<<

. 38
( 67 .)



>>

et commentaire,” TM 7 (1979), 109“221; Manuel II. Palaiologos, Dialoge mit einem “Perser,” ed.
ˇc
E. Trapp (Vienna, 1966). Cf. Sevˇenko, “Decline of Byzantium,” 178“81; Macaire Makr`s, ed. e
Argyriou, pp. 64“5, 156“68; E. A. Zachariadou, “Religious dialogue between Byzantines and Turks
during the Ottoman expansion,” in Religionsgespr¨ che im Mittelalter, ed. B. Lewis and F. Niew¨ hner
a o
(Wiesbaden, 1992), pp. 289“304.
64 See above, ch. 7, note 13.
201
Constantinople (1403“1453)
It may be recalled that during the last decade of the fourteenth century a
Turkish quarter that contained a mosque had been established within Con-
stantinople. At that time a number of Ottoman merchants were active in
Constantinople, and in order to settle their commercial disputes a Muslim
judge (kadi) had been installed inside the city at the request of Bayezid I.65
However, following the battle of Ankara, the Byzantine Emperor expelled
the inhabitants of the Turkish quarter and ordered the destruction of their
mosque.66 There is no documented evidence thereafter about the presence
of a kadi in Constantinople until 1432, the year when Bertrandon de la
Broqui`re visited the city and noted the existence of an Ottoman of¬cial
e
there to whom Turkish traders went for litigation.67 But Ottoman traders
did not cease from going to Constantinople during the intervening period,
¨u
even though the Ottoman port of Scutari (Usk¨ dar) on the opposite shore
seems to have emerged as an alternative site for commercial exchanges
between the Turks and Byzantines at this time. According to Clavijo, who
stayed in Constantinople/Pera for ¬ve months during the winter of 1403“4,
Turkish traders daily crossed to Constantinople and Pera, while Byzantines
and Latins from these two cities frequented the weekly market in Scutari.68
Nearly two decades later, the Russian pilgrim Zosima, who visited the
Byzantine capital twice between late 1419 and 1422, also observed that
Greeks and Latins from Constantinople and Pera went across the straits to
Scutari in order to trade with the Turks.69 On the other hand, two eyewit-
nesses reported in 1416 that Turks (¬Agarhno©, Turci) entered the city in
large numbers, one adding that some were there only in transit while some
were actual inhabitants.70 In 1418, moreover, when Manuel II complained
to the Senate of Venice about Venetian merchants who were helping his
own subjects evade the customs duties (kommerkion) they were supposed
to pay to the Byzantine state, the Emperor cited among the defrauders,
in addition to Greeks and other Byzantine subjects, Turkish merchants.71
The Emperor curiously referred to the latter as “our Turks,” which could

