculation, for the thirty general prisons in Ottoman Empire,

593 “Mahkuminin elbisesi mevsimine göre yün veya keten veyahud pamukdan olarak iki renkli olmak üzere bir pantalon ve nimtenden ve birer don ve gömlekten ibaret olub işbu elbise iki senede bir kere verileceği gibi don ve gömleğin müddet-i mezkure için ikişer kat verilib haftada bir defa yıkanacak ve iki senede bir defa yine iki renkli olmak üzere birer terpuş ile bir çift kundura ve üç senede bir kere birer yağmurluk verilecekdir ve kadınlara mahsus olan elbise dahi bu nisbet üzerine tertib ve ita olunacakdır.”, BOA., A.DVN.MKL., 19/28, 1297 (1880), 13. 594 Yıldız, Mapusane, 422. 163

supposing that each general prison in the vilayets (provinces) held approximately four hundred prisoners, the Ottoman government needed to allocate 22,250 lira for the prison uniforms, the cost for newly built photography studios in the districts, and the expenses for photography. This figure excluded the stipends of the photographers in the districts.595

Figure 3.3. Prisoners of War in Selimiye Military Barracks in İstanbul dressed monotype prison uniforms. Resimli Gazete, June 10, 1897 (29 Mayıs 1313), v. 21, 369.

595 BOA., DH. MKT. 2047/110 13 B 1310 (January 31, 1893). There is a discrepancy between the calculations of the expenses for the prison uniforms and photography. According to another set of documents, the total cost would be 34,000 lira per year. BOA., BEO. 176/13162 7 N 1310 (March 25, 1893). 164

In 1909, Ahenk reports that according to Serseri Nizamnamesi, the imperial center confirmed that vagabonds could be used as workforce for road constructions in the Empire. 596 On January 26, 1909, İsmail Mahir Efendi Kastamonu deputy presented a proposal to Meclis-i Mebusan about establishing workhouses in prisons and giving education to prisoners through instructors. This was to allow prisoners to work and eventually lessen the money spent for prisoners. However, his proposal was not accepted by the parliament.597

In 1910, since it was against the prison regulation, the Ministry of Justice and

Confessions (Adliye ve Mezahib Nezareti Umur-ı Cezaiye Müdüriyeti) opposed the program in the province of Aydın that was letting prisoners work outside of prisons.

The governorship of Aydın insisted that the application was mandatory. They paid a small amount of money to prisoners and stated that working outside of prison was beneficial to the mental and moral health of prisoners.598 In addition to road and

596 “Serseri nizamnamesi mucebince bilmuhakeme serserilikleri sabit olarak umur-ı nafia veya müessesat-ı umumiyenin bundan istihdamları lazım gelen eşhasın turuk ve maabir mütaahitleri tarafından yevmiye ücretle çalışdırılmaları münasib olacağı nafia nezaretinden bildirilmişdir.”, Ahenk, June 17, 1909, 1. 597 MMZC, İ:18 13 Kanun-ı sani 1324 (January 26, 1909), v.1, 325. 598 BOA., DH. MUİ., 106/54, 2 B 1328 (July 10, 1910). 165

construction works, prisoners were also encouraged to do craftworks such as shoemaking, tailoring and carpentering, which enabled them to provide for their personal needs. In 1910, the governor of the province of Aydın wrote to the Ministry of Interior suggesting that due to overcrowding (mahbusin birbiri üzerine oturmakda ve hava-yı ceyyidden mahrum oldukları cihetle) in Izmir prison, allowing prisoners to work outside prison walls as construction workers would not only lessen quarrels between prisoners but would also be beneficial for the Ottoman treasury. Two hundred prisoners, confined for misdemeanors, were working for the road construction under the control of gendarmerie and soldiers.599 Many prison inspectors noted in their reports that prisons in Istanbul, Edirne, and Aydın were exemplary in the provision of education to prisoners.600 However, as Schull states, these educational programs were not realized throughout the Empire.601

In a column penned by Hüseyin, veteran from the Evkaf Ministry, in 1910, prisoners who wore monotype uniforms (yeknesak elbise) laid stones (Napoli taşı) in the construction of the roads in İzmir. According to Hüseyin, this type of work would keep prisoners, who had a lack of air, light and work opportunities in prison, a chance to be healthy. By heavily criticizing the conditions in Izmir Prison, Hüseyin drew an analogy between chicken coops and the prison.602

Schull states that by the promulgation of the 1911 Regulation, the Ministry of the Interior attempted to employ the 1880 Regulation in terms of establishing prison

599 BOA., DH.MUİ., 106/54 2 B 1328 (July 10, 1910). 600 BOA., DH. MB. HPS., 144/103, 23 Ra 1330 (March 12, 1913); DH. MB. HPS., 149/13, 21 Ra 1332 (February 17, 1914). 601 Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire, 129. 602 “İzmir habshanesi zaten fenn-i tıbba, kavaid-i sıhhiyeye tevfikan inşa olunmadığı gibi ağır cezalı olanlara mahsus habshane değildir. Bin dane tavuk beslemek için kaç dönüm arazi lazımsa bin adam için ne kadar arsa lazım olacağı hesab edilebilir. Mahbusin kanunen “hürriyet-i şahsiye”lerine malik değildir. Fakat “hürriyet-i tabiyye”lerine malikdir. Bunlara güneş, saf hava vermemek hürriyet-i tabiyyelerine tecavüz demek olmaz mı? [...] İzmir habshanesi bir iki sene mahkumlar için bir habshanedir. Daha ziyadesiçün değildir; ve olamaz. Şahid aranırsa hastahane defterleri, gureba mezarlıkları gösterilebilir.”, Ahenk, October 16, 1910, 1. 166

factories (imalathaneler, sanayihaneler) particularly in major cities of the Empire.603

For instance, in 1912, with the support of Raşid Bey, the director of İzmir Prison, prisoners became tailors, carpenters, and shoemakers.604 Furthermore, during World

War I, as a requirement of the mass mobilization of Ottoman population and due the need for workers particularly for construction works, some of Ottoman prisoners regardless of their religion might have joined labor battalions (amele taburları) in the

Ottoman Empire.605 Furthermore, during the Great War, the prisoners in Hapishane-i

Umumi in Istanbul manufactured tables [Fig. 3.15.], some of which were used at police stations, and continued to learn various skills such as tailoring [Fig. 3.8., 3.9.], coppersmithing and whitesmithing [Fig. 3.10.], jewelry [Fig. 3.11.], knitting socks

[Fig. 3.12.], watchmaking [Fig. 3.13.], and shoemaking [Fig. 3.14.] at the workshops established inside prisons.606

Not only technical education but also teaching how to read and write were part of the agenda of Istanbul Prison. As ‘ideal’ and role model prison, adults and children had separate classes filled with desks, blackboards, and books as seen in [Fig. 3.16.] and [Fig. 3.17]. The seriousness and cautiousness of students and their teachers and the line, “School is a house of discipline/training” (Mekteb bir darüledebdir) [Fig.

3.17.] written on the board of the juvenile classroom completed each other. The prison also had a reading room [Fig. 3.18.] with couple of shelves filled with books and the

603 Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire, 130-131. 604 “...mezkur habshanede dahi kunduracılık ve makine ile çorab ve fanila imali misillü sehlülicra olan sanayiin tatbiki için vilayece teshilat ve muavenat olunması dahiliye nezaretinden vilayete işar olunmuşdur.”, Ahenk, March 10, 1912, 2. This attempt of establishing a workhouse in İzmir Prison started in the 1880s and the 1890s. Hizmet reported about a public lottery to establish a workhouse for the benefit of prisoners in the Izmir prison. Hizmet, January 26, 1887, 1; Hizmet, March 15, 1890, 2. 605 For amele taburları see Mehmet Beşikçi, The Ottoman Mobilization of Manpower in the First World War: Between Voluntarism and Resistance, (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 129-139; Cengiz Mutlu, Birinci Dünya Savaşında Amele Taburları (1914-1918), (İstanbul: IQ, 2007); Zekeriya Özdemir, ‘I. Dünya Savaşı’nda Amele Taburları”, MA thesis, Gazi University, 1994. BOA. DH. EUM. 3. Şb. 6/48 13 Ş 1333. 606 BOA., DH. EUM. MH., 258/30 22 L 1333 (September 2, 1915); DH. EUM. MH. 258/29 22 L 1333 (September 2, 1915). 167

Sultan’s picture on its wall. All of these photos of Istanbul Prison illustrate the

‘ideal’ized prison model and also ‘ideal’ized prisoners as being revenue making, productive, skillful persons also being ‘rehabilitated’ through work.

Figure 3.4. Pharmacy in İstanbul prison Figure 3.5. Surgery room in İstanbul prison. Polis Mecması, v. 78, Polis Mecmuası, v. 77, October 14, 1916. September 15, 1916.

Figure 3.6. The hospital inside İstanbul prison.

168

Figure 3.7. The hospital inside İstanbul prison. Polis Mecmuası, v. 77, September 28, 1916.

Conclusion

Ottoman prison reform included a series of objectives from the consistent distribution of food to providing health services to prisoners, but all of these eclectic topics can be summarized under the rubric of ‘standardization’ and ‘idealization’ based on criminal codes, regulations, and ordinances issued in the late Ottoman

Empire. As I attempted to illustrate, the general prison in Istanbul, and later Izmir and

Salonica prisons, aimed to be a role models in terms of food distribution, health and hygienic conditions, and prison work. While local officials often played a major role in attempts at reform, there was always discrepancy between the imperial center and the localities even in big port cities such as Izmir and Salonica.

169

The poor hygienic conditions in prisons and the lack of standardization of food provision resulted in health problems, spread of diseases, and many deaths among

Ottoman prisoners. From the second half of the nineteenth century, with the establishment of infirmaries and quarantines, these Ottoman prisons faced spatial segregations, which were enhanced by the rise of medical and pharmaceutical professionalization. Not even increased medical standards helped Istanbul Prison avoid holding ‘lunatics’ due to lack of establishment of madhouses. Particularly, the general prison in Istanbul was the site where lunacy, cannabis, and criminality went hand in hand at some point in the late Ottoman Empire. While cannabis was giving prisoners pleasure, its trafficking was a profitable business for guards. As seen in the interrogation reports, prison personnel were involved in cannabis trafficking, which could be read as the prison environment itself creating or perpetuating crimes and criminals.

The Ottoman government started to approach the rehabilitation of prisoners more professionally and systematically than they had in the late nineteenth century, with the exception of female prisoners, who only amounted to small percentage of the prison population. Limited budgets and the physical capacities of prisons607 meant that not all of the Ottoman prisons had the chance to have workshops, but in the general prison in Istanbul, and later in Izmir and Salonica, prisoners benefited from occupational education, which ranged from tailoring to carpentry. These prisons did

607 The reports coming from different parts of the Empire depicted the limited capacity of Ottoman prisons in terms of having barely enough space for prisoners and suffering from a lack of standardized prison architecture. BOA., A.MKT.UM. 458/42 17 S 1277 (September 4, 1860). “Memalik-i mahruse-i şahanede bulunan habshanelerin ekseri dar ve uygunsuz olduğundan ve bazı mahallerde dahi tanzif ve tathirine hiç bakılmamakda bulunduğundan mahbusinin pek aşırı sefalet çekmekde olduğu rivayet ve ihbar olunmuş ve bu keyfiyet ise şan ve rıza-yı aliye gayr-i muvafık olarak saye-i inayetvaye-i cenab-ı padişahide zikr olunan habshanelerin suret-i tevsii ve tanzifiyla bir heyet-i muntazamada bulundurulmak üzere ıslahat külliyen matlubesi derdest-i tasavvur bulunmuş olmasıyla beraber bunun hususuna değin mezkur habshanelerin şimdilik hal-i hazırlarınca ıslahat ve tanzifat-ı mümkünesine bakılmak dahi lazımeden ve bilistizan […]” 170

not produce profit making labors instead these workshops were part of recreational social life in Ottoman prisons.

In the late nineteenth century, Ottoman prisons represented physical and social exclusion of prisoners from Ottoman society. However, with the establishment of infirmaries and later hospitals within or close to prison, a secondary means of segregation of space became apparent within prisons. As Matthews states patients were subject to “different forms of control and different set of rules” that could be seen in the photos published in Ottoman police journals emphasizing the spatial distribution of the ‘ideal’ prison which was the general prison in Istanbul in this case.608

The series of photographs published by Polis Mecmuası in several volumes in

1916 illustrate the latest improvements of medical facilities in Istanbul Prison.

According to these photos, Istanbul Prison had a hospital inside the prison complete with a surgery room [Fig. 3.5.], and a pharmacy having many kinds of medicine [Fig.

3.4.] As the latter shows, a pharmacist in the prison prepared medicine by weighing compounds with a scale seen on the counter. Doctors, pharmacists, and their assistants, and prison officials proudly posed for the camera, as the caption of the photo of the grand room of the prison hospital reads [Fig. 3.6., 3.7.], all of these improvements in the prison were considered as a part of regularity (intizam) and progress (terakki) echoing the ideals of the CUP.609 Furthermore, we could clearly see this attempt at order and seriousness in almost all aspects of the details of these photos from the arrangement of the bottles of medical compounds at the pharmacy to monotype uniforms of prisoners and even at their utensils at the top of their bed.

608 Matthews, ibid., 26-27. 609 The transliteration of the caption is “Dersaadet habshane-i umumisinde bilhassa müdir-i hazıri ve heyet-i idaresi tarafından vücuda getirilen intizam ve terakki asardan olarak habshane-i umumi hastahanesinin büyük salonunun manzarası”. 171

In the next chapter, I will examine security in these Ottoman prisons, prison escapes, and pardons and amnesties in the late Ottoman Empire.

Figure 3.8. Workshop for tailoring in İstanbul prison. Polis Mecmuası, v. 24, July 14, 1914.

172

Figure 3.9. Workshop for tailoring in İstanbul prison. On the top right the director of the prison İbrahim Bey. Polis Mecmuası, v. 74, October 14, 1916.

173

Figure 3.10. Workshop for coppersmithing and whitesmithing in İstanbul prison. Polis Mecmuası, v. 74, October 14, 1916.

174

Figure 3.11. Workshop for jewelers in İstanbul prison.

Figure 3.12. Workshop for knitting socks in İstanbul prison. Polis Mecmuası, v. 85, January 28, 1917.

175

Figure 3.13. Workshop for watchmakers in İstanbul prison. Polis Mecmuası, October, 28, 1916.

176

Figure 3.14. Workshop for shoemaking in İstanbul prison. Polis Mecmuası, v. 77, September 28, 1916.

Figure 3.15. Workshop for carpenters in İstanbul prison. Polis Mecmuası, v. 82, December 14, 1916.

177

Figure 3.16. School for older prisoners in İstanbul prison. Polis Mecmuası, v. 84, January 14, 1917.

178

Figure 3.17. School for juvenile prisoners in İstanbul prison. On the board (Mekteb bir darüledebdir. School is a house of discipline/training.), Polis Mecmuası, v. 85, January 28, 1917.

Figure 3.18. Reading room in İstanbul prison.

179

Chapter 4

(In)Security in Ottoman Prisons: Prison Escapes, Pardons and Amnesties

The Ottoman Archives in Istanbul contains a vast number of prison architectural plans, sketches, and drawings date back to the late nineteenth century.610

These documents represent the continuation of the improvement of Ottoman architecture (fenn-i mimari) since the Tanzimat era. Specifically, starting from the

1850s, the Ottomans collected detailed information about the public buildings including government palaces and prisons throughout the Empire in order to identify their conformity with the architectural standards of the State.611 These attempts aimed to give uniformity to public buildings in the Empire based on new architectural regulations. However, it is hard to claim that Ottoman prisons were monotype and were all built on these regulations as seen in the architectural and structural differences between in Istanbul and Izmir prisons. Although Sakızlı Ohannes Paşa, instructor at Sanayi-i Nefise Mektebi (Fine Arts School) in Istanbul in the late nineteenth century, set the requirements for constructing buildings based on both functionality and sheltering efficiency 612 , most of Ottoman prisons lacked these architectural notions.613

610 For some examples of these prison plans see Appendices. 611 Göksun Akyürek, Bilgiyi Yeniden İnşa Etmek: Tanzimat Döneminde Mimarlık, Bilgi ve İktidar, (İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2011), footnote 54, 60. 612 Yıldız, Mapusane, 393; Akyürek, ibid., 63. As Göksun Akyürek quoted, Ohannes Paşa gives his definition of architecture in his Fünun-ı Nefise Tarihi Medhali published in 1892-3. 613 It is worth mentioning that thus far we do not have literature devoted specifically to Ottoman prison architecture in the late Ottoman Empire. The general histories of Ottoman architecture also do not pay any attention to it. One of the rare exceptions is Akyürek’s work on Ottoman architecture during the Tanzimat period. While the work still does not particularly focus on Ottoman prison architecture, it at least mentions the construction of public buildings, including the construction of Bekirağa Bölüğü which was used as prison and also police stations (karakolhane) in Istanbul in the nineteenth century. These buildings were designed by Italian architect Gaspara Trajano Fossati who was hired by the Ottoman government in the 1840s. Akyürek, ibid., 78-82. For the photos of Karesi Prison illustrating its extremely poor conditions see Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire, 116-119. 180

In addition to the physical deficiencies of prisons, lack of security and professionalization of prison cadres614 played role in prison breaks in the late Ottoman

Empire. Thus, the first part of this short chapter deals with the (in)security of prisons and explores several cases of prison escapes, particularly those that occurred in

Salonica in the late Ottoman Empire.615 This closer look at prison escapes illustrates not only the lack of security in Ottoman prisons but also makes a contribution to the literature on Ottoman prisons by providing information about life in prisons and the internal dynamics of prison cadre-prisoner relationships.616

As examined in the three chapters, the criminal codes, regulations, and ordinances were the main legal basis of Ottoman penal reform and they also represent the State’s “ideal” and official perspective regarding the definition of crimes, punishment, and particularly imprisonment. As the very first article of the Imperial

Ottoman Penal Code indicates, the State was the sole authority in terms of defining

614 We encounter many archival documents regarding complaints about prison officials in the nineteenth century. For instance, in 1847, Kızılhisarlı Mehmed from Seferihisar, went to the court to complain about Mahmud, the director of the prison, and Arnavud İslam, the chief of the gendarme (zabtiye bölükbaşı), who imprisoned Mehmed’s son in Izmir prison on the grounds of theft. Mehmed’s son passed away while imprisoned as a result of torture. In the interrogation during the court proceedings, Arnavud İslam accepted Mehmed’s claims about torturing his son, particularly bastinadoing (ayaklarına değnek darbıyla), but he denied the claim that he killed Mehmed’s son. BOA., A.MKT.MVL. 4/49 13.3.1263 (March 1, 1847). 615 For the application of Tanzimat reforms in Salonica see Meropi Anastassiadou, Tanzimat Çağında Bir Osmanlı Şehri: Selanik (1830-1912), (İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 1998); Alexandra Yerolympos, “Formes spatiales d’expansion urbaine et le rôle des communautés non musulmanes à l’époque des Réformes”, Revue des mondes musulmans et de la Méditerranée, September 2005, 107- 110, http://remmm.revues.org/2801; Alexandra Yerolympos, Urban Transformation in the Balkans (1820-1920): Aspects of Balkan Town Planning and the Remaking of Thessaloniki, (Thessaloniki: University Studio Press, 1996); Gülay Tulasoğlu, ““Humble Efforts in Search of Reform”: Consuls, Pashas, and Quarantine in Early-Tanzimat Salonica”, in Well-Connected Domains: Towards an Entangled Ottoman History, eds. Pascal W. Firges, et.al., (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 188-206. 616 For the professionalization of Ottoman prison cadres see Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire, 144-154. According to the 1880 Regulation, prison personnel should be composed of a director (müdür), a chief scribe (başkatib), clerks (katibler), a chief warden (baş gardiyan), guards (gardiyanlar), a doctor (tabib), a laundrer (çamaşırcı), a janitor (işçi), an imam, priest, rabbi (imam ve iktiza eden memurin-i ruhaniyyeden), and female guards for female prisoners (nisaya mahsus dairelerde nisadan gardiyan). BOA., A.DVN.MKL. 19/28 1297 (1880), 3. However, the archival records reveal most of these posts were not filled in the majority of Ottoman prisons. The 117th article of the Ottoman Criminal Code refers to a prison cadre (habsci ve zindancı ve nöbetçi ve kapucu) who were responsible for keeping prisoners secure and transferring them if necessary. Kanun-ı Ceza ve Teferruatı, 57. For the posts in Ottoman prisons before the Tanzimat see Pakalın, ibid., “Subaşı”, 259- 261, “Tomruk Ağası”, 511. 181

crime and its punishment.617 The 203th article of the Code also secures the right of the

State stating that if anyone attempts to shelter or hide criminal at his place he will be charged from six months to three years punishment as it’s against the law (usul in this sense).618 Whilst the State protects its authority over punishment, the Sultan reserves the right to pardon criminals and release them, thereby ostensibly showing his mercy to prisoners. The second part of this chapter focuses on amnesties and pardons that were also used as political and administrative tools to lessen the overcrowded prison population throughout the Empire.

