Content uploaded by Michal Wasiucionek
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Michal Wasiucionek on Oct 07, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Back cover photo:
Joshua M. White
ISBN 978-960-93-6188-0
New Trends
in Ottoman Studies
New Trends
in Ottoman Studies
This volume includes 83 essays which were originally delivered as
papers at the 20th CIÉPO Symposium. The Symposium was held
in Rethymno, Crete, Greece, between 27 June and 1 July 2012,
and was organised by the Department of History and Archaeology
of the University of Crete and the Institute for Mediterranean
Studies of the Foundation for Research and Technology – Hellas
(IMS/FORTH), in collaboration with the Region of Crete, Regional
Unit of Rethymno, and the Municipality of Rethymno.
The essays cover a wide array of subjects, and are organised in
six thematic sections: Economy and Finances; Institutions and
Elites; The Ottoman Provinces; Inside a Wider World; Culture
and Ideology; Fine Arts, Architecture, and Archaeology.
University of Crete – Department of History and Archaeology
Foundation for Research and Technology-Hellas – Institute for Mediterranean Studies
Cover photo:
Giorgos Benakis
(knocker, 10, P. Koronaiou Str.,
Rethymno)
Back cover photo:
Joshua M. White
Marinos Sariyannis (ed.)
Editor-in-chief:
Marinos Sariyannis
Editors:
Gülsün Aksoy-Aivali, Marina Demetriadou,
Yannis Spyropoulos, Katerina Stathi, Yorgos Vidras
Consulting editors:
Antonis Anastasopoulos, Elias Kolovos
Papers presented
at the 20th CIÉPO Symposium
Rethymno, 27 June – 1 July 2012
New Trends
in Ottoman Studies
232
EThNIC SOLIDARITY IN ThE WIDER
OTTOMAN EMPIRE REVISITED:
Cins AND LOCAL POLITICAL ELITES
IN 17Th-CENTURY MOLDAVIA
AND WALLAChIA*
Michał Wasiucionek**
e year 1974 brought in the field of Ottoman studies two short but seminal
contributions authored by İ. Metin Kunt and Rifa’at Abou-El-Haj.1 While the
latter pointed out the rising role of the grandee households as the channel of
recruitment to the imperial administration, the former introduced the term of
cins into the discussion on Ottoman officialdom. According to Kunt, among the
servants of the sultan, not only did the solidarities based on common ethnic
and regional origin exist, but they also were an important factor in the political
struggles within the Sublime Porte during the turbulent seventeenth century.
e four decades that followed have brought a plethora of studies on the
political households and patronage networks within the field of Ottoman
governance and the grandee household is now recognized as the central institu-
* A number of people had the patience to read this text in its preliminary stages and of-
fered substantial and useful feedback. I would thus like to thank the members of the
esis Writing seminar held by Prof. Antonella Romano at the European University In-
stitute in fall 2012, where the preliminary version of the paper has been presented. I am
also indebted to my advisor Prof. Bartolomé Yun Casalilla and Dr. Gábor Kármán, whose
critical remarks have helped me to sharpen the central arguments. Finally, I would like to
thank Suzan Meryem Rosita Kalayci for reading and proofreading the manuscript.
** PhD Candidate, European University Institute, Florence, michal.wasiucionek@eui.eu
1 İ. Metin Kunt, “Ethnic-Regional (Cins) Solidarity in the Seventeenth-Century Otto-
man Establishment”, International Journal of Middle East Studies 5, no. 3 (1974): 233-39;
Rifa’at Abou-El-Haj, “e Ottoman Vezir and Paşa Households 1683-1703: A Prelimi-
n ar y R e po rt”, Journal of the American Oriental Society 94/4 (1974), 438-47.
233
ethnic solidarity in the Wider ottoman empire revisited
tion of the imperial political culture, both in the center as well as in provinces.2
However, a number of issues still wait to be addressed in the scholarship and
many social groups are still missing from the larger picture of the Ottoman
households and patronage networks. One of the most important lacunae – as
noted recently by Christine M. Philliou – are non-Muslim elites and their posi-
tion both within the Ottoman governance and the household-based political
culture of the empire.3
e aim of this paper is to posit the Moldavian-Wallachian elite within the
larger context of Ottoman political culture during the mid-seventeenth cen-
tury. Unlike Phanariots described by Philliou, the boyars of the Danubian Prin-
cipalities occupied a position that was doubly marginal on the imperial scale.
