Int. J . Middle East Stud.

(I

974), 233-239

Printed in Great Britain

Metin Ibrahim Kunt

ETHNIC-REGIONAL (Cins) SOLIDARITY

I N THE SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY
OTTOMAN ESTABLISHMENT

Similar to many previous and contemporary Islamic states, the basis of classical
Ottoman administration and military was a highly elaborate system of slavery.1
Slaves, carefully recruited and educated, made up the bulk of the central army
and filled many of the administrative posts of the empire. T o the traditional
sources of slaves the Ottomans added a new one: the levy of children from nonurban, mostly Christian subjects of the empire (dev~irme).
T h e motive behind
this elaborate system of 'slaves of the sultan' is obvious: to provide the sultan
and the central government with an efficient, well-trained and loyal professional
army. T h e basis of the loyalty was that theoretically they were without root and
without ties.
T o what extent did this theoretical absolute loyalty obtain in reality? When the
human element is taken into consideration it is not difficult to imagine that there
were, indeed, many breaches. David Ayalon's studies in the history of the Mamluk institution and the Mamluk Sultanate have shown, for example, the ties a
young slave formed early in his career: with his master, his tutor, and his
fellow slaves who happened to be in the same household, or training under the
supervision of the same t u t ~ rThese
. ~ ties were strong and long-lasting. Not only
the sultan but also all dignitaries of the state had their own slaves, in the Ottoman
Empire as well as in the Mamluk Sultanate. I t was natural for each master to look
after his own sons and slaves, to secure them a footing in the establishment, and
help them on in their careers.3
Another factor which seems to have played a significant part in shaping the
career of an individual slave was his ethnic and/or regional origin and his relations with others of the same background in the Ottoman world. I n this essay
I will attempt to point out the implications of solidarity based on origin in
The main argument of this article was presented at the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Middle East Studies Association, held in Columbus, Ohio, in November
1970.
" Especially L'Esclavage du Mamluk (Jerusalem, 1951).
3 The significance of the Mamluk households in Egyptian politics after the Ottoman
conquest is demonstrated by Professor Ayalon in his 'Studies in al-Jabarti', Journal of
the Economic and Social History of the Orient, vol. 111 (1960). More recently Paul G.
Forand has discussed 'The Relation of the Slave and the Client to the Master or Patron',
InternationalJournal of Middle East Studies, vol. 11 (1971).

234 Metin Ibrahim Kunt

Ottoman society.= I t should be stressed that here we are concerned with this
phenomenon only as it obtained within a small group of 'Ottomans' - the Clite
of the empire.2 The topic attracted my attention during the course of my research
into the career of the mid-seventeenth-century grand vezir Kijpriilii Mehmed
Paga. As my examples are drawn only from the seventeenth century, so shall my
remarks be limited to that period. Nevertheless, it would not be unreasonable to
suppose that such a solidarity, based as it was on human nature, must have
obtained in other periods of Ottoman history, perhaps in varying degrees of
intensity.
Theoretically, a slave was brought into the system at an early age so that his
identity as a Muslim Ottoman could be established irreversibly. How successful
the Ottoman system was in this task is a central question which has hardly been
posed by modern scholarship. The prevalent assumption has been that the
background of the individual slave was of little importance in his life as an
Ottoman. I t has, for instance, been asserted that 'so perfectly did the Palace
School mold aliens of widely divergent race and creed to the Turkish type, and so
thoroughgoing was the process of assimilation, that there are on record few
instances of rebels or renegades among officials educated within its walls'.3 I n
their study of Ottoman state and society Gibb and Bowen state that the children
enrolled through dev~irmewere 'almost entirely cut off from their former associations9.4T h e sincerity of conversion of slave boys has been questioned in the
classic work of Lybyer, but only in the religious sense: ' I t was possible to hold
fast to an inward belief in the superiority of Christianity through many years
spent in the sultan's survice. . .The probability is that large numbers of the
sultan's slaves were merely nominal Mohammedans in religious belief, though
they necessarily followed the larger part of the Moslem scheme of life.'^
The children levied through the process of dev~irmewere usually fourteen to
eighteen years of age;6 slaves who were brought into the Ottoman world through
I would like to express my thanks to Professor Leon Carl Brown for letting me see
portions of the typescript of his forthcoming study of Tunisia in the early nineteenth
century, where he discerns a similar situation (chapter III, pp. 76 ff.).
The term 'Ottoman' signifies 'those who qualified for first-class status in that
society by serving the religion (being Muslim), sewing the state (holding a position
that gave them a state income and a privileged tax status), and knowing the Ottoman
Way (using the Ottoman Turkish language and conforming to the manners and
customs of the society that used Ottoman Turkish)'; Mubadele, ed. and trans. Norman
Itzkowitz and Max Mote (University of Chicago Press, 1970), p. I I .
3 Barnette Miller, The Palace School of Muhamntad the Conqueror (Cambridge,
Harvard University Press, 1941), p. 9. Renegades may have been few; there are, on the
other hand, countless examples of rebels in Ottoman history who were products of the
palace school.
4 H. A. R. Gibb and Harold Bowen, Islamic Society and the West (Oxford, 1950),
vol. 111, p. 43.
5 Albert Howe Lybyer, The Government of the Ottoman Empire in the Time of Suleiman
the Magni3cent (Cambridge, Har%ardUniversity Press, 1913), pp. 68-9.
Lybyer, p. 48.

