<<

. 21
( 67 .)



>>

uu u
deported from western Anatolia (Saruhan) by Murad I and by Bayezid I
in two successive waves during the 1380s and 1390s. The Ottomans settled

50 Docheiariou, no. 53 (May 1409); Lavra, vol. iii, nos. 161 (April 1409), 165 (Jan. 1420). See the
commentary by Oikonomid`s in Docheiariou, pp. 275“6 and his “Ottoman in¬‚uence,” 6“7.
e
51 Docheiariou, no. 53 (May 1409); Lavra, vol. iii, nos. 161 (April 1409), 165 (Jan. 1420). See the
commentary by Oikonomid`s in Docheiariou, p. 274 and his “Ottoman in¬‚uence,” 10“13. Two
e
of these three documents were prepared by the apographeis Paul Gazes and George Prinkips, who
were both in Thessalonike during the period of Ottoman domination and are thus likely to have
familiarized themselves with Ottoman practices: see Oikonomid`s, “Le haradj,” p. 685, n. 20 and
e
¨
Oikonomid`s, “Ottoman in¬‚uence,” 13, n. 50. On tahrir defters, see O. L. Barkan, “Essai sur les
e
donn´es statistiques des registres de recensement dans l™Empire Ottoman aux XVe et XVIe si`cles,”
e e
Journal of Economic and Social History of the Orient 1 (1957), 9“36; H. W. Lowry, “The Ottoman
tahrir defterleri as a source for social and economic history: pitfalls and limitations,” in Lowry,
Studies in Defterology. Ottoman Society in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries (Istanbul, 1992),
pp. 3“18.
100 Thessalonike
the Y¨ r¨ ks in a semi-circle around Thessalonike, intending thereby to
uu
repopulate the region with Turkish/Muslim inhabitants, partly as a pro-
tective measure against potential attempts upon the newly captured city.52
In addition, during the reign of Bayezid I a number of villages were given
as t±mar to people in the Sultan™s service or were made into vak±fs (pious
foundations).53 Consequently, the demographic composition of the area
underwent some changes during the years of Ottoman rule with the set-
tlement of a group of Turkish newcomers, many of whom were involved
in agricultural production and animal husbandry.54
The question is, of course, what happened to these Turkish settlers
in the aftermath of the region™s restoration to Byzantium? According to
the Byzantine“Ottoman treaty of 1403, Bayezid I™s son S¨ leyman Celebi
u ¸
agreed to have all his subjects removed from the territories that were
returned to Byzantium, with the exception of those who had bought lands
there prior to 1403. What this meant in effect was that all lands held by
Ottoman subjects by virtue of t±mar grants had to be abandoned, while
those lands that had been acquired through purchase were to remain in
the hands of their Turkish owners who possessed them as m¨ lk, with full
u
55
rights of proprietorship, under Ottoman law. We may, therefore, assume

52 As±kpasazade“Giese, pp. 56, 66“7 (= As±kpasazade“Ats±z, pp. 133, 141). See M. T. G¨ kbilgin,
¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ o
Rumeli™de Y¨ r¨ kler, Tatarlar ve Evlˆ d-± Fˆ tihˆ n (Istanbul, 1957), pp. 13“16; Dimitriades, “Ottoman
uu a aa
Chalkidiki,” p. 43; H. ™ Inalc±k, “The Y¨ r¨ ks: their origins, expansion and economic role,” in
uu

Inalc±k, The Middle East and the Balkans under the Ottoman Empire. Essays on Economy and Society
(Bloomington, 1993), p. 106. On the Ottoman policy of deportations or forced resettlement (s¨ rg¨ n),uu
see O. L. Barkan, “Osmanl± ™
¨ Imparatorlu˜ unda bir iskˆn ve kolonizasyon metodu olarak s¨ rg¨ nler,”
g a uu
™ ¨ ™
Istanbul Universitesi Iktisat Fak¨ ltesi Mecmuas± 11 (1949“50), 524“69; 13 (1951“2), 56“79; 15 (1953“
u
´
4), 209“37; N. Beldiceanu and I. Beldiceanu-Steinherr, “Colonisation et d´portation dans l™Etat
e
ˆ ed. M. Balard and A. Ducellier
ottoman (XIVe“d´but XVIe si`cle),” in Coloniser au Moyen Age,
e e
(Paris, 1995), pp. 172“7.
53 Dimitriades, “Ottoman Chalkidiki,” p. 44; Dimitriades, “Forologik•v kathgor©ev,” 377“401. On
¨
the Ottomans™ use of the vak±f institution as a method for repopulation and colonization, see O. L.