(In)Security in Ottoman Prisons and Prison Escapes

In the first half of the nineteenth century, as seen in Cannings’ reports,

Salonica had a bad reputation for having a confinement places where torture and mistreatment of prisoners were common.619 Like as Dimetoka and Vidin, Salonica was one of the hard labour (kürek) centers in the Ottoman Empire, which means that prisoners who were punished with a sentence of hard labour were confined in these places instead of being sent to Tersane-i Amire in Istanbul.620 However, the physical deficiency (nizamsız ve uygunsuz) in the actually building of Salonica Prison resulted in several prison breaks.621

On September 18, 1851, Thursday, at 11:30 p.m., in Salonica fortress, which was being used as prison, under the leadership of Kara Salih, fifty prisoners, most of whom were shackled murderers and brigands, attacked their guards with laundry sticks. Prisoners broke the outside door of the prison by using axes reserved for

617 Kanun-ı Ceza ve Teferruatı, 3-4. 618 Ibid., 90-91. 619 Yıldız, Mapusane, 126. 620 Yıldız, Mapusane, 234. 621 BOA., A.MKT.UM., 363/60, 3 S 1276 (September 1, 1859). In the 1870s, the Bloody Tower (Kanlı Kule) on the eastern part of the quay was also used as prison in Salonica. Yıldız, Mapusane, 329-330; Sotirios Dimitriadis, “Transforming a Late-Ottoman Port-City: Salonica, 1876-1912”, in Well- Connected Domains: Towards an Entangled Ottoman History, eds. Pascal W. Firges, et.al., (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 215. For the architectural plan of the Bloody Tower see Appendices. 182

firefighting. The prisoners took the weapons of the guards, most of whom were outside the prison having a meal at the time of the breakout, and escaped from the fortress on Yenikapı Street to the forest on the steep mountains. Prisoners left one guard with a broken back and another one wounded. After a chase for the escaped prisoners, which lasted until the morning, one prisoner was shot by soldiers (zaptiye) and only sixteen other prisoners were caught that night. Nineteen additional prisoners were caught over the next two days. In the end, only fourteen of the prisoners succeeded in their escape. According to the statements of the captured prisoners, Kara

Salih, a brigand, encouraged them to escape from the prison. The governor of

Salonica blamed the guards for the prison escape, stating it had occurred due to their recklessness.622 In 1855, four years after this incident, twenty-seven prisoners escaped from Salonica prison again by taking the guards’ guns. The local officials stated that this prison escape occurred due to the laziness of the guards (memur-ı merkum ve zabıtaların tekasül ve rehavetlerinden naşi). In this escape, only ten prisoners were caught, while the remaining seventeen of them successfully escaped.623

Prison Scribes (mahbes katibi) were responsible for keeping roll call of prisoners, writing daily journals (yevmiye jurnalleri), and sending these journals from provincial prisons to prison headquarters in regional centers.624 However, even these

622 BOA, İ.MVL. 222/7495 21 Z 1267 (17 October 1851). According to A.MKT.MVL. 46/80 08 M 1268 (26 November 1851), fourteen escaped prisoners were all caught, and they should be sent to Tersane-i Amire for kurek, and the guards and prison officers who were responsible for this breakout should be fired. BOA., A.MKT.MVL. 46/80 8 M 1268 (November 3, 1851). 623 BOA., A.MKT.UM. 201/40 29 L 1271 (July 15, 1855). According to the consular reports attached to the memorandum of Canning, Salonica prisons in the 1850s were depicted as follows: “The prison at the Konak is only partially floored, and one of the wards is only partially paved with flagstones. It is filthy in the extreme with only small windows looking on the courtyard for ventilation. It is cold and damp in winter and damp in summer. The prison at the Tophana is filthy beyond conception, which can be well imagined when there is no convenience for the calls of nature. It is badly paved with flagstones and is very damp and so that it often occurs that the prisoners have to move about in mud and excrement when there is more than a usual number confined there. There are no means of ventilation excepting thro’ windows near the entrance. The Zindan is quite as damp as the Tophana. There is no ventilation.” BOA., HR.TO. 215/58 24.6.1851; MVL. 246/49 4 R 1268. 624 BOA, A. MKT. MVL., 41/11, 29.05.1267 (April 1, 1851); A. MKT. UM., 72/99, 3.11.1267 (August 30, 1851). 183

precautionary measures did not eliminate the possibility of escape.625 The Imperial

Ottoman Penal Code defines punishment for prison escapees as follows:

Art. 7.1—If persons who have incurred the punishments of temporary exile, imprisonment, temporary confinement in a fortress or temporary kyurek [sic.] run away from their place of punishment, their punishment, on being captured, is increased by an addition to the remainder of their term of a term equal to from one-third to one-half of their original period of punishment, and if a person who has incurred the punishment of perpetual exile runs away from his place of exile he is confined in a fortress in perpetuity, and a person who runs away from perpetual confinement in a fortress is placed in kyurek [sic.] in perpetuity.626

The weak and poorly built structures used as Ottoman prisons made prison breakouts significantly easier than in more fortified buildings. In many cases, prisoners reached an agreement with prison guards, and obtained a tool to drill through the wall or break the door. For instance, Şaban and two of his friends escaped from prison in Rhodes by drilling through the prison wall. Şaban was caught in Izmir by security forces and sent back to Rhodes in 1860.627

In 1861, thirty prisoners broke out of Salonica Prison during the religious festival (ıyd-ı şerif). The escapees who ran through the streets were caught immediately with the help of gendarmerie. According to the report, this prison escape must have occurred due to guards’ inattention.628 In the same year, in 1861, another break out occurred in Salonica Prison. Twenty prisoners broke the main door of the prison and attempted to escape. While Zabtiye Aziz, a guard, was trying to prevent the prison escape, he was beaten and killed by the prisoners with the main door’s iron handle. In addition to giving credit to Aziz for his courageous act at the time of his duty (ifa-yı vazife-i memuriyeti yolunda feda-yı can eylemiş), the Ottoman

625 BOA, A. MKT. MHM., 232/17, 15 S 1278 (August 22, 1861). 626 Bucknill-Utidjian, ibid., 7. 627 BOA., A.MKT.UM. 427/25 1 Ra 1277 (September 17, 1860). 628 BOA., A. MKT. MHM. 224/7 23 Z 1277 (July 2, 1861); BOA., A. MKT. MHM. 225/77 5 M 1278 (July 13, 1861); BOA. A.MKT.NZD. 356/49 17 L 1277 (April 28, 1861). Thirty escapees got caught but one of the zabtiyes passed away. 184

government helped Zabtiye Aziz’s wife and his children by offering them benefits in the amount of forty kurush per month as their living allowance629.

On the day of July 23, 1865, around 10:30 p.m., while thirty-two prisoners including murderers, bandits, and kalebends were on their night break in Salonica

Prison, all of a sudden, the prisoners attempted to break into the warden’s office.

After grabbing the rifles, guns, and knives from his office, they murdered Davud, one of the prison guards with a knife, and wounded the other guard Mehmed. During the clash between the armed escapees and the soldiers, four of the escapees died, and the rest of them, except two escapees who disappeared into the dark of the night, were caught with the help of Major (Binbaşı) Salim Ağa’s successful crisis management skills. The governor of Salonica honored Binbaşı Salim Ağa and the guards who succeeded in catching the escapees quickly by giving badges (nişan-ı zişani) to Major

Salim Ağa, Clerk (alay katibi) İbrahim Efendi, and Lieutenant (mülazım-ı evvel)

Bekir Ağa, and by transferring promotional benefits to these guards. The governor did not forget the wounded guard or the guard who lost his life during the prison escape.

The governor, instead, provided financial aid for the families of Davud and

Mehmed.630

On the other hand, based on the Ottoman archival documents, traces of the involvement of guards can be seen in most prison escapes, but we also see other forms of breakouts. One notable case is a breakout that occurred in a prison in Niş in 1865, in which a prisoner wore women’s clothing to successfully escape with his wife’s help.631 As mentioned in the previous chapter, guards were facilitators between the

‘outside’ and prisoners. According to the 1876 ordinance, guards were not allowed to

629 BOA., A. MKT. MVL. 136/52 24 Ca 1278 (November 27, 1861); BOA., A.MKT.MVL. 135/82 15 Ca 1278 (November 18, 1861). 630 BOA., İ.MVL. 540/24265 16 Ca 1282 (October 7, 1865). 631 BOA, MVL., 1075/21, (November 6, 1865). 185

carry guns or knives inside prisons, but as numerous cases illustrate, it seems obvious that guards did in fact carry weapons such as guns into Ottoman prisons.

In the midst of the nineteenth century, guards in the Ottoman Empire were selected from men between twenty-five and fifty years old, who were usually veterans of security forces. Before the promulgation of the 1880 Regulation, the ordinance framing the duties and responsibilities of guards was issued in 1876. The ordinance, which included five chapters and thirteen articles, was an attempt to standardize prison personnel in Ottoman prisons.632 According to the ordinance, guards were not only responsible for keeping prisons and prisoners secure but also were in charge of a variety of duties including cleaning prisons, lighting candles, and providing bread to prisoners. The special article (madde-i mahsusa) at the end of the ordinance stated that the governor and other local officials were responsible for monitoring how well guards did their jobs in prisons.

Ottoman prison guards were mostly accused of irresponsibility as a result of their incompetence, including their slowness and carelessness in taking precautions to lessen brawls inside prisons. 633 In 1887, Celestine Bonnin, a French police commissioner, was invited to the Ottoman Empire in order to inspect Ottoman prisons. His report clearly illustrates that prisoners could obtain poniards (kama) and pistols (revolver) with the help of guards in prisons. Bonnin stated that all prison directors with whom he spoke blamed guards for this lack of security inside prisons.

Therefore, Bonnin suggested that every month governors in provinces should inspect prisons. According to Bonnin, with the help of these inspections, local officials could understand prisoners’ states of mind, such as whether or not they were planning to

632 BOA., A.DVN.MKL. 13/22 11 Ra 1293 (April 6, 1876). For the transcription of the 1876 ordinance see the appendix. 633 “...mutlaka zabtiye sergerdesiyle sair zabitanın bataet ve adem-i dikkatlerinden neşet eylediğinden..”, BOA., A.MKT.NZD. 45/39 8 M 1268 (November 3, 1851). 186

escape. However, Bonnin noted that even in the imperial center, where resources were likely greater, prisons were not regularly inspected.634

However, due to the limited number of security forces in the Empire in the late nineteenth century, securing prisons was mostly an extremely difficult task.

Gendarmerie, in addition to guards, were also responsible for securing prisons, but even with the combination of the two forces, prison security remained limited.635 In fact, in the 1890s, the local officials in Salonica complained about the limited number of gendarmerie who were appointed both for securing the train line between İstanbul and Salonica and the prison. There were no security forces left for fighting against banditry in the region. 636 There were fourteen guards in Salonica Prison in 1894.

Their stipend was between 130 and 160 kurush depending on their ranks. 637

Type of Crimes Years and Others 1902 1905 1906 Hard labor (kürek) 249 801 435 Serious crimes 194 225 120 (cinayet) Less serious crimes 163 182 284 (cünha) Prisoners 306 286 487 completing their punishment (ikmal- i müddet edenler) Prisoners 168 816 198 transferred to other prisons

634 “Hükm-i kanuna nazaran Dersaadet’de Zabtiye nazırı ve vilayatda valiler ayda bir defa mahbuslar ile habshanelerin usulünü anlamağa daima mecburdurlar...” BOA., Y.PRK.ZB. 3/84, 3 L 1304 (June 25, 1887). 635 See Halim Tevfik Alyot, Türkiye’de Zabıta (Tarihi Gelişim ve Bugünkü Durum), (Ankara: Kanaat Basımevi, 1947); Osman Nuri Ergin, Mecelle-i Umûr-ı Belediyye, v. 2, (İstanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür İşleri Daire Başkanlığı Yayınları, 1995), 887-895. 636 BOA., İ.AS. 12/28 17.S.1313 (August 9, 1895). 637 BOA., İ.DH. 1316/51 20 R 1312 (October 21, 1894). Between 1882-1889, İzmir Prison had twenty- eight guards. Aydın Vilayet Salnamesi, 1299 (1882), 98; Aydın Vilayet Salnamesi, 1317 (1889), 53. In 1909, the stipends of prison cadres of İzmir were as follows: “Warden 1000, Clerk 500, Chief Guard 400, Doctor 500, Female Guard 105 kurush.” Ahenk, November 26, 1909, 3. 187

Years 1902 1905 1906 Pardoned prisoners 174 395 208 (afv-ı aliye mazhar olanlar) Released prisoners 849 1216 889 Deaths 76 247 103 Escapees 3 - 5 1221 (to be 2994 prisoners devolved to the from 1906, 1165 year of 1905) prisoners were developed from 1905) Totals 3010 5389 4159

Table 4.1. The statistics of the general prison (habshane-i umumi) in Salonica in the first decade of the twentieth century638

In 1906, Salonica prison had more than 4000 prisoners, but only fifteen guards were responsible to secure the prison. In 1906, many prisoners were wounded and died in a brawl in Salonica prison, which broke out during a struggle among prisoners seeking to become leader of the ward (koğuş ağası).639 The limited number of guards in the prison made containing or preventing such brawls nearly impossible. The report on the ineffective prison administration in Salonica prison penned by the prosecutor

(Selanik İstintak Müdde-i Umumisi) in 1906 illustrated in detail the chaotic atmosphere in the prison. This time the director of the prison was specifically named in the report’s critique. Apparently, the prosecutor wrote this report in order to show how Bosnalı Eşref Efendi, director of the prison, was incapable of managing the institution. According to the report, Eşref Efendi’s Turkish was not very good and this caused miscommunications when he spoke with prisoners. The report continues with several examples of cases including prison breaks and brawls that occurred in prison

638 Selanik Vilayet Salnamesi, 1902, 636; Selanik Vilayet Salnamesi, 1905, 499; Selanik Vilayet Salnamesi, 1906, 634. 639 “...koğuşda bulunanların mesmuu olamadığı cihetle şekl ve mahiyeti tayin edemeyen teşvikat ve tezviratda müthasıl-ı hiddetle aleyhinde tezvirat vaki olduğu ve koğuş ağası iken bir binbaşı derecesinde haiz olduğu iktidar ve nüfuz o nam ve sıfatın üzerinden refi üzerine münkesir olarak halen koğuş halkının kendisine hürmetsizlik etdiğini bilbeyan isim ve şahs tayin etmeyerek umum koğuşun halkına...”, BOA., TFR.I.SL. 101/10017 7 S 1324 (April 2, 1906). 188

during his tenure as director. According to the report, one of the prisoners hid a stone in his waistband and later used it to kill a guard in the prison. Moreover, prisoners used pistols during the fight. The report also deciphered the relationship between various leaders (hapishane ağası) of prisoners who collaboratively worked to organize the digging of a tunnel under the prison over a number of months. However, with only fifty centimeters of the wall left to dig before the escape route was finished, one of the prisoners informed the guard of his friends’ task. The escape plan therefore failed.640

The first decades of the twentieth century saw the creation of ‘new’ police and gendarmerie in the Empire. 641 Particularly after the promulgation of the Second

Constitution, the Ottoman Empire undertook discussions not only about liberty, justice, and equality but also about the role of prisons and security forces in the

Empire. The CUP attempted to redefine the responsibilities of ‘new’ police based on the Police Regulation (Polis Nizamnamesi) in 1907. 642 At least some cities endeavored to apply these new regulations; for example, in Izmir, Mazhar Bey, director of the police department, taught the details of the Police Regulation to policemen in 1908.643 Nevertheless, in a special article (bend-i mahsus) published by

640 BOA., TFR.I.SL. 130/12944 11 Za 1324 (December 27, 1906). 641 See Noémi Lévy-Aksu, Ordre et désordres dans l’Istanbul ottomane (1879-1909), (Paris: Karthala, 2013); Noémi Lévy-Aksu, “Institutional Cooperation and Substitution: The Ottoman Police and Justice System at the Turn of the 19th and 20th Centuries”, in Order and Compromise: Government Practices in Turkey from the Late Ottoman Empire, eds. Marc Aymes, et.al., (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 146-168; G.W. Swanson, “The Ottoman Police”, Journal of Contemporary History, v. 7, n. 1-2, 1972, 243-260; Khaled Fahmy, “The Police and the People in the Nineteenth-century Egypt”, Die Welt des Islams, 39 (1999), 340-377. 642 Ergut, Modern Devlet ve Polis, 150-151. 643 “Polis memurlarının vezaif-i esasiyelerine bir kat daha kesb-i vukuf etmelerine medar olmak üzere polis nizamnamesi ahkamının kendilerine hüsn-i efham ve takriri tensib olunarak vazife-i talim ve tedrisinin...” Ahenk, May 17, 1908, 1. 189

Ahenk on August 5, 1909, the police department in Izmir was criticized for having an inadequate number of policemen in provinces.644

In 1910, İbrahim Feridun (Üstünel), an instructor at several schools including the Police School (Polis Mektebi), published a book entitled “Discipline and

Professional Information for Policemen” (Polis Efendilere Mahsus Terbiye ve

Malumat-ı Meslekiye) in order to support the progress of Ottoman police in the first decade of the twentieth century.645 In his book, Feridun depicted the police as the protector of the honor of the country. Feridun emphasized the devotion of the

Ottoman police to upholding the safety and security of the nation. 646 Moreover,

Feridun portrayed the police as a father figure, both for women and their sons whose husbands and fathers were in the military or at the war fronts.647

Feridun gives examples of the standards set and followed by security and police organizations from the European countries, particularly from France, and also

Japan. According to Feridun, France had the most modern and hygienic prisons built in the contemporary architectural style.648 Feridun noted examples where the police did not follow regulations and he highlighted the consequences of these actions. For instance, in the 1880s in England, the English police beat vagabonds who stole people’s money and goods at nights with a kind of whip. 649 Feridun attempted to justify that torturing criminals helped establishing discipline in prisons.650

644 “...Memleketimizde kuvve-i zabıta meşrutiyetten önce idiyse şimdi de o. Yalnız bir kısım polis ceketleri, elbise renkleri değişdi! İşte bu kadar. Sair noksanlar hep baki. ..Mesela bugün ellidört bin kilometro merbaı vüsatini haiz olan vilayetimizde ancak iki bin üçyüz jandarma neferi, doksan beş zabit bulunuyor. Diğer vilayetlerde binnisbe bu kadar da yok.” Ahenk, August 5, 1909, 1. 645 For İbrahim Feridun’s biography see İbrahim Feridun, Polis Efendilere Mahsus Terbiye ve Malumat-ı Meslekiye, eds. Muhittin Karakaya-Veysel K. Bilgiç, (Polis Akademisi Yayınları, Ankara: 2010), 8-10. 646 Feridun, ibid., 30. 647 Feridun, ibid., 31. 648 Feridun, ibid., 165. 649 Feridun, ibid., 165-166. 650 Feridun, ibid., 167-168. 190

According to Feridun, the release of prisoners after the amnesty of 1908 caused chaotic incidents in the Empire, including former prisoners who set fire to houses, stole and robbed.651 In addition to several photos of criminals and police officers, Feridun also added two photographs taken at the Police School in Salonica while the police officers were trained in the proper manner to drill (terbiye-i bedeniye) and handle suspects.652

Furthermore, the long tradition of comparing Ottoman institutions from a perspective of ‘old’ versus ‘new’ by the Ottoman press continued in the first decade of the twentieth century. In regards to the institutionalization of gendarmerie and their role in the establishment of order in the Ottoman prisons, in 1911, Ahenk published an article entitled “Our Prisons and Poor Prisoners” (Habshanelerimiz ve Zavallı

Mevkuflar). 653 It was a critique of the poor conditions of Ottoman prisons and gendarmerie’s lack of professionalism654 during the era of Abdülhamid II.

In the first decades of the twentieth century, a couple of prison breaks occurred in Salonica. On July 24, 1911, Monday, around 5:30 p.m., Berdagalos(?), a thug from Crete known as captain who had been sentenced to death, and five Greek prisoners sentenced to kürek (hard labour) imprisonment, escaped from the general prison in Salonica. The prison warden, all prison officials, and the members of gendarmerie were found responsible for this break. They were all prosecuted and

651 Feridun, ibid., 175-176. By heavily criticizing the situation of the Ottoman police in the late nineteenth century, Feridun made comparisons between the old (Abdülhamid II’s era) -cruel and corrupt- and the new police (Meşrutiyet) –honorable, respectable, and righteous- in an anecdote in his autobiography in the last part of the book. 182-184. 652 See Feridun, ibid., 93; 136. 653“...yırtık pantalon, yamalı ceket, delik pabuç iktisa etmiş jandarmanın paslı kasaturaları altında elleri demirli kabahatli, maznun görmek idare-i zaileye mahsus münasebetsizliklerden idi. Şimdi intizamlarıyla iftihar etdiğimiz meşrutiyet jandarmalarının parlak süngüleri altında öyle şeyleR göremeyeceğiz. Sabık Evkaf Baş Katibi.” Hüseyin Ahenk, February 12, 1911, 1-2; for the role of gendarmerie within security forces in provinces see Nadir Özbek, “Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda İç Güvenlik, Siyaset ve Devlet, 1876-1909, Türklük Araştırmaları Dergisi, v. 16, Güz 2004, 59-95. 654 See İpek K. Yosmaoğlu, “Marching on an Empty Stomach: Practical Aspects of Gendarmerie Reform in Ottoman Macedonia”, in Economy and Society on Both Shores of the Aegean, eds. Lorans Tanatar Baruh-Vangelis Kechriotis, (Athens: Alpha Bank Historical Archives, 2010), 277-297. 191

fired. According to the investigation held by Hüseyin Zihni, the public prosecutor, one of the escapees Atnaş Yorgi worked under the command of the prison administration. He was responsible for lighting up the lanterns inside and outside the prison. Hüseyin Zihni claimed that Yorgi’s job might have helped him to learn the

‘weakest’ spots of the building to escape. The escapees were not chained but most of them had iron rings on their legs. The escapees whose beds were side by side sang songs loudly to not to get any attention from other prisoners and guards while they were cutting an inch thick-iron bar in front of their window with a rasp. After they reached the roof of the prison, they jumped to the hospital’s roof, and escaped from a wall four or five meters high that was close to the hospital. One pair of Berdagalos’s pair of wooden shoes was found close to the ward. The question is where the guards and gendarmerie were when these events were transpiring. The director of the prison

İsa Şevki Efendi was at an İttihad club at that night to celebrate the national festival

(ıyd-ı milli), which commemorated the anniversary of the Constitution.655

The interrogation of other prisoners illustrated that Atnaş had pretended his ward was infested with bedbugs in order to sleep inside the niche of the prison’s window, where he later broke out. According to other prisoners’ interrogations, they heard some noises coming from the roof but they thought it was just a cat, and they insisted that they did not see anything at all regarding the escape. The prison had eight guards but one of them was on a vacation at that time. Every night one guard had the opportunity to stay at home. Based on the interrogation report, the six guards who were at the prison at that night insisted that they did not see or hear anything from the six wards.

655 For the celebrations for the Second Constitution see Serkan Tuna, Her Devrin Bayramı: Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyet’e Meşrutiyet Bayramı (1909-1935), (İstanbul: Derlem Yayınları, 2010). 192

In his interrogation, gendarmerie İbrahim Çavuş bin Ömer said that he heard two or three gunshots and also some noises coming from the interior door of the prison. He realized that some prisoners had broken out from the prison. He took three gendarmeries with him to track the escapees. Gendarmerie İbrahim Ali also said that he saw silhouettes of three people on the fortress around five o’clock p.m. and he fired his gun at them three times. He ran after them, but due to the poor visibility caused by rain and storm, he lost sight of the escapees, and they instantly disappeared.

He then returned to his post where he was on his duty.

Another important question that needed to be asked by the prison officials was how the prisoners got the rasp and from whom. The prison director and the chief guard indicated that they had no information about the rasp, but they anticipated that

Berdagalos might have taken it when he was going back and forth to the court. During the investigation, prison officials did not find any other tool other than the rasp inside the ward.656 Because of this prison break, the prison director had to leave his position for nine months and paid five liras as penalty. He wrote to Sadaret illustrating that he had worked for his honor throughout his career and how he became miserable during these nine months. The director requested to go back to his position.657

The same year another prison break occurred in Salonica. On December 30,

1911, Ömer from Drama who was sentenced to ten years of imprisonment escaped from Salonica Prison. Ömer broke out from the prison’s restroom window and then went up to the roof. With the help of a rope, he went up the wall of the fortress that was next to the prison. The correspondence between the governor of Salonica and the

Ministry of Interior illustrates that the governor requested an additional budget from

656 BOA., DH. MB. HPS. 96/12, 12 S 1330 (February 1, 1912). This folder also includes the list of prisoners in Salonica prison. 657 BOA., ŞD. ML. NF. 3116/10 6 Ca 1331 (April 13, 1913). 193

the Ottoman officials to get the prison walls and also the iron bars repaired in order to prevent escapes.658

Another prison escape took place in the detention center on the night of March

21, 1912. The two prisoners, Yani Dimitri Baroma(?) and Dimitri Zafirako, both renowned bandits, drilled a hole in the prison wall and attempted to escape from the detention center in Salonica, but the guards immediately caught them. In addition to sending congratulations to the guards on thwarting the escape, the Directorate of

Prisons also warned the officials in prisons and detention centers to inspect the wards morning and night on a daily basis.659

The Committee of Union and Progress promulgated two regulations regarding the professionalization of prison cadre in the Ottoman Empire. Firstly, the Ministry of the Interior implemented the Regulation for the School of Civil Servants (Mekteb-i

Mülkiye Nizamnamesi) in 1911 which was composed of “the basic guidelines for conduct, character, and duties applicable to all state officials.” 660 Secondly, the directive entitled “Concerning the Selection and Appointment of Prison Officials and

Employees” (Hapishaneler Memurin ve Müstahdeminin İntihab ve Tayini Hakkında) was issued on January 4, 1912. The directive expanded the qualifications and responsibilities of prison cadre of Ottoman prisons. 661 According to the directive, prison directors should know criminal code and guards should be literate.

Furthermore, the directive indicates that the Ottomans obviously attempted to implement procedures found in European prisons. 662 Therefore, the focus of the

658 BOA., DH. MB. HPS. 96/12, 12 S 1330 (February 1, 1912). This folder includes two different prison break stories, and also statistical data of the prisoners in Salonica prison. 659 BOA., DH. MB. HPS. 101/6 13 R 1330 (April 1, 1912). 660 Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire, 147-148. 661 BOA., DH. MB. HPS. M., 2/118, 14 M 1330 (January 4, 1912). 662“Avrupa hükümetlerinde habshaneler memurin ve müstahdemininin intihab ve tayinleri bir takım kuyud ve şüruta ve bir itina-yı mahsusa tâbi olmasından dolayı habshanelerin her dürlü umur ve muamelatı şayan-ı hayret bir intizam ve sürat ile cereyan etmekde ve ahval-i ruhiye ve ictimaiye-i mahkumini nazar-ı dikkate alarak ifa-yı vazife eden müstahdeminin mesai-i semeresiyle habshaneye 194

directive, even when it discussed the qualifications and duties of prison personnel, was still on the rehabilitative notion of the prison reform (habshaneye duhul eden bir

şahs-ı şerir bile hitam-ı müddet-i mahkumiyetinde sahib-i ahlak ve sanat olduğu halde huruc eylemekdedir).

