¹ The legitimacy of the exercise of unbounded power by a single ruler was based in the Islamic state upon the assumption that it was the sole means of ensuring the application of the Sharī'a, the holy law of Islam. For the traditional view of the state in the Near East, see Christensen, A., L'Iran sous les Sassanides (Copenhagen, 1944)Google Scholar; Mez, A., Die Renaissance des Islams (Heidelberg, 1922)Google Scholar; Sourdel, D., Le Vizirat Abbaside de 749 a 936 (2 vols.; Damascus, 1959–1960)Google Scholar; Goitein, S. D., Studies in Islamic History and Institutions (Leiden, 1966), pp. 149–213Google Scholar; and Inalcik, H., “Kutadgu Bilig'de Türk ve Iran Siyaset Nazariye ve Gelenekleri,” in Reşit Rahmeti Için (Ankara, 1966), pp. 259–71.Google Scholar The original source of the traditional view of the state is to be found in the Mirror for Princes (Nasīhatnāme) literature: Bandyopadhyaya, N. Ch., Kautilîya: Or an Exposition of His Social and Political Theory (Calcutta, 1927)Google Scholar; Tarjuma-i Kalīla wa Dimnah, ed. Mīnovi, M. (Tehran, 1343 H.)Google Scholar; The Nasīhatnāma known as Kābūsnāma of Kai Kā'us b. Iskender, ed. Levy, R. (London, 1951)Google Scholar; Nizām al-Mulk, Siyāset-nāma, ed. Darke, H. (Tehran, 1962)Google Scholar; Minovi, M. and Minorsky, V., “Nasīr al-Dīn Tūsī on Finance”, in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, cited hereafter as Bsoas, X (1940–1941), p. 755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The chapters on politics and economics in the classic works on ethics, namely Akhlāk-i Nāsiri, by Nasīr al-Dīn Tūsī, Akhlāk-i Muhsinī, by Husayn Wā'iz, Akhlāk-i Jalālī, by Jalal al-Dīn Dawwānī, and Akhlāk-i 'Alāi, by Kinalizāde 'Alī, were written under the strong influence of this literature.

² It should be noted that the governments of Near East states appreciated the necessity of developing economic activity and of promoting the greatest possible increase in production from all classes of the re'āyā. In the Nasihatnāmas it was recommended that cultivated land should be increased by the digging of canals and that trade between different regions should be promoted by the construction of roads, bridges, and caravansaries, and by ensuring the safety of travelers. But the object of all such activity was to increase revenue from taxation and hence fill the ruler's treasury.

³ In Akhlāk-i 'Alā'ī (ed. Bulak, , 1274 H.), p. 9,Google Scholar a work on ethics written in 1565, Kinalizāde emphasized that in production certain kinds of activities were necessary for “the good order of the society” while some others were not.

⁴ This type of merchant is usually referred to in Ottoman sources as bāzirgān. More respectful titles for the big merchants were khwāje (in colloquial Turkish, hoja) and khwājegī (the exact equivalent of “maestro”). The khwājes were usually the richest merchants operating from a city. Another common Ottoman term is matrabāz. My colleague, Hasan Eren, thinks that it comes from the Greek word, ματαπράτηζ, grocer. It is used especially of wholesale dealers in foodstuffs. Possessors of large cash fortunes, māl, were called māldār or mutamawwil. In the official language, asl al-māl or ra's al-māl were used as the equivalent of capital. The Persian words, sermāye and sermāyedār, were used to denote capital and capitalist in their modern meanings only in the nineteenth century under Western influence.

⁵ Akhlāk-i 'Alā'ī, pp. 7–8.

⁶ See Rodinson, M., Islam et Capitalisme (Paris, 1966), pp. 49–50,Google Scholar citing Ibn Khaldūn. This was a general opinion expressed in the works on ethics. For example, see Kinalizāde, pp. 6–7.

⁷ Ritter, H., “Ein arabisches Handbuch der Handelswissenschaft,” in Der Islam, VII (1917), pp. 15–17Google Scholar.

⁸ Udovitch, A., “Credit as a Means of Investment in Medieval Islamic Trade,” in Journal of African and Oriental Studies, LXXXVII (1967), pp. 260–64;Google ScholarGoitein, S. D., Studies in Islamic History, p. 219Google Scholar.

⁹ Udovitch, “Credit,” p. 262; Udovitch, , “Labor Partnership in Early Islamic Law,” in Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, cited hereafter as Jesho, X -1 (1967), pp. 64–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar On these problems we refer to Mewkūfātī's commentary on Multakā' al-Abhur by Ibrahīm Halabī (d. 1549), which became the standard law book at the Ottoman courts: Vol. I (Istanbul, 1318 H.), pp. 360–65, vol. II, pp. 124–30.