Similarly to the Phanariots, their religious and legal status excluded them par
excellence from the mainstream of Ottoman political arena. Still, while the main
arena of Phanariot activity remained the imperial center, the privileged posi-
tion of Moldavian and Wallachian boyars remained fixed to their principali-
ties at the fringes of the empire, making them peripheral in geographical terms
as well. is led many scholars – both Ottomanists and scholars of Romanian
history – to underestimate the interconnections between the principalities and
the empire.4 us, while most of Romanian historiography has perceived the
Sublime Porte as a unitary, powerful and ominous force in international relati-
ons, but one disengaged from the internal political struggles, most of the litera-
ture on Ottoman Empire sees Moldavia and Wallachia as tributary polities and
sources of provisions, without examining the internal developments in greater
detail. However, by shiing our view from the “state” to faction as the main unit
of analysis, we are able to uncover a number of interconnections and paral-
2 Carter Vaughan Findley, “Political culture and the great households,” in Suraiya Faroqhi
(ed.), e Cambridge History of Turkey, vol. 3, Cambridge 2006, 65-80; Palmira Brum-
mett, “Placing the Ottomans in the Mediterranean World: e Question of Notables and
Households,” in Donald Quataert and Baki Tezcan (eds.) Beyond dominant paradigms in
Ottoman and Middle Eastern/North African studies: a tribute to Rifa'at Abou-El-Haj, Is-
tanbul 2010, 77-96.
3 Christine M. Philliou, Biography of an empire: governing Ottomans in an age of revolu-
tion, Berkeley 2011, xxi.
4 One of relatively few works on the Ottoman Empire that dwell in detail on the internal
developments and institutions of the Danubian Principalities is Suraiya Faroqhi, e Ot-
toman Empire and the world around it, London and New York 2004.
234
miChAł WAsiuCiONek
lels that transcend the neat and state-centered division between the Ottoman
“state” and its tributaries.
e focus of this paper is to show that the ethnic-regional (cins) solidarities
were not the sole preserve of the imperial administration proper, but cut across
the center/periphery, as well as religious boundaries during the seventeenth
century. While the polarization between “westerners” and “easterners” gained
momentum in the Ottoman Empire, the similar development – even if with the
boundaries drawn in a different manner – occurred in Moldavia and Wallachia,
with the opposition between “indigenous” boyars and “Greeks” or “Greco-Levan-
tines” coming from the lands under Ottoman administration.5 On the intersec-
tion of these conflicts, the ethnic-religious solidarity came to play a role not only
within the respective political arenas, but also at the interface between them.
For the purpose of this paper, I dwell on one case of the voievode Gheorghe
Ghica, a boyar of Albanian origin, who came to rule Moldavia (1658–1659) and
Wallachia (1659–1660). While his rule in itself is rather inconsequential for the
history of Danubian Principalities, the very rise of Ghica and the way it was
narrated in Moldavian chronicles show the role of ethnic-regional solidarities
in the upward mobility and the role it played in connecting Moldavian-Wallac-
hian and Ottoman political arenas. By looking closer at the narrative strategies
of two authors: Miron Costin (1633/4–1691) and Ion Neculce (1672–1745) and
putting it in the context of Köprülü Mehmed Pasha’s empire-wide appointment
strategy, I hope to show the way in which ethnic solidarity worked in connec-
ting otherwise disparate elite groupings within the wider Ottoman world.