65 See above, ch. 6, pp. 138“9.
66 As±kpasazade“Giese, pp. 61“2 (= As±kpasazade“Ats±z, p. 137).
¸ ¸ ¸ ¸
67 Voyage d™Outremer de B. de la Broqui`re, p. 165.
e
68 For this important statement, which does not appear in the English translation of the text by G. Le
Strange, see Ruy Gonz´les de Clavijo, Embajada a Tamorl´ n, ed. F. L´ pez Estrada (Madrid, 1999),
a
a o
p. 146.
69 Russian Travelers, ed. Majeska, pp. 190“1.
70 Statement by the metropolitan of Medeia to the Patriarch Euthymios (1410“16) reported by Syropou-
los: “M´moires,” p. 102; and observation by John of Ragusa in E. Cecconi, Studi storici sul concilio
e
di Firenze, vol. i (Florence, 1869), p. dxi.
71 Chrysostomides, “Venetian commercial privileges,” doc. 19, pp. 354“5; cf. p. 194 above.
202 Constantinople
either mean that they were Turks who resided in Constantinople, or alter-
natively they may have been Turks who had continued to live in places
such as Thessalonike, Kalamaria, and the coastal cities of Thrace that the
Ottomans restored to Byzantium after the battle of Ankara, wherefore they
would have been considered Byzantine subjects.
Yet, if we leave aside these earlier occasional references to Turkish vis-
itors and residents of Constantinople, it is during the same decade when
Bertrandon de la Broqui`re ¬rst bore witness to the city™s re-established
e
Ottoman kadi, that is in the 1430s, that we also begin to hear extensively
about the activities of a group of Ottoman merchants within the Byzan-
tine capital. This information has been preserved in the account book of
Badoer, who conducted business with at least twelve Ottoman merchants
in Constantinople between 1436 and 1440.72 These merchants traded in
wax, raisins, hide, wool, ¬‚ax, and cloth. The scope of their activities, like
their numbers, was certainly small. But it should be borne in mind that
the source in question singularly lists those people who happened to have
commercial transactions with Badoer. Furthermore it gives little indication
of their possible business affairs with other people in Constantinople. For
instance, only two of the twelve Ottoman merchants cited by Badoer can
be observed holding business relations with Byzantines from Constanti-
nople. And not surprisingly, these were banking transactions that transpired
between the Turks and two renowned Constantinopolitan bankers “ John
Sophianos and Nicholas Sarantenos “ regarding payments for merchandise
that had been exchanged between Badoer and the Turks.73
Outstanding among Badoer™s Turkish clients is one by the name of “Ali
Basa,” who has been identi¬ed as the Ottoman grand vizier Candarl± Halil
¸
74
Pasa. Evidence of Halil Pasa™s involvement in the trade of Constantinople
¸ ¸
is quite consequential as it brings a new dimension to what has long been
known from Ottoman, Byzantine, and Latin narrative sources about his
favorable political disposition towards the Byzantine state. These sources
depict him as the leader of a peace faction at the Ottoman court who
72 These merchants were: Ali Basa turcho (Badoer, pp. 382, 390, 391); Choza Ali turcho (pp. 341, 375);
Amet turco de Lichomidia (pp. 7, 27, 33, 84, 85, 86); Azi turcho (p. 394); Ismael turcho (pp. 139, 178);
Choza/Chogia Is(s)e/Inse turcho (pp. 178, 236, 375, 382); Jacsia turcho (pp. 73, 112); Chazi Musi turcho
(pp. 58, 139); Mustafa turcho (pp. 375, 382); Ramadan de Simiso (pp. 73, 97, 144); Chazi Rastan turcho
(pp. 402, 465, 483); Saliet turcho (pp. 6, 14, 15, 17, 45, 96, 105). In addition, there are several unnamed
Turks (pp. 96, 137, 139, 187, 382), who may or may not already be among the twelve merchants
listed above. Cf. C. Kafadar, “A death in Venice (1575): Anatolian Muslim merchants trading in the

Serenissima,” in Raiyyet R¨ sˆ mu. Essays presented to Halil Inalc±k (= Journal of Turkish Studies 10
uu
(1986)), 193, n. 8; Badoer: Indici, p. 118 (“Turco”).
73 Badoer, pp. 15, 139. The Turks in question were Saliet and Chazi Musi.
74 Kafadar, “A death in Venice,” 193“4.
203
Constantinople (1403“1453)
consistently advised both Sultan Murad II and his successor, Mehmed II,
against making war on Constantinople. The narrative sources also empha-
size Halil™s alleged inclination to receive bribes and gifts from Byzantine
authorities, drawing connections between this and the policy of peace
he advocated.75 The presence of Halil Pasa™s name among the business
¸
associates of Badoer casts light on another, previously unknown, facet of
the material interests underlying his support of peace with Byzantium;
namely, his commercial operations within Constantinople. In this con-
text, it is noteworthy that on the eve of the Council of Ferrara“Florence,
during the very same time when Badoer recorded Halil Pasa™s activities,
¸
the Ottoman vizier had competently dissuaded Murad II from launching
an attack against Constantinople, which corroborates the suggested link
between Halil™s economic interests and his political stance.76 The conspic-
uous absence of Turkish traders from Badoer™s accounts during 1439“40
lends further support to this argument by conveying how an open breach
in Byzantine“Ottoman diplomatic relations, as indeed did occur following
the conclusion of the union at Florence in 1439, could result in the loss of
commercial opportunities at Constantinople on which certain Ottoman
merchants were able to capitalize during times of peaceful relations between
the two states.
Another individual who merits notice among the Ottoman subjects
with whom Badoer conducted business is a merchant called Choza/Chogia
Is(s)e/Inse turcho, father of chir Jacob/Jachop.77 Given the fact that Badoer
consistently uses the title chir (= kyr) to designate his Byzantine clients,
it seems odd that he should apply this form of address to the son of a
merchant who is explicitly stated to be a Turk and who bears the Islamic
title hoca typically used, along with hac±, by Ottoman big merchants.78