Solidarity in the Ottoman establishment

235

other channels were presumably no younger than that and probably older. As one
would therefore expect, there are indications that Ottomans from slave origins
retained various elements of their early background other than merely in the
sphere of religion. They remembered their birthplace and exhibited a special tie
to it. Sokollu Mehmed Paga, for example, who was a Bosnian by origin, built
The Bridge on the Drina, made famous recently by the Yugoslav novelist Ivo
AndriC, and endowed it with a caravansaray and shops. Another famous Ottoman
vezir, Koprulii Mehmed Paaa, built a mosque and a school in the village of
Ruznik in Albania, which he specified as his 'original home' (vatan-z asli) in
his vakjiye.1
We can imagine that language was an element which reinforced the feeling of
identity with the place of origin. All slaves, of course, learned Turkish; all who
made it to higher levels shared the refinements of Ottoman culture. Nevertheless
there are indications that the original language was not forgotten. For example,
Mere Huseyin Paga, a grand vezir in the early seventeenth century, would give
the order for the removal of guilty persons in his native Albanian; the order
'Take him!', 'mere' in Albanian, stuck as his nickname.2 Nor is he an isolated
example, though he surely is an extreme one. We read of an Ismail Paga in the
mid-seventeenth century, who, when under stress, would start talking with a
strong Bosnian accent. His contemporary and opponent Seydi Ahmed Paga was
known to swear in Circassian in moments of anger.3 These examples suggest that
many Ottomans retained their original language, or at least certain elements of it.
I t does not seem unreasonable to think that two Ottomans of, say, Circassian
origin would converse in their native tongue if they happened to be by themselves.
Language was not the only element of the original background of an Ottoman
that he might retain. We learn, for instance, that another mid-seventeenthcentury vezir, Ibgir Mustafa Paga, would always dress in the 'Circassian' style.4
Another phenomenon which seems to have become more and more prevalent
during the seventeenth century was that several members of the same family
could make their way into the Ottoman establishment from slave origins. Some
examples: Giircu Nebi, the famous leader of a sipahirevolt in 1649 and a Georgian
originally (as is obvious from his name), was the brother of a Cafer Paga; the
brothers were also related to Gurcu Mehmed Paga, grand vezir in the early
165os.S Salih Paga, originally a Bosnian and grand vezir of Ibrahim I had a
brother in the palace service.6 Ibgir Mustafa Paga, the grand vezir famous for his
Circassian-style costumes, had a relative who was mirahdr (master of the horse).7

Koprulu Library (Istanbul), no. i, p. 42.

I. H. Dani~mend,Izahb Osmanlz Tarihi Kronolojisi (Istanbul, 1g50), vol. III, p.

503.
3 Evilya Celebi, Seyahatname (Istanbul, 1314), vol. V, p. 594.
4 Dani~mend,vol. 111,p. 420.
5 Mustafa Naiml, Tdrih-i Na2mB (3rd ed., Istanbul, 1280), vol.
6 Naiml, vol. V, p. 337.

7 Naiml, vol. VI,p. 4.

IV,

p. 388.