Barkan, “Osmanl± Imparatorlu˜ unda bir iskˆn ve kolonizasyon metodu olarak vak±¬‚ar ve temlikler,”
g a
Vak±¬‚ar Dergisi 2 (1942), 279“386.
54 A possible rami¬cation of this phenomenon outlasting the re-establishment of Byzantine authority
in the area may be seen in the occurrence of peasant names such as Theodore Tourko<poulos>
or Rhousos, the son of Tourkitzes, in nearby villages at the beginning of the ¬fteenth century: see
Lavra, vol. iii, no. 161 (April 1409), lines 24, 29“30. However, it is also plausible that the ¬rst one
of these peasants was an offspring of the so-called “Tourkopouloi,” a special military contingent in
the Byzantine army made up of Christianized Turks, whose presence in the region is known as of
the late eleventh century: see A. G. C. Savvides, “Late Byzantine and western historiographers on
Turkish mercenaries in Greek and Latin armies: the Turcoples/Tourkopouloi,” in The Making of
Byzantine History. Studies Dedicated to Donald M. Nicol, ed. R. Beaton and C. Rouech´ (London, e
1993), pp. 122“36.
55 Dennis, “Byzantine“Turkish treaty of 1403,” 78: “et in quelle contrade tuti queli Turchi che habia
possession io li die cazar via de la et in questi luogi tuti queli si Griesi como Turchi che habia comprado
alguna cossa per la soa moneda che li sia soy.” For an excellent interpretation of this clause in terms
101
Thessalonike under foreign rule
that at least some Turks who had become property owners during the
Ottoman regime stayed there after 1403 and continued their activities under
the successive regimes of the Byzantines and the Venetians. Hence, when
Murad II wanted to repopulate Thessalonike during the years following
its conquest in 1430, he was able to ¬nd Turkish families living in nearby
villages and towns, whom he resettled inside the city. The most detailed
information on this subject is provided by the eyewitness Anagnostes, who
reports that the Sultan forcibly deported a thousand Turks from Gianitsa
(Vardar Yenicesi), which was one day™s journey to the west of Thessalonike
and “had many Turkish inhabitants.”56 Anagnostes™ report is con¬rmed by
the Ottoman chroniclers As±kpasazade and Nesri, as well as by Doukas.57
¸ ¸ ¸
The above-mentioned clause in the Byzantine“Ottoman treaty that rec-
ognized the validity of the property transactions of Turks and Greeks dating
from the period of the Ottoman domination applied, moreover, not only
to the rural population but also to the urban dwellers of Thessalonike.
Indeed, during the years between the two Ottoman dominations the city
appears to have contained a Turkish community that was populous enough
to necessitate the installation of a Muslim judge (kadi) there. Hence, by
an agreement concluded between the Despot of Thessalonike and the
Ottoman Sultan, the Turks in Thessalonike had secured the right to be
judged by their own kadi, who was allowed to take up permanent residence
inside the city. When the Venetians took over the administration of Thes-
salonike, they tried to do away with this Muslim of¬cial, whose existence
they no doubt regarded as an impediment to their own judicial authority.58