¹⁰ Mewkūfātī, II, pp. 28–33.

¹¹ Rodinson, pp. 52–62.

¹² Goitein, , Studies, pp. 219–29Google Scholar.

¹³ Kutadgu Bilig, tr. Arat, R. R. (Ankara, 1959), p. 320, verses 4419–38Google Scholar.

¹⁴ For further examples, see Nazmi, Ahmed, Nazar-i Islâm'da Zenginligin mevkii (Istanbul, 1340–42 H.).Google Scholar According to the law school of Abu Khanīfa, which prevailed in the Ottoman Empire, there was nothing wrong in accumulating wealth (cf. Kinalizāde, p. 11).

¹⁵ Pasha, Sinān, Ma'ārifnāme, ed. Ertaylan, I. H. (Istanbul, 1961), p. 271Google Scholar.

¹⁶ For the situation in Syria under the Mamluks, see Lapidus, I. M., Muslim Cities in the Later Middle Ages (Cambridge, Mass., 1967), pp. 116–42Google Scholar.

¹⁷ For the traditions showing that the cloth trade was regarded as the most important, see Ritter, p. 29; Goitein, , Studies, p. 222, n. 3.Google Scholar It was not a coincidence that the business center in the Muslim cities was called bezzāzistān, the hall of bezzāz, dealers in textiles. We will see that in the Ottoman Empire too the bezzāz were among the wealthiest in the cities.

¹⁸ Cahen, C., “Mouvements populaire set autonomisme urbaine dans l'Asie musulmane du Moyen Age,” in Arabica, V, pp. 225–50, VI, pp. 25–58, 233–65;Google ScholarLewis, B., “Islamic Guilds,” in Economic History Review, VIII (1937), pp. 20–37.Google Scholar For the malāmatī movement in the Ottoman Empire, see Gölpinarli, A., Melāmilik ve Melāmiler (Istanbul, 1931)Google Scholar; Gordlevski, V. A., Gosudarstvo Seldjukidov Maloy Azii (Moscow, 1941)Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Ritter, , “Ein arabisches Handbuch,” pp. 41–45Google Scholar.

²⁰ Ülgener, Sabri, Iktisadi Inhitat Tarihimizin Ahlâk ve Zihniyet Meseleleri (Istanbul, 1951), pp. 7–68.Google Scholar Criticizing the attitude of the mystics (sūfī) who preached the giving away in alms of everything that was not needed for subsistence, Kinalizāde (p. 11) said that it was necessary to accumulate wealth in order to maintain good order in this world.

²¹ See Taeschner, Fr., Futuwwa, in Encyclopaedia of Islam, new, ed., II (1965), pp. 961–69Google Scholar.

²² Sahillioglu, H., “Osmanlilarda Narh Müessesesi,” in Belgelerle Türk Tarihi Dergisi, No. I (1967), p. 40Google Scholar.

²³ Barthold, W., Turkestan Down to the Mongol Invasion (London, 1928), p. 204Google Scholar.

²⁴ Togan, Z. V., Tarihte Metod (Istanbul, 1950), p. 161Google Scholar; Inalcik, H., “Turkiye'nin Iktisadî Vaziyeti,” in Belleten, No. 60 (1951), p. 652Google Scholar.

²⁵ H. Inalcik, ibid.

²⁶ Tr. R. R. Arart, verses 5479–90. Cf. n. 20.

²⁷ For sifiII-registers, see Belleten, No. 44, pp. 693–96. For the terefce-registers, see Inalcik, H., “15.asir Türkiye Iktisadî ve Ictimaî Tarihi Kaynaklari,” in Iktisat Fakültesi Mecmuasi, III, pp. 57–76, andGoogle ScholarBarkan, O. L., “Edirne Askerî Kassâmina ait Tereke Defterleri,” in Belgeler, III (1966), pp. 1–9Google Scholar.

²⁸ Inalcik, H., “Bursa,” in Belleten, XXIV (1960), pp. 45–96,Google Scholar and in Encyclopaedia of Islam, new ed., s.v.

²⁹ See Inalcik, H., “15.asir,” pp. 5–17Google Scholar.

³⁰ On Ottoman silver coin, see Encyclopaedia of Islam, new ed., I: “akče.”

³¹ For the great wealth of Syrian merchants, see Lapidus, p. 118.

³² Inalcik, H., “Bursa and the Commerce of the Levant,” in Jesho, III, no. 2 (1960), pp. 133–35Google Scholar.