75 See ™Inalc±k, Fatih Devri, pp. 81“3; ™ H. Uzuncars±l±, Candarl± Vezir Ailesi (Ankara, 1974), pp. 56“91.
¸¸ ¸
I.
Information on Halil Pasa™s pro-Byzantine and pro-peace attitude can be found in the following
¸
sources: As±kpasazade“Giese, pp. 131“2 (= As±kpasazade“Ats±z, p. 192); Sphrantzes“Grecu, XXIII.9“
¸ ¸ ¸ ¸
11, p. 60; Doukas“Grecu, XXXIV.2, XXXV.5, XL.3, pp. 293, 311“13, 377; Kritob.“Reinsch, I.76,1“2,
p. 87; Leonardo of Chios in PG, 159, col. 937; Tedaldi, “Informazioni,” in Thesaurus, ed. Mart`ne e
and Durand, vol. i, cols. 1821“2; cf. Pseudo-Phrantzes, Macarie Melissenos, ed. Grecu, pp. 408“12,
436. Note that Doukas records how Halil came to be labeled among his Ottoman adversaries in
Turkish as “kaboÆr ½rtagž” (gavur orta˜±), and provides the correct meaning for the expression as
g
“companion or helper of the Greeks” (p. 313, line 6).
76 For Halil Pasa™s role in calling off the attack Murad II contemplated against Constantinople, see
¸
Sphrantzes“Grecu, XXIII.9“11, p. 60, and note 22 above.
77 Badoer, pp. 375, 382, 178, 236.
78 On the use of these titles by Ottoman merchants, see H. ™ Inalc±k, “The hub of the city: the Bedestan
of Istanbul,” International Journal of Turkish Studies 1/1 (1979“80), 8“9 and n. 31; H. ™
Inalc±k, “Sources
for ¬fteenth-century Turkish economic and social history,” in ™ Inalc±k, Middle East and the Balkans
under the Ottoman Empire (Bloomington, 1993), p. 183.
204 Constantinople
The hypothesis put forward some years ago, which tried to resolve this
discrepancy by suggesting that Choza/Chogia Is(s)e turcho must have been
a former Byzantine who had become an Ottoman subject and converted
to Islam, while his son either remained attached to the Christian faith or,
having likewise converted, held on to his Greek title for practical reasons,79
can no longer be maintained in view of additional evidence that has been
brought to light recently. Two Genoese documents dated February 25, 1382
and January 28, 1425 “ the former concerning a certain Coia Isse, son of
Aurami Camalia, and the latter a certain Coaia Ysse de Camalia “ disclose
new data that correct the previously held assumptions on the origin and
descent of the father and son mentioned by Badoer.80 It emerges from
these documents that the latter were descendants probably of an eastern
Christian, Armenian, or Jewish merchant family that had migrated from
the Middle East to the Crimea, settling, it seems, ¬rst in the Turkish-Tatar
city of Surgat and then in the Genoese colony of Kaffa, before making its
way ¬nally to Constantinople. While a whole series of questions remain
unanswered (including when, if at all, Isa converted to Islam; whether he
became an Ottoman subject as suggested by Badoer™s identi¬cation of him
as a “Turk” or whether this identi¬cation might have stemmed from his
father™s links with Surgat; how his son Jacob came to acquire the Greek
title kyr; etc.), it now seems most unlikely that Isa was of Byzantine-Greek
origin.81
Yet we do come across Ottoman merchants of Byzantine-Greek origin in
Badoer™s account book, which contains a number of references to Greeks
from Ottoman-ruled areas who frequented Constantinople for trading
purposes. These references are indicative not only of the lively commercial
traf¬c between the Byzantine capital and Ottoman lands, but also of the
mercantile opportunities that were available to Greeks who lived under
Ottoman domination. In fact, the competition created by this increased

