^{page 258 note 1} I take ‘civil society’ here in the sense in which Marx used it: ‘Hegel's profundity lies in his view of the separation of civil and political society as a contradiction. But he is wrong in that he contents himself with the semblance of its resolution and passes the semblance off for the real thing. The fact is that the so-called theories which he despises demand the separation of civil and political status; and rightly so, since they articulate one of the consequences of modern society, namely that now the element of political stratification is nothing other than the factual expression of the actual relation between the State and civil society, that is, their separation.’ Cited by Runciman, W. G., Social Science and Political Theory (Cambridge, University Press, 1963), pp. 32–3Google Scholar, from Marx-Engels Gesamtausgabe, I, 1, i, 492. For Hegel's, own definition see Hegel: Selections (Loewenberg, J., ed., New York, Scribners, 1929), p. 236. Locke does not make this distinction.Google Scholar

^{page 259 note 1} Bendix, Reinhard, Nation-Building and Citizenship: Studies of our Changing Social Order (New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1964), p. 36.Google Scholar See Grinaschi, Mario, ‘Les guerriers domestiques dans la féodalité turque’, in Kurumu, T¨rk Tarih, ed., VI Turk Tarih Kongresi (Ankara, 1967), pp. 206–30Google Scholar, for illustrations in an early Turkish context. Also CI. Cahen, , ‘Reflexions sur l'usage du mot “Féodalité”,' Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, III (04 1960), 7.Google Scholar

^{page 259 note 2} Inalcik, Halil, ‘The Nature of Traditional Society. Turkey’, in Ward, Robert and Rustow, Dank-wart, eds. Political Modernization in Japan and Turkey (Princeton, 1964), p. 44.Google Scholar

^{page 260 note 1} Bendix, Reinhard, Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait (New York, 1960), p. 204.Google Scholar Cf.Freidrich, Carl Joachim, Man and His Governments: An Empirical Theory of Politics (New York, McGraw-Hill, 1963), p. 180.Google Scholar

^{page 260 note 2} Bendix, , op. cit., p. 204.Google Scholar

^{page 260 note 3} Tott, Baron de, Memoirs (London, 1785), II, p. 144.Google Scholar

^{page 260 note 4} Bendix, , op. cit., p. 364.Google Scholar

^{page 260 note 5} On the hisba function in Turkey, see Barkan, Ömer Lütfü, ‘XV. asrin sonunda bazi büyük sehirlerde eşsya ve yiyecek fiyatlarinin tesbit ve teftişi hususlarini tanzim eden kanunlar’, Tarih Vesikalari, I (02 1942), 326–40.Google ScholarHalil, Inalcik has a different interpretation in ‘Capital Formation in the Ottoman Empire’, Journal of Economic History, xxix (03 1969), 97–140.Google Scholar Cf. Gibb, H. A. R. and Bowen, Harold, Islamic Society and the West, I, Islamic Society in the 18th Century, Part 1 (London, Oxford University Press, (1950–1967), p. 288Google Scholar, and Baer, G., ‘Gilds in Middle Eastern History’, paper submitted to the Conference on the Economic History of the Middle East, School of Oriental and African Studies,London University,4–6 July 1967,)6.Google Scholar For the situation in Europe see ‘Gilds, ’, International Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences (New York, Macmillan and Free Press, 1968), VI, p. 184.Google Scholar For earlier Turkic practices see Inalcik, Halil, ‘Kutadgu Bilig'de Türk ve Iran Siyaset Nazariye ve Gelenekleri’Google Scholar, Rahmeti Arat için (Ankara, 1966), p. 270.

^{page 260 note 6} See ‘Feudalism’, IESS, V, p. 395.Google Scholar

^{page 260 note 7} For a discussion of the theoretical framework of such control see Parsons, Talcott, ed., The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (Glencoe, I11., Free Press, 1947), pp. 315, 351–2.Google Scholar

^{page 260 note 8} Inalcik, ‘Capital Formation’.