Before moving to the discussion of the narratives themselves, it is worth
recounting shortly the career of Gheorghe Ghica himself.6 Hailing from Alba-
nia, he immigrated to Moldavia in the 1620s as part of the major inflow of
5 e most important works on this topic are undoubtedly Radu G. Păun, “Pouvoirs, offices
et patronage dans la Principauté de Moldavie au XVIIe siècle. L’aristocratie roumaine et
la pénétration gréco-levantine”, unpublished PhD dissertation, École des Hautes Études
en Sciences Sociales, 2003; Radu G. Păun, “Les grands officiers d'origine gréco-levantine
en Moldavie au XVIIe siècle. Offices, carrières et stratègies de pouvoir,” Revue des Études
Sud-est Européennes 45/1-4 (2007): 153-95. Another seminal article on the issue of iden-
tities and political use of ethnic labels in Bogdan Murgescu, “"Fanarioți" și "pământeni".
Religie și etnicitate în definirea identităților în Țările Române și în Imperiul Otoman,” in
idem, Țările Române între Imperiul Otoman și Europa creștină, Iași 2012, 53-59.
6 Nicolae Stoicescu, Dicționar al marilor dregători din Țara Românească și Moldova, sec.
XIV-XVII, Bucharest 1971, 403.
235
ethnic solidarity in the Wider ottoman empire revisited
so-called Greco-Levantines into the principalities. Initially occupying him-
self with commerce, he was employed at the court by the voievode Vasile Lupu
(1634–1653), a ruler of Albanian origin. Aer occupying a number of lower-
ranking positions7, Ghica was appointed as Chief Judge of Lower Moldavia
(vornic al Țării de Jos), a third-ranking office in the principality, during the final
years of Lupu’s rule (1647–1652). He was also dispatched by his patron to İstan-
bul to serve as his representative of to the Porte (kapıkahya, Rom. capuchehăia)
– a position that was crucial for the very political (and oen physical) survival
of the voievode.8
Vasile Lupu’s last years were a troubled period. e principality was pulled
into the chaos of Polish-Cossack War (1648–1654), while the opposition against
the faction of Vasile Lupu mounted among some of the boyars. In April 1653,
the rebellion led by Chancellor (mare logofăt) Gheorghe Ștefan erupted against
Vasile Lupu and his clique.9 By December, the rebels supported by Transylva-
nian-Polish-Wallachian coalition had managed to overcome Lupu and his Cos-
sack allies and establish Gheorghe Ștefan as the new voievode (r. 1653–1658).
Despite the anti-Greek rhetoric employed by the new ruler and harsh repres-
sions against Lupu’s supporters, Gheorghe Ștefan retained Ghica as his repre-
sentative at the Porte, while undertaking effort to ensure the latter’s loyalty. is
was done through arranging the marriage between Ghica’s son, Grigore (future
voievode of Wallachia, 1660–1664, 1672–1674) and his own lineage.
However, another crisis in the region, caused by overly ambitious political
plans of György Rákóczy II, the prince of Transylvania (r. 1648–1660), provi-
ded the new grand vizier Köprülü Mehmed Pasha with an occasion to reassert
control over the Danubian Principalities. Pro-Transylvanian voievodes of Mol-
davia and Wallachia – Gheorghe Ștefan and Constantin Șerban (r. 1654–1658)
– were summoned to the Porte and, upon failing to attend, were replaced with
7 He was appointed the position of grand șetrar (quatermaster) (1638–1641), grand me-
delnicer (cutler) (1643), grand stolnic (seneschal) (1645–1647).
8 Ioan D Condurachi, Soli și agenți ai domnilor Moldovei la Poartă în secolul al XVII-lea,
Bucharest 1920; Aurel H. Golimas, Despre capuchehăile Moldovei și poruncile Porții către
Moldova, până la 1829, Iași 1943; Ion Matei, Reprezentanții diplomatici (capuchehăi) ai
Țării Românești la Poartă Otomană, Bucharest 2008.
9 Ioan D Condurachi, Soli și agenți ai domnilor Moldovei la Poartă în secolul al XVII-lea,
Bucharest 1920; Aurel H. Golimas, Despre capuchehăile Moldovei și poruncile Porții către
Moldova, până la 1829, Iași 1943; Ion Matei, Reprezentanții diplomatici (capuchehăi) ai
Țării Românești la Poartă Otomană, Bucharest 2008.