79 Kafadar, “A death in Venice,” 193, n. 8, followed by N. Necipo˜ lu, “Ottoman merchants in Con-
g
stantinople during the ¬rst half of the ¬fteenth century,” BMGS 16 (1992), 163“4.
80 K.-P. Matschke, “Some merchant families in Constantinople before, during and after the fall of the
City 1453,” Balkan Studies 38/2 (1997), 220“7; for references to the two Genoese documents, see
n. 12 (p. 223) and n. 9 (p. 222), respectively. This article also amends the earlier view put forward by the
author himself with regard to the origin of Coaia Ysse de Camalia in Matschke, “Tuchproduktion,”
65, n. 67.
81 It should be noted, however, that Matschke has claimed the contrary in a more recent publication,
without unfortunately providing evidence: “Chogia Ise . . . seems to have come from a Byzantine
aristocratic family that, in the early fourteenth century for reasons not entirely clear, relocated
to Kaffa and Surgat on the Crimea. There the family was strongly orientalized and became quite
wealthy, eventually returning to Constantinople shortly before the end of the empire.” See Matschke,
“Commerce, trade, markets, and money,” p. 795 and n. 138.
205
Constantinople (1403“1453)
commercial traf¬c between Byzantium and Ottoman domains threatened
Venice so much that around 1430 the Venetian Senate tried to hinder the
trade of Constantinople with “Turchia” through the interception of boats
that carried merchandise in either direction between the two regions.82 But
the attempts of Venice were ineffective, as the testimony of Badoer makes
clear. In 1436 Andrea Rixa of Adrianople (Edirne),83 in 1436“7 Todaro
Xingi of Simiso (Samsun),84 in 1438 Chostantino Rosso, Michali So¬ano,
and Chostantino Strati of Rodosto (Tekirda˜ )85 “ all Greek inhabitants of
g
Ottoman towns “ were engaged in trade with Constantinople.
Conversely, the activities of certain Byzantine merchants and sailors who
made trips to important commercial centers of the Ottomans are visible in
Badoer as well. Between 1436 and 1438, for example, chir Filialiti, Michali
Sofo, and Vasilicho transported various kinds of merchandise between Bursa
and Constantinople, while in 1439 the shipmaster Dimitri To¬lato deliv-
ered salted pork from Thessalonike, which the Ottomans had conquered
about a decade earlier.86 These last examples complete the full spectrum
of Byzantine“Ottoman commercial relations recorded in Badoer™s account
book. The picture that emerges is one of relatively busy trade, overland
and by sea, between the Byzantine capital and Ottoman territories, both in
the Balkans and in Asia Minor. Ottoman merchants, whether of Turkish,
Greek, or other origin, were able to participate in this trade by going in per-
son to Constantinople, while their Byzantine counterparts were admitted
simultaneously into various Ottoman towns.
This picture is con¬rmed by evidence from other sources, which add
further details to our information. According to an anonymous Ottoman
chronicle of the Crusade of Varna, following Murad II™s Anatolian cam-
paign against the Karamanids in 1443, a group of soldiers from the Ottoman
army went to Constantinople with the purpose of selling the animals they
had gathered as booty. Evidently, these were Muslim Tatars who lived in the
European domains of the Ottoman Empire and, on their way back from
Anatolia, made a stop at Constantinople in order to earn some money
with their booty.87 Here, then, we are faced not with professional Ottoman
merchants like the ones recorded by Badoer, but with a different kind of
trader whose activities were somewhat occasional “ the soldier who wanted

82 Thiriet, R´gestes, vol. ii, no. 2209; Iorga, Notes, vol. i, pp. 523“4.
e
83 Badoer, pp. 74, 75. 84 Ibid., pp. 89, 334. 85 Ibid., p. 628. 86 Ibid., pp. 13, 74, 452, 650.
87 Gazavˆ t-± Sultˆ n Murˆ d, p. 7. On the so-called “Tatar soldiers” and their role in the Ottoman army
a a a
during the fourteenth and ¬fteenth centuries, see ibid., pp. 83“5 (nn. 6“7); Konstantin Mihailovi´, c
Memoirs of a Janissary, trans. B. Stolz, commentary and notes by S. Soucek (Ann Arbor, 1975),
pp. 159“61, 232 (nn. 6“8).
206 Constantinople
to capitalize on his war spoils. Professional merchants, too, participated
in Ottoman military campaigns. According to John Kananos, Murad II™s
forces that besieged Constantinople in 1422 were composed of three cat-
egories of people who belonged, respectively, to the military, religious,
and commercial classes of Ottoman society.88 It is conceivable that the
trip of the Tatar soldiers to Constantinople recounted by the anonymous
Ottoman chronicler was not a unique or isolated incident, and that there
may have been similar occasions in which soldiers or merchants who took
part in Ottoman campaigns interrupted their homeward journey to ¬nd
buyers for their booty in the Byzantine capital.
We encounter yet another type of Ottoman merchant in a notarial
document from the Genoese archives.89 This document records a number
of disputes that took place in Pera in 1443 between one Ialabi and one
Corastefanos, who had joint business ventures in diverse locations such as
Bursa and Chios. Most interestingly for present purposes, the document

<<

. 38
( 67 .)



>>