^{page 261 note 1} That corporate organization was not considered to be the normal organization of trade appears with startling vividness in the instructions of the Second Commission on Industrial Reform organized during the nineteenth century to remedy the weakness of Ottoman industry. ‘There is no basis for and no advantage in the individual and separate endeavor of the tradesmen as of old, and their attainment is dependent upon their common and united efforts in arranging for the organization of an association among their interests and skills, with as much capital as necessary’. See sarç, Ömer Celâal, ‘Tanzimat ve Sanayimiz’, in Tanzimat: lOOucü Yildönümü Münasebetiyle (Istanbul, 1941) transl. in Issawi, Charles, ed., The Economic History of the Middle East 1800–1914 (Chicago, 1966), p. 53.Google Scholar

^{page 261 note 2} Inalcik, op. cit., clarifies this point. The ideal of service enabled the state to be sparing in remunerating its servants. Kocu Bey, a Turkish reformist statesman of the seventeenth century, states that such parsimony on the part of the state and the ability of the officials to live on very little was a characteristic of the time at which the Empire was expanding, tnalcik shows that Koçu Bey's picture of arrangements in the sixteenth century is biased. See Aksut, Ali Kemâli, Koçi (sic) Bey Risalesi (Istanbul, 1939), passim, and Fernand Braudel, La Méditerranée et le monde Méditerranéen à époque de Philippe II (Paris, 1949), p. 463.Google Scholar

^{page 261 note 3} See ‘Musadere’, Isâlm Ansiklopedisi, VII, pp. 669 ff., 672.Google Scholar

^{page 261 note 4} Lajos, Fekete, ‘Macaristanda Türklerin Mülk Sistemi’, IUEF Tarih Dergisi, XII (09. 1961), 17–42.Google Scholar A translation of the author's ‘Török Birtokrendszer a hodolt Magyarorszagón’, Ergetezek, A törtene tilūdomanyok korebol, XXV (Budapest, 1940). See also Koçci Bey Risalesi, passim.Google Scholar

^{page 261 note 5} Bistra, A. Cvetkova, , ‘L' énvolution du régime féodal turc de la fin du XVI'e jusqu'au milieu de XVIII's siècle’, Etudes histohques, II (1960), 200–1.Google Scholar

^{page 261 note 6} Inalcik, ‘Capital Formation’. See alsoKoçi Bey Risalesi, p. 63, for tactics used by the daughter of Sultan Süleyman.

^{page 261 note 7} The Cambridge Economic History of Europe, III (Cambridge, 1963), p. 26.Google Scholar

^{page 261 note 8} Clough, Shepard B., The Economic Development of Western Civilization (New York, 1959), p. 125.Google Scholar

^{page 261 note 9} Braudel, , La Méditerranée, p. 485.Google Scholar

^{page 262 note 1} The Cambridge Economic History of Europe. IV, p. 505.Google Scholar

^{page 262 note 2} Ottoman statesmen decided to help industry only under the influence of Western ideas, during the modernization movement. See Issawi, The Economic History of the Middle East, p. 53.

^{page 262 note 3} See Hahn, W., ‘Die Verpflegung Konstantinopels durch staatliche Zwangswirtschaft’, Beihefte zur Vierteljahrschrifte fur Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, VII (Stuttgart, 1926), 1–22,Google Scholar cited by Kortepeter, Carl M., ‘Ottoman Imperial Policy and the Economy of the Black Sea Region in the 16th century’, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 86 (1966), 97,CrossRefGoogle Scholar n. 53. Kortepeter summarizes Hahn's thesis as follows: ‘The Ottomans were more interested in placing military restraints on their vassal states than in forging commercial ties, in tribute rather than commercial profits.’

^{page 262 note 4} Bistra A. Cvetkova, ‘Les Celep et leur rôle dans la vie êconomique des Balkans à l'époque ottomane’, Conference on the Economic History of the Middle East (see p. 260, n. 5, above), p. 11. For different developments in Spain see Moore, Barrington, Social Origins of Dicta torship and Democracy (Boston, Beacon Press, 1966), p. 7.Google Scholar

^{page 262 note 5} Bailey, Frank Edgar, British Policy and the Turkish Reform Movement: A Study in Anglo-Turkish Relations, 1826–1853 (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1942), p. 79Google Scholar. For somewhat different data which nevertheless confirm this point see Issawi, op. cit., pp. 38, 54.

^{page 262 note 6} Koçu Bey Risalesi, p. 66.

^{page 263 note 1} Information given by Inalcik at the Istanbul conference on ‘Ottoman History in Per spective,’ Robert College, May 6, 1968.