236
miChAł WAsiuCiONek
Gheorghe Ghica (in Moldavia) and Mihnea III (Wallachia, 1658–1659).10 Sub-
sequently, the new appointees were enthroned with the help of Ottoman and
Crimean forces, while the deposed rulers retreated to Transylvania and joined
the rebellion of Rákóczy against the Porte.
Ghica’s rule in Moldavia was a brief one and overshadowed by the constant
struggle with Transylvanian-supported Constantin Șerban. e new voievode
proved himself spectacularly unsuccessful in military sphere, being driven out
of the principality and returning only with the help of Crimean Tatars. He was
soon transferred to Wallachia to replace Mihnea III, who had defected to the
rebels. e rule in Wallachia was similarly brief, as upon Ghica’s failure to deli-
ver the tribute he was dismissed in favour of his son, Grigore. Aer his removal
from the throne, he moved to Istanbul, where he served as Wallachian capuche-
haia until his death in 1664.
While hardly an impressive and able ruler, Gheorghe Ghica’s career allows
us to uncover some interesting mechanisms of upward mobility. is becomes
visible in two divergent, but nonetheless complementary accounts of his career
circulating in Moldavian historiography of late seventeenth and early eighte-
enth century. e first one was composed by Miron Costin – a contemporary
of the events – and included in his chronicle of Moldavia that constituted the
blueprint for virtually all subsequent Moldavian historical works. It served as a
source for Ion Neculce, who used sections from Costin in his own account of
Ghica’s career. However, the latter significantly changed not only the main focus
of Costin’s account, but also inserted it into totally different narrative and poli-
tical framework.
Costin begins his account from the arrival of Gheorghe Ghica to Moldavia.
While initially being involved in commerce, Ghica is soon taken to the court
by Vasile Lupu:
Being of the same origin as him [Ghica] – that is Albanian – voievode
Vasile brought him to the court and entrusted him some minor offices, and later
[Ghica] reached the position of the Chief Judge of Lower Moldavia. And as Vasile
considered him faithful, he sent him to the Porte as a capuchehaia, as [the ruler]
10 Virgil Cândea (ed.), Istoria românilor, vol. 5, Bucharest 2003, 157.
237
ethnic solidarity in the Wider ottoman empire revisited
upon seeing him valuable and diligent at everything, as one should be as capuche-
haia.11
Ghica’s Albanian ethnicity is put explicitly by Costin as the prime motive for
employment at the court by the Albanian voievode. Only later, the competence
and loyalty seems to play an important role in his subsequent rise through
the boyar ranks to the position of vornic and capuchehaia. e trust placed in
Ghica seems – as Costin shows later – well placed, as throughout the tumultu-
ous period of 1652–1653 capuchehaia was a stalwart supporter on his patron,
changing allegiance only when Vasile Lupu’s case was clearly lost and Gheorghe
Ștefan arrested Ghica’s son in order to ensure his loyalty. However, and this is
quite telling, the new voievode seems to nurture doubts about the allegiances
of Ghica and, as Costin stresses, arranging the marriage between Grigore Ghica
and his own niece was aimed precisely at creating affinitive relation that would
impede Ghica from acting against new ruler’s interests. is measure was only
partly successful, as Ghica maintained contact with his fallen patron and upon
his own enthronement in Moldavia.
Aer an elaborate recounting of Ghica’s career as a boyar, Costin concludes
his description with the circumstances of Ghica’s appointment as the voievode.
However, in comparison with the rest of the section dedicated to his rise, this
part of the narrative is surprisingly laconic:
[Gheorghe Ștefan] sent old Ghica as a capuchehaia, where he took care of
[voievode’s] affairs at the Porte until the deposition of Ștefan. When the vizier Köp-
rülu summoned [Gheorghe Ștefan] to the Porte to kiss the sultan’s robes, and the
latter was unwilling to go, [Köprülu] appointed Ghica to the throne.12
A little more detail is, however, given in the earlier part of the chronicle, when
Costin recounts the audience given to the Moldavian boyars sent by Gheorghe
Ștefan:
11 Tahsin Gemil, Țările române în contextul politic internațional (1621-1672), Bucharest
1979, 172; Mircea C. Soreanu, “Țările române și Imperiul otoman în perioada guvernării
marilor viziri din familia Köprülü (1656-1710),” unpublished PhD diss., University of
Bucharest 1998, 132-34; Cândea, Istoria românilor, 163.