Number of Prisoners and Crime Types in Salonica Prison in 1912

Other 142 Wounding 84 Banditry 30 Kidnap-Rape 84 Assault 38 Theft 220 Murder 222

0 50 100 150 200 250

Chart 4.1 BOA., DH. MB. HPS. 144/64 17 S 1330 (February 6, 1912).663

Correspondence between the Directorate of Prisons (Mebani-i Emiriye ve

Hapishaneler İdaresi) and the Department of Police in 1913 suggested that they should create a committee responsible for inspecting prison officials including guards, officers, and clerks in provinces and districts. This committee should be composed of judiciary notables (istinaf or bidayet ceza reisleri) or public prosecutors (merkez müddei-i umumileri) or governors, a municipality’s doctors, and the commander of gendarmerie. According to the document, the inspection committees should be responsible not only for keeping statistical data about each prison, but also for

duhul eden bir şahs-ı şerir bile hitam-ı müddet-i mahkumiyetinde sahib-i ahlak ve sanat olduğu halde huruc eylemekdedir.”, BOA., DH. MB. HPS. M., 2/118, 14 M 1330 (January 4, 1912). 663 These numbers show us a considerable decrease in the prison population of Salonica Prison particularly in comparison to the statistics of the first decade of the twentieth-century yearbooks presented above. This decrease was the result of the general pardon issued in 1908. Nader Sohrabi, Revolution and Constitutionalism in the Ottoman Empire and Iran, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 180-181. 195

investigating incapable (gayr-i muktedir, nâ-ehl) prison officials. 664 Another document sent from the director of the Directorate of Police (Emniyet-i Umumiye

Müdürü) to the Directorate of Prisons in 1913 also noted that prison cadres in

Ottoman provinces were incapable of properly managing prisons. Thus, prison personnel, from directors to guards, should be appointed through an entrance exam, which tested their knowledge of Ottoman criminal law and ability to manage prisons before they were assigned to prisons.665

As seen in several prison escapes, the lack of security, managing prisons with an unprofessional prison cadre, and the poorly built structures of prison were the weakest links of Ottoman prisons.

Pardons and Amnesties: “Mercy of the Grace”

Transferring prisoners from one prison to another was a very common practice in order to deal with overcrowded prison populations in the late Ottoman Empire. The

Ottoman government spent a great deal of money on these transfers, which took away from the overall prison budget such that money could not be spent on other items, including salaries and repairs. The method of transferring prisoners was not only costly but also time consuming. For instance, in 1892, twenty-one prisoners waited for two months in İzmir and the prisoners in İskenderun for twenty days to be sent to

Tripoli. 666 Moreover, during these transfers some of the prisoners succeeded in escaping. This method for reducing prison populations did not actually reduce the overall prison populations, which doubled over the late nineteenth century due to increasing crime rates, it merely shifted prisoners from one place to the other until the first decades of the twentieth century.667

664 BOA., BEO., DH. EUM. MTK. 7/13 16 L. 1331 (September 18, 1913). 665 BOA., DH. MB. HPS., 148/99, 5 Za 1331 (October 6, 1913). 666 BOA., DH.MKT. 37/11, 26.2.1310 (September 19, 1892). 667 BOA, DH. MB. HPS. M., 8/43, 13 Ca 1331 (April 20, 1913). 196

Another strategy to reduce the overpopulation of Ottoman prisons was the granting pardons (afv-ı âli) and amnesties (afv-ı umumi) by the Ottoman government.668 Pardons were not only a reconciliation between the authority and the

“forgotten ones” but also a tool used by the Ottoman Sultan to show his mercy

(merhamet-i seniyye) and the alm of the Sultan (padişah sadakası). In addition to the amnesties granted during religious holidays and festivities, on the birthdays of sultans and upon the enthroning of new sultans, and even on the occasion of the sultan’s successful surgery669, the regulation of amnesty called sülüsan afvı released prisoners who had completed two-thirds of their confinement.670 For instance, seventy-three prisoners were released from İzmir Prison on the occasion of the birthday of

Abdülhamid II in 1898. According to Ahenk, the local officials provided advice

(kelimat-ı münasibe ve nasayih-i pederane ile) to prisoners before their release.671

Some of these declarations of amnesty, and the subsequent release of prisoners, were unpopular among some segments of Ottoman society. For instance, the release in 1901 of ninety-five prisoners charged with banditry from the İzmir prison was met with large numbers of official complaints to Bab-ı Ali.672

Furthermore, in some cases, religious notables played a role as a mediator between prisoners and government officials in the Empire. For instance, in the late nineteenth century the Armenian Patriarchate received many pardon petitions from prisoners and attempted to release Armenian prisoners by transmitting their requests

668 In addition to pardons and amnesties, as a favor to the people upon the commemoration of the enthronement of the Sultan, the Ottoman government allocated 15,000 kurush per annum for paying prisoners’ debts in 1875. BOA., İ. MMS. 52/2304 15 Ca 1292 (June 19, 1875). 669 BOA., MV. 241/13 17 Ş 1333 (August 28, 1915). 670 BOA, MV., 241/13, (May 30, 1915). 671 Ahenk, January 30, 1898, 3. 672 BOA., Y.EE.KP., 86-13/1226, 22.1.1319 (May 11, 1901). 197

to Ottoman officials.673 In 1903, the Rum patriarchate requested the release of elderly prisoners in Sisam, Izmir, Bodrum, Rhodes and Gümülcine.674

On July 27, 1908, Ahenk’s first two pages were full of news about the promulgation of the Constitution and restoration of justice, freedom, and security in the Ottoman Empire. The newspaper also published the articles of the Constitution

(Kanun-ı Esasi) in detail.675 A couple of days later, the Times reported that some groups protested the amnesty in İstanbul in 1908:

Last night an Iradé was issued ordering the release of all prisoners, whatever their offences, who had served two-thirds of their sentences. The other prisoners protested with such vigour and success against being excepted from the amnesty that the prisons were soon empty. A deputation of 2.000 persons went to the Porte this morning to protest against this dangerous clemency and were informed by the Grand Vizier that he had nothing to do with the issue of the Iradé. Considerable feeling has been aroused by the ill-timed release of a number of ruffians, which is only explicable as the result of an access of nervousness in exalted spheres.676

According to the news, the protests against the release of prisoners continued as follows:

A deputation of journalists and Young Turks waited on the Grand Vizier today, and protested energetically against the release of criminals, which, it is thought, may be due to a desire to provoke disorders and so to disparage the constitutional régime. Said Pasha replied that he would consider the matter. It is reported that Kiamil [Kamil] Pasha has resigned in consequence of the decision of the Ministry, and it is believed he will ultimately succeed Said Pasha as Grand Vizier.677

On August 20, 1908, the Ministry of Interior sent telegraphs to newspapers evaluating the extent of the amnesty of 1908.678 On October 5, 1908, the governor of Aydın province stated his concerns about the release of around six thousand prisoners from prisons including İzmir prison and the other prisons in the province. According to the statement, if the released prisoners attempted to commit crime again and were caught, the punishment left from their first imprisonments would be added to their new

673 Fatmagül Demirel, “Osmanlı Padişahlarının Doğum Günü Kutlamalarına Bir Örnek”, İlmi Araştırmalar, v. 11, 2011, 70; Çiğdem Oğuz, ibid., 95. 674 BOA., DH.MKT.671/66 23 Z 1320 (March 23, 1903). 675 Ahenk, July 27, 1908, 1-2. 676 The Times, (London, England), July 31, 1908, 9. 677 The Times, (London, England), August 1, 1908, 7. 678 Ahenk, September 4 Eylül, 1908, 2. 198

sentence.679 In contrast, according to Ahenk, in 1909, the Minister of Justice defended the amnesty arguing that it was for the sake of the security of the Empire.680

As mentioned in the first chapter, after the Second Constitution all of the released prisoners were made to take a constitutional oath assuring that they would never again commit a crime, but many did not adhere to this oath for long.681 Some prisoners released under the conditions of amnesty were later accused of additional crimes and imprisoned once again. The British newspapers covered the release of prisoners from the prisons in İstanbul and İzmir in 1908 as follows:

The New Era in Turkey: At Smyrna, owing to the hostile attitude of the Vali and the military commandant towards the Constitutional regime, both were dismissed by the Young Turks. […] The release of ordinary criminals from the Central Prison at Stamboul today has produced an exceedingly bad impression.682

Remarkable Proceedings at Smyrna: The Smyrna Battalion arrived here from Macedonia on the morning of the 6th of August. To quote a local paper, all the inmates of the prison, those under sentence of death, of imprisonment for life, of penal servitude, those undergoing lighter sentences, bandits, assassins, thieves, incendiaries, prisoners for debt, all marched out of the prison between two ranks of soldiers, who made an arch with crossed bayonets. The lieutenant in command addressed the prisoners before departure, telling them that the soldiers had performed an act of justice, and that consequently ended with the wholesome warning that if any one of them were to be recaptured for any misdeed whatsoever the rope awaited them. The prisoners dispersed very speedily and in all directions.683

The general pardons (afv-ı umumi) mostly applied to prisoners who had served two thirds of their sentences, but in some cases it excluded political prisoners even if they would have served two thirds of their time. However, For instance, in 1904, fifty- seven Bulgarian prisoners in Salonica, Siroz, and Drama prisons, most of whom were political prisoners, pleaded to be released within the scope of the general pardon.

According to correspondence between Sadrazam and the directorate of Rumelia, some of the prisoners in the region could be released but prisoners who were

679 BOA., BEO. 3414/255979 18 N 1326 (October 14, 1908). 680 Ahenk, August 25, 1909, 3. 681 Ahenk, 9 Mayıs 1909, 3. 682 “The New Era in Turkey,” Aberdeen Daily Journal, 31 July 1908, 5. 683 “The Rule of the Young Turks: Remarkable Proceedings at Smyrna,” Aberdeen Daily Journal, 15 August 1908, 5. 199

imprisoned due to cutting the telegraph lines and banditry could not be released.684

The pardon issued on April 12, 1908 for celebrating the birthday of the Sultan also excluded political prisoners and prisoners who committed crimes including assassination and rape (politika ve su-i kasd ve fiil-i şeniden maada).685 However, it needs to be mentioned that political crime, especially during the era of Abdülhamid II, was an ambiguous term.686 The term referred to crimes from banditry to corruption.

The amnesty of 1908 also encompassed political prisoners who had emigrated from the Ottoman Empire to foreign countries as refugees. 687

Conclusion

The construction of Ottoman prisons was on the agenda of Tanzimat bureaucrats who supported creating and adhering to architectural standards of public buildings throughout the Empire. However, due to limited budgets and lack of organization, the new architectural philosophy of the Tanzimat era, mostly influenced and realized by European architects, did not affect Ottoman prisons in terms of standardization with the exception of the prisons in big cities such as Istanbul and

Izmir. The old buildings used as prisons, were still being used for this purpose in the late Ottoman Empire. The dilapidated structure of these buildings and the lack of professionalization of prison cadres resulted in prison escapes. As seen in the case of

Salonica Prison, from 1850s to 1910s, several prison escapes occurred due to poor

684 BOA., A.MTZ. (04) 121/31 6.7.1322 (September 16, 1904); BOA., TFR. I. A., 26/2580 3.7.1323 (September 3, 1905). 685 BOA., ZB 311/22 30 Ma 1324 (April 12, 1908). 686 See İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, Midhat Paşa ve Rüştü Paşaların Tevkiflerine Dâir Vesikalar, (Ankara: TTK, 1991); İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, Midhat Paşa ve Tâif Mahkûmları, (Ankara: TTK, 1985); Süleyman Kâni İrtem, Abdülhamid Devrinde Hafiyelik ve Sansür: Abdülhamid’e Verilen Jurnaller, (İstanbul: Temel, 1999). 687 The Times, (London, England), August 1, 1908, 7 ; Taner Aslan, ibid., 44. The Times reports “the good news” to political refugees under the title of “The Refugees in America.” “The reading of the Sultan’s proclamation, granting amnesty to all political fugitives in this country, was received with cheers and rejoicings in the foreign quarter today. The district buzzed with excitement as the good news spread. Regardless of race Greek, Armenian, Syrian, Turk, and Albanian, all were free to return to Turkey without fear.” 200

structure of the prison and limited number of guards and security forces. In contrast to the yearbook of Salonica in 1894, which stated that the differentiation of confinement places as prisons and detention centers affected the improvement and the rehabilitation of the morals of prisoners (tehzib-i ahlak)688, most of the escapees joined brigands and continued criminal activities, maybe even on a larger scale than their original crime, which created a vicious circle. Furthermore, Salonica in the late nineteenth century, as a part of Ottoman Macedonia, was in the zone of violence and conflict because of the independence movements in the region. In addition to crimes such as banditry and raids by thieves, inter-communal conflicts were also common in

Salonica.689 For example, Salonica Prison often saw the clash between Muslim and

Bulgarian prisoners in the first decade of the twentieth century, which mirrored conflict between these groups outside the prison walls.690

The Ottoman government used general pardons and amnesties as a tool to illustrate the Sultan’s mercy and grace but also as ad hoc solutions to lessen prison populations. However, in some cases, the release of prisoners by any of the common methods was questioned and even criticized both at the State and people’s level in terms of their effectiveness and their impacts on the security of people and crime rates. Particularly, addressing increased crime rates, the poor conditions of Ottoman prisons, and the effects of the general pardon were on the agenda of the Ottoman parliament (Meclis-i Mebusan). In the aftermath of the Constitution, Halil Bey, deputy from Menteşe, requested to draw the attention of the members of the parliament to the miserable situation of Ottoman prisoners.

688 Selanik Vilayet Salnamesi, 1894, 550. 689 Anastassiadou, Selanik, 360-365. For the violence in the region see İpek Yosmaoğlu, Blood Ties: Religion, Violence, and the Politics of Nationhood in Ottoman Macedonia, 1878-1908, (New York: Cornell University, 2014), 209-286. Yosmaoğlu presents many cases regarding violent actions in the region and public executions carried out by the State. 690 Yıldız, Mapusane, 418. 201

If prisons were not full with victims of politics and the exiles with those due to autocracy, of course, we would not have succeeded to have bliss and freedom today. Therefore, we are in debt for our current responsibility more than anyone but to defenders of freedom, those who were released from dungeons and exiles and ran to the vast homeland and nation. Among these victims, there are 15 years old schoolboys, 70 years old men from all backgrounds. [...] Since the promulgation of the Constitution, more than five and half months, still not taking any precaution for them is against the high honor of Ottomanism and a danger for the Constitutional Monarchy as well. 691

Halil Bey suggested parliament should enact a law to form a commission that could solve this problem. Halil Bey’s suggestion did not receive a majority of votes and was not accepted. On the other hand, Hacı Mustafa Efendi, deputy from Ankara, claimed that the atmosphere of liberty following the Constitution caused the increase in the crime rates, and some number of criminals in every province should be hanged as an example.692 The death penalty could only be issued by the sultan’s firman, thus, long discussions took place at the parliament regarding the limits of judiciaries, personal and public law, shari’a and its applications, and security issues in the

Empire.

According to Seyyit Bey, deputy from Izmir, since death penalties were not applied, preventing banditry was impossible. To Seyyit Bey, locking up the bandits in prisons was not a solution because they always found a way to escape. Therefore, if one or two bandits, called zeybek and their leaders efe in the Aegean region, would be hanged in Izmir, banditry would be brought to a swift end.693

The release of bandits was mostly met with protests by Ottoman public, who expressed criticism of the decisions of the courts. For instance, in response to Ahenk newspaper reports that a decision regarding Kara Ali, described in a column in the newspaper as a bandit who killed more than two hundred people along with his gang

691 MMZC, İ:11, 31.12.1324, c. 1, 162. 692 “.…muhassenatı ibretbahşâsı kabili inkar olamayan idam hükümlerinin her vilâyet dahilinde usulen birer ikişer mevkii icraya konulması selâmeti umumiye namına hasbez zaman lâzimeden olmakla..” MMZC, İ: 36 16 Şubat 1324, c: 2, 104. 693 MMZC, İ: 36 16 Şubat 1324, c: 2, 106-107. For the punishment of banditry see Sabri Yetkin, Ege’de Eşkıyalar, (İstanbul: TVYY, 2003), 44-48. 202

in 1910, led to all charges being postponed, telegraphs were sent from several places in the province of Aydın to the Ministry of Justice expressing dissatisfaction with the delay in the judicial process.694

Thus, in the late Ottoman Empire, the limits of punishment started to become more public and in a way debatable. The punishment needed to be appropriate for each crime not only for the sake of the State but also for protecting security of people and satisfying them in terms of responding to their demands for justice. In many cases, political prisoners were the exceptions to amnesties, which resulting in these prisoners sending petitions to request their release as other prisoners. Furthermore, the rising numbers of political prisoners695 resulted in the influx of news about prison reform in Ottoman newspapers and journals.

Fig. 4.1 Ottoman prisoners in Rumelia. Courtesy of BOA. FTG_445.

694 BOA, DH. EUM. THR., 96/57, 1326 (1910). 695 Yıldız notes that Armenian and Bulgar prisoners, particularly after the incidents in Macedonia in 1902, increased the prison population. Yıldız, Mapusane, 416.

203

Conclusion

In his utopian work Laws, Plato makes a distinction between three different types of prisons: those for simple confinement; for retributive punishments; and for reformatory punishments. 696 In many cases, Ottoman prisons in the late Ottoman

Empire encompass all three of these penal purposes. Particularly, the nineteenth- century Ottoman prison reform symbolized the shift from corporal punishments, which mostly fixed revenge for and punishment of crimes on the bodies of criminals, to incarceration as a means of excluding criminals from society while providing them with some degree of rehabilitation. Alongside the attempts of some of the Tanzimat bureaucrats to improve conditions in Ottoman prisons, international concern expressed particularly by the criticism and advice to the Empire by European ambassadors, consuls, and inspectors within the Empire, played a role in Ottoman prison reform. Reform was also spurred by Ottoman sultans attempting to strengthen social control mechanisms throughout the Empire while simultaneously creating a public perception of benevolence.

In addition to the ideals of Ottoman bureaucrats, the desire to reform prisons was driven by a slowly growing public opinion (efkar-ı umumiye) on the subject, which was shaped mostly by newspapers and journals published in various languages all of which focused on the conditions of Ottoman prisons and miserable life of prisoners. Ottoman newspapers frequently published news about charity campaigns and lotteries organized by some of the philanthropists in order to provide food, clothing, and money for ‘miserable’ prisoners. Furthermore, the criminal codes promulgated in the nineteenth century set, and also ensured, the limits of

696 Virginia Hunter, “Plato’s Prisons”, Greece&Rome, Second Series, 55:2, (Oct. 2008), 193-201. For similar categories of imprisonment in Islamic law see Irene Schneider, “Imprisonment in Pre-Classical and Classical Islamic Law”, Islamic Law and Society, 2:2, 1995, 157-173. 204

imprisonment in Ottoman prisons. These new codes paved the way to Ottoman prison reform in the late Ottoman Empire. Despite the promulgation of new codes and the support of reformers, the shift from corporal punishment to imprisonment was a slow process and as seen in several cases, it was not a synchronized set of actions in terms of prison architecture and personnel throughout the Empire. The lack of uniform implementation across the Empire led to an uneven application of reform efforts with the result that life inside a prison varied greatly.

While this work focuses heavily on reform efforts and implementation,

Michael Ignatieff warns historians who work on the history of prisons and states that constructing a narrative solely based on reform might be a trap for a historian since this narrative might resonance “as a progress from cruelty to enlightenment.”697 In this work, as illustrated in the cases of Izmir, Istanbul, and Salonica prisons, examining the politics of punishment in the late Ottoman Empire through prison reform, offers us multi-layered dynamics of reform such as urbanization and imperial transformation. Although the Ottoman archival sources use this terminology of reform and progress, we should note that Ottoman prison reform does not represent a linear line of progress. Confining prisoners in purpose-built places employing the latest thoughts about prison architecture and leaving behind the long-tradition of using various structures, such as old fortresses, military barracks, shipyards, and khans, as makeshift prisons was a troublesome and lengthy process due to lack of professional prison cadres, the limited budget allocated for the reform, and the sluggishness of

Ottoman bureaucracy. The dearth of systematic inspection mechanisms in Ottoman prisons up until the late nineteenth century, as well as the lag between the creation of penal codes and the application of such codes and regulations, were other key

697 Michael Ignatieff, “State, Civil Society, and Total Institutions: A Critique of Recent Social Histories of Punishment”, Crime and Justice, 3, (1981), 153-154. 205

problems slowing the realization of these reforms. Thus, as a part of the larger nineteenth-century legal reform efforts throughout the Empire, Ottoman prison reform illustrates continuity and rupture in terms of application of penal reform and its practices. 698 It was a mixture of continuation and discontinuation between older punishment methods such as public shaming and confining criminals in purpose-built prisons.

The Ottoman reform attempts begun in the Tanzimat period left many visible traces of centralization in Ottoman cities in terms of the construction of numerous public buildings, including military barracks, hospitals, government palaces, clock towers, and prisons. These centralization efforts extended beyond mere construction of buildings as prison reform itself was an attempt to homogenize an apparatus of state power in terms of legitimatization of control and surveillance of criminals. The reforms attempted to standardize punishment through penal codes and prison regulations. As examined in the case of Izmir, the centralization and urbanization attempts of the Empire in the nineteenth century resulted in the construction of a new governmental and urban complex that included military barracks, governor’s palace, hospital, reformatory, school, prison, and clock tower, which offers us a new way of understanding of Ottoman urbanization, governmentality, security and punishment policies. The lack of centralization in regards to the governance of prisons until the establishment of the Prison Administration in 1911, meant that local officials, particularly municipalities and its personnel played a major role in terms of inspecting, regulating, and provisioning Ottoman prisons in the late nineteenth century.699 While Izmir Prison built in 1873 as the general prison of the Province of

Aydın was one of the major components of the governmental complex signaling a

698 Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire, 60-61. 699 For other inspection responsibilites of municipalities see Vilâyât Belediye Kanunu, in Akgündüz, Osmanlı Devleti’nde Belediye Teşkilâtı ve Belediye Kanunları, 582-583. 206

departure from older punishment practices, such as confining prisoners at khans, due to the expansion of the city the Prison became a ‘marginal’ spatiality within the new governmental and public space by remaining at the heart of the city in the first decades of the twentieth century. Although the discussions regarding the poor conditions of the Prison and whether it should be demolished or transferred to another place started in the 1908, Izmir Prison was part of the governmental complex until

1959.

As illustrated in the third chapter, due to the lag between creation and application of legal reforms and regulations, Ottoman prison reform mostly remained on paper and resulted in ‘ideal’ization of prisons. The general prison in Istanbul, as seen in the photos in police journals published in the first decade of the twentieth century, is emblematic of on paper only reform efforts. Moreover, while state-oriented correspondences help us to examine physical aspects of Ottoman prisons to some extent, exploring the history of the ‘real’ spaces and social life in Ottoman prisons is often one-dimensional. In many cases, historians can only read the dialogues between prison administrators and government officials without seeing anything from the perspective of prisoners. The available archival sources mostly present the correspondences between the imperial center and localities but very rarely, if ever, prisoners’ voices. Even reading between the lines of newspapers columns and journal articles offers little assistance in writing a history of people behind the walls.

Although archival sources often frustrate historians who wish to hear the voices of

Ottoman prisoners, the petitions and interrogation reports of these prisoners illustrate that they were not silent actors in prison reform efforts. As seen in these reports, prisoners’ complaints regarding any number of abuses by prison authorities, including excessive and arbitrary use of power against prisoners, resulted in reappointments of

207

suspected prison officials to other prisons or occasionally their terminations. In addition, these reports reveal the usage of cannabis in Ottoman prisons and assert that its trafficking was mostly organized by prison officials. These reports further illustrate the struggles to become the leader of a ward (koğuş ağası) and show us that Ottoman prisoners created their own set of rules inside prisons that archival sources do not reveal in depth.