^{page 263 note 2} Gibb, and Bowen, , Islamic Society, pp. 236, 246.Google Scholar Also Lajos, Fekete, I. U. E. F. Tarih Dergisi, XII, 25.Google Scholar

^{page 263 note 3} See Cvetkova, in Etudes historiques, II (1960), 171–206.Google Scholar

^{page 263 note 4} Weber's definition of prebends fits the Ottoman case, though not perfectly: ‘We wish to speak of “prebends” and of a “prebendial” organization of office, wherever the lord assigns to the official rent payments for life, payments which are somehow fixed to objects or which are essentially economic usufruct from lands or other sources. They must be compensation for the fulfilment of actual or fictitious official duties, they are goods permanently set aside for the economic assurance of the office’, Gerth, H. H. and Mills, C. Wright, eds., from Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (New York, 1958), p. 207.Google Scholar But see The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, p. 352, where Weber identifies prebends with the Ottoman sipahi system.

^{page 263 note 5} This is one possible interpretation of Kocu Bey's indignation. On manpower crises see Shaw, Stanford, ‘The Origins of Ottoman Military Reform: the Nizam-i Cedid Army of Sultan Selim III’, Journal of Modern History, 37 (09 1965), 292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 263 note 6} Ibid., p. 300.

^{page 264 note 1} From Max Weber, pp. 186–7.

^{page 264 note 2} Ibid., pp. 190–1.

^{page 264 note 3} Ibid., pp. 192–3.

^{page 264 note 4} Ibid., p. 193.

^{page 264 note 5} For acid Turkish comments on these practices see Ulgener, Sabri, Iktisâdi Inhitat Tarihimizin Ahlâk ve Zihniyet Meseleleri (Istanbul, 1951), p. 96.Google Scholar

^{page 264 note 6} Machiavelli, , The Prince (Penguin Classics, 1961), p. 45;Google Scholar Montesquieu, Esprit des lois, livre XVIII, ch. XX; for comments see Aron, Raymond, Les étapes de la pensée sociologique (Paris, 1967), p. 37.Google Scholar

^{page 264 note 7} Bendix, Reinhard, ‘Social Stratification and the Political Community’, in Bendix, and Lipset, , eds., Class, Status and Power (2nd ed., New York, 1966), pp. 82f.Google Scholar

^{page 265 note 1} Bendix, , Nation-Building, p. 43.Google Scholar

^{page 265 note 2} See Barkan, Ö. L., ‘Osmanli tmparatorlugunda Bir lskân ve Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak Sürgünler, Istanbul Üniversitesi Iktisat Fakültesi Mecmuasi (1949–1950), 524–61; (1953–l4), 209–37.Google Scholar

^{page 265 note 3} Bendix, , Class, , Status and Power, p. 78.Google Scholar For the Ottoman Empire, see Werner, Ernst, Die Geburt einer Grossmacht: die Osmanen (1300–1481) (Berlin, 1966), p. 285.Google Scholar The author regards the Ottoman Empire as ‘feudal’ by Marxist criteria; for opposite views see Sencer Divitçioǧlu, Asya Üretim Tarzi ve Osmanli Toplumu, Istanbul, 1967.

^{page 265 note 4} Gibb, and Bowen, , Islamic Society, I, p. 159.Google Scholar

^{page 265 note 5} Osman Nuri [Ergin], Mecelle-i Umur-u Belediye, Istanbul, 1330–8. 5 vols. See Vol. I,passim.

^{page 265 note 6} Divitçioǧlu, op. cit., p. 59.

^{page 265 note 7} Werner, , Die Osmanen, p. 74.Google Scholar

^{page 265 note 8} Barkan points to this. See his discussion of the privileges granted to ahis as rural colonizers —Ömer L. Barkan, ‘Osmanli Ïmparatorluǧunda lu bir lskân ve Kolonizasyon metodu olarak Vakiflar ve Temlikler. I. Istilâ Devirlerinin Kolonizatör Türk Dervişleri ve Zaviyeler’, Vakiflar Dergisi, II (1942), 282 ff.

^{page 266 note 1} Werner, , Die Osmanen, p. 72.Google Scholar

^{page 266 note 2} Barkan, , op. cit., p. 74.Google Scholar

^{page 266 note 3} Gibb, and Bowen, , Islamic Society, I, 1, p. 290.Google Scholar

^{page 266 note 4} In 1360. Werner, , Die Osmanen, p. 100.Google Scholar

^{page 266 note 5} Gibb, and Bowen, , Islamic Society, 1, p. 290.Google Scholar

^{page 266 note 6} Idem.

^{page 266 note 7} Ibid., p. 279.