of Ottoman and Roman legal principles regarding land-property, see Oikonomid`s, “Ottoman
e
in¬‚uence,” 3“4.
56 Anagnostes“Tsaras, p. 62.
57 As±kpasazade“Giese, p. 106 (= As±kpasazade“Ats±z, p. 173); Nesrˆ, Kitˆ b-± Cihan-n¨ mˆ , vol. ii,
a ua
¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸±
pp. 610“13; Doukas“Grecu, XXIX.5, p. 251. The descendants of some of these deportees can be
found in the Ottoman tahrir defter of 1478, the earliest extant cadastral survey which covers the
city of Selanik. They constitute approximately 40 percent of the city™s Muslim population at this
time, or about 17 percent of its entire population, as shown by H. W. Lowry, “Portrait of a city:
the population and topography of Ottoman Selˆnik (Thessaloniki) in the year 1478,” ©ptuca 2
a
(1980“1), 286“7, 292. It seems highly unlikely that all of the Muslim households listed in this survey
were descended from the settlers whom Murad II deported from Vardar Yenicesi, as suggested by
Beldiceanu and Beldiceanu-Steinherr, “Colonisation et d´portation,” p. 174.
e
58 Iorga, “Notes et extraits,” ROL 5 (1897), 194 (April 2, 1425). According to Iorga (ibid., 194, n. 2),
followed by Matschke, Ankara, p. 63, the Despot who accepted the stationing of an Ottoman kadi
in Thessalonike before 1423 was Andronikos. Matschke has presumed, moreover, that the agreement
was concluded during the reign of Mehmed I (r. 1413“21). Recently Jacoby has argued (overlooking,
however, Matschke™s remarks regarding the kadi of Thessalonike) that the agreement was most likely
to have been concluded between the Despot John VII and S¨ leyman sometime shortly after 1403,
u
and “in any event . . . before 1409, when Suleyman™s political position and ability to bargain were
weakened”: Jacoby, “Foreigners and the urban economy,” 121 and n. 253. Yet Jacoby™s dating may be
102 Thessalonike
However, in two provisional treaties dating from 1426 and 1427, Venice
acquiesced to the appointment of a kadi with authority over ¬nancial dis-
putes among the Turks themselves, all other cases being required to go
under the jurisdiction of the Venetian tribunal.59 All this evidence points,
then, to the continued presence of a not negligible Turkish community
within Thessalonike which was active in commercial affairs during the last
three decades preceding the city™s de¬nitive conquest by the Ottomans.60
According to K.-P. Matschke, the impact of Byzantium™s territorial gains
in the aftermath of the battle of Ankara could not have been consequential
as long as the in¬ltration of the Turkish element, both into Byzantine cities
and into the countryside, remained unchecked. Matschke has argued that
a crucial factor in this respect was the insuf¬ciency of Byzantium™s own
food supplies, which rendered it increasingly dependent on Turkish wheat,
in¬‚uenced the political orientation of certain individuals, and determined
the direction and outcome of political events.61 The discussion above has
revealed that, although the t±mar-holders who had settled in the countryside
of Thessalonike were forced to leave in 1403, Ottoman property owners
and merchants maintained some role in the city™s social and economic
affairs after the re-establishment of Byzantine authority. As far as the
food supplies were concerned, in 1423 the administrators of Byzantine
Thessalonike, ¬nding themselves unable to provision the city adequately
during an Ottoman siege, and troubled furthermore by internal dissensions,
decided to try the option of western help. The city was thus ceded to the
Venetians, who took charge over its provisioning and protection against
the Ottomans.62

questioned, given especially that S¨ leyman was from the beginning never strong enough in terms
u
of his political position vis-`-vis Byzantium to wield any bargaining power. Indeed, the only clause
a
favorable to the Ottomans that he was able to have inserted into the Byzantine“Ottoman treaty
of 1403 concerned the ownership rights of Turks who had legally purchased property in or around
Thessalonike, which must be attributed not so much to his bargaining ability as to the binding
force of legal contracts. At any rate, it seems more plausible that the agreement concerning the
kadi of Thessalonike was reached sometime after the turbulent years of the Ottoman interregnum
(1402“13), during the reign of either Mehmed I or Murad II, when Despot Andronikos governed
the city.
59 Iorga, “Notes et extraits,” ROL 5 (1897), 317“18 (April 20, 1426); Sathas, Documents, vol. i, p. 184
(July 24, 1427).
60 For a Turkish slave trader who was in Thessalonike in 1410, see Musso, Navigazione, no. 24, p. 267.
On the Turkish presence in Thessalonike between the two periods of Ottoman domination, see also
Matschke, Ankara, p. 63; Jacoby, “Foreigners and the urban economy,” 119“23.
61 Matschke, Ankara, pp. 56“64, 125“39.
62 The role played by the shortage of food in Thessalonike™s handover to Venice can be inferred from
the immediate efforts of the Venetians to procure provisions. The very large number of documents
concerning the city™s provisioning during 1423“30 is indicative of the perpetuation of this problem
throughout the Venetian regime: Thiriet, R´gestes, vol. ii, nos. 1914, 1923, 1950, 1957, 1964, 1967, 1973,
e
103
Thessalonike under foreign rule