236 Metin Ibrahim Kunt

T h e sipahi brother of the Albanian Tarhuncu Ahmed Paga took part in the
sipahi uprising of 1648.1
Not only brothers but also sisters made it into the Ottoman establishment.
Evliya Celebi mentions that his mother, originally from the Caucasus, was the
sister of Melek Ahmed Paga's mother; furthermore, these two ladies were related
to the mothers of two other p a ~ a s . ~
Not only did the slaves remember, then, their original homelands, native
languages, and customs, but they were in contact with other members of their
families. All these factors undoubtedly helped to establish a solidarity among
Ottomans with a common background. Ottoman writers refer to this phenomenon
as a very natural feature of Ottoman society. The Ottoman term for origin was
cins;3 the words hemgeri, hemcins, and miicdnese were used to indicate a communality or origin; solidarity based on a common origin was expressed by terms
such as bi-hasb el-miicdnese, bi-hiikm el-cinsiyye, hemcinsiyet takribiyle, or gayret-i
cinsiyet muktexdsznca. Seventeenth-century Ottoman writings, especially Evilya
Celebi's Seyahatname, which gives intimate glimpses of many personalities of
his time, abound in examples of Ottomans befriending one another, forming
patronage relations (intisdb), or helping each other in their troubles because they
are of the same cins.
Careers of individual Ottomans provide examples of how cins solidarity worked
in Ottoman society. One very prominent case is that of Koprulu Mehmed Paga.
He was originally from Albania; in his youth he entered the palace service
through, it seems, the help of a hemgeri.4 For a very long time he was employed
in the palace kitchens. In the early 1620s, when he was already a middle-aged
man, he gained the protection of HusrevSAij;a,a Bosnian, then in the has oda.
After this connection was established, Kopriilu's own career developed at a
much more accelerated pace. As Husrev Aga rose in stature to become silahtar
(sword-bearer to the sultan), janissary general, and finally grand vezir (April
1628), Koprulu stayed with his patron to become his haxineddr (treasurer),
companion and adviser.
Three years later Husrev Paga fell out of favor; he was dismissed and executed
in 1631. Koprulu had been associated with Husrev Paga for about eight or nine
years. One would expect that with the downfall of his patron Koprulu, too,
would vanish from the scene. But he stayed on, holding several important
government positions. Eight years later we see that Koprulu gained the confidence of grand vezir Kara Mustafa Paga, an Albanian by origin, and consequently
Naimg, vol. v, p. 280.
Evliya Celebi, vol. 11, p. 453.
3 Cins usually connotes 'sex' in modern Arabic, Persian and Turkish; the article
'Djins' by Charles Pellat in E12, for instance, is on the sexual life of Muslims and its
reflection in literature. Another basic meaning, common to all three languages, is 'genus,
class, category'. Redhouse Ottoman-English dictionary has 'nationality or race' as a
further connotation.
4 Tayyarzade Ahmed At&, Tdrih-i At6 (Istanbul, 1291-3), vol. 11, p. 68.

Solidarity in the Ottoman establishment

237

his career received a new boost. At least two sources specify that this association
was due to both men being Albanians.'
Looking back at the time when Koprulu's first patron, Husrev Paga, was
executed, and trying to explain how Kopriilu managed to survive his patron's
downfall, we note that a few months after Hiisrev Paga was executed Tabaniyassi Mehmed Paga was appointed grand vezir. He, too, was of Albanian origin.
Perhaps, then, the explanation is that Koprulu stayed on after Husrev Paga was
executed under the administration of an Albanian grand vezir. Surely this whole
story is of minor significance by itself, but it is interesting to see that all the
pieces fit together as one might expect.
The implications of cins solidarity in Ottoman politics in general are much
more difficult to ascertain. What happens, for example, when a new grand vezir
is appointed? Can one speak of a new administration formed along cins lines?
Was cins solidarity equally strong among the various cins groups? Did one cins
group ever succeed in establishing a superior position vis-d-vis the others?
There is an assertion in the literature of the early seventeenth century that the
Albanians did indeed gain ascendancy. This assertion appears in one of the
soul-searching political treatises which flourished as a genre after the troubles at
the turn of the century. The author, Veysi, writing in the 1620s, cites all that
is wrong with the Ottoman state in his day in the form of a kaszde. Among the
wrongs he notes :
Acibdir izz u devletde cemi'an Arnavud u Bognak
Ceker devrinde zilletler g8hP 81-i resiilullah
In E. J. W. Gibb's translation:
'Tis passing strange all those in rank and power Arnaut and Bosniac be,
While languish in thy reign, 0 King, the sons of the envoy of God.2
How justified was Veysi in this lamentation? If his complaint was true for his
day, was it an isolated situation which obtained for a short period of time, or was
it part of a trend? These are some questions that come to mind which I cannot
answer with any degree of certainty, but which would certainly be profitable to
investigate.
But let us return to Veysi. One interesting point in this particular couplet is
that Veysi puts Albanians and Bosnians together, as if they constituted one single
group. Indeed, one gets from Ottoman writers the impression that there were
basically two cins factions. T h e division seems to have been between the Albanians
and the Bosnians on one hand, the 'westerners' as it were; on the other hand
those from the Caucasus region, Abazas (Abkhaz), Circassians, and Georgians,
making up the 'eastern' group. If this was in fact so, perhaps the reason was that
Osmanzade Ahmed qiiib, Hadlkat iil-Viizerci (Istanbul, 1271),section I, p. 104;
Silahter Mehmed Aga, Tzrih-i Silahtar (Istanbul, 1928),vol. I, p. 225.
'Nasihat-i Islambol Kasidesi', in E. J. W. Gibb, History of Ottoman Poetry, vol. 111
(London, ~goq),p. 217;discussion of authorship and dating on pages 210-11.