As the archival evidence provided in this work illustrates, although Ottoman prison reform was ineffectual in its early stages, by the late nineteenth century, the further implementation of reforms led to the rehabilitation of the bodies, minds, and souls of the “forgotten ones” through exposure to work, education, and religion during incarceration. Ottoman prisons were not only a laboratory for the applications of

‘new’ penal practices, but they also housed criminals from different religious and ethnic backgrounds making prisons a “microcosm of modernity” as Schull coins the term.700 Therefore, as I argued throughout this work, studying Ottoman prisons and prisoners cannot be limited only to the sphere of subaltern studies or history of marginals, because it allows us to see the bigger picture of Ottoman penal reform, urbanization, and imperial transformation in the late Ottoman Empire. Furthermore,

Ottoman prison reform included using prisoners as workforce, such as building roads, in order to discipline bodies of prisoners and also provide them with the benefits of physical labor during their imprisonment. As seen in the examples provided in the third chapter, particularly since the late nineteenth century, local officials used

Ottoman prisoners as a workforce for modernizing the infrastructure of Ottoman cities. Prisoners and criminals’ work outside of prison walls, specifically doing hard labor (hidemat-ı şakka) such as carrying stones, might have also changed the

700 Schull, Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire, x. 208

perception of the local officials and residents of those cities against criminals commonly defined as vagabonds and wastrels. Moreover, Ottoman prison reform also aimed to strengthen the soul and morals of prisoners through religious education taught by religious dignitaries.

While this research can answer some questions about life inside the prisons, there is still much work to be done. For instance, other important questions that must be researched include how Ottoman prisoners managed to continue their life after their release and how their life was affected by their imprisonment. Although so far we do not know much about these issues, we know that imprisonment even due to lesser offences (cünha) for a year was a hindrance to become a representative at the municipal level (belediye azası).701

Moreover, as a father figure and the protector of order, Ottoman sultans acted in a dual manner to both punish criminals who had disturbed the order through death sentences and exiles, but also to show mercy to “poor” prisoners by pitying and pardoning them.702 As the language of the documents itself shows Ottoman prisoners were seen as a miserable population and “losers” among society, thus, pardons and amnesties were used by Ottoman sultans to demonstrate their grace and mercy towards prisoners. Ironically, Abdülhamid II whose reign saw many political exiles and imprisonments, as well as the promulgation of pardons and amnesties, ended with him being exiled and kept in house arrest at Villa Alâtini in Salonica in 1909 after his dethronement by the CUP.703

Furthermore, the several cases of prison escapes mentioned in the third chapter illustrate that the institutionalization of Ottoman prisons and their cadres were still

701 Akgündüz, Belediye Teşkilatı ve Belediye Kanunları, 578-579. 702 MMZC, İ: 79 31 Mart 1327 (13 April 1911), C: 1, 278. 703 See Yavuz Selim Karakışla, Exile Days of Sultan Abdülhamid II in Salonika (1909-1912), (İstanbul: Libra, 2015). 209

incomplete by the 1910s-1920s. These shortcomings allowed prisoners, even in the general prisons in port cities such as Izmir and Salonica, to escape. As seen in the examples, guards were involved in some of these prison escapes. To what extent was

Ottoman prison reform realized in terms of establishing ‘modern’, ‘civilized’ and

‘European’ prisons in the Empire? To answer this question, we can benefit from the writings of Ahmet Şerif, a journalist who traveled Anatolia a year after the promulgation of the Second Constitution and sent his travel notes to Tanin newspaper, and of Dr. Paul Pollitz, or Poliç Bey as he was called by the Ottomans, and also the

Record of the Sessions of the Ottoman Parliament (Meclis-i Mebusan Zabıt Ceridesi).

In his column entitled “Tanin in Anatolia” Şerif shared his impressions of various

Anatolian cities and their prisons with his readers. Şerif states that in every prison he visited, prisoners were complaining about lack of food and hunger.704 It seems that providing sufficient food to overpopulated prisons was still a significant problem in the first decades of the twentieth century.

The Ottoman Parliament saw live discussions regarding the conditions and improvement of Ottoman prisons. The members of parliament called Ottoman prisons torture places (işkencehane) or graveyards (mezaristan)705 in order to emphasize the horrific conditions of prisons and, according to some members, prisoners should be hospitalized706 rather than put in prison in order to rehabilitate the soul of criminals.

In 1916, following the ‘tradition’ of seeking the advice of western experts, the

Ottoman Prison Administration (Hapishaneler İdaresi) appointed Dr. Paul Pollitz as

704 See Ahmet Şerif, Anadolu’da Tanin, (İstanbul: Kavram Yayınları, 1977). Ahmet Ali Gazel, “Tanin Muhabiri Ahmet Şerif Bey’in Notlarında Osmanlı Hapishaneleri”, in Hapishane Kitabı, eds. Emine Gürsoy Naskali and Hilal Oytun Altun, (İstanbul: Kitabevi, 2005), 149. For similar notes regarding Kasaba prison in Izmir in 1913 see Maraşlıoğlu, “Bir Hapishane Ziyareti”, Halka Doğru, August 15, 1329 (August 28, 1913), 101-102. 705 MMZC, İ: 90 3 Mayıs 1326 (16 May 1910), c: 2, 229-230; MMZC, İ:35 23 Kanunsani 1325 (5 February 1910), c: 1, 126. 706 MMZC, İ: 79 31 Mart 1327 (13 April 1911), c: 1, 279. 210

General Inspector of Prisons and Houses of Detention (Hapishane ve Tevkifhaneler

Müfettiş-i Umumisi). Pollitz was the second director of Dusseldorf-Derendorf prison in Germany. He had a medical degree, specialized in psychiatry and criminal psychology, and had published many academic works examining the effects of corporal punishment on the mental health of criminals.707 Pollitz inspected several prisons in the Ottoman Empire, mostly in Anatolia, and prepared reports illustrating the conditions of Ottoman prisons. He gave detailed suggestions of how to improve prisoners’ living standards and prison regulations.

Pollitz suggested that prisons in the Empire should all be the same size, except in overcrowded cities such as İzmir, Kala-i Sultaniye, and Eskişehir. In his inspections, he repeatedly mentioned the extreme overcrowdedness and unhygienic conditions of the Ottoman prisons. Pollitz suggested that prisons should have quarantine areas or rooms in order to ward off the spread of infectious diseases such as mange and herpes, which were common among prisoners in Balıkesir and İzmir prisons. Pollitz bolstered his statements by referring to the prison doctors’ comments on inadequate healthcare conditions in prisons.708 In his reports, Pollitz also gave a detailed description of the physical conditions of İzmir Prison, and he pointed out that due to lack of food, unhygienic conditions, and infectious diseases three hundred people, including some of the wardens, died in Izmir Prison during the year before his visit. All of his reports illustrate that despite long-standing attempts to improve

Ottoman prison conditions by increasing access to and distribution of food and

707 See Paul Pollitz, Psychologie des Verbrechers Kriminalpsychologie. Aus Natur und Geisteswelt Band 248. (Leipzig: Druck und Verlag von B. G. Teubner, 1909). Although Pollitz had a five year- contract as prison inspector, he had to leave his post in 1919 due to the termination of the contracts of all German officers working in the Empire. Yasemin Saner Gönen, “Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Hapishaneleri İyileştirme Girişimi, 1917 yılı”, Hapishane Kitabı, eds. Emine Gürsoy-Naskali-Hilal Oytun Altun, (İstanbul: Kitabevi, 2005), 176-177. 708 BOA, DH. MB. HPS., 161/46, 9 Z 1336 (September 15, 1918).

211

providing better hygiene, prison conditions were still inhumane in the first decades of the twentieth century.

While the CUP attempted to develop projects in order to improve Ottoman prison conditions and build monotype prisons throughout the Empire, they were plagued by external pressures, particularly a series of wars, including the Italo-

Turkish War, the Balkan Wars and the World War I. The combination of internal and externals pressures meant in the end that reform projects aimed at prisons remained largely unrealized. Finally, although we have a bourgeoning literature on Ottoman prisons, we still need more work examining prisons in various parts of the Empire and prisons of various types, particularly research on military prisons, consulate prisons, and prisons at patriarchates, in order to understand the full scope and implications of

Ottoman prison reform in the late Ottoman Empire.

212

Bibliography

Archival Sources

Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi (BOA), Istanbul, Turkey

A.AMD. A.DVN.MKL. A.MKT. A. MKT. MHM. A.MKT.NZD. A.MTZ. A.MKT.UM. AYN. BEO. BEO.NGG.d. C.BH. C.ZB. DH. EUM. KLH. DH. EUM. MH. DH. EUM. MKT. DH. EUM. THR. DH. EUM. VRK. DH. MB. HPS. DH. MKT. DH. MUİ. DH. TMIK. S. HR.MKT. HR.TO. İ.AS. İ.DH. İ.HR. İ.MEC.MAH. İ.MMS. İ.MVL. İ.ŞD. ŞD. MV. MVL. ŞD.ML.NF. TFR.I.A. TFR.I.AS. TFR.I.SL. Y.EE. Y.EE.KP. Y.PRK.HR. Y.PRK.ZB. ZB.

213

Government Papers

Annales Medico-Psychologiques Journal Destiné a Recueillir tous les Documents Relatifs a L’Alinéation Mentale aux Névroses et a La Médecine Légale des Aliénés, ed. G. Masson, Paris: Librairie de L’Académie de Médicine, 1886.

Düstur, 1. Tertip, c. 3., 2. Tertip c. 4.

Index to the Reports of the National Prison Association, 1870, 1873, 1874, 1883- 1904, compiled by Mary V. Titus, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1906.

Meclis-i Mebusan Zabıt Ceridesi (MMZC)

Rapports sur Les Prisons de la Prusse, sur le Régime de Quelques Prisons de L’Espagne, de L’Angleterre et de L’Allemagne et sur le Régime des Prisons de la Turquie, Paris: Imprimerie Administrative de Paul Dupont, 1843.

Reports on Conditions in Turkish Prisons, House of Commons Parliamentary Papers, Online, Miscellaneous N.6 (1919), London, 1919.

The Fourth International Prison Congress, St. Petersburg Russia, C.D. Randall, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1891.

Yearbooks

Aydın Vilayet Salnamesi, 1298 (1881); 1299 (1882); 1308 (1891); 1313 (1895); 1317 (1889).

Selanik Vilayet Salnamesi, 1312 (1894); 1320 (1902); 1322 (1905); 1324 (1906).

Osmanlı Devleti’nin İlk İstatistik Yıllığı 1897, Tarihi İstatistikler Dizisi Cilt 5, Ankara: Başbakanlık Devlet İstatistik Enstitüsü, 1997.

Newspapers in Turkish

Ahenk Akşam Hizmet Polis Gazetesi Yeni Asır

Journals in Turkish

Ceride-i Adliye Halka Doğru İstişare İş Musavver Nevsal-i Servet-i Fünun Polis Mecmuası Resimli Gazete

214

Şehbal Ülkü Mecmuası

British Newspapers and Journals (BNA)

Aberdeen Daily Journal Bristol Mercury Caledonian Mercury Cambridge Chronicle and Journal Cheshire Observer and General Advertiser Devizes and Wiltshire Gazette Elgin Courant Freeman’s Journal Hereford Times Illustrated London News London Standard Mercury Midland Daily Telegraph Morning Post Pall Mall Gazette Reynolds’s Newspaper Somerset County Gazette Sunderland Daily Echo The Graphic The Illustrated Missionary News The Scots Magazine The Star The Times Wells Journal York Herald

Law Codes:

Akgündüz, Ahmet, Mukayeseli İslam ve Osmanlı Hukuku Külliyatı, Diyarbakır: Dicle Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Yayınları, 1986.

_____, Ahmed, Osmanlı Devleti’nde Belediye Teşkilâtı ve Belediye Kanunları, İstanbul: Osmanlı Araştırmaları Vakfı, 2005.

Cin, Halil-Ahmet Akgündüz, Türk Hukuk Tarihi, c. 1, Konya: Selçuk Üniversitesi Yayınları, 1989.

Dönmezer, Sulhi-Sahir Erman, Nazarî ve Tatbikî Ceza Hukuku: Umumî Kısım, v.1, İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi, 1965.

Heyd, Uriel, Studies in Old Ottoman Criminal Law, ed. V.L. Ménage, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973.

Kanun-ı Ceza ve Teferruatı, ed. Nazif Bey, İstanbul: Karabet Matbaası, 1318 (1902).

215

Nizâm-ı Cedîd Kanunları (1791-1800), eds. Yunus Koç-Fatih Yeşil, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2012.

Ongley, F., trans., The Ottoman Land Code, London: William Clowes and Sons, 1892.

Tanör, Bülent, Osmanlı-Türk Anayasal Gelişmeleri, İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2004.

The Imperial Ottoman Penal Code: A Translation from the Turkish Text, eds. John A. Strachney Bucknill-Haig Apisoghom S. Utidjian, London: Oxford University Press, 1913.

Türk Anayasa Metinleri (Sened-i İttifaktan Günümüze), eds. Suna Kili-Şeref Gözübüyük, İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2000.

Dictionaries

Akbayar, Nuri, Osmanlı Yer Adları Sözlüğü, İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2001.

Baykal, Bekir Sıtkı, Tarih Terimleri Sözlüğü, Ankara: İmge Kitabevi, 2000.

Danişmend, İsmail Hamdi, İzahlı Osmanlı Tarihi Kronolojisi, v. 4, Istanbul: Turkiye Yayınevi, 1972.

Devellioğlu, Ferit, Osmanlıca-Türkçe Ansiklopedik Lûgat, Ankara: Aydın Kitabevi Yayınları, 2000.

Pakalın, Mehmet Zeki, Osmanlı Tarih Deyimleri ve Terimleri Sözlüğü, v.1, İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Basımevi, 1971.

Redhouse, J. W., Redhouse’s Turkish Dictionary, London: Bernard Quaritch, 1890.

Sami, Şemseddin, Kâmûs-ı Türkî, İstanbul: Çağrı Yayınları, 1996.

Books and Articles

A Question of Genocide: Armenians and Turks at the End of the Empire, eds. Ronald Grigor Suny, Fatma Müge Göçek, et. al., New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.

A Survey of Some Social Conditions in Smyrna, Asia Minor - May 1921, ed. Rıfat N. Bali, İstanbul: Libra, 2010.

Abdülaziz Bey, Osmanlı Âdet, Merasim ve Tabirleri: Toplum Hayatı, İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 1995.

Abou-El-Haj, Rifa’at ‘Ali, Formation of the Modern State: The Ottoman Empire, Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries, New York: Syracuse University Press, 2005.

216

_____, Rifa’at ‘Ali, The 1703 Rebellion and the Structure of Ottoman Politics, Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, 1984.

Abulafia, David, “Introduction: What is the Mediterranean?”, The Mediterranean in History, ed. David Abulafia, London: Thames & Hudson, 2003, 11-26.

Achladi, Evangelia, “Savaştan Yunan İdaresine: Kozmopolit Smyrna’nın Sonu”, in İzmir (1830-1930) Unutulmuş Bir Kent mi?: Bir Osmanlı Limanından Hatıralar, ed. Marie-Carmen Smyrnelis, İletişim: İstanbul, 2009, 211-229.

Adak, Ufuk, ‘XIX. Yüzyılın Sonları XX. Yüzyılın Başlarında Aydın Vilayeti’ndeki Hapishaneler’, MA thesis, Ege Üniversitesi, 2006.

Adams, Bruce F. The Politics of Punishment: Prison Reform in Russia (1863-1917), Dekalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1996.

Adıtatar, Funda, ‘İzmir İngiliz Konsolosluğu ve Siyasi Faaliyetleri (1878-1914)’, PhD Dissertation, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, 2011.

Agmon, Iris-Ido Shahar, “Theme Issue: Shifting Perspectice in the Study of Shari’a Courts: Methodologies and Paradigms”, Islamic Law and Society, v. 15, 2008, 1-19.

_____, Iris, Family and Court: Legal Culture and Modernity in the Late Ottoman Palestine, New York: Syracuse University Press, 2006.

Aguirre, Carlos, “Prisons and Prisoners in Modernising Latin America (1800-1940)”, in Cultures of Confinement: A History of The Prison in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, eds. Frank Dikötter-Ian Brown, New York: Cornell University Press, 2007, 14-55.

Ahmad, Feroz, The Young Turks and the Ottoman Nationalities: Armenians, Greeks, Albanians, Jews, and Arabs, 1908-1918, Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2014.

_____, Feroz, The Young Turks: The Committee of Union and Progress in Turkish Politics, Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1969.

Ahmet Mithat Efendi, Jöntürk, İstanbul: Beyaz Balina Yayınları, 2005.

Aikin, John, A View of the Life, Travels, and Philanthropic Labors of the late John Howard, Philadelphia: W.W. Woodward, 1794.

Akçam, Taner, Siyasi Kültürümüzde Zulüm ve İşkence, İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 1995.

_____, Taner, The Young Turks’ Crime against Humanity: The Armenian Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing in the Ottoman Empire, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013.

217

Akdağ, Mustafa, Türk Halkının Dirlik ve Düzen Kavgası “Celâlî İsyanları”, İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2013.

_____, Mustafa, “Genel Çizgileriyle XVII. Yüzyıl Türkiye Tarihi”, Ankara Üniversitesi DTCF Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4:6, 1966.

_____, Mustafa, “Osmanlı Tarihinde A’yânlık Düzeni Devri”, Ankara Üniversitesi DTCFD, 34, 1966, 195-231.

Akgündüz, Ahmed, Islamic Law in Theory and Practice: Introduction to Islamic Law, Rotterdam: IUR Press, 2010.

_____, Ahmed, “1274/1858 tarihli Osmanlı Ceza Kanunnamesinin Hukuki Kaynakları, Tatbik Şekli ve Men’i İrtikâb Kanunnamesi”, Belleten, v. 199, 1987, 153- 191.

Akın, Hatice, “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Hapishane Islahatına Dair 1893 Tarihli Bir Nizamname Önerisi”, History Studies: International Journal of History, 3:3, 2011, 23-36.

Akman, Mehmet “Osmanlı Ceza Hukuku Çalışmaları Üzerine Bir İcmal”, TALİD, 3:5, İstanbul, 2005, 489-512.

Aksoy, Yaşar, Smyrna İzmir: Efsaneden Gerçeğe, İzmir: İBBKKY, 2002.

Aktepe, Münir, İzmir Yazıları, İzmir: İBBKKY, 2003.

Akurgal, Ekrem, Eskiçağ’da Ege ve İzmir, İstanbul: Yaşar Holding Yayınları, 1993.

Akyıldız, Ali, Tanzimat Dönemi Osmanlı Merkez Teşkilâtında Reform (1836-1856), İstanbul: Eren, 1993.

Akyürek, Göksun, Bilgiyi Yeniden İnşa Etmek: Tanzimat Döneminde Mimarlık, Bilgi ve İktidar, İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2011.

Albayrak, Muzaffer “Osmanlı’da Kadın Mahkumlar”, Kültür, v. 16, 2009, 108-111.

Alemdar, Korkmaz, İstanbul (1875-1964): Türkiye’de Yayınlanan Fransızca Bir Gazetenin Tarihi, Ankara: Ankara İktisadi ve Ticari İlimler Akademisi Yayınları, 1978.

Allen, Susan Heuck, “’In Great Style and Magnificence’: Mapping the British Communities in Smyrna and Bournabat from the 18th to the Early 20th Centuries”, in City in Culture in City, Proceedings, Ninth Cultural Studies Symposium, May 2004, Ege University, Izmir, eds. Ayşe Lahur Kırtunç, et. al., İzmir: Ege Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları, 2005, 177-189.

Alyot, Halim Tevfik, Türkiye’de Zabıta (Tarihi Gelişim ve Bugünkü Durum), Ankara: Kanaat Basımevi, 1947.

218

Anastassiadou, Meropi, Tanzimat Çağında Bir Osmanlı Şehri Selanik (1830-1912), İstanbul: TVYY, 2010.

Anderson, Matthew Smith, Doğu Sorunu: 1774-1923, Uluslararası İlişkiler Üzerine Bir İnceleme, İstanbul: Yapıkredi Yayınları, 2001.

Andıç, Fuat-Süphan Andıç, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Islahatlar, Ankara: Hitabevi Yayınları, 2013.

Arıkan, Zeki, “Midhat Paşa’nın Aydın Valiliği”, Uluslararası Midhat Paşa Semineri: Bildiriler ve Tartışmalar, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1986.

_____, Zeki, İzmir Basınından Seçmeler (1872-1922), İzmir: İBBKKY, 2001.

_____, Zeki, “II. Meşrutiyet Döneminde İzmir”, in Üç İzmir, İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 1992, 219-227.

Arısan, Kâzım, “Geçen Yüzyılda İstanbul’da Ebeler ve Doğum”, in, I. Türk Tıp Tarihi Kongresi: Kongreye Sunulan Bildiriler (17-19 Şubat 1988), Ankara: TTK, 1992, 229- 253.

Arslan, İsmail, Balkan Savaşlarının 100. Yılı Anısına Elveda Rumeli Merhaba Rumeli, İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2013.

Arslantürk, Zeki, Nâîma’ya Göre Osmanlı Devleti’nin Çöküş Sebepleri, Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı, 1989.

Artvinli, Fatih, Delilik, Siyaset ve Toplum: Toptaşı Bimarhanesi (1873-1927), İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınevi, 2013.

Aslan, Taner, “II. Meşrutiyet Dönemi Genel Af Uygulamaları”, Akademik Bakış, 3:5, (2009), 41-60.

Atar, Zafer, “20. Yüzyılın Başlarında Turgutlu Hapishanesi’nin Genel Durumu”, Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, v. 9 n. 1, (Manisa: 2011), 87-101.

Atay, Çınar, İzmir’in İzmiri, İzmir: ESİAD, 1993.

_____, Çınar, Kapanan Kapılar İzmir Hanları, İzmir: İBBKKY, 2003.

_____, Çınar, 19. Yüzyıl İzmir Fotoğrafları, ed. M. Çınar Atay, İstanbul: Suna&İnan Kıraç Akdeniz Medeniyetleri Araştırma Enstitüsü, 1997.

_____, Çınar, Tarih İçinde İzmir, İzmir: Yaşar Eğitim ve Kültür Vakfı Yayını, 1978.

Atilla, A. Nedim, İzmir Demiryolları, İzmir: İBBKY, 2002.

Augusti, Eliana, “From Capitulations and Unequal Treaties: The Matter of an Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in the Ottoman Empire”, Journal of Civil Law Studies, 4:2, 285-307.

219

Avcı, Mustafa, Osmanlı Hukukunda Suçlar ve Cezalar, İstanbul: Gökkubbe, 2004.

Aybet, Gülgûn Üçel, Avrupalı Seyyahların Gözünden Osmanlı Dünyası ve İnsanları (1530-1699), İstanbul: İletişim, 2010.

Aydın, Mehmet Akif, “Osmanlı’da Ceza Hukuku”, TDVİA, İstanbul: 1993, v. 7, 478- 482.

Baer, Gabriel, “The Transition to Western Criminal Law in Turkey and Egypt”, Studia Islamica, 45, 1977, 139-158.

Balsoy, Gülhan, The Politics of Reproduction in Ottoman Society, 1838-1900, Vermont: P&C, 2013.

Bamford, Paul W., Fighting Ships and Prisons: Mediterranean Galleys of France in the Age of Louis XIV, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1973.

Baran, Tülay Alim, “Mütareke Döneminde İtilaf Devletlerinin Hapishaneler Üzerindeki Denetimi”, Belleten, 263/LXXII, 2008, 155-174.

Barker, Zeki M., “Keyif Veren Zehirler, Tiryakilik ve Tiryakiler”, Ülkü Mecmuası, (Ağustos 1935), 437-447.

Barkey, Karen, Bandits and Bureaucrats: The Ottoman Route to State Centralization, New York: Cornell University Press, 1994.

Başaran, Betül, “İstanbul’da Asayiş ve Karışıklık – Aktörler ve Yöntemler”, in Osmanlı’da Asayiş, Suç ve Ceza (18.-20. Yüzyıllar), eds. Noémi Lévy-Alexandre Toumarkine, İstanbul: TVYY, 2007, 116-134.

Baykara, Tuncer, İzmir Şehri ve Tarihi, İzmir: Ege Üniversitesi Matbaası, 1974.

_____, Tuncer, “Mustafa Reşid Paşa’nın Medeniyet Anlayışı”, in Mustafa Reşid Paşa ve Dönemi Semineri Bildiriler, Ankara, 13-14 Mart 1985, (Ankara: TTK, 1994), 49- 52.

Baytimur, Suha Oğuz, ‘Osmanlı Devleti’nde Hapis ve Sürgün Cezaları (1791-1808)’, PhD Dissertation, Fırat Üniversitesi, 2011.