the venetian domination (1423“1430)
The transfer of Thessalonike to Venice in 1423 inevitably involved a com-
promise between ¬nancial and military needs on the one hand and reli-
gious concerns on the other, since the Venetians expected not only to
exercise civil authority, but also to have control over the city™s ecclesiastical
jurisdiction.63 According to Symeon, the Thessalonians who favored the
Venetian takeover declared that they desired community life to enjoy peace
and prosperity through the aid of Venice, even at the cost of their submis-
sion to the Latin Church. In response to the archbishop™s argument that
what was best for the community above all was to hold on to the princi-
ples of Orthodoxy, they pointed out the situation of the Greeks living on
Venetian islands, saying: “Just as there they are without bishops, but are
Christians, so shall we be.”64
As the majority of the pro-Venetians were of this opinion, it was through
the personal insistence of Symeon, who managed to overrule the opposition
of the civil of¬cials in charge of the city™s transfer, that a clause guaranteeing
the independence of the Orthodox Church of Thessalonike was added at
the last minute to the terms of agreement with Venice.65 However, at some
time between 1425 and 1429, if not earlier, the Venetians began to disregard
the ecclesiastical rights of the Orthodox community, as revealed by a series
of complaints and requests concerning religious issues that were articu-
lated by the Greek ambassadors sent from Thessalonike to Venice in the
summer of 1429. The ambassadors demanded, ¬rst of all, that their arch-
bishop be allowed to retain the customary rights (le suo uxance antige) he
¸
had had before the arrival of the Venetians, including the right to exercise
judicial powers and to execute his decisions without hindrance. Evidently,
the Venetians, despite what they had promised in 1423, were interfering
with the judicial authority of the Orthodox archbishop “ just as they tried
1995, 2012, 2015, 2033, 2035, 2058, 2064, 2077, 2078, 2081, 2085, 2113, 2129, 2130, 2149, 2183; Thiriet,
Assembl´es, vol. ii, nos. 1276, 1284, 1294, 1299, 1306; Iorga, “Notes et extraits,” ROL 5 (1897), 178,
e
182, 314“15, 322, 343, 353, 360; Sathas, Documents, vol. iii, pp. 259, 281“2, 315, 331, 371. Cf. Vryonis,
“Ottoman conquest of Thessaloniki,” p. 307. On the critical condition of food supplies immediately
before the Venetian takeover, see also Symeon“Balfour, pp. 56“7, 59. The Senate of Venice offered
special privileges to merchants who brought grain to the city: Thiriet, R´gestes, vol. ii, no. 2033;
e
Iorga, “Notes et extraits,” ROL 5 (1897), 353. Giorgio Valaresso (on whom see above, ch. 4, p. 65 and
note 42) as well as Giacomo Badoer (whose business activities in Constantinople, well known from
his account book, will be discussed in Part III below) were among people who transported grain to
Thessalonike at this time: Thiriet, R´gestes, vol. ii, nos. 1967 and 2113, respectively.
e
63 On the Venetian regime in Thessalonike, see now Jacoby, “Thessalonique,” pp. 303“18, with refer-
ences to earlier works.
64 Symeon“Balfour, pp. 58 (text), 169 (trans.).
65 Ibid., pp. 58“9; Sathas, Documents, vol. i, no. 86 (July 7, 1423), pp. 135“6, 137“8.
104 Thessalonike
to ostracize the Ottoman kadi “ in an attempt to eliminate all possible
limitations to their own power of jurisdiction. Two speci¬c requests of the
Thessalonians with regard to this issue were, ¬rst, that cases initiated in
their episcopal court not be taken to another court “ which in this con-
text can be none other than the Venetian tribunal “ and, secondly, that
Orthodox priests and monks not be judged or imprisoned by the secular
authorities (i.e. Venetian of¬cials). Thus we understand that the Venetians
not only diverted civil law cases away from the Greek ecclesiastical court
to their own secular court but even tried to limit the archbishop™s judi-
cial authority in the ecclesiastical sphere by forcing lawsuits involving the
Greek clergy to be handled by the Venetian tribunal. In 1429 the Thessalo-
nian ambassadors further demanded that Church property be inviolable;
that the churches and monasteries of Thessalonike be held and adminis-
tered by the Greeks themselves and have free access to their land and sea
revenues; and that Orthodox rituals and ceremonies be conducted with-
out interruption or molestation. Concerning the church of Saint Sophia
in particular, the Thessalonians requested that this church be allowed to
maintain its franchises and continue to function as a place of asylum for
convicted people. A special complaint concerned the irreverent treatment
of the churches and monasteries, particularly those close to the city walls,
which had been set aside as places of encampment for Venetian soldiers,
who allegedly performed blasphemous acts such as bringing prostitutes
into them. Finally, the Venetians were asked to compensate the monastery
of Blatadon for the use of one of its houses which they had assigned to the
captain of Thessalonike, one of the two highest Venetian of¬cials present
in the city, without paying any rent. The Senate of Venice accepted all these
demands with one exception, denying the archbishop the right to exercise

<<

. 21
( 67 .)



>>