12 “Fiindu de un niam cu dânsul, arbănaș, l-au trasu-l Vasilie vodă la curte și de odată la
boerii mai mănunte, apoi la vorniciia cea mare de Țara de Gios au agiunsu. Și țiindu-l
Vasilie vodă de credință, l-au trimis la Poartă capichihaie, vădzându-l și om cuntenit la
toate și scump, cum să cade hie când capichihăei să hie.” Miron Costin, Letopisețul Țării
Moldovei dela Aron Vodă încoace, ed. P.P. Panaitescu, Bucharest 1943, 191.
238
miChAł WAsiuCiONek
[T]he vizier responded the voievodes that even if they would fill their houses with
golden coins, they could not evade coming [to the Porte]. ‘And if they come, they
will remain voievodes. And if voievode Ștefan won’t come, I will immediately put
this one [on the throne],” said the vizier pointing at Ghica, who was capuchehaia of
Ștefan at the Porte. And they say that, just as vizier said those words, Ghica rushed
to kiss vizier’s robes.13
Putting aside the presentation of Ghica’s behavior as overtly disloyal to his ruler,
the account does not give much indication concerning why it was Ghica that
was appointed as the new voievode of Moldavia. Rather, the message seems to
be that the choice of Köprülü Mehmed Pasha was made ad hoc, almost a whim
of the volatile Ottoman official disregarding any considerations of the boyars.
Gheorghe Ghica was thus – if we follow Costin’s narrative – an almost acciden-
tal and random choice: he just happened to be in the room during the audience.
What is important here in Costin’s account is his consciousness of the role
of ethnic solidarity for the upward mobility, as well as his framing of Ghica’s
career. He acknowledges the role of ethnic-based patronage explicitly by rela-
ting it to the patronage exercised by Vasile Lupu. However, he does not add-
ress the issue of the relationship between the Ottoman officials and Moldavian
boyars.
is is, however, explainable by the political and narrative framework adop-
ted by Costin. e vantage point of Miron Costin is throughout the whole acco-
unt fixed in Moldavia and Moldavian political arena. Firstly, the very beginning
of the account starts only at the moment of Ghica coming to Moldavia. is is
also stressed by the verbs denoting movement applied by the author: he consis-
tently uses “to go” (a merge) and “to send” (a trimi) to reflect movement from
13 “Atunce trimițindu Ștefan vodă pre Stamatie postelnicul cu câțva boieri de țară să-i
isprăvască stiag de domniie și aice pre fecioru său, pre Gligorașco, care apoi au fostu
domnu în Țara Muntenească, îl trimisease în Țara Unguriască, la închisoare. Deci n’au
avut ce mai face și împotriva unii țări și audzindu de fecior la închisoare, au stătut și el
cu boierii lui Ștefan vodă alăturea pre trebile lui Ștefan vodă și au venit și singur cu aga,
cările au venit cu stiagul și cu alți boeri în țară. Ștefan vodă socotindu iară aceie care so-
cotise și Vasilie vodă în Ghica vornicul, că este om de capichihăie, neavându gându să
poată iasă unul ca dânsul la domnie, l-au făcut de casa sa, cu nepoată sa, fata Sturdzii vis-
ternicului, după feciorul lui, Gligorașco postelnicul. Și după ce l-au făcut cuscru de casa
sa, pre feciorul său boerindu-l cu agiea, pre Ghica bătrânul l-au trimis iară la capichihăie,
la Poartă și au fostu pe trebule lui Ștefan vodă, până ce i-au venitn maziliia. Chemându-l
veziriul Chiupruliul la sărutarea poalei împărăteși și necutedzându a merge Ștefan vodă
la Poartă, au dat Ghicăi vornicului domniia țărâi.” Ibid., 192.