³³ Inalcik, , “Bursa,” in Belleten, p. 78, doc. 14Google Scholar.

³⁴ Inalcik, , “Bursa and the Commerce,” p. 145Google Scholar.

³⁵ Inalcik, , “Türkiye'nin Iktisadi,” pp. 665–74Google Scholar.

³⁶ Dalsar, F., Bursa'da Ipecilik (Istanbul, 1960), pp. 218–19Google Scholar.

³⁷ Richards, G. R. B., Florentine Merchants in the Age of the Medici (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932), p. 122CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁸ Inalcik, , “15.asir,”p. 13, n. 31Google Scholar.

³⁹ Richards, , Florentine Merchants, p. 127Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ Inalcik, , “Bursa,” in Belleten, p. 70, docs. 4 and 13Google Scholar.

⁴¹ Ibid., p. 72, doc. 7.

⁴² Inalcik, , “Bursa and the Commerce,” pp. 139–40Google Scholar.

⁴³ Dalsar, , Bursa, doc. 72Google Scholar; for merchants traveling to Muscovy, doc. 77.

⁴⁴ The trade route, Bursa-Edirne-Raguza-Ancona-Florence, became increasingly important from the second half of the fifteenth century onward. “In 1514 Ancona was forced to grant special privileges to Ottoman merchants”; see Stoianovich, T., “The Conquering Balkan Merchant,” Journal of Economic History, XX (1960), pp. 236–37;Google Scholar and the Palatio delle Farine became a fondaco for the Turkish and other Muslim merchants. In the middle of the sixteenth century there were here 200 houses of Greek merchants who were Ottoman subjects (Stoianovich, ibid.). Turkish and Persian (Azemini) merchant s attending fairs in central Italy began to be so numerous as to threaten Venice's Levant trade. Commercial links between Ansona and Ragusa, the transit center for Ottoman trade, became so close that each city abolished customs dues on citizens of the other, and there were even rumors that Ancona was prepared to accept Ottoman suzerainty. It may be noted that the Ottoman registers too refer to Muslim merchants going to Ancona: in 1559 a merchant from Shirvān entrusted to his servant 'Alī b. 'Abdallah 200 lidre of silk which he had brought with him and 1000 ducats and sent him “to the city named Ankona to exchange them for cloth” (Dalsar, , Bursa, doc. 47).Google Scholar As for Venice in the sixteenth century, Muslim merchants of Turkey and Persia begin to be mentioned among the other foreign merchants; see Possot, D., Le Voyage de la Terre Sainte (Paris, 1890), p. 80.Google Scholar At this period they were already working in close cooperation with the Jews. A decree of the Senate of 15 September 1537 ordered the arrest of Turks and Jews and others who were Turkish subjects in Venice and its dependencies and the seizure of their goods (the content of thi s document was communicated to me by Mahmud Sakir, who found it in the course of his research in Archives of Venice: Senato Mar. Regesti 24, 69r, 15 Settembre 1537). Turkish merchants in Venice lived at Rialto. The explosion which destroyed a part of the fleet at the arsenal on the eve of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1570 was believe d to be a plot engineered by the Turkish spies in Venice (Hill, G., A History of Cyprus, III, 1948, p. 883).Google Scholar In 1574, after the peace settlement, attempts were made to provide a building in which all the Turkish merchants could live together, and five years later a building was found. The Palazzo of the Duke of Ferrara, however, the well-known Fondaco dei Turchi of today, was given to them only later, in 1621. Permission was granted that this building should be occupied by Turks from Istanbul and “Asia” (i.e., Anatolia), by other Ottoman subjects from Bosnia and Albania, and by Persians and Armenians.

⁴⁵ See Dakar, , Bursa, p. 132, doc. 176; p. 226, doc. 161; p. 229, doc. 168Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ See Encyclopaedia of Islam, new, ed., art., “Harir,” pp. 211–18Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ See Mantran, R., Istanbul dans la seconde moitie du XVII^e siècle (Paris, 1962), pp. 398–412Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ Inalcik, , “Bursa and the Commerce,” p. 139Google Scholar; Barkan, Ö. L., “Edirne,” pp. 120, 125, 207, 217, etcGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁹ Uzunçarşili, I. H., Kapilulu Ocaklari, I (Istanbul, 1943), pp. 272–74Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ Chelebī, Evliyā, Seyohatname, I (Istanbul, 1314 H.), p. 551Google Scholar.

⁵¹ Güçer, L., XV.-XVI. asirlarda Osmanli Imparatorlugunda Húbutat Meselesi ve Hububattan Alinan Vergiler (Istanbul, 1964)Google Scholar.