Beccaria on Crimes and Punishments and Other Writings, ed. Richard Bellany, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Bentham, Jeremy, Panopticon Writings, London: Verso, 1995.

Berber, Engin, “İkinci Meşrutiyet Döneminde Aydın Vilayetinde İç Güvenlik Sorunu”, in Bir İzmir Kâbusu: Mütareke ve İşgal Dönemi Üzerine Yazılar, İzmir: İBBKKY, 2002.

220

_____, Engin, Yeni Onbinlerin Gölgesinde Bir Sancak: İzmir (30 Ekim 1918-15 Mayıs 1919), İstanbul: TVYY, 1999.

_____, “İkinci meşrutiyet döneminde domino etkisi Yapan bir eylem: İzmir liman işçileri”, European Journal of Turkish Studies [Online], 11, 2010.

_____, “Bağımsızlık İlkesi Bağlamında Taşra Yönetiminden Osmanlılara Bakmak: İzmir Örneği”, in Engin Berber, Bir İzmir Kâbusu: Mütareke ve İşgal Dönemi Üzerine Yazılar, İzmir: İBBKKY, 2002, 23-40.

_____, The Izmir Fire: Preliminary Report: Case Study: The Burning of Ödemiş and Birgi, Ödemiş Kent Arşivi ve Müzesi, 2013.

Berchtold, Johannes, Recht und Gerechtigkeit in der Konsulargerichtsbarkeit: Britische Exterritorialität im Osmanischen Reich, 1825- 1914, München: Oldenbourg, 2009.

Bernauer, James W., Foucault’nun Özgürlük Serüveni: Bir Düşünce Etiğine Doğru, İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları, 2005.

Berkes, Niyazi, Türkiye’de Çağdaşlaşma, İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2002.

Berridge, G.R., British Diplomacy in Turkey, 1583 to the present: A Study in the evolution of the residen embassy, ed. Jan Melissen, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009.

Bessé, Alfred de, The Turkish Empire; its historical, statistical, and religious condition; also its manners, Philadelphia: Lindsay&Blakiston, 1854.

Beşikçi, Mehmet, The Ottoman Mobilization of Manpower in the First World War: Between Voluntarism and Resistance, Leiden: Brill, 2012.

Beyru, Rauf, 19. Yüzyılda İzmir’de Sağlık Sorunları ve Yaşam, İBBKKY: İzmir, 2005.

_____, Rauf, 19. Yüzyılda İzmir Kenti, İstanbul: Literatür, 2011.

Bilbaşar, Serpil, “19. Yüzyıl Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’ndan Cumhuriyet’e hapis cezasının örgütsel ve hukuksal gelişimi: Hapishaneden Cezaevine”, Birikim, 136, 2000, 44-48.

Bilget, Adnan, Son Yüzyılda İzmir Şehri (1849-1949), İzmir: Meşher Basımevi, 1949.

Bilsel, Fatma Cânâ, ‘Cultures et fonctionnalités : L’évolution de la morphologie urbaine de la ville d’Izmir aux XIX et début XXe siècles’, PhD Dissertation, Université Paris X-Nanterre, 1996.

_____, Fatma Cânâ, “The Ottoman Port City of İzmir in the 19th Century: Cultures, Modes of Space Production and the Transformation of Urban Space”, in 7 Centuries

221

of Ottoman Architecture: A ‘Supra-National Heritage’, International Congress Papers, ed. Afife Batur, İstanbul: Yapı Endüstri Merkezi, 2001, 225-233.

_____, Fatma Cânâ, “Modern Bir Akdeniz Metropolüne Doğru”, in İzmir (1830- 1930) Unutulmuş Bir Kent mi?: Bir Osmanlı Limanından Hatıralar, ed. Marie- Carmen Smyrnelis, İleşitim: İstanbul, 2009.

Bingöl, Sedat, Tanzimat Devrinde Osmanlı’da Yargı Reformu (Nizâmiyye Mahkemeleri’nin Kuruluşu ve İşleyişi, 1840-1876), Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2004.

Biray Kolluoğlu-Meltem Toksöz, eds., Cities of the Mediterranean, New York: I.B. Tauris, 2010.

Birdal, Murat, The Political Economy of Ottoman Public Debt: Insolvency and European Financial Control in the Late Nineteenth Century, London: I.B. Tauris, 2010.

Boogert, Maurits H. Van Den, The Capitulations and The Ottoman Legal System: Qadis, Consuls and Beratlıs in the 18th Century, Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Bostan, İdris, Osmanlı Bahriye Teşkilatı: XVII. Yüzyılda Tersane-i Amire, Ankara: TTK, 2003.

Botsman, Daniel V., Punishment and Power in the Making of Modern Japan, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005.

Boyar, Ebru-Kate Fleet, eds., A Social History of Ottoman Istanbul, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Bozkurt, Gülnihal, “Review of the Ottoman Legal System”, Osmanlı Tarih Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Dergisi, n. 3, Ankara, 1992, 115-128.

_____, Gülnihal, “Tanzimat ve Hukuk”, in Tanzimat’ın 150. Yıldönümü Uluslararası Sempozyumu (31 Ekim-3 Kasım 1989), Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1994, 271-277.

_____, Gülnihal, Batı Hukuku’nun Türkiye’de Benimsenmesi, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1996.

Braudel, Fernand, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II, v. 1, London: Folio Society, 2000.

Brummett, Palmira, Image and Imperialism in the Ottoman Revolutionary Press (1908-1911), New York: State University of New York Press, 2000.

Buzov, Snjezana, ‘The Lawgiver and his Lawmakers: The Role of Legal Discourse in the Change of Ottoman Imperial Culture’, PhD dissertation, the University of Chicago, 2006.

Byrne, Leo Gerald, The Great Ambassador, Ohio State University Press, 1964.

222

Campos, Isaac, Home Grown: Marijuana and the Origins of Mexico’s War on Drugs, Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2012.

Can, Yılmaz, İslâm Şehirlerinin Fizikî Yapısı (H. I-III/M. VII.-IX Yüzyıl), Ankara: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Yayınları, 1995.

Canpolat, Emin, İzmir: Kuruluşundan Bugüne Kadar, İstanbul: İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, 1953.

Castellan, Georges, Histoire des Balkans (XIV-XX siècle), Paris: Fayard, 1991.

Cerasi, Maurice M., Osmanlı Kenti: Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda 18. ve 19. Yüzyıllarda Kent Uygarlığı ve Mimarisi, İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 1999.

Cevdet Paşa, Tezâkir 1-12, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1991.

Chekhov, Anton Pavlovich, Sakhalin Island, Richmond: Alma Classics, 2013.

Coşgel, Metin M., Boğaç Ergene, Haggay Etkes, Thomas J. Miceli, “Crime and Punishment in Ottoman Times: Corruption and Fines”, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, XLIII:3, Winter, 2013, 353-376.

Cox, Samuel Sullivan, Bir Amerikan Diplomatının İstanbul Anıları, 1885-1887, İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2010.

Crime and Punishment in England: An Introductory History, John Briggs et. al., London: UCL Press, 1996.

Crime and Punishment in Latin America: Law Society since Colonial Times, eds. Ricardo D. Salvatore, et. al., London: Duke University Press, 2001.

Criss, Bilge, İşgal Altında İstanbul, 1918-1923, İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2000.

Cuinet, Vital, La Turquie d’Asie: Géographie Administrative Statistique Descriptive et Raisonnée de Chaque Province de l’Asie - Mineure, v. 5, Le Vilayet de Smyrne et le Mutesaariflik de Bigha, İstanbul: ISIS, 2001.

Cunningham, Allan, “Stratford Canning and the Tanzimat” in in Beginnings of Modernization in the Middle East: The Nineteenth Century, eds. William R. Polk- Richard L. Chambers, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968, 245-264.

Çadırcı, Musa, Tanzimat Döneminde Anadolu Kentleri’nin Soyal ve Ekonomik Yapısı, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1997.

Çelik, Yüksel, “Hapishane Tarihimizden Bir Kesit: Üsküdar Paşakapısı Tevkifhanesi ve Mütareke Dönemi’nde İşgali”, Belleten, 264/LXXII, 2008, 603-627.

Çetinsaya, Gökhan, “Kalemiye’den Mülkiye’ye Tanzimat Zihniyeti”, in Modern Türkiye’de Siyasi Düşünce: Cumhuriyet’e Devreden Düşünce Mirası Tanzimat ve Meşrutiyet’in Birikimi, v.1, İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2009, 59-66.

223

Çiçek, Nazan, The Young Ottomans: Turkish Critics of the Eastern Question in the Late Nineteenth Century, London: I.B. Tauris, 2010.

Çiçen, Ahmet, ‘II. Meşrutiyet Dönemi Cezaevi Islahatı’, MA thesis, Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi, 2010.

Daly, Jonathan, “Russian Punishments in the European Mirror”, in Russia in the European Context: A Member of the Family (1789-1914), eds. Susan P. McCaffray- Michael Melancon, New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005, 161-189.

Darling, Linda T., “Islamic Empires, the Ottoman Empire and the Circle of Justice”, in Constitutional Politics in the Middle East with special reference to Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, ed. Saïd Amir Arjomad, Portland: Hart Publishing: 2008, 11- 33.

_____, Linda T., "Circle of Justice ." Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE. Edited by: Gudrun Krämer, Denis Matringe, John Nawas, Everett Rowson. Brill Online, 2013. Reference. Ufuk Adak. 27 September 2013 http://referenceworks.brillonline.com.proxy.libraries.uc.edu/entries/encyclopaedia-of- islam-3/circle-of-justice- COM_24405

Daşçıoğlu, Kemal, İskân, Suç ve Ceza: Osmanlı’da Sürgün, İstanbul: Yeditepe, 2007.

Davison, Roderic H., Reform in the Ottoman Empire (1856-1876), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963.

Deal, Roger A., Crimes of Honor, Drunken Brawls and Murder: Violence in Istanbul under Abdülhamid II, İstanbul: Libra Kitap, 2010.

Death by a Thousand Cuts, eds. Timothy Brook, et. al., Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008.

De Kay, James Ellswort, 1831-1832 Türkiye’sinden Görünümler, Ankara: ODTÜ Yayıncılık, 2009.

Demir, Emel, ‘Osmanlı Devleti’nde Hapishane Reformu: Çanakkale Hapishanesi Örneği’, MA thesis, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi, 2013.

Demirci, Tuba-Selçuk Akşin Somel, “Women’s Bodies, Demography, and Public Health: Abortion Policy and Perspectives in the Ottoman Empire of the Nineteenth Century”, Journal of the History of Sexuality, 17:3, September 2008, 377-420.

_____, Tuba, ‘Body, Disease and Late Ottoman Literature: Debates on Ottoman Muslim Family in the Tanzimat Period (1839-1908)’, PhD Dissertation, Bilkent University, 2008.

Demirel, Fatmagül, “1890 Petersburg Hapishaneler Kongresi”, Toplumsal Tarih, 2001, v. 89, 11-14.

224

_____, Fatmagül, “Osmanlı Padişahlarının Doğum Günü Kutlamalarına Bir Örnek”, İlmi Araştırmalar, v. 11, 2011, 67-74.

Demirkol, Kurtuluş, ‘II. Meşrutiyet Döneminde Edirne Vilayeti Hapishaneleri’, PhD Dissertation, Sakarya Üniversitesi, 2012.

Deringil, Selim, “Legitimacy Structures in the Ottoman State: The Reign of Abdulhamid II (1876-1909)”, IJMES, 23:3, Aug. 1991, 345-359.

_____, Selim, The Well-Protected Domains: Ideology and the Legitimation of Power in the Ottoman Empire (1876-1909), New York: I.B. Tauris, 1999.

Dimitriadis, Sotirios, “Transforming a Late-Ottoman Port-City: Salonica, 1876- 1912”, in Well-Connected Domains: Towards an Entangled Ottoman History, eds. Pascal W. Firges, et.al., Leiden: Brill, 2014, 207-222.

Dinçyürek, Hatip, A “Compassionate” Episode in Anglo-Ottoman History: British Relief to the ’93 Refugees (1877-1878), İstanbul: Libra, 2013.

Dixon, William Hepworth, John Howard and the Prison-World of Europe: from original and authentic documents, New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1850.

Dural, Halil, Bize Derler Çakırca: 19. ve 20. Yüzyılda Ege’de Efeler, İstanbul: TVYY, 1999.

Dursun, M. Kâmil, İzmir Hatıraları, ed. Ünal Şenel, İzmir: Akademi Kitabevi.

Dündar, Fuat, Crime of Numbers: The Role of Statistics in the Armenian Question (1878-1918), New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2010.

_____, Fuat, Modern Türkiye’nin Şifresi: İttihat ve Terakki’nin Etnisite Mühendisliği (1913-1918), İstanbul: İletişim, 2008.

Düzenli, Pehlul, ‘Osmanlı Hukukçusu Şeyhülislâm Ebussuûd Efendi ve Fetvâları’, PhD Dissertation, Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Temel İslam Bilimleri Anabilim Dalı İslam Hukuk Bilim Dalı, Konya, 2007.

_____, Pehlul, “Şeyhülislâm Ebussuûd Efendi: Bibliyografik Bir Değerlendirme”, TALİD, 3:5, 2005, 441-475.

Edges of Empire: Orientalism and Visual Culture, eds. Jocelyn Hackforth-Jones- Mary Roberts, Malden: Blackwell, 2005.

Eisenstadt, S.N., Comparative Civilizations and Multiple Modernities, Leiden: Brill, 2003.

Ekinci, Ekrem Buğra, Osmanlı Mahkemeleri: Tanzimat ve Sonrası, Arı Sanat, 2004.

Eldem, Edhem, “Mustafa Reşid Paşa”, Toplumsal Tarih, 192, 2009, 6-7.

225

Elmacı, Mehmet Emin, “II. Meşrutiyet’in İlk Yıllarında İzmir Limanında Hamalların Boykotu”, I. Uluslararası Akdeniz Ticareti ve Liman Kentleri Sempozyumu, (İzmir: İzmir Ticaret Odası Yayınları, 2008), 309-317.

Emsley, Clive, Crime, Police, and Penal Policy: European Experiences (1750-1940), New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Erbay, Fatma, ‘H.1311-1314 (M.1893-1896) (51 Numaralı) İzmir Kassam Sicilinin Transkripsiyonu’, MA thesis, Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi, 2009.

Eren, Mustafa, Kapatılmanın Patolojisi: Osmanlı’dan Günümüze Hapishanenin Tarihi, İstanbul: Kalkedon, 2014.

Ergenç, Özer, “Salnamelerde İzmir”, in 1885-1985 Türkiye Ekonomisinin 100 Yılı: İzmir ve İzmir Ticaret Odası Sempozyumu, 21-23 Kasım 1985, İzmir: İzmir Ticaret Odası, 1985, 141-152.

Ergene, Boğaç A., “Evidence in Ottoman Courts: Oral and Written Documentation in Early Modern Courts of Islamic Law”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, v. 124, n. 3, Jul.-Sep. 2004, 471-491.

_____, Boğaç A., “On Ottoman Justice: Interpretations in Conflict (1600-1800), Islamic Law and Society, v. 8, n. 1, Leiden: Brill, 2001, 52-87.

_____, Boğaç, “Pursuing Justice in an Islamic Context: Dispute Resolution in Ottoman Courts of Law”, in Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 27, Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 2004, 51-71.

Ergin, Osman Nuri, Mecelle-i Umûr-ı Belediyye, v. 2, İstanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür İşleri Daire Başkanlığı Yayınları, 1995.

Ergut, Ferdan, Modern Devlet ve Polis: Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyet’e Toplumsal Denetimin Diyalektiği, İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2004.

_____, Ferdan, “Policing the Poor in the Late Ottoman Empire”, Middle Eastern Studies, vol. 38 n. 2, April 2002, 149-165.

Erim, Neşe, “Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Kalebendlik Cezası ve Suçların Sınıflandırılması Üzerine Bir Deneme”, Osmanlı Araştırmaları, v. IV, İstanbul, 1984, 79-88.

Erim, Nihat, Devletlerarası Hukuku ve Siyasi Tarih Metinler, v. 1 (Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Andlaşmaları), Ankara: TTK, 1953.

Erkan, Çağrı, Greek Occupation of Izmir and Adjoining Territories: Report of the Inter-Allied Commission of Inquiry (May-September 1919), Ankara: SAM, 1999.

Ersoy, Bozkurt, İzmir Hanları, Ankara: Atatürk Kültür Merkezi Yayını, 1991.

226

Ersoy, İnci Kuyulu, “İzmir Saat Kulesi”, Türk Dünyası İncelemeleri Dergisi, 4, 2000, 277-287.

Etker, Şeref, “Toptaşı Bimarhanesi Eczanesi Son Dönemi, 1913-1927”, Osmanlı Bilimi Araştırmaları, XII/1, 2010, 7-22.

Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahâtnamesi, v. 1, eds. Robert Dankoff-Seyit Ali Kahraman-Yücel Dağlı, İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2013.

Exertzoglou, Haris, “Medicine, Philantrophy and the Construction of Poverty in Istanbul in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries”, in Economy and Society on Both Shores of the Aegean, eds. Lorans Tanatar Baruh-Vangelis Kechriotis, (Athens: Alpha Bank Historical Archives, 2010), 249-275.

Fahmy, Khaled, All the Pasha’s Men: Mehmed Ali, His Army and the Making of Modern Egypt, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

_____, Khaled, “The Police and the People in the Nineteenth-century Egypt”, Die Welt des Islams, 39 (1999), 340-377.

Faroqhi, Suraiya, Osmanlı’da Kentler ve Kentliler: Kent Mekânında Ticaret Zanaat ve Gıda Üretimi (1550-1650), İstanbul: TVYY, 2000.

_____, Suraiya, the Ottoman Empire and the World Around It, New York: I.B. Tauris, 2004.

_____, Suraiya, Osmanlı Kültürü ve Gündelik Yaşam: Ortaçağdan Yirminci Yüzyıla, İstanbul: TVYY, 2011.

_____, Suraiya, Osmanlı Dünyasında Üretmek, Pazarlamak, Yaşamak, İstanbul: YKY, 2003.

Faure, M. Hippolyte, Étude sur les oeuvres hospitalières à Narbonne et Dans Une Partie de L’Europe, Narbonne, 1890.

Feridun, İbrahim, Polis Efendilere Mahsus Terbiye ve Malumat-ı Meslekiye, eds. Muhittin Karakaya-Veysel K. Bilgiç, Ankara: Polis Akademisi Yayınları, 2010.

Fındıkoğlu, Ziyaeddin Fahri, "İzmir Hapishanesi Hakkında Bir Rapor", İş, Türkiye Harsi ve İçtimai Araştırmaları Derneği, v. 146, 1953, 2-5.

Findley, Carter V., ‘Mahkama’, Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., Leiden: Brill, 1986.

_____, Carter V., Turkey, Islam, Nationalism, and Modernity: A History: 1789-2007, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010.

_____, Carter V., Bureaucratic Reform in the Ottoman Empire: The Sublime Porte, 1789-1922, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980.

227

Fortna, Benjamin C., Mekteb-i Hümayûn: Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun Son Döneminde İslâm, Devlet ve Eğitim, İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2005.

Foucault, Michel, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, New York: Vintage Books, 1995.

_____, Michel, “Governmentality” in The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality: with Two Lectures by and an Interview with Michel Foucault, eds. Graham Burchell, et. al., Chicago: the University of Chicago Press, 1991, 87-104.

_____, Michel, Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason, New York: Pantheon Book, 1965.

Frangakis-Syrett, Elena, “Uluslararası Önem Taşıyan Bir Akdeniz Limanının Gelişimi: Smryna (1700-1914)”, in İzmir (1830-1930) Unutulmuş Bir Kent mi?: Bir Osmanlı Limanından Hatıralar, ed. Marie-Carmen Smyrnelis, İstanbul: İleşitim, 2009, 27-58.

_____, Elena, 18. Yüzyılda İzmir’de Ticaret (1700-1820), İzmir: İBBKY, 2006.

_____, Elena, "Commercial Growth and Economic Development in the Middle East: Izmir from the early 18th to the early 20th centuries", in Ottoman Izmir: Studies in honour of Alexander H. de Groot, ed. Maurits H. van den Boogert, Nederlands Institut voor Het Nabije Oosten, 2007, 1-38.

Frank, Stephen P., Crime, Cultural Conflict, and Justice in Rural Russia (1856-1914), Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999.

Frierson, Cathy, “Crime and Punishment in the Russian Village: Rural Concepts of Criminality at the End of the Nineteenth Century”, Slavic Review, 46/1, Spring 1987, 55-69.

Frierson, Elizabeth Brown, ‘Unimagined Communities: State, Press, and Gender in the Hamidian Era’, PhD dissertation, Princeton University, June 1996.

_____, Elizabeth B., “Gender, Consumption and Patriotism: The Emergence of An Ottoman Public Sphere”, in Public Islam and the Common Good, eds. Armando Salvatore-Dale Eickelman, Leiden: Brill, 2004.

_____, Elizabeth B., “Unimagined Communities: Women and Education in the Late- Ottoman Empire, 1876- 1909”, Critical Matrix, v. 9, 1995, 57-92.

_____, Elizabeth B., “Cheap and Easy: The Creation of Consumer Culture in the Later Ottoman Empire” in Consumption Studies and the History of the Ottoman Empire, 1550-1922: An Introduction, Donald Quataert, ed., Albany: SUNY Press, 2000, 243-260.

_____, Elizabeth B., “Mirrors Out, Mirrors In: Domestication and Rejection of the Foreign in Late-Ottoman Women’s Magazines (1875-1908)”, in Women, Patronage,

228

and Self-Representation in Islamic Socities, eds. D. Fairchild Ruggles, Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001, 177-204.

_____, Elizabeth B., “Women in Late Ottoman intellectual history”, in Late Ottoman Society: The Intellectual Legacy, ed. Elisabeth Özdalga, New York: Routledge, 2005, 135-161.

Fuhrmann, Malte, “Staring at Sea, Staring at the Land: Waterfront modernisation in nineteenth century Ottoman cities as a site of cultural change”, in Port Cities: Dynamic Landscapes and Global Networks, ed. Carola Hein, London: Routledge, 2011, 138-155.

Garland, David, Punishment and Modern Society: A Study in Social Theory, Oxford: Clarendon, 1990.

_____, David, Punishment and Welfare: A History of Penal Strategies, Brookfield,VT: Gower, 1985.

Gazel, Ahmet Ali, “Tanin Muhabiri Ahmet Şerif Bey’in Notlarında Osmanlı Hapishaneleri”, in Hapishane Kitabı, eds. Emine Gürsoy Naskali and Hilal Oytun Altun, İstanbul: Kitabevi, 2005, 143-152.

Gedikli, Fethi, “Osmanlı Hukuk Tarihi Kaynağı Olarak Şer’iyye Sicilleri”, Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi, 3:5, İstanbul, 2005, 187-213.

Gelvin, James L., The Modern Middle East: A History, New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Gencer, Mustafa, Jöntürk Modernizmi ve “Alman Ruhu”: 1908-1918 Dönemi Türk- Alman İlişkileri ve Eğitim, İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2003.

Gençer, Ceylan İrem, ‘1840-1912 Yılları Arasında İzmir ve Selanik’teki Kentsel ve Mimari Değişim’, PhD dissertation, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, 2012.

Georgelin, Hervé, Smyrna’nın Sonu: İzmir’de Kozmopolitizmden Milliyetçiliğe, İstanbul: Birzamanlar Yayıncılık, 2008.

Georgeon, François, Sultan Abdülhamid, İstanbul: Homer Kitabevi, 2006.

Georgiadés, Démétrius, Smyrne et L’Asie Mineure, Paris, 1885.

Gerber, Haim, State, Society, and Law in Islam: Ottoman Law in Comparative Perspective, New York: State University of New York Press, 1994.

_____, Haim-Jacob Barnai, The Jews in Izmir in the 19th Century: Ottoman Documents From the Shar’i Court, Jerusalem: Misgav Yerushalayim, 1984.

Gilman, Sander L., Seeing the Insane: A Visual and Cultural History of Our Attitudes Toward the Mentally Ill, Vermont: Echo Point, 2014.

229

Gladstone, W.E., The Turco-Servian War: Bulgarian Horrors and the Question of the East, New York: Lovell & et.al. Company, 1876.