239
ethnic solidarity in the Wider ottoman empire revisited
the principality to the Porte, while “to come” (a veni) serves to describe motion
in the opposite direction.14 For Costin, the story of Ghica is principally within
the framework of Moldavian political arena and thus it is the ethnic solidarity
within this arena that catches his attention. What happened in the Ottoman
capital interests him only to a limited degree.
Neculce knew the account by Costin and inserted it into his account. Howe-
ver, while Moldavian political arena was the focus of attention for Costin, it has
been marginalized in Neculce’s story. Instead, the author starts the career of
Ghica from the moment he le his village for Istanbul:
Voievode Ghica – an Albanian by birth – as he was a young boy, he set out from his
home to Constantinople to find a master whom he would serve. And he took with
him a small boy, who was a poor Turk from the island of Cyprus [din ostrovul Chip-
rului]. And as they were travelling to Constantinople, they were talking many good
words: that they will share together the last slice of bread. And Ghica said: "You are
a Turk, you can become a great man, and what would you do then for me?” Abd the
Turk replied: „If I get to be a great man, I will make you the greatest man in Cyprus
[Chipru]…” And upon arriving to Istanbul, they parted and each set out to search
for a patron.15
e story first follows the Turkish boy, who is revealed as the future grand vizier
Köprülü Mehmed Pasha, his slow ascendancy through the ranks of Ottoman
officialdom and his appointment as grand vizier in the face of the rebellion in
Istanbul. At this point, the narrative shis back to Ghica, who at the same enters
the service of the Moldavian capuchehaia in Istanbul, only to move later to the
principality as a merchant. e Moldavian period of Ghica’s career is clearly a
faithful, if abridged, retelling of Costin’s account. However, unlike in the latter
text, this section plays only secondary role, connecting the story of small boys
travelling to Istanbul with their later reunion during the audience of Moldavian
boyars at the imperial council:
14 "[D]omnilor așe au răspunsu vezirul, că ari împlea căte o casă de galbeni de aur, nu poate
acestu lucru, să nu vie aice. «Și de vor veni, iară domni vor hi! Iară de nu va veni Ștefan
vodă, într-un cias oi pune pre acesta,» arătându pre Ghica vornicul, carele era capichi-
haia lui Ștefan vodă la Poartă. Spun de Ghica vornicul, cum au dzis acestu cuvânt vezirul,
el au și alergat de au sărutat poala vizirului.” Ibid., 190.
15 In a similar vein, most of the accounts concerning 1622 Janissary rebellion against Os-
man II represent – as Gabriel Piterberg argues – the kul-centric and Istanbul-based per-
spective through the application of verbs of movement to and from Anatolia, see Gabriel
Piterberg, An Ottoman tragedy: history and historiography at play, Berkeley 2003, 167.
240
miChAł WAsiuCiONek
And it happened once, during the reign of Gheorghe Ștefan, that when [Ghica] was
at the Porte with other boyars, the vizier recognized him. And Ghica did not recog-
nize the vizier. So Köprülü summoned the imperial treasurer and told him in secret:
“Do you see this old Moldavian boyar at the Council? Bring him to your chamber
until the conclusion of the Council and later bring him to me in secret.” [...] And
aer the conclusion of the Council they brought [Ghica] to the vizier and the vizier
asked him who he is and where does he come from and also asked: “You recognize
me, don’t you?”, and Ghica told the vizier where does he come from, but for the
vizier himself, he could not recognize him. en the vizier asked: “Do you remem-
ber what we promised each other, as we were travelling together?” And he also told:
“Well, you forgot, by I haven’t, and so I will make you the voievode of Moldavia,
only keep silent about it for a moment”. And Ghica rushed to kiss the hand [of the
vizier] and he begged in his ruler’s favour, so that the latter will be allowed to stay
at the throne and so that he won’t be deposed. And the vizier replied: “en I will
leave him be for the time being, but I will not take back my word about I will make
for you.” And he summoned Gheorghe Ștefan to the Porte and - as the latter was
unwilling to come – [the vizier] appointed Ghica as the voievode in Moldavia[…].16
e story of two poor childhood friends reuniting aer decades at the top of
imperial hierarchy seems to be too literary to be true.17 However, it is worth
16 „Ghica-vodă, de neamul lui fiind arbănaș, copil tânăr au purces de la casa lui la Țarigrad,
să-ș găsască un stăpân să slujască. Și cu dânsul s-au mai luat un copil turcu, iar sărac, din
ostrovul Chiprului. Și mergând amândoi dempreună la Țarigrad, multe vorbe bune au
vorbit: de vor găsi pită, să să caute unul pre altul. Și au dzis Ghica-vodă: «Tu ești turcu,
poți să agiungi să fii om mare, și mi-i face pre mine atunce?» Iar turcu au dzis atunce:
«De voi fi eu om mare, te voi face de vii fi mai mare în Chipru, giudecătoriu.» Și mergând
în Țarigrad, s-au despărțit unul de altul, să-ș caute stăpâni.” Ion Neculce, Letopisețul Țării
Moldovei și o samă de cuvinte, ed. Iorgu Iordan, Bucharest 1955, 118-19.