⁵² The copy of a document in the Munshéat, Britis h Museum Manuscript No. 9503.

⁵³ Quatre premiers livres des navigations et peregrinations orientates (Lyons, 1567)Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ For the Marranos, see Roth, C., The House of Nasi: Dona Gracia (Philadelphia, 1947)Google Scholar; idem., The House of Nasi: The Duke of Naxos (Philadelphia, 1948); E. V. Rivkin, “Marrano-Jewish Entrepreneurship and the Ottoman Mercantilist Probe in the Sixteenth Century” (paper submitted to the Third International Congress on Economic History, which will be published in its Proceedings). Professor Rivkin has most kindly permitted me to read this paper before its publication. When the material on the Marranos which he has collected from European and the Ragusan archives has been fully assessed, we shall be much more thoroughly informed on the whole question. Some Ottoman documents on the Marranos' activities were published by Safvet, , “Yūsuf Nasi,” Tarih-i 'Osmāni Encümeni Mejmu'asi, III (1330 H.), pp. 982–93 and pp. 1158–60Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ Safvet, , Yūsuf Nosi,” p. 991Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ Document, published by Safvet, pp. 992–93.

⁵⁷ See Mordtmann, J. H., Die füdischen Kira im Serai der Sultane, Msos, XXXII (1929), pp. 1–38.Google Scholar Of the Ottoman chroniclers the most important is Mustafa Selānikī who was then a high official at the finance department.

⁵⁸ Selānikī.

⁵⁹ Inalcik, H., ”Notes on N. Beldiceanu's Translation of the Kānūnnāme,“Der Islam, XLIII/ 1–2 (1967), pp. 154–55Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Under the term of “military” were included the administrators, the troops, and the men of religion in the Ottoman Empire.

⁶¹ Barkan, , “Edirne,” pp. 471–73Google Scholar.

⁶² Ibid., p. 193, No. 29.

⁶³ Ibid., p. 429, No. 92.

⁶⁴ For a caravan with the Indian merchants who in 1610 brought textiles on the route Basra-Baghdad-Aleppo, see Sahillioglu, H., “Bir Kervan,” in Belgelerle Türk Tarihi Dergisi, No. 9 (1968)Google Scholar; for the import of the Indian textiles into the Ottoman Empire in the fifteenth century, see Inalcik, H., “Bursa,” Belleten, XXIV (1960), p. 75, doc. 12Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ Barkan, p. 120, No. 11.

⁶⁶ Ibid., “Edirne,” p. 335, No. 66.

⁶⁷ Ibid., p. 325, No. 65.

⁶⁸ Ibid., p. 170, No. 26.

⁶⁹ Ibid., p. 91, No. 4.

⁷⁰ See Tarih Vesikalari, No. 9, p. 174.

⁷¹ Barkan, , “Edirne,” p. 216, No. 33Google Scholar.

⁷² Ibid., p. 425, No. 90.

⁷³ Ibid., p. 224, No. 35.

⁷⁴ Ibid., p. 414, No. 87.

⁷⁵ Ibid., p. 180, No. 28.

⁷⁶ Ibid., p. 100, No. 7.

⁷⁷ Ibid., p. 339, No. 67.

⁷⁸ Inalcik, H., “Adaletnâmeler,” in Belgeler, II, Nos. 3–4, pp. 126, 128Google Scholar.

⁷⁹ Barkan, , “Edirne,” p. 216Google Scholar(Bayram Beg), p. 274 (Ahmed Beg), p. 293 (Ahmed Chelebī).

⁸⁰ Ibid., p. 419, No. 88.

⁸¹ Ibid., p. 382, No. 78.

⁸² Ibid., p. 322, No. 64.

⁸³ In 1745 the villagers around Damascus sent a petition to the Porte saying that “since 1150 H. (1737) some of the usurers living in the city of Damascus loaned them money with interest to enable them to pay their tax obligations, but as the interest of each year had to be added to the following year's payments the villagers were reduced to a position in which they could never pay their debts.” (The Başvekâlet Archives, Istanbul, şam ahkâm defterleri, No. 1, p. 102).

⁸⁴ Barkan, , “Edirne,” p. 228, No. 36Google Scholar.

⁸⁵ Ibid., p. 107, No. 9.

⁸⁶ Ibid., p. 375, No. 76.

⁸⁷ It is generally stated that Islamic law did not recognize the concept of legal personality. Nevertheless it has been persuasively argued that the institution of the wakf reposed, from the legal point of view, on the same basis as the trust or uses which appears in England in the thirteenth century. (See Khadduri, M. and Liebesney, H. J. (eds.), Law in the Middle East (Washington, D.C., 1955), pp. 212–18Google Scholar.