Goffman, Daniel, “Izmir”, in The Ottoman City between East and West: Aleppo, Izmir, and Istanbul, ed. Edhem Eldem-Daniel Goffman-Bruce Masters, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

_____, Daniel, İzmir ve Levanten Dünya (1550-1650), İstanbul: TVYY, 2000.

_____, Daniel, The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Gorman, Anthony, “Regulation, Reform and Resistance in the Middle Eastern Prison”, in Cultures of Confinement: A History of The Prison in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, eds. Frank Dikötter-Ian Brown, New York: Cornell University Press, 2007, 95-147.

Göçek, Fatma Müge, Rise of the Bourgeoisie, Demise of Empire: Ottoman Westernization and Social Change, New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Gönen, Yasemin Saner, “Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Hapishaneleri İyileştirme Girişimi, 1917 yılı”, Hapishane Kitabı, eds. Emine Gürsoy-Naskali-Hilal Oytun Altun, Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2005, 173-184.

Gönüllü, Ali Rıza, “Osmanlı Devleti’nin Son Döneminde Isparta Hapishanesi (1867- 1920)”, Selçuk Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Enstitüsü Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, n. 29, Konya, 2011, 349-393.

Gözaydın, İştar B., “Türkiye Hukukunun Batılılaşması”, in Modern Türkiye’de Siyasi Düşünce: Modernleşme ve Batıcılık, İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2007, 286-297.

Guilmartin, John Francis, Gunpowder and Galleys: Changing Technology and Mediterranean Warfare at Sea in the Sixteenth Century, London: Conway Maritime Press, 2003.

Guymer, Laurence Mark, ‘Curing the Sick Man: Sir Henry Bulwer and the Ottoman Empire, 1858-1865’, PhD dissertation, University of East Anglia, 2003.

Gül, Murat, The Emergence of Modern Istanbul: Transformation and Modernisation of a City, New York: I.B. Tauris, 2009.

Gül, Abdulkadir, “Osmanlı Taşrasında Suç ve Suçlular (1919 Ocak Ayı Erzincan Sancağı Örneği), Erzincan Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, v. XVII, n. 1-2, (Haziran 2012), 1-29.

Günergun, Feza-Şeref Etker, “Waqf endowments and the emergence of modern charitable hospitals in the Ottoman Empire”, in The Development of Modern Medicine in Non-Western Countries: Historical Perspectives, ed. Hormoz Ebrahimnejad, New York: Routledge, 2009, 82-107.

230

Gürsoy, Özgür Burçak, ‘The Opium Problem in Turkey, 1930-1945’, MA Thesis, Boğaziçi University, 2007.

Hacısalihoğlu, Mehmet, Jön Türkler ve Makedonya Sorunu (1890-1918), İstanbul: TVYY, 2008.

Hagen, Gottfried, “Legitimacy and World Order”, in Legitimizing the Order: The Ottoman Rhetoric of State Power, eds. Hakan T. Karateke-Maurus Reinkowski, Leiden: Brill, 2005, 55-85.

Victor Haki, “Orientalism on the Margins: The Ottoman Empire under Russian Eyes”, Kritika: Exploration in Russian and Eurasian History, 12:2, Spring 2011, 321-351.

Hallaq, Wael B., An Introduction to Islamic Law, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Hanioğlu, M. Şükrü, A Brief History of the Late Ottoman Empire, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008.

_____, Şükrü, Preparation For a Revolution: The Young Turks, 1902-1908, New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.

_____, Şükrü, The Young Turks in Opposition, New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Hanssen, Jens, Fin de Siècle Beirut: The Making of an Ottoman Provincial Capital, New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Hastaoglu-Martinidis, Vilma, “The Advent of Transport and Aspects of Urban Modernisation in the Levant during the Nineteenth Century”, in The City and the Railway in Europe, eds. Ralf Roth-Marie Noël Polino, Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 2003, 61-79.

Hayta, Necdet, Tarih Araştırmalarına Kaynak Olarak Tasvir-i Efkâr Gazetesi (1278/1862-1286/1869), Ankara: TTK, 2002.

Heffernan, Esther, “Beccaria, Cesare (1738-1794)”,Encyclopedia of Prisons and Correctional Facilities, vol. 1, ed. Mary Bosworth, London: Sage Publications, 2005, 64-66.

Hobbs, Andrew, ‘Reading the local paper: Social and cultural functions of the local press in Preston, Lancashire, 1855-1900’, PhD dissertation, the University of Central Lancashire, 2010.

Horvath, Béla, Anadolu 1913, İstanbul: TVYY, 1997.

Hourani A.H.-S.M. Stern, eds., The Islamic City, Oxford: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1970.

231

_____, Albert, “Ottoman Reform and the Politics of Notables”, in Beginnings of Modernization in the Middle East: The Nineteenth Century, eds. William R. Polk- Richard L. Chambers, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968, 41-68.

Howard, John, State of the Prisons in England Wales with Preliminary Observations and An Account of Some Foreign Prisons, London: Wiliam Eyres, 1777.

_____, John, An Account of the Principle Lazarettos in Europe and Additional Remarks on the Present State of Prisons in England and Ireland, Warrington: William Eyres, 1789.

Hunter, Virginia, “Plato’s Prisons”, Greece&Rome, Second Series, 55:2, (Oct. 2008), 193-201.

Hülagu, Metin, İslâm Hukukunda Hapis Cezası, Kayseri: Rey Yayıncılık, 1996.

II. Meşrutiyet’in İlk Yılı (23 Temmuz 1908-23 Temmuz 1909), İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2008.

Ignatieff, Michael, A Just Measure of Pain: The Penitentiary and the Industrial Revolution, (1750-1850), New York: Pantheon Books, 1978.

_____, Michael, “State, Civil Society, and Total Institutions: A Critique of Recent Social Histories of Punishment”, Crime and Justice, 3, (1981), 153-192.

Imber, Colin, Şeriattan Kanuna: Ebussuud ve Osmanlı’da İslami Hukuk, İstanbul: TVYY, 2004.

Imperialism and Orientalism: A Documentary Sourcebook, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers, 2000.

Insanity, Institutions, and Society, 1800-1914, eds. Joseph Melling-Billy Forsythe, New York: Routledge, 2005.

Itzkowitz, Norman, Ottoman Empire and Islamic Tradition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.

İnalcık, Halil, “Âdaletnameler”, in Osmanlı’da Devlet, Hukuk, Adâlet, İstanbul: Eren Yayınları, 2005, 75-191.

_____, Halil, “Kutadgu Bilig’de Türk ve İran Siyaset Nazariye ve Gelenekleri”, in Osmanlı’da Devlet, Hukuk, Adâlet, İstanbul: Eren Yayınları, 2005, 11-27.

_____, Halil, “Osmanlı Hukukuna Giriş: Örfi-Sultanî Hukuk ve Fatih Kanunları”, Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, v. XIII, June 1958, 102-126.

_____, Halil, “State Ideology under Sultan Süleyman I”, in The Middle East and the Balkans under the Ottoman Empire-Essays on Economy and Society, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993, 70-94.

232

_____, Halil, “Türk-İslâm Devletlerinde Devlet Kanunu Geleneği”, in Osmanlı’da Devlet, Hukuk, Adâlet. İstanbul: Eren Yayınları, 2005, 27-39.

_____, Halil, The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age (1300-1600), New York: Praeger Publishers, 1973.

_____, Halil, “Osmanlı’nın Avrupa ile Barışıklığı: Kapitülasyonlar ve Ticaret”, Doğu Batı, 6:24, 2003, 55-81.

İnuğur, M. Nuri, Basın ve Yayın Tarihi, İstanbul: Çağlayan Kitabevi, 1982.

İrtem, Süleyman Kâni, Abdülhamid Devrinde Hafiyelik ve Sansür: Abdülhamid’e Verilen Jurnaller, İstanbul: Temel, 1999.

İstatistik, Mevadd-ı Cezaiyeye Müteallik, Dersaadet: Matbaa-i Amire, 1312 (1894).

İzgöer, Ahmet Zeki, “Osmanlı Salnâmelerinin Şehir Tarihi Bakımından Önemi”, Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi, 3:6, 2005, 539-552.

İzmir 1830-1930: Unutulmuş Bir Kent mi? Bir Osmanlı Limanından Hatıralar, ed. Marie-Carmen Smyrnelis, İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2009.

İzmir 1905, ed. Erkan Serçe, İzmir: İBBKY, 2000.

İzmir Şehir Rehberi, 1941, ed. Suad Yurdkoru, İzmir: İzmir Belediyesi Neşriyatı, 1941.

Jankiewicz, Stephen R., ‘The Intimate Orient: British Cross-Cultural Encounters, 1850-1950’, PhD dissertation, The State University of New Jersey, 2005.

Jelavich, Barbara, History of the Balkans: Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, v. 1, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Johnston, Helen, “Introduction: Histories of Punishment and Control”, in Punishment and Control in Historical Perspective, ed. Helen Johnston, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008, 1-13.

Johnston, Norman, Forms of Constraint: A History of Prison Architecture, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2000.

Kadı, İsmail Hakkı, Ottoman and Dutch Merchants in the Eighteenth Century: Competition and Cooperation in Ankara, Izmir, and Amsterdam, Leiden: Brill, 2012.

Kansu, Aykut, 1908 Devrimi, İstanbul: İletişim, 1995.

Karaca, Ali, “XIX. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Devleti’nde Fahişe Hatunlara Uygulanan Cezalar: Hapis ve Sürgün”, in Hapishane Kitabı, eds. Emine Gürsoy Naskali-Hilal Oytun Altun, İstanbul: Kitabevi, 2005, 152-163.

233

Karakışla, Yavuz Selim, Eski İstanbul’un Delileri: Pazarola Hasan Bey, İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı, 2006.

_____, Yavuz Selim, Exile Days of Sultan Abdülhamid II in Salonika (1909-1912), İstanbul: Libra, 2015.

Karal, Enver Ziya, Osmanlı Tarihi, v. VI, Ankara: TTK, 2000.

Karataş, Ali İhsan, Osmanlı Dönemi Bursa Sürgünleri (18.-19. Asırlar), İstanbul: Emin Yayınları, 2009.

Karateke, Hakan, “Legitimizing the Ottoman Sultanate: A Framework for Historical Analysis”, Legitimizing the Order: The Ottoman Rhetoric of State Power, eds. Hakan T. Karateke-Maurus Reinkowski, Leiden: Brill, 2005, 13-55.

Karayaman, Mehmet, ‘İzmir’de Sağlık (1920-1938)’, PhD Dissertation, Ege Üniversitesi, 2005.

_____, Mehmet, “İzmir Valisi İzzet Bey’in Kaleminden İzmir’in İşgali”, Çağdaş Türkiye Araştırmaları Dergisi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, VI:15, 2007, 3-18.

Kardasis, Vassilis, “Smyrna Through the Eyes of European Travellers” in Smyrna: Metropolis of the Asia Minor Greeks, Alimos: Center for Asia Minor Studies, 2002, 41-62.

Karlıkaya, Esin -Nilüfer Gökçe, “Modern Türk Psikiyatri Biliminin Kurucusu: Mazhar Osman Uzman”, Trakya Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi, 18:2, 2001, 149- 157.

Karpat, Kemal, Osmanlı Modernleşmesi: Toplum, Kuramsal Değişim ve Nüfus, Ankara: İmge Kitabevi, 2002.

_____, Kemal, Ottoman Population, 1830-1914: Demographic and Social Characteristics, Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1985.

Kasaba, Reşat, “İzmir”, in Doğu Akdeniz Liman Kentleri, Çağlar Keyder-Eyüp Özveren-Donald Quataert, İstanbul: TVYY, 1994.

_____, Reşat, “İzmir 1922: A Port City Unravels”, in Modernity and Culture: From the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean, eds. Leila Tarazi Fawaz-C.A. Bayly, New York: Columbia University Press, 2002, 204-229.

Kaya, Alp Yücel, “19. Yüzyıl Ortasında İzmir’de Mülkiyet, Emniyet ve Zaptiyeler”, in Jandarma ve Polis: Fransız ve Osmanlı Tarihçiliğine Çapraz Bakışlar, eds. Noémi Lévy, et. al., İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2009, 189-212.

_____, Alp Yücel, “19. Yüzyıl İzmir’inde Tüccarlar ve Esnaflar veya ‘Hacıağalar, Beyler ve Frenkler’”, in Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyet’e Esnaf ve Ticaret, ed. Fatmagül Demirel, İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2012, 79-103.

234

Kayaoğlu, Turan, Legal Imperialism: Sovereignty and Extraterritoriality in Japan, the Ottoman Empire, and China, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Kaynar, Reşat, Mustafa Reşit Paşa ve Tanzimat, Ankara: TTK, 1991. Kebranian, Nanor, “Imprisoned Communities: Punishing Politics in the Late Ottoman Empire”, in Ottoman Armenians: Life, Culture, Society, v. 1, ed. Vahé Tachjian, Berlin: A Houshamadyan Publication, 2014, 114-143.

Kechriotis, Vangelis Constantinos, ‘The Greeks of Izmir at the End of the Empire: A Non-Muslim Ottoman Community Between Autonomy and Patriotism’, PhD Dissertation, Leiden University, 2005.

_____, Vangelis, “The Enthusiasm Turns to Fear: Everyday Life Relations Between Christians and Muslims in Izmir in the Aftermath of the Young Turk Revolution”, in “L’ivresse de la liberté”. La révolution de 1908 dans l’Empire ottoman, ed. François Georgeon, Paris: Peeters, 2012, 295-316.

_____, Vangelis, “Protecting the city’s interest: the Greek Orthodox and the conflict between municipal and vilayet authorities in İzmir (Smyrna) in the Second Constitutional Period”, Mediterranean Historical Review, 24:2, December 2009, 207- 221.

_____, Vangelis, “Contesting the Old Order: Greek Orthodox and Muslims in Izmir Welcome the Ottoman Constitutional Revolution”, CAS Working Paper Series, Issue 1, Centre for Advanced Study Sofia, Sofia 2007, 1-18.

Keleş, Erdoğan, “II. Abdülhamid Devrinde Aydın Vilayetinde Sanat ve Meslek Okulları”, History Studies: International Journal of History, 5:2, A Tribute to Prof. Dr. Halil İnalcık, March 2013, 199-241.

Kemal, Yaşar, Çakırcalı Mehmet Efe, İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2007.

Kerim, Fahreddin, Esrar İstimalinden Mütevellit Ruhî Tagayyürler, İstanbul: Kader Matbaası, 1930.

Keyder, Çağlar, “İmparatorlukta hukuk ve meşruiyet”, Toplum ve Bilim, n. 100, Bahar 2004, 65-84.

_____, Çağlar, “Port-cities in the Belle Epoque”, in Biray Kolluoğlu-Meltem Toksöz, eds., Cities of the Mediterranean, I.B. Tauris: New York, 2010, 14-23.

“Khalil Sakakinis Ottoman Prison Diaries: Damascus (1917-1918)”, editorial, Jerusalem Quarterly, 20, January 2004, 7-23.

Kharatian, Albert, “The Armenian Communities of Smyrna and the Aegean Region from the Middle Ages to the Nineteenth-Century Tanzimat”, in Armenian Smyrna/Izmir: The Aegean Communities, ed. Richard G. Hovannisian, Costa Mesta, California: Mazda Publishers, 2012, 55-80.

235

Khater, Akram Fouad, Sources in the History of the Modern Middle East, Boston: Wadsworth, 2004.

Khoury, Dina Rizk, “Administrative Practice Between Religious Law (Shari’a) and State Law (Kanun) On the Eastern Frontiers of the Ottoman State”, Journal of Early Modern History, 5:4, 2001, 305-330.

Kılıç, Rüya, Deliler ve Doktorları: Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyet’e Delilik, İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2014.

Kılıç, Selda, “1864 Vilayet Nizamnamesinin Tuna Vilayetinde Uygulanması ve Midhat Paşa”, Ankara Üniversitesi Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi, 24/37, 3, 2005, 99- 111.

Kıray, Emine, Osmanlı’da Ekonomik Yapı ve Dış Borçlar, İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 1995.

Kırışman, Mustafa, “Fransız Basınında İzmir Yangını Üzerine Bazı Değerlendirmeler”, Çağdaş Türkiye Araştırmaları Dergisi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, 10:22, 2011, 77-93.

Kırlı, Cengiz, “Coffeehouses: Public Opinion in the Nineteenth-Century Ottoman Empire”, in Public Islam and the Common Good, eds. Armando Salvatore-Dale F. Eickelman, Leiden: Brill, 2004, 75-97.

_____, Cengiz, “Yolsuzluğun İcadı: 1840 Ceza Kanunu, İktidar ve Bürokrasi”, Tarih ve Toplum: Yeni Yaklaşımlar, 4, Güz 2006, 45-119.

_____, Cengiz, Yolsuzluğun İcadı: 1840 Ceza Kanunu, İktidar ve Bürokrasi, İstanbul: Verita Kitap, 2015.

_____, Cengiz, Sultan ve Kamuoyu: Osmanlı Modernleşme Sürecinde Havadis Jurnalleri (1840-1844), İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2009.

Kırlı, Biray Kolluoğlu, “Cityscapes and Modernity: Smyrna Morphing into İzmir”, in Ways to Modernity in Greece and Turkey, Encounters with Europe, 1850-1950, eds. Anna Frangoudaki-Çağlar Keyder, London: I.B. Tauris, 2007, 217-235.

Kırmızı, Abdülhamit, “19. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Taşra İdaresi”, in Selçukludan Cumhuriyete Şehir Yönetimi, eds. Erol Özvar-Arif Bilgin, İstanbul: Türkiye Belediyeler Birliği, 2008, 299-319.

Kızılkan, Ayşe Özdemir, ‘Osmanlı’da Kadın Hapishaneleri ve Kadın Mahkûmlar (1839-1922)’, PhD Dissertation, Süleyman Demirel University, 2011.

Kocabıyık, Orkun, Nineteenth Century British Travel Writing on the Levant: Izmir as the Oriental Other in British Travel Writing Tradition, Lambert: Saarbrücken, 2012.

236

Koçak, Filiz, ‘Türkiye’de Sağlık Politikası’nın Gelişimi, 1850-1950’, PhD Dissertation, Yıldız Teknik University, 1995.

Koçi Bey Risalesi, ed. Zuhuri Danışman, İstanbul: MEB, 1972.

Koçu, Reşad Ekrem, İstanbul Ansiklopedisi, v. 8, İstanbul: Koçu Yayınları, 1966.

Koloğlu, Orhan, “İzmir Saat Kulesi’nin Yapım Tarihi Tartışması”, Tarih ve Toplum, 36:214, 2001, 250-251.

_____, Orhan, “Osmanlı Basını: İçeriği ve Rejimi”, in Tanzimat’tan Cumhuriyet’e Türkiye Ansiklopedisi, v. 1, İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 1985, 68-93.

_____, Orhan, Türkiye Karikatür Tarihi, İstanbul: Bileşim Yayınevi, 2005.

Kontantamer, Samira, “Memluklerde Hapishaneler”, in Hapishane Kitabı, eds. Emine Gürsoy Naskali-Hilal Oytun Altun, İstanbul: Kitabevi, 2005, 93-101.

Kontente, Léon, Symrne et l’Occident, Montigny-le-Bretonneux: Yvelinédition, 2005.

Korkut, Cevat, Örnek Bir Yap-İşlet-Devret Modeli: Belgelerle İzmir Rıhtım İmtiyazı, İzmir, 1992.

Koss, Stephen E., The Rise and Fall of the Political Press in Britain, v. 1, The Nineteenth Century, London: Hamish Hamilton, 1981.

Köksal, Yonca, “Urban Space and Nationalism: Changing Local Networks in the Nineteenth-century Ottoman Empire”, in Spatial Conceptions of The Nation: Modernizing Geographies in Greece and Turkey, eds. P. Nikiforos Diamandouros- Thaila Dragonas-Çağlar Keyder, London: I.B. Tauris, 2010, 35-51.

Köksal, Osman “Osmanlı Hukukunda Bir Ceza Olarak Sürgün ve İki Osmanlı Sultanının Sürgünle İlgili Hatt-ı Hümayunları”, Osmanlı Tarihi Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Dergisi, v. 19, Ankara, 2006, 283-341.

Kömürcüyan, Eremya Çelebi, İstanbul Tarihi: XVII. asırda İstanbul, İstanbul: Kurtuluş Basımevi, 1952.

Kuban, Doğan, Osmanlı’nın İstanbul’u: Osmanlı Başkenti İstanbul’u Simgeleyen 112 Anıtsal Yapı, İstanbul: YEM Yayın, 2013.

Kuru, Alev Çakmakoğlu Sinop Hapishanesi, Ankara: Atatürk Kültür Merkezi, 2004.

Küçükkalay, A. Mesud, Osmanlı İthalatı: İzmir Gümrüğü (1818-1839), İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2007.

Küllerinden Doğan Şehir, eds. Erkan Serçe, et.al., İzmir: İBBKKY, 2000.

Le Corbusier en Turquie: Le plan directeur d’Izmir (1939-1949), Catalogue de l’exposition présentée dans le cadre de la Saison de la Turquie en France, 2009.

237

Lefebvre, Henri, The Production of Space, Cambridge: Blackwell, 1991.

Lévy, Noémi, “Yakından Korunan Düzen: Abdülhamid Devrinden İkinci Meşrutiyet Dönemine Bekçi Örneği”, in Osmanlı’da Asayiş, Suç ve Ceza (18.-20. Yüzyıllar), eds. Noémi Levy-Alexandre Toumarkine, İstanbul: TVYY, 2007, 135-145.

Lévy-Aksu, Noémi, Ordre et désordres dans l’Istanbul ottomane (1879-1909), Paris: Karthala, 2013.

_____, Noémi, “Institutional Cooperation and Substitution: The Ottoman Police and Justice System at the Turn of the 19th and 20th Centuries”, in Order and Compromise: Government Practices in Turkey from the Late Ottoman Empire, eds. Marc Aymes, et.al., Leiden: Brill, 2015, 146-169.

_____, Noémi, “Building Professional and Political Communities: The Value of Honor in the Self-Representation of Ottoman Police during the Second Constitutional Period”, European Journal of Turkish Studies, 18, 2014, mis en ligne le 03 février 2014, Consulté le 21 septembre 2014. URL : http://ejts.revues.org/4895

Lewis, Bernard, “The Impact of the West”, The Middle East and the West, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1968, 28-46.

_____, Bernard, Modern Türkiye’nin Doğuşu, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2000.

Lewis, Reina, Rethinking Orientalism: Women, Travel, and the Ottoman Harem, London: I.B. Tauris, 2004.

Lombroso, Cesare, Crime: Its Causes and Remedies, London: William Heinemann, 1911.

_____, Cesare -Gina Lombroso Ferrero, Criminal Man, New York: The Knickerbocker Press, 1911.

_____, Cesare -Guglielmo Ferrero, Criminal Woman, The Prostitute, and the Normal Woman, Durham: Duke University Press, 2004.

Lütfi Paşa, Âsafnâme, Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı, 1982.

Macfarlane, Charles, Kismet:, or the doom of Turkey, London: Thomas Bosworth, 1853.

MacLean, Gerald, Looking East: English Writing and the Ottoman Empire before 1800, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.

Maggio, J., “Can the Subaltern Be Heard”: Political Theory, Translation, Representation, and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Alternatives, v. 32, 2007, 419-443.

238

Maksudyan, Nazan, “Orphans, Cities, and the State: Vocational Orphanages (Islahhanes) and Reform in the Late Ottoman Urban Space”, IJMES, 43 (2011), 493- 511.

_____, Nazan, Orphans and Destitute Children in the Late Ottoman Empire, New York: Syracuse University Press, 2014.

_____, Nazan, “State ‘Parenthood and Industrial Orphanages (Islâhhanes): Transformation of Urbanity and Family Life”, The History of the Family, 16:2, Spring 2011, 172-181.

_____, Nazan, ‘Hearing the Voiceless-Seeing the Invisible: Orphans and Destitute Children as Actors of Social, Economic, and Political History in the Late Ottoman Empire’, PhD Dissertation, Sabancı University, 2008.

Mansel, Philip, Levant: Splendour and Catastrophe on the Mediterranean, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010.