238

Metin Ibrahim Kunt

these two general areas gradually came to be the main sources of slaves with the
exception of the Ukraine and southern Russia.1
In support of Veysi's contention that the 'westerners' dominated the Ottoman
establishment, there is the tendency on the part of some Ottoman writers to
deride the 'easterners' ruthlessly. This tendency is striking in the histories of
NaPm2i and Silahtar, the early eighteenth-century contemporaries who are among
the most famous of Ottoman chroniclers and historians. Twice Silahtar uses the
same expression: 'such-and-such a grand vezir, being an Abaza, was a simpleminded man'.Z Naim5, too, makes the same equation of being Abaza and simpleminded3 and elsewhere explains the actions of a certain pafa as 'the consequence of the meanness and avarice inherent in his Georgian character'.4 On
the other hand, I have not come across any expression of such a prejudice
against the 'westerners'.
Neither Naiml nor Silahtar was directly involved in cins factions; one was
from a Janissary family from Aleppo, and the other from an Istanbul family.
Both, however, were products of the palace system. I t seems that they were
reflecting a prejudice against the 'westerners' prevalent in their time in palace
and government circles. Such a prejudice may have been the result of an Albanian-Bosnian ascendancy, already noticeable in VeysP's time, which was perhaps
further bolstered during the second half of the seventeenth century dominated
by the Kopriilii family of grand vezirs.5
That a cins solidarity existed and operated in Ottoman society is not at all
surprising, especially to us who are constantly witnessing the significant role
played by ethnic politics in the melting - to some, the boiling - pot of America.
Also, as I have pointed out earlier, there certainly were other types of solidarity that is, based on other kinds of relationships. People with similar experiences in
the early parts of their lives in Ottoman society tended to feel a special attachment to each other.6 Sometimes these attachments would cut through cins
I Gibb & Bowen, vol. 111, p. 75, note that 'from the end of the sixteenth century. . .
the majority of the Harem women were recruited from the Caucasus'; according to
Lybyer, p. 52, 'the strongest and ablest youths came from the mountainous regions inhabited by Albanians and Southern Slavic peoples'.
Silahtar, vol. I, p. 18; vol. 11, p. 3 18.
3 NaimP, vol. VI, p. 373.
4 NaimP, vol. VI, p. 110.
5 The popular prejudice against Abazas, Circassians, and the Albanians has taken root
in the Turkish language. T h e Redhouse dictionary, reflecting the language as it was in the
nineteenth century, gives the following definitions. 'Arnavutlu~ututtu' - 'he spoke or
acted as an Albanian usually does, with impulsive violence.' 'Abazaya varmak' - ' T o
abuse one's self, to practice masturbation.' ' Cerkeslik' - ' dirt and squalor; thievishness;
lawlessness.'
6 These attachments, such as between hocada~or ocakda~(trained under the same
tutor or in the same corps or service), are similar to those described by D. Ayalon for
Mamluk society. The Circassian v . K i p ~ a kTurkish clash in the Mamluk Sultanate,
and the strong feeling of racial solidarity among the Circassians, are noted in Professor
Ayalon's ' T h e Circassians in the Mamluk Kingdom', Journal of the American Oriental
Society, vol. 69 (1949)~pp. 135-47; and 'Djar%kisa', E l 2 . I t is interesting that Professor

Solidarity in the Ottoman establishment

239

lines, as in the case of Kara Murad Paga, an Albanian, who wanted to help
Gurcu Nebi because they had been hocada~(fellow student).'
Nevertheless, it seems to me that one should be aware of cins solidarity as one
operative factor in Ottoman politics. How decisive a factor it was is a question
which can be determined with systematic study of Ottoman material. That it was
a significant factor is obvious from an exchange in 1658 between Kijpriilii Mehmed
Paga, the grand vezir, and Melek Ahmed Paga, one of the prominent vezirs of the
time. The topic of conversation was the revolt led by Abaza Hasan Paga; the
grand vezir asked Melek Ahmed Paga if he would fight against Abaza Hasan,
since they were both Abaza.2 For our purposes the answer is immaterial. Melek
Ahmed Paga replied that he would fight against any enemy of the sultan, but the
fact that such a question was asked at all indicates the significance of cins
solidarity.
B O S P O R U S UNIVERSITY,
BEBEK, ISTANBUL, T U R K E Y

Ayalon observes in his 'Studies in al-Jabarti' that racial antagonism in Egyptian society
in the Ottoman period was replaced by feuds among family factions (JESHO, vol. 111
(1960), P. 318).
I Naima, vol. IV, p. 415.
Evliya Celebi, vol. v, p. 236.