^{page 266 note 8} The Cambridge Economic History of Europe, III, p. 186.Google Scholar

^{page 266 note 9} Baykal, Bekir Sitki, ‘Âyanlik Muessesesinin Düzeni hakkinda Belgeler’, Türk Tarift Belgeleri Dergisi, I (06 1964), 221 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 267 note 1} Albert Hourani, ‘Ottoman Reform and the Politics of Notables’, p. 11 (a paper presented at the Conference on ‘The Beginnings of Modernization in the Middle East’ held at the Middle East Center of the University of Chicago, October, 1966).

^{page 267 note 2} For the âyan see articles on Âyan in Inōnü Ansiklopedisi, IV (1950), p. 355Google Scholar, and in Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., I, p. 778. Also M. Çaǧatay Ulu¸ay; 18. ve 19. Yüzyillarda Saruhanda Efkiyalik ve Halk Hareketleri (Istanbul, 1955), especially p. 16; Gibb, and Bowen, , Islamic Society, I, 1, p. 198 ff.; Bekir Sitki Baykal, op. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 267 note 3} Uluçay, op cit., p. 21.

^{page 267 note 4} Ibid., pp. 12 ff.

^{page 267 note 5} Cezar, Mustafa, Osmanli Tarihinde Levendler (Istanbul, 1965), p. 337.Google Scholar

^{page 267 note 6} Ibid., p. 331.

^{page 268 note 1} Moshe Ma'oz, ‘Aspects of Modernization in Syria during the Early Tanzimat Period’. paper presented at the Chicago conference on ‘The Beginnings of Modernization in the Middle East’, 1966.

^{page 268 note 2} Albert Hourani, ‘Ottoman Reform’, p. 6.

^{page 268 note 3} Lapidus, Ira Marvin, Muslim Cities in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1967), pp. 185 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 268 note 4} J. Cuisenier, ‘Affinités entre systéme économique et systéme de parenté: La Turquie des villages d'aujourdhui’, Etudes rurales (November 1966), 226; Stirling, Paul, Turkish Village (London, 1965), pp. 236, 264.Google Scholar

^{page 268 note 5} See articles on ‘Corporations’ and on ‘Gilds, ’ in IESS, III, p. 397Google Scholar and VI, p. 184; also The Cambridge Economic History of Europe, III (1963), pp. 25–6.Google Scholar

^{page 269 note 1} Bendix, , Max Weber, pp. 365–6.Google Scholar

^{page 269 note 2} Inalcik, ‘Adâlet-Nameler, ’, Türk Tarihi Belgeleri Dergisi, II (1965), 49 ff.;Google ScholarAktepe, Münir, Patrona Isyani (Istanbul, 1958), p. 14Google Scholar, n. 22. For legal systems favoring stable expectations in economic transactions see Bendix, , Nation-Building, p. 160.Google Scholar

^{page 269 note 3} For the Ottoman context see Inalcik, , Reşit Rahmeti Arat için, p. 270,Google Scholar and Tott, , Memoirs (London, 1785), I, p. 131.Google Scholar

^{page 271 note 1} See articles by J. H. Kramers, ‘Turks, Ottoman, History’ and by Köprülüzade Fuad, ‘Ottoman Turkish Literature’, in Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1st ed. 4 (2), pp. 967 and 938 ff. See also Gerth and Mills, ed., From Max Weber, p. 191.

^{page 271 note 1} See Hammer, J. de, Histoire de l'empire ottoman (transl. by Hellert, J., Paris, 1835–1843) XVIII, pp. 36–7.Google Scholar

^{page 271 note 2} See p. 268, n. 4.

^{page 271 note 3} See Cuisenier, op. cit.; Frederick Frey et. al, ‘Preliminary Report’, Rural Development Research Project; Stirling, op. cit., pp. 236, 264.

^{page 272 note 1} Nisbet, Robert A., ‘Kinship and Political Power in First Century Rome’, in Cahman, Werner J. and Boskoff, Alvin, ed., Sociology and History (New York, 1964), p. 268.Google Scholar

^{page 272 note 2} Shaw, op. cit., Journal of Modern History, 37 (09 1965), 301Google Scholar.

^{page 272 note 3} Fallers, L. A., ‘Equality, Modernity and Democracy in the New States’, in Old Societies and New States (New York, 1963), p. 168.Google Scholar

^{page 272 note 4} Marx and Engels, On Colonialism (2nd impression, Moscow, n.d.), pp. 32–6.