Mardin, Şerif, The Genesis of Young Ottoman Thought: A Study in the Modernization of Turkish Political Ideas, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1962.

Marlow, Louise. "Advice and advice literature." Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE. Edited by: Gudrun Krämer, Denis Matringe, John Nawas, Everett Rowson. Brill Online, 2013. Reference. Ufuk Adak. 27 September 2013 http://referenceworks.brillonline.com.proxy.libraries.uc.edu/entries/encyclopaedia-of- islam-3/advice-and advice-literature-COM_0026

Marmara, Rinaldo, İstanbul Deniz Zindanı 1740, İstanbul: Denizler Kitabevi, 2005.

Martal, Abdullah, Değişim Sürecinde İzmir’de Sanayileşme (19. Yüzyıl), İzmir: Dokuz Eylül Yayınları, 1999.

_____, Abdullah, “19. Yüzyılın Sonlarında Zührevî Hastalıklar”, in Belgelerle Osmanlı Döneminde İzmir, İzmir: Yazıt, 2007, 117-132.

Matthews, Roger, An Introduction to the Sociology of Imprisonment, London: MacMillan Press, 2009.

Matsui, Masako, ‘Production and trade of opium in the Ottoman Empire, 1828-1838), MA Thesis, Boğaziçi University, 1995.

Mazower, Mark, Salonica, City of Ghosts: Jews, Christians, and Muslims, 1430-1950 New York: Vintage Books, 2004.

_____, Mark, The Balkans: From the End of Byzantium to the Present Day, London: Phoenix, 2003.

_____, Mark, “Travellers and the Oriental City, c. 1840-1920”, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Sixth Series, 12, 2002, 59-111.

239

Mcgowan, Bruce, “The Age of the Ayans”, in An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1600-1914, eds. Halil İnalcık-Donald Quataert, v.2, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994, 637-743.

McGowen, Randall, “The Well-Ordered Prison: England, 1780-1865”, in The Oxford History of the Prison: The Practice of Punishment in Western Society, eds. Norval Morris-David J. Rothman, New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Medicine, Madness and Social History: Essays in Honour of Roy Porter, eds. Roberta Bivins-John V. Pickstone, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.

Menekşe, Ömer, ‘XVII. ve XVIII. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Devletinde Hırsızlık Suçu ve Cezası’, PhD dissertation, İstanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi, 1998.

Merquior, J.G., Foucault, İstanbul: Afa Yayınları, 1986.

Mert, Özcan, “Ayan”, Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Ansiklopedisi, IV, 1991, 195-198.

Michaud, Joseph, Correspondence d’Orient, v. III., 1830-1831, Paris: Ducollet, 1834.

Mitchell, Timothy, Colonising Egypt, California: University of California Press, 1988.

Moroni, Ileana, O Ergatis, 1908-1909: Ottomanism, National Economy and Modernization in the Ottoman Empire, İstanbul: Libra, 2010.

Muallim Şövalye Hasan Bahri, Esrarkeşler, ed. Süha Unsal, İstanbul: Kebikeç Yayınları, 1997.

Mumcu, Ahmet, Osmanlı Devleti’nde Siyaseten Katl, Ankara: Phoenix, 2007.

Murray, John, A Handbook for Travellers in Turkey: Describing Constantinople, European Turkey, Asia Minor, Armenia, and Mesopotamia, London: 1854.

Mustafa Nuri Paşa, Netayic ül-Vukuat: Kurumları ve Örgütleriyle Osmanlı Tarihi, c. III-IV, ed. Neşet Çağatay, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1992.

Mutlu, Cengiz, Birinci Dünya Savaşında Amele Taburları (1914-1918), İstanbul: IQ, 2007.

Nadolski, Dora Glidewell, “Ottoman and Secular Civil Law”, IJMES, 8: 4, Oct. 1977, 517-543.

Nahum, Henri, İzmir Yahudileri, 19.-20. Yüzyıl, İstanbul: İletişim, 2000.

Neumann, Cristoph K., “Tanzimat Bağlamında Ahmet Cevdet Paşa’nın Siyasî Düşünceleri”, in Cumhuriyet’e Devreden Düşünce Mirası: Tanzimat ve Meşrutiyet’in Birikimi, İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2009, 83-87.

_____, Cristoph K., Araç Tarih Amaç Tanzimat: Tarih-i Cevdet’in Siyasi Anlamı, İstanbul: TVYY, 2000.

240

_____, Cristoph, “Tanzimat Bağlamında Ahmet Cevdet Paşa’nın Siyasî Düşünceleri”, in Cumhuriyet’e Devreden Düşünce Mirası: Tanzimat ve Meşrutiyet’in Birikimi, İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2009, 83-87.

_____, Cristoph, “Modernitelerin Çatışması Altıncı Daire-i Belediye, 1857-1912”, in İstanbul: İmparatorluk Başkentinden Megakente, ed. Yavuz Köse, (İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2011), 426-453.

_____, Christoph, “Political and Diplomatic Developments” in The Cambridge History of Turkey Volume 3: The Later Ottoman Empire, 1603-1839, ed. Suraiya Faroqhi, New York: Cambridge University, 2006, 44-62.

Nezihi, Raif, İzmir’in Tarihi, ed. Erol Üyepazarcı, İzmir: İBBKKY, 2001.

Nicol, Martha, Ismeer, or Smyrna, and its British hospital in 1855, London: James Madden, 1856.

O’Brien, Patricia, “Prison Reform in France and Other European Countries in the Nineteenth-Century”, Institutions of Confinement: Hospitals, Asylums and Prisons in Western Europe and North America, 1500-1950, eds. Norbert Finzsch-Robert Jütte, Washington, D.C.: Cambridge University Press, 1996, 285-301.

_____, Patricia, “The Prison on the Continent (Europe, 1865-1965)”, in The Oxford History of the Prison: The Practice of Punishment in Western Society, eds. Norval Morris-David J. Rothman, New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

_____, Patricia, The Promise of Punishment: Prisons in the Nineteenth-Century France, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1982.

Oğuz, Çiğdem, Negotiating the Terms of Mercy: Petitions and Pardon Cases in the Hamidian Era, Istanbul: Libra Kitapçılık ve Yayıncılık, 2013.

Oikonomos, Konstantinos-Bonaventure F. Slaars, Destanlar Çağından 19. Yüzyıla İzmir, İzmir: İletişim Yayınları, 2001.

Oktay, Tarkan, “Osmanlı Döneminde Modern Belediye Kurumunun Doğuşu ve Gelişimi”, in Selçukludan Cumhuriyete Şehir Yönetimi, eds. Erol Özvar-Arif Bilgin, İstanbul: Türkiye Belediyeler Birliği, 2008, 377-402.

Oral, Fuat Süreyya Türk Basın Tarihi: Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Dönemi (1728-1922, 1831-1922), Yeni Adım Matbaası.

Orlando Carlo Calumeno Koleksiyonu’ndan Kartpostallar ve Vital Cuinet’nin İstatistikleri ve Anlatımlarıyla Bir Zamanlar İzmir, ed. Osman Köker, İstanbul: Birzamanlar Yayıncılık, 2009.

Ortaylı, İlber, “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Kadı”, TDNVİA, v. 24, 69-73.

_____, İlber, İmparatorluğun En Uzun Yüzyılı, İstanbul: Hil Yayın, 1983.

241

_____, İlber, Tanzimat Devrinde Osmanlı Mahalli İdareleri (1840-1880), Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2000.

Oryantalistlerin İstanbul’u, eds. Zeynep İnankur-Semra Germaner, İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2008.

Osman, Mazhar, Keyf Veren Zehirler, İstanbul, 1934.

_____, Mazhar, Tababet-i Ruhiye, İkinci Cild, İstanbul: Matbaa-i Hayriye, 1910.

Ömer, Besim, Mükeyyifat ve Müskiratdan Afyon, Kahve, Çay, Esrar, İstanbul: Mahmud Bey Matbaası, 1305 (1889).

Özbaran, Salih, Ottoman Expansion Towards the Indian Ocean in the 16th Century, İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2009.

Özbek, Nadir, “’Beggars’ and ‘Vagrants’ in Ottoman State Policy and Public Discourse (1876-1914)”, Middle Eastern Studies, vo. 45, n. 5, September 2009, 783- 801.

_____, Nadir, “II. Meşrutiyet İstanbul’unda Dilenciler ve Serseriler”, Toplumsal Tarih, Nisan 1999, İstanbul, 34-43.

_____, Nadir, “Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda İç Güvenlik, Siyaset ve Devlet (1876- 1909), Türklük Araştırmaları Dergisi, 16, Güz 2004, 59-95.

_____, Nadir, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Sosyal Devlet (1876-1914), İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2002.

_____, Nadir, “Modernite, Tarih ve İdeoloji: İkinci Abdülhamid Dönemi Tarihçiliği Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme”, Literatür, n. 3, 2004, 71-90.

Özçelik, Mücahit, “Mütareke Dönemi’nde Osmanlı Hapishanelerinin Durumu”, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Cumhuriyet Tarihi Araştırmaları Dergisi, year 7, n. 14, Ankara: 2011, 16-40.

Özdemir, Bülent, Ottoman Reform and Social Life: Reflections From Salonica (1830- 1850), İstanbul: The Isis Press, 2003.

Özdemir, Zekeriya, ‘I. Dünya Savaşı’nda Amele Taburları”, MA thesis, Gazi University, 1994.

Özkaya, Yücel, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Âyânlık, Ankara: TTK, 1994.

Özkorkut, Nevin Ünal, “Kapitülasyonların Osmanlı Devleti’nin Yargı Yetkisine Getirdiği Kısıtlamalar”, Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Dergisi, 53:2, 2004, 83-94.

Öztekten, Özkan, “Türkçe’de Mahpus ve Hapishane”, in Hapishane Kitabı, eds. Emine Gürsoy Naskali-Hilal Oytun Altun, İstanbul: Kitabevi, 2005, 607-621.

242

Öztürk, Necdet, “Osmanlılarda Hapis Olayları (1300-1512”, in Hapishane Kitabı, eds. Emine Gürsoy Naskali-Hilal Oytun Altun, İstanbul: Kitabevi, 2005, 101-129.

Öztürk, Sevcan, ‘XIX. Yüzyıl Osmanlı Ceza Sisteminde Dönüşüm: Zindandan hapishaneye geçiş’, MA thesis, Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi, 2014.

Pamuk, Şevket, Osmanlı Ekonomisinde Bağımlılık ve Büyüme (1820-1913), İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı, 2005.

Paz, Omri, ‘Crime, Criminals, and the Ottoman State: Anatolia between the late 1830s and the late 1860s’, PhD dissertation, Tel Aviv University, 2010.

Peirce, Leslie, Mortality Tales: Law and Gender in the Ottoman Court of Aintab, London: University of California Press, 2003.

_____, Leslie, “Changing Perceptions of the Ottoman Empire: the Early Centuries,” Mediterranean Historical Review 19:1 (2004): 6-28.

_____, Leslie, The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire, New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Peters, Rudolph, Crime and Punishment in Islamic Law: Theory and Practice from the Sixteenth to the Twenty-first Century, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Petropoulos, Elias, Songs of the Greek Underworld: The Rebetika Tradition, London: Saqi, 2000.

Petrov, Milen N., “Everyday Forms of Compliance Subaltern Commentaries on Ottoman Reform, 1864-1868”, Comparative Studies in Society and History, n. 46 (2004), 730-759.

Phillips, James, ‘The Eastern Crisis 1875-1878 in British and Russian Press and Society’, PhD dissertation, the University of Nottingham, 2012.

Pınar, İlhan, Gezginlerin Gözüyle İzmir XVIII-XIX v. I, v. II,-XX. Yüzyıl, İzmir: Akademi Kitabevi, 1996; 1994-1996; 1997.

Pouqueville, F.C., Travels in the Morea, Albania, and Other Parts of the Ottoman Empire, London, 1813.

Pollitz, Paul, Psychologie des Verbrechers Kriminalpsychologie. Aus Natur und Geisteswelt Band 248. Leipzig: Druck und Verlag von B. G. Teubner, 1909.

Poole, Stanley Lane The Life of the Right Honourable Stratford Canning Viscount Stratford De Redcliffe: From His Memoirs and Private and Official Papers, London: Longmans, Green, 1888.

243

Port Cities: Dynamic Landscapes and Global Networks, ed. Carola Hein, London: Routledge, 2011.

Porter, Roy, Madness: A Brief History, New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Pratt, John, Punishment and Civilization: Penal Tolerance and Intolerance in Modern Society, London: Sage Publications, 2002.

Quataert, Donald, Workers, Peasants and Economic Change in the Ottoman Empire (1730-1914), Istanbul: Isis Press, 1993.

_____, Donald, The Ottoman Empire (1700-1922), New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Riggs, Charles Trowbridge, in Clarence Richard Johnson, Constantinople To-Day or The Pathfinder Survey of Constantinople: A Study in Oriental Social Life, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1922.

Rolleston, George, Report on Smyrna, London: G.E. Eyre and W. Spottiswoode, 1856.

Rosenthal, Franz İslam’da Özgürlük Kavramı: İslam Düşüncesinde Özgürlük Sorunu ve Boyutları Üzerine Bir İnceleme, İstanbul: Ayışığı Kitapları, 2000.

Rothman, David J., The Discovery of the Asylum: Social Order and Disorder in the New Republic, New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1990.

Rougon, F., Smyrne: Situation Commerciale et Économique, Paris: Berger-Levrault, 1892.

Rousseaux, Xavier, “From Medieval Cities to National States, 1350-1850: The Historiography of Crime and Criminal Justice in Europe”, in Crime History and Histories of Crime: Studies in the Historiography of Crime and Criminal Justice in Modern History, eds. Clive Emsley-Louis A. Knafla, Westport: Greenwood Press, 1996, 3-32.

Rubin, Avi, “British Perceptions of Ottoman Judicial Reform in the Late Nineteenth Century: Some Preliminary Insights”, Law&Social Inquiry, 37:4, Fall 2012, 991- 1012.

_____, Avi, “Legal Borrowing and its Impact on Ottoman Legal Culture in the Late Nineteenth Century”, Continuity and Change, v. 22, Issue 2, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007, 279-303.

_____, Avi, Ottoman Nizamiye Courts: Law and Modernity, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.

_____, Avi, “From Legal Representation to Advocacy: Attorneys and Clients in the Ottoman Nizamiye Courts”, IJMES, 44, 2012, 111-127.

244

Rusche, George-Otto Kirchheimer, Punishment and Social Structure New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2003 [c.1939].

Said, Edward, Orientalism, New York: Vintage Books, 1978. Saka, Reşat, Uyuşturucu Maddeler [Afyon-Morfin-Eroin-Esrar-Kokain] Hakkında Milli ve Milletlerarası Hukukî ve Sosyal Durum, İstanbul: Cumhuriyet Matbaası, 1948.

Sakaoğlu, Necdet, 20. Yüzyıl Başında Osmanlı Kentleri, İzmir: DenizKültür Yayınları, 2010.

Salvatore, Ricardo D. -Carlos Aguirre, “The Birth of the Penitentiary in Latin America: Toward an Interpretive Social History of Prisons”, in The Birth of the Penitentiary in Latin America: Essays on Criminology, Prison Reform, and Social Control, 1830-1940, ed. Ricardo D. Salvatore-Carlos Aguirre, Austin: University of Texas Press, 1996, 1-44.

Saner, Yasemin, “Osmanlı’nın Yüzlerce Yıl Süren Cezalandırma ve Korkutma Refleksi: Prangaya Vurma”, in Osmanlı’da Asayiş, Suç ve Ceza (18.-20. Yüzyıllar eds. Noémi Levy-Alexandre Toumarkine, İstanbul: TVYY, 2007, 163-190.

Say, Memduh, İjiyen Bakımından İzmir Şehri, İzmir: Bilgi Matbaası, 1941.

Scherzer, Charles de, La Province de Smyrne, Vienne, 1873.

Schick, Irvin Cemil The Erotic Margin: Sexuality and Spatiality in Alteritist Discourse, New York: Verso, 1999.

Schievelbusch, Wolfang, The Railway Journey: The Industralization of Time and Space in the 19th Century, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986.

Schmidt, Jan, “Banditry and the Dutch Colony in the Vilayet of Aydın”, in Through The Legation Window, 1876-1926: Four Essays on Dutch, Dutch-Indian and Ottoman History, (Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaelogisch Institut, 1992), 1-24.

_____, Jan, From Anatolia to Indonesia: Opium Trade and the Dutch Community of Izmir, 1820-1940, Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologish Institut, 1998.

Schmitt, Oliver Jens, “Uzun 19. Yüzyılda” İstanbul ve İzmir’de Levantenler: Uluslarüstü Bir Mezhep Grubunun Oluşumu ve “Kimliklerin Oyunu”, in İstanbul: İmparatorluk Başkentinden Megakente, ed. Yavuz Köse, İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2011, 131-155.

Schneider, Irene. "Sidjn.” Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. eds: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs. Brill Online, 2013. Reference. Ufuk Adak. 27 September 2013. http://referenceworks.brillonline.com.proxy.libraries.uc.edu/entries/encyclopaedia-of- islam-2/sidjn-SIM_7012

245

_____, Irene, “Imprisonment in Pre-Classical and Classical Islamic Law”, Islamic Law and Society, 2:2, 1995, 157-173.

Schneider, Chris, “John Howard (1726-1790)”, Encyclopedia of Prisons and Correctional Facilities, vol. 1, ed. Mary Bosworth, (London: Sage Publications, 2005, 450-451.

Schrader, Abby M., Languages of the Lash: Corporal Punishment and Identity in Imperial Russia, Dekalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2003.

Schull, Kent F., Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire: Microcosms of Modernity, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2014.

_____, Kent, “Identity in the Ottoman Prison Surveys of 1912 and 1914”, IJMES, 365-367.

_____, Kent, “Tutuklu Sayımı: Jön Türklerin Sistematik Bir Şekilde Hapishane İstatistikleri Toplama Çalışmaları ve Bunların 1911-1918 Hapishane Reformu Üzerine Etkileri”, in Osmanlı’da Asayiş, Suç ve Ceza, 18.-20. Yüzyıllar, eds. Noémi Levy and Alexandre Toumarkine, İstanbul: TVYY, 2007, 212-238.

_____, Kent Fielding Schull, ‘Penal Institutions, Nation-state Construction, and Modernity in the Late Ottoman Empire, 1908-1919’, PhD Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 2007.

Scull, Andrew, Social Order/Mental Disorder: Anglo-American Psychiatry in Historical Perspective, Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1989.

Serçe, Erkan, Tanzimat’tan Cumhuriyet’e İzmir’de Belediye (1868-1945), İzmir: Dokuz Eylül Yayınları, 1998.

Shafir, Nir, “The International Congress as Scientific and Diplomatic Technology: Global Intellectual Exchange in the International Prison Congress, 1860-1890”, Journal of Global History, 9:1, (March 2014), 72-93.

Sharif, Malek, Imperial Norms and Local Realities: The Ottoman Municipal Laws and the Municipality of Beirut (1860-1908), Beirut: Orient-Institut Beirut, 2014.

Shefer, Miri, “Hospitals in the Ottoman Empire in the Early Modern Period”, in Poverty and Charity in Middle Eastern Contexts, eds. Michael Bonner, Mine Ener, et. al., Albany: State University of New York Press, 2003, 121-143.

Shiffer, Reinhold, Oriental Panaroma: British Travellers in the 19th Century Turkey, Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1999.

“Sid̲ j̲ ill.” Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs. Brill Online, 2013. Reference. University Of Cincinnati. 30 September 2013 http://referenceworks.brillonline.com.proxy.libraries.uc.edu/entries/encyclopaedia-of- islam-2/sidjill-COM_1069.

246

Sim, Joe, Medical Power in Prisons: The Prison Medical Service in England, 1774- 1989, Philadelphia: Open University Press, 1990. Singer, Amy, İyilik Yap Denize At: Müslüman Toplumlarda Hayırseverlik, İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2012.

_____, Amy, “Charity Legacies: A Reconsideration of Ottoman Imperial Endowment-Making”, in Poverty and Charity in Middle Eastern Contexts, eds. Michael Bonner, Mine Ener, et. al., Albany: State University of New York Press, 2003, 295-313.

Smyrnelis, Marie-Carmen, Une Ville Ottomane: Smyrne Aux XVIIIe et XIXe Siécles, İstanbul: ISIS, 2006.

_____, Marie-Carmen, Une société hors de soi: Identités et relations sociales à Smyrne aux XVIIIe et XIXe siécles, Paris: Peeters, 2005.

_____, Marie-Carmen, “Yangın, Bir Yaşam Modelinin Sonu”, in İzmir (1830-1930) Unutulmuş Bir Kent mi?: Bir Osmanlı Limanından Hatıralar, ed. Marie-Carmen Smyrnelis, İleşitim: İstanbul, 2009.

Sohrabi, Nader, Revolution and Constitutionalism in the Ottoman Empire and Iran, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

Solakyan, A., Bantayin Husher: Vani Kentronakan Banti Zndan, Erevan: Zangak-97, 2002.

Somar, Ziya, Yakın çağların fikir ve edebiyat tarihimizde İzmir, İzmir: Nefaset Matbassı, 1944.

_____, Ziya, Bir Şehr’in ve Bir Adam’ın Tarihi: Tevfik Nevzat: İzmir’in İlk Fikir ve Hürriyet Kurbanı, İzmir: Ahenk Matbaası, 1948.

Somerville, A.N., İskoç Misyonerin Gözüyle İzmir ve Çevresi, İzmir: Tepekule Kitaplığı Yayınları, 2008.

Son Vak’anüvis Abdurrahman Şeref Efendi Tarihi: II. Meşrutiyet Olayları (1908- 1909), eds. Bayram Kodaman-Mehmet Ali Ünal, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1996.

Southall, Aidan, The City in Time and Space, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Sönmez, Ali, “Zaptiye Teşkilatı’nın Düzenlenmesi (1840-1869)”, Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi, Ankara Üniversitesi, Mart 2006, 39, 199-219.

_____, Ali, ‘Zaptiye Teşkilatının Kuruluşu, 1846-1879’, PhD Dissertation, Ankara Üniversitesi, 2005.

Sözen, Metin, Topkapı, İstanbul: Hürriyet Gazetecilik, 1998.

247

Spierenburg, Pieter, The Prison Experience: Disciplinary Institutions and Their Inmates in Early Modern Europe, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2007.

_____, Pieter, “The Body and the State: Early Modern Europe” in The Oxford History of the Prison: The Practice of Punishment in Western Society, eds. Norval Morris- David J. Rothman, New York: Oxford University Press, 1998, 44-71.

_____, Pieter, “Four Centuries of Prison History: Punishment, Suffering, the Body, and Power”, in Institutions of Confinement: Hospitals, Asylums, and Prisons in Western Europe and North America (1500-1950), eds. Norbert Finzsch-Robert Jütte, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996, 17-39.

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty, “Can the Subaltern Speak?”, in Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, eds Cary Nelson-Lawrence Grossberg, Urbana: University of Illionis Press, 1988, 271-313.

Sprunger, Michael L., ‘Grafting Justice: Crime and The Politics of Punishment in Korea, 1875-1938’, PhD Dissertation, University of Hawai’i, 2011.

Swanson, G.W., “The Ottoman Police”, Journal of Contemporary History, v. 7, n. 1- 2, 1972, 243-260.

Şen, Hasan, ‘Transformation of Punishment Politics and Birth of the Prison in the Ottoman Empire (1845-1910)’, MA thesis, Boğaziçi Üniversitesi, 2005.

Şen, Ömer, Osmanlı’da Mahkum Olmak: Avrupalılaşma Sürecinde Hapishaneler, İstanbul: Kapı Yayınları, 2007.

Şentop, Mustafa, “Tanzimat Dönemi Kanunlaştırma Faaliyetleri”, TALİD, 3:5, 2005, 647-672.

Şenyurt, Oya, “20. Yüzyılın İlk Çeyreğinde Anadolu ve İstanbul’da Bazı Hapishane İnşaatları”, Arredamento Mimarlık: Tasarım Kültür Dergisi, 9, İstanbul: Boyut Yayıncılık, 2003, 76-80.

Şerif, Ahmet, Anadolu’da Tanin, İstanbul: Kavram Yayınları, 1977.