⁸⁸ The document is published by Barkan, O. L., Kolonizatör Türk Dervisleri, Dergisi, Vakiflar, II (1942), p. 358Google Scholar.

⁸⁹ For the Ottoman city, see Barkan, Ö. L., “Quelques observations sur l'organisation economique et sociale des villes ottomanes,” in La Ville, Vol. VII (Société Jean Bodin, Brussels, 1955), pp. 289–311.Google Scholar For comparison, see Lapidus, , Muslim Cities, and the bibliography, pp. 239–41Google Scholar.

⁹⁰ Barkan, , “Edirne,” pp. 34–35Google Scholar.

⁹¹ For the close connection between the Ottoman and Abbasid economic and financial institutions and practices, see, in addition to the introductory remarks in this article, Mez, A., Die Renaissance des Islams (Heidelberg, 1922)Google Scholar; al-Dūrī, A., Studies on the Economic Life of Mesopotamia in the 10th Century (in Arabic), (Baghdad, 1948)Google Scholar; Björkman, W., “Kapitalentstehung und -anlage im Islam,” in Mitteilungen des Seminars für orientalische Sprachen, 32 (1929), 2. Abt., pp. 80–98;Google ScholarCahen, C., “Les facteurs économiques et sociaux dans l'ankylose culturelle de l'lslam,” in Classicisme et déclin culturel dans l'histoire de I'Islam (Paris, 1957), pp. 195–207Google Scholar.

⁹² Drawing attention to the unfavorable balance of commerce of the Ottoman, Empire Naima (History, IV, p. 293),Google Scholar an enlightened Ottoman historian of the eighteenth century, said that only goods not needed in the internal market such as fleeces of wool, nut-gull, or potash were to be exported.

⁹³ Various forms of muḍāraba (commenda) are found in the Ottoman Empire. Some examples are: In 1614 Osman and Allahkulu, two merchants of Ibril (a place near Baghdad), made a muḍāraba contract, each contributing 1540 riyal (1026 gold ducats in value). Allahkulu took up the whole responsibility of the enterprise and was active in the Baghdad-Aleppo-Bursa caravan trade. The profit made was to be divided between them equally. All this was recorded in the register of the cadi of Bursa (Dalsar, p. 222). In 1605 Mustafa Agha (apparently from the military class), a merchant in Edirne, made a partnership with Hajjī Ridvān to import flax from Egypt and as the capital of a muḍāraba Ridvan put a capital of 12,500 akches (104 ducats) into the enterprise. Mustafa took the trip to Egypt to buy and transport the flax to Edirne. These are examples of the contract of muḍāraba between the merchants in interregional trade. A different kind of muḍāraba is found in the textile manufacturing trade. 'Abd al-Kādir, a merchant of cotton goods in Edirne, distributed “in the way of muḍāraba” a large sum of money to a number of people in the towns producing cotton goods in Anatolia. It appears that the money was used as a capital invested in making cotton goods for 'abd al-Kādir.

⁹⁴ See Inalcik, H., “Turkiye'nin Iktisadi Vaziyeti,” pp. 656–61.Google Scholar During the second half of the sixteenth century the new conditions called for the growing use of currency in paying soldiers, taxes, and making wakfs. Then one might speak of a development of the Ottoman economy into a money economy. See the chapter which I wrote for the Cambridge History of Islam (in press).

⁹⁵ In the regulations of hisba of Edirne in 1502 we read: “Merchants (bāzirgān), dealers in textiles (bezzāz), makers of caps, or merchants of silk cloths shall not take more than 20 per cent when they loan money at interest.” (Tarih Vesikalari, No. 9 (1942), p. 174.)Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Inalcik, H., “Adâletnâmeler,” in Belgeler, II, Nos. 3–4 (1965), p. 130Google Scholar.

⁹⁷ Akdag, M., “Turkiye'nin Iktisadî Vaziyeti,” in Belleten No. 55, p. 367.Google Scholar For the capitalistic nature of this business, see Cvetkova, B., “Le service des celep et le ravitaillement en bétail dans l'empire Ottoman,” in Etudes Historiques, III (1966), pp. 145–72.Google Scholar The wealthy members of the military class were interested in this business too.

⁹⁸ For examples see Inalcik, H., “Bursa,” Belleten, XXIV, docs. 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 32, 34Google Scholar.

⁹⁹ Ibid., docs. 8, 13, 34.

¹⁰⁰ Ibid., docs. 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 16.

¹⁰¹ See “hawāla,” in Encyclopaedia of Islam, new, ed., III, pp. 283–85Google Scholar.