17 "Deci tîmplîndu-să atence, la vremea lui Gheorghii Ștefan-vodă de au fost la Poartă cu
alți boieri, viziriul vădzîndu-l l-au cunoscut cine este. Iar Ghica-vodă nu-l cunoște pre
viziriul. Deci viziriul Chiupruliolul au și chemat pre haznatariul lui și i-au dzis în taină:
«Vedzi cel boieriu bătrîn moldovan ce este la Divan? Să-l iei și să-l duci la odaia ta, pănă
s-a rădica Divanul, și apoi să-l duci la mine în taină cum trebuiește.» [...] Și după ce s-au
rădicat Divanul și l-au adus la viziriul, l-au întrebat viziriul ce om este și de unde este, și
au dzis: «Cunoști-mă pre mine, au ba?» Iar Ghica-vodă s-au spus de unde este de locul
lui, iar a cunoaște pre viziriul nu-l cunoște. Atunce viziriul Chiupruliolul s-au spus și au
dzis: «Ții minte ce am vorbit cînd viniiam amîndoi pre cale?» Și au dzis: «De ai uitat tu,
dar eu n-am uitat, și iată că te voi face domnu în Moldova; numai să tăci mîlcom». Iar
Ghica-vodă au și mărsu de i-au sărutat mînă și s-au rugat atunce pentru stăpînu-său, să-l
lasă să fie domnu, să nu-l mazilească. Iar viziriul au răspunsu: «Acmu doedată îl las să
fie, iar mai pre urmă cuvîntul mieu gios nu l-oi lasă, ce te voi face pre tine». Și pre urmă,
chemînd la Poartă pre Gheorghii Ștefan-vodă să margă, au pus pre Ghica-vodă domu în
Moldova, după cum scrie letopisățul.” Ibid., 119-20.
241
ethnic solidarity in the Wider ottoman empire revisited
noting that while for Costin the crux of the story was the patronage exercised
by Vasile Lupu in furthering Gheorghe Ghica’s career, for Neculce – while not
denying its importance – another instance of patronage is the main focus: the
protection exercised by Köprülü Mehmed Pasha over the future voievode. is
instance of patronage does not develop within the Moldavian political arena,
but rather at the interface between two distinct political spaces – the Molda-
vian-Wallachian and the Ottoman one.
is framing of the story is visible in the changing vantage point from which
it is narrated. In the first section (until the arrival to Istanbul) the “camera” is
following both of them through their journey. Aer Ghica and Köprülü part
their ways, it first follows the ascendancy of the Ottoman official through the
ranks, his connection with the sultan’s favorite and his appointment as the grand
vizier and subsequently establishment of a veritable dynasty within Ottoman
administration. en, the story goes back to Ghica and narrates his rise to the
position of capuchehaia in parallel to that of Köprülü up until the culminating
point during the audience, when the two reunite and – in effect – Ghica is appo-
inted as voievode. While Neculce once refers to Moldavia as “here” (aici), his
“observation point” shis constantly and adapts to the manifold political arenas
in which the story develops.
What is missing on the explicit level of the story, however, is the reference
to the ethnic solidarities, which had prominent place in Costin’s account. Some
information in the text, as mentioning that the