^{page 273 note 1} See Spencer, Edmund, Travels in European Turkey in 1850 (London, 1851, 2 vols.), I, p. 270.Google Scholar

^{page 273 note 2} Redfield, Robert, Peasant Society and Culture (Chicago, 1956), pp. 68 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 273 note 3} See Sabri Ülgener, ‘14 asirdanberi Esnaf Ahlāki ve Ṣikayeti Mucip bazi haller’, İstanbul Üniversitesi tktisat Fakiiltesi Mecmuasi (1949–50), 392, and Berkes, Niyazi, ed. and transl. Turkish Nationalism and Western Civilization: Selected Essays of Ziya Gōkalp, (London, 1959), pp. 107–8.Google Scholar

^{page 273 note 4} Members of the artisan and small trader class.

^{page 274 note 1} See Watt, Ian, The Rise of the Novel (London, 1963), p. 103 and on Defoe's closeness to ‘vulgar dialect’.Google Scholar

^{page 274 note 2} Gibb, and Bowen, , Islamic Society, I, 2, 203, also Ülgener, İktisadi Inhitat Tarihimizin Ahlâk ve Zihniyet Meseleleri, p. 100, on religion as a means of mobility when the market mechanism does not operate.Google Scholar

^{page 274 note 3} See Hourani, Albert, ‘The Fertile Crescent in the 18th century’, Studio Islamica 8 (1957), 91–118, reprinted in Issawi, The Economic History of the Middle East, pp. 25 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 274 note 4} See Gökçe, Cemal, ‘Edirne Âyani Dağdeviren Mehmed Aga’, I. U. E. F. Tarih Dergisi 17 (1967), 11;Google ScholarMa'oz, Moshe, Ottoman Reform in Syria and Palestine 1840–1861 (Oxford, 1968), p. 76.Google Scholar

^{page 274 note 5} See my Genesis of Young Ottoman Thought, passim.

^{page 274 note 6} Most of the information that follows on this subject is based, unless otherwise stated, on my Genesis of Young Ottoman Thought and my Jön Türklerin Siyasi Fikirleri (Ankara, 1965).Google Scholar

^{page 275 note 1} See Moore, Barrington, op. cit., pp. 171–2.Google Scholar

^{page 275 note 2} Webster, Charles, The Foreign Policy of Palmerston: Britain, the Liberal Movement and the Eastern Question (London, 1951), II, p. 540.Google Scholar

^{page 275 note 3} See Karal, Enver Ziya, ‘Tanzimat Devri Vesikalari: Rüşvetin Kaldirilmasi için yapilan tesebbusler’, in Tarih Vesikalari, I (Haziran, 1941), pp. 45–65, especially pp. 48–50.Google Scholar

^{page 276 note 1} See my Jōn Türklerin, p. 137.

^{page 276 note 2} Ma'oz, Ottoman Reform, pp. 87 ff.

^{page 276 note 3} Us, Hakki Tank, Meclis-i Mebusan 1293–1877 (Istanbul, 2 vols. 1939–1954) I, pp. 113, 241.Google Scholar

^{page 277 note 1} See my Jön T¨rklerin, p. 98.

^{page 277 note 2} See Nesimi, Abidin, Türkiye'nin Tekâm'ul Hamlesinde Ziya Gōkalp (Istanbul, 1940).Google Scholar

^{page 277 note 3} Tansel, F. A., ed., Ziya Gökalp Külliyati: I. Şiirler ve Halk Masallari (Ankara, 1952), pp. 95 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 278 note 1} Bendix, ‘Social Stratification’, p. 76.

^{page 278 note 2} This happened only once, in a short-lived burst of self-assertiveness on the part of Âyans that led to a grant of privileges (1808). Five years later the Sultan issued a ferman proclaiming that rebellious Âyans could expect no mercy and that the institution of Ayanship would no longer be recognized. This did not eliminate the dependence of the state on provincial Âyans. It nevertheless served to perpetuate the fiction that only officially accepted groups could legitimately exist. Such lack of realism is one of the fundamental characteristics of Ottoman Herrschaft. Cf. Lewis, Bernard, The Emergence of Modern Turkey (London, 1962), p. 74, and Gökce, “Edirne Ayani”, p. 110.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 1} Runciman, W. G., op. cit., p. 33.Google Scholar