Tahiroğlu, Bülent, “Tanzimat’tan Sonra Kanunlaştırma Hareketleri”, Tanzimat’tan Cumhuriyet’e Türkiye Ansiklopedisi, v. 3, İstanbul: İletişim, 1985, 588-601.

Tamari, Salim, “Confessionalism and Public Space in Ottoman and Colonial Jerusalem”, in Cities and Sovereignty: Identity Politics in Urban Spaces, eds. Diane E. Davis-Nora Libertun de Duren, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2011, 59- 82.

Tamer, Aytül, ‘Birinci Dünya Savaşı’nda İngiltere ve ABD’nin Osmanlı Devleti’ne Karşı Yürüttüğü Propaganda Faaliyetlerinin Amerika ve İngiliz Basını Bağlamında İncelenmesi’, PhD dissertation, Ankara Üniversitesi, 2010.

248

Tansuğ, N. Feryal, ‘Communal Relations in İzmir/Smyrna, 1826-1864: As Seen Through The Prism of Greek-Turkish Relations’, PhD Dissertation, University of Toronto, 2008.

Tarık Zafer Tunaya Anısına Yadigâr-ı Meşrutiyet, ed. Mehmet Ö. Alkan, İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2010.

Taylor, Susan Beth, ‘Ruining Oppositions: Orientalism and the Constructions of Empire in British Romanticism’, PhD dissertation, Brown University, 1993.

Tekelioğlu, Orhan Michel Foucault ve Sosyolojisi, İstanbul: Bağlam Yayınları, 1999.

Tekin, Saadet, “Dr. Polliç Bey’in 1918 Tarihli Raporuna Göre Berlin ve Aydın Vilayeti Hapishanelerine Genel Bir Bakış”, Osmanlı Tarihi Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Dergisi (OTAM), n. 24/2008, Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi, 2010, 205-223.

_____, Saadet, “19. Yüzyıl Sonu 20. Yüzyıl Başlarında Nazilli Hapishanelerine Kısa Bir Bakış”, Tarih ve Toplum, Ocak 2001, v. 205, 11-14.

Tezcan, Baki, The Second Ottoman Empire: Political and Social Transformation in the Early Modern World, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

The City in the Ottoman Empire: Migration and the making of urban modernity, eds. Ulrike Freitag-Malte Fuhrmann, et.al., New York: Routledge, 2011.

The Cesare Lombroso Handbook, eds. Paul Knepper-P.J. Ystehede, New York: Routledge, 2013.

Themopoulo, Emilia, “The Urbanisation of An Asia Minor City”, in Smyrna: Metropolis of the Asia Minor Greeks, Alimos: Center for Asia Minor Studies, 2002, 77-114.

Thompson, Elizabeth F., Justice Interrupted: The Struggle for Constitutional Government in the Middle East, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2013.

Thornbury, Walter, Turkish Life and Character, London: 1860.

Toler, Pamela D., ‘Building the Orient of the Imagination: Excess, Confusion, and Violence in Orientalist Painting and Literature’, PhD Dissertation, the University of Chicago, 2003.

Topuz, Hıfzı, II. Mahmut’tan Holdinglere Türk Basın Tarihi, İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2003.

Toumarkine, Alexandre, “Adli Doktorlar, Ruh Doktorları ve Şeyhler: Kummerau Olayı (1880) ve Bilirkişilik Meselesi”, in Osmanlı’da Asayiş, Suç ve Ceza (18.-20. Yüzyıllar), İstanbul: TVYY, 2007, 96-115.

249

Tulasoğlu, Gülay, “Humble Efforts in Search of Reform: Consuls, Pashas, and Quarantine in Early-Tanzimat Salonica”, in Well-Connected Domains: Towards an Entangled Ottoman History, ed. Pascal W. Firges, Tobias P. Graf, et. al., Leiden: Brill, 2014, 188-206.

Tuna, Serkan, Her Devrin Bayramı: Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyet’e Meşrutiyet Bayramı (1909-1935), İstanbul: Derlem Yayınları, 2010.

Tural, Erkan, “Bir Belge: 1864 ve 1871 Vilayet Nizamnameleri ve 1876 İdare-i Umumiyye-i Vilâyât Talimâtnâmesi”, Çağdaş Yerel Yönetimler, 14:1, Ocak 2005, 71- 91.

Turan, Namık Sinan, İmparatorluk ve Diplomasi: Osmanlı Diplomasisinin İzinde, İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2014.

Turna, Nalan, 19. yy.’den 20. yy.’e Osmanlı Topraklarında Seyahat, Göç ve Asayiş Belgeleri: Mürûr Tezkereleri, İstanbul: Kaknüs, 2013.

Tutsak, Sadiye, İzmir’de Eğitim ve Eğitimciler (1850-1950), Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı, 2002.

Türker, Ebru Aykut, ‘Alternative Claims on Justice and Law: Rural Arson and Poison Murder in the 19th Century Ottoman Empire’, PhD dissertation, İstanbul: Boğaziçi University, 2011.

Uluengin, Mehmet Bengü, “Secularizing Anatolia Tick By Tick: Clock Towers in the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic”, IJMES, 42, (2010), 17-36.

_____, Mehmet Bengü-Ömer Turan, “İmparatorluğun İhtişam Arayışından Cumhuriyet’in Radikal Modernleşme Projesine: Türkiye’de Kentsel Planlamanın İlk Yüzyılı”, TALİD, 3:6, 2005, 353-436.

Uluslararası Amerikan Koleji Araştırma Komitesi, İzmir’de Bazı Sosyal Koşullar Hakkında Bir Araştırma, İzmir 1921, İzmir: İBBKKY, 2000.

Urban Governance Under the Ottomans: Between Cosmopolitanism and Conflict, eds. Ulrike Freitag-Nora Lafi, London: Routledge, 2014.

Uslu, Muharrem, ‘Erzincan’da Suç, Suçlu ve Hapishane’, MA thesis, Erzincan Üniversitesi, 2010.

Uysal Ahmet-Nurgul Bozkurt, “Crime in the Late Ottoman Empire, 1910-1911”, Research Journal of Social Sciences, 3, 2008, 49-59.

Uzunçarşılı, İsmail Hakkı, Midhat Paşa ve Rüştü Paşaların Tevkiflerine Dâir Vesikalar, Ankara: TTK, 1991.

_____, İsmail Hakkı, Midhat Paşa ve Tâif Mahkûmları, Ankara: TTK, 1985.

250

Uzuntepe, Gülçin, ‘Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda İlk Demiryolu: İzmir-Aydın-Kasaba (Turgutlu), (1856-1897), MA thesis, Eskişehir Anadolu Üniversitesi, 2000.

Ülker, Necmi, ‘The Rise of Izmir (1688-1740)’, PhD dissertation, the University of Michigan, 1974.

Ünal, Sevim, “Tanzimat Döneminde Dış Politika”, in Tanzimat’ın 150. Yıldönümü Uluslararası Sempozyumu, Ankara: 31 Ekim-3 Kasım 1989, Ankara: TTK, 1994, 203-210.

Ünalerzen, Edip, “1296’dan beri Hapishaneciliğimiz ve Ceza Sistemimiz”, İstanbul Barosu Mecmuası, v. 8, Istanbul: 1943, 482-497.

Veinstein, Gilles, “Osmanlılar ve Avrupa Kavramı”, in Harp ve Sulh: Avrupa ve Osmanlılar, ed. Dejanirah Couto, İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2010, 47-55.

Veldet, Hıfzı, “Kanunlaştırma Hareketleri ve Tanzimat”, in Tanzimat 1, İstanbul: MEB, 1999, 139-209.

Vere, Onur Gülsün, ‘Mütareke’den İşgale İzmir’de Rumlar’, MA thesis, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, İzmir, 2007.

Warr, Michael, A Biography of Stratford Canning: Mainly His Career in Turkey, Oxford: Alden Press, 1989.

Werrett, Simon, “Potemkin and the Panopticon: Samuel Bentham and the Architecture of Absolutism in Eighteenth Century Russia”, Journal of Bentham Studies, 2, 1999, 1-25.

Wetzell, Richard F., Inventing the Criminal: A History of German Criminology, 1880- 1945, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000.

Williams, Kevin, Read All About It!: A history of the British newspaper, New York: Routledge, 2010.

Wright, David, “Getting Out of the Asylum: Understanding the Confinement of the Insane in the Nineteenth Century”, Social History of Medicine, 10:1, 1997, 137-155.

Yakut, Esra, “Tanzimat Dönemi’ne Kadar Osmanlı Hukuku’nda Taziri Gerektiren Suçlar ve Cezaları”, Türkiye Hukuk Tarihi Araştırmaları, 2, 2006 (Güz), 25-40.

Yanıkdağ, Yücel, Healing the Nation: Prisoners of War, Medicine and Nationalism in Turkey, 1914-1939, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2013.

_____, Yücel, “Ottoman Prisoners of War in Russia, 1914-22”, Journal of Contemporary History, 34:1, Jan. 1999, 69-85.

Yapucu, Olcay Pullukçuoğlu, Modernleşme Sürecinde Bir Sancak: Aydın, İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2007.

251

Yenişehirlioğlu, Filiz Çalışlar, “Urban Texture and Architectural Styles after the Tanzimat”, in Economy and Society on Both Shores of the Aegean, eds. Lorans Tanatar Baruh-Vangelis Kechriotis, Athens: Alpha Bank Historical Archives, 2010, 487-526.

Yerasimos, Stefanos, “Tanzimat’ın Kent Reformaları Üzerine”, Modernleşme Sürecinde Osmanlı Kentleri, eds. Paul Dumont-François Georgeon, İstanbul: TVYY, 1996.

Yerolympos, Alexandra, “Urban Transformations in the European Provinces of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the 19th Century”, in in Economy and Society on Both Shores of the Aegean, eds. Lorans Tanatar Baruh-Vangelis Kechriotis, Athens: Alpha Bank Historical Archives, 2010, 449-487.

_____, Alexandra, “Formes spatiales d’expansion urbaine et le rôle des communautés non musulmanes à l’époque des Réformes”, Revue des mondes musulmans et de la Méditerranée, September 2005, 107-110, http://remmm.revues.org/2801.

Yetişgin, Mehmet, “Batı basınından Osmanlı Devleti’ne yaklaşımlar ve Osmanlıların bu yaklaşımlara tepkileri”, Ankara Üniversitesi Osmanlı Tarihi Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Dergisi, 28, 2010, 119-162.

Yetkin, Sabri, Ege’de Eşkiyalar, İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 1997.

Yıldız, Gültekin, Mapusâne: Osmanlı Hapishanelerinin Kuruluş Serüveni (1839- 1908), İstanbul: Kitabevi, 2012.

_____, Gültekin, ‘Osmanlı Devleti’nde Hapishane Islahatı (1838-1908)’, MA thesis, Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul, 2002.

Yıldız, Murat, “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Bir Saray Hapishanesi: 18.-19. Yüzyıllarda Bostancıbaşı Mahbesi”, Türkiyat Mecmuası, c. 22/Bahar, 2012, 239-275.

Yıldıztaş, Mümin, ‘Mütareke Döneminde Suç Unsurları ve İstanbul Hapishaneleri’, MA thesis, İstanbul Üniversitesi, 1997.

_____, Mümin, Yaralı Payitaht İstanbul’un İşgali, İstanbul: Yeditepe, 2010.

Yosmaoğlu, İpek K., “Marching on an Empty Stomach: Practical Aspects of Gendarmerie Reform in Ottoman Macedonia”, in Economy and Society on Both Shores of the Aegean, eds. Lorans Tanatar Baruh-Vangelis Kechriotis, (Athens: Alpha Bank Historical Archives, 2010), 277-297.

_____, İpek, Blood Ties: Religion, Violence, and the Politics of Nationhood in Ottoman Macedonia, 1878-1908, New York: Cornell University, 2014.

Yunanca Rehberlere Göre Meşrutiyette İzmir, ed. Engin Berber, İzmir: İBBKY, 2008.

Zandi-Sayek, Sibel, Ottoman Izmir: The Rise of a Cosmopolitan Port (1840-1880), London: University of Minnesota Press, 2012.

252

_____, Sibel, “Struggles Over the Shore: Building the Quay of Izmir”, City and Society, 12:55, 55-78.

Zarinebaf, Fariba, Crime and Punishment in Istanbul (1700-1800), Berkley, California: University of California Press, 2010.

Ziadeh, Farhat J., “Criminal Law”, The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t236/e0170.

Zindanlar ve Mahkumlar, eds. Emine Gürsoy Naskali and Hilal Oytun Altun, İstanbul: Babil, 2006.

Zinoman, Peter, The Colonial Bastille: A History of Imprisonment in Vietnam (1862- 1940), Berkeley: California University Press, 2001.

Zürcher, Eric Jan, Modernleşen Türkiye’nin Tarihi, İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2003.

_____, Eric Jan, The Young Turk Legacy and Nation Building, London: I.B. Tauris, 2010.

253

Appendices

A section of an Ottoman prison BOA., DH.MB.HPS., 148/114, 1331 (1912).

254

A plan of prison for sixty prisoners and a detention center to be built in towns. BOA., DH.MB.HPS.M., 53/26, undated.

255

An engraving illustrating İzmir in the 17th century. The red squares indicate the cemeteries of Greeks and Europeans where İzmir prison was built in. “İzmir’in iki yüz sene evvelki resmi olub ikinci defa olarak matbaa-i vilayetde suret-i mahsusada tab’ ve işbu salnameye rabt edilmişdir.” 1891 tarihli Aydın Vilayet Salnamesi, 560. 19-20: “Şimdi Kışla meydanı arkasındaki cesim habshanedir”.

256

The plan of the Bloody Tower (Kanlı Kule) in Salonica. BOA., İ.DH. 622/43262.

257

The physical descriptions of Ottoman prisons in the British consular report. BOA., MVL. 246/49 4 R 1268 (January 4, 1852)

258

The cover of Ottoman Police newspapers. Photographing crime scenes and studios for photographing prisoners in the Department of Police in Vienna. Polis Gazetesi, March 7, 1912.

259

Criminals on the cover of Polis Gazetesi, April 4, 1912.

260

Polis Mecmuası, v. 36, January 14, 1915, 858.

İzmir’de Peştemalcılarbaşı civarında şişe tüccarından Vasil Papa Döponun iki kasasını birden kırmağa cüret eden İlya Zakityanos, nam diğeri Mastroyani ve rüfeka- yı melaneti ile merkumları derdest hususunda hidmet-i fevkaladesi görülmüş olan İzmir taharri dairesi ser komiseri Karşıyakalı Ahmed Asım Efendi [merkum (İlya Zakityanos)un bundan bir kaç ay evvel Beyoğlunda (Empero Bakali) sahibi Dimitri Lakinin mağazasına dühul ve içinde yatan bekçiyi katl ederek kasasını kıran eşhasdan olduğu maznundur.] 1-Taharri dairesi ser komiseri Karşıyakalı Ahmed Asım Efendi 2- Kasa hırsızlarına iş bulan kazmırcı (?) esnafından an-asl Sakızlı Panayot 3- Meşhur kasa hırsızı İlya Zakityanos, nam diğer Mastroyani 4- Kasa hırsızlarına iş bulunlardan kunduracı Espanoz Ligor 5- Sarik ve kasa hırsızlarından Avusturyalı marangoz Nikolaki

261

İzmir’de vilayet polis müdiri tarafından sarf olunan himmet ve gayretle müceddeden inşa edilen Kemer polis karakolhanesi. Police station in Kemer in İzmir. Polis Mecmuası, January 14, 1915, 1.

262

İzmir’de Keçeciler mahallesinde müceddeden inşa olunan polis karakolhanesi. Police station on Keçeciler Street in İzmir. Polis Mecmuası, January 14, 1915, 847.

263

İzmir’de vilayet polis müdirinin gayretiyle müceddeden inşa olunan Aziziye polis karakolhanesi. Police Station in Aziziye in İzmir. Polis Mecmuası, January 14, 1915, 846.

264

İzmir’de müceddeden inşa olunan Kemeraltı polis karakolu. Police station in Kemeraltı in İzmir. Polis Mecmuası, January 14, 1915, 859.

265

İzmir’de bu kere inşaatı ikmal edilen Peştemalcıbaşı merkezine merbut Keçeciler Polis Karakolu. Police station in Keçeciler in İzmir. Polis Mecmuası, March 29, 1915, 85.

266

İzmir’de Fasulya Polis Karakolhanesi. Mani-i ikamet bir halde harab iken Aydın Polis müdiri Cemal Beyin delaleti ve hamiyyetmendan ahalinin ianaesiyle tecdiden ve tevsian inşa olunmuşdur derununda karakol mürettebatına mahsus olmak üzere bir de mükemmel lokanta mevcuddur. Polis Mecmuası, September 23, 1913, 105.

267

İzmir’de Pasaport polis karakolhanesi. Mani-i ikamet bir halde harab iken hamiyyetmendan ahalinin ianatıyla tecdiden ve tevsian inşa olunmuşdur. Polis Mecmuası, September 23, 1913, 104.

268

İzmir polis komiserlerinden iken bila vukuat otuz sene hidmet ederek bu kere tekaüden meslekden infikak eden Yenişehirli Ali Bahri Efendi’nin hidmet-i vakıasının bir yadigar-ı kıymetdarı olmak üzere Aydın vilayeti polis heyetine mahsus teshilat sandukınca mümaileyhe ita olunan bir altın saat Fasulya polis karakolunda heyet muvacehesinde merasim-i fevkalade ile suret-i itası. Polis Mecmuası, November 29, 1913, 201.

269

Bu kere İzmir’de müceddeden inşa olunan Çorakkapı karakolhanesinin Aydın vilayeti polis heyetini teşkil eden memurin-i zabıta ile aldırılan resmi. Polis Mecmuası, August 14, 1916, 254.

270

Greek Landing in Smyrna, May 1919. Turkish prisoners in Turkish prison courtyard during Greek landing in Smyrna. Courtesy Imperial War Museum. (Q 14092)

271

Greek Landing in Smyrna, May 1919. Turkish prisoners in Turkish prison courtyard, in which is a British soldier. Courtesy Imperial War Museum. (Q 14093)

272

Greek Landing in Smyrna, May 1919. The Rev. Hugh J. Embling, R.N., District Chaplain, Aegean Command, paying a visit of inspection to a prison where the Greeks have incarcerated Turks. Courtesy Imperial War Museum. (Q 14099)

273

Greeks escorting two Turkish prisoners, Smyrna. Courtesy Imperial War Museum. (Q 14091)

274

Greek Landing in Smyrna, May 1919. Turkish prisoners and their Greek guards resting in the shade. Courtesy Imperial War Museum. (Q 14098)

275

Greek Landing in Smyrna, May 1919. Turkish prisoners in Turkish prison courtyard with Greek troops and a British bluejacket of HMS HIND. Courtesy Imperial War Museum. (Q 14094)

276

Turkish prisoners in the prison yard in Smyrna. Courtesy Imperial War Museum. (Q 14095)

277

Hizmet, “Yeni Hapishane Yapılacak”, November 3, 1931, 1-3.

278

Guide d’Izmir, (Istanbul, 1934), from Izmir Plan. The number 22 refers to Izmir Prison, 23 refers to the National Library (Milli Kütüphane).

279

The destruction of Izmir prison. Yeni Asır, December 6, 1959.

280

Yeni Asır, December 27, 1959.

281

The field after the destruction of Izmir Prison. An undated photograph. APIKAM.

282

Hapishane Gardiyanları İçin Talimatdır

(The Regulation for Prison Guards)709

Fasl-ı evvel

(Gardiyanların hal ve sıfatları beyanındadır.)

Birinci madde: Her vilayetin merkez idaresi ile liva ve kazalar habshaneleriçün bir gardiyan sınıfı teşkil olunacakdır.

İkinci madde: Gardiyanlığa seneleri yirmibeşden elliye kadar olmak üzere her sınıf tebaadan adam intihab edilecekdir.

Üçüncü madde: Cünha ve cinayetle mahkumen ceza görmüş ve bir sıfat-ı gayr-i makbule ile şöhret almış adamlar intihaba konulmayacakdır.

Fasl-ı Sani

(Suret-i intihabları beyanındadır.)

Dördüncü madde: Gardiyan sınıfı her mahalin hal ve mevkiine ve habshanelerinin cesametine ve mahbusinin adadına göre intihab ve tertib kılınacakdır.

Beşinci madde: Emr-i intihabda ehliyet ve emniyete bakılub vesait-i saireye ve nisbet ve taalluka itibar olunmayacakdır.

Altıncı madde: Emr-i intihab vilayet ve sancak ve kazalar idare mecalis marifetiyle icra edilecekdir.

Fasl-ı Salis

(Kıyafetleri beyanındadır.)

Yedinci madde: Bulundukları mahal ve mevkie göre gardiyanlara abadan setri ve pantolon ve çuka veya beyaz elbise giydirilecek ve alamet-i farika olmak üzere yakalarına ve kollarının el üzerine gelen mahallinin dört parmak mikdarı yerine sarı çuka dikilecekdir.

Sekizinci madde: Gardiyanların elbise bahası kendi taraflarından tesviye edilecekdir.

Fasl-ı Rabi

(Vazifeleri beyanındadır.)

709 BOA., A.DVN.MKL. 13/22 11.Ra.1293 (April 6, 1876), Düstur, Fihristli 1-4 Cilt, v. 3 (1293), 220- 222.

283

Dokuzuncu madde: Gardiyanların vezaifi habshanelerin nezafet ve taharetine ve münhal-i sıhhat-i halatin define dikkat etmek ve mahbusinin muayyen olan ekmeklerini ellerine ita eylemek ve habshaneleri süpürüb yıkamak ve mutad olan günlerde mahbusinin elbisesini tathir etdirmek ve soğukdan muhafazalarına bakmak ve kandillerini yakmak ve sularını mevcud bulundurmak ve mahbesde bulunan hastaların hidmetlerini görmek ve mahbusinin uygunsuz bir harekete teşebbüslerini his etdiklerinde zabıtaya haber vermek maddeleridir.

Onuncu madde: Taht-ı istintakda habs ve tevkif olunan erbab-ı cürm ve cinayetin kaide-i mevzuası vechle yekdiğeriyle ihtilat edememelerine ve mehakim-i kararıyla ihtilatdan men olunanların haricden bir kimse ile görüşmemelerine ve mahkemeler tarafından görülmedikçe mektub alub verememelerine gardiyanlar dikkat edeceklerdir ve ihtilatdan memnu olanlardan hafiyen mektub veren olur ise ele geçirilmesiyle beraber bulundukları mahallin en büyük memurlarına irae eyleyeceklerdir.

Onbirinci madde: Gardiyanların habshanelere dühullerinde yanlarında çakı v eve bıçak gibi alet-i cariha ve silah bulunması ve habsler hakkında muamele-i baride göstermeleri memnudur.

Fasl-ı Hamis

(Mevadd-ı Umumiye beyanındadır.)

Onikinci madde: Dördüncü maddede gösterildiği vechle her mahal habshanelerinin hal ve vüsat ve mahbusinin adadına göre yeniden intihab ve tayin olunacak gardiyanların maaşları hadd-i itidale riayeten taraf-ı hükümetden temdid ve tahsis ve bu sınıfın efradına muhtacin-i mahbusinin bir neferine verildiği mikdar yevmi ekmek tayini ita kılınacakdır.

Onüçüncü madde: Müstahdem bulunan gardiyanların maaşları her ay gayetinde mikdarını mübeyyin alelesami ita edecekleri istidanameler vilayetlerde divan-ı temyiz ve sancaklarda meclis-i temyizler ile kazalarda deavi meclisinden badettasdik tevzi ve ita kılınacakdır.

Madde-i Mahsusa

Vali ve mutasarrıf ve kaimmakamlarla bilumum mecalis-i rüesa ve azası her vaktde habshanelerin teftiş-i ahvaline ve mahbusinin istirahatlerine ve gardiyan sınıfının işbu talimat mucebince hidmetlerini ifa edüb etmediklerine bakacaklardır ve mahbusin-i mevcudeden dahi sual-i hal edeceklerdir gardiyanlardan gerek vazifelerini su-i istimal edenler ve gerek mahbusin hakkında bir guna hareket-i gayr-i layıkada bulunanlar olur ise hidmetlerinden tard ile haklarında kanunen muamele-i cezaiyye icrası mukarrerdir. Fi 11 Rebiyyülevvel sene 293 ve fi 25 Mart sene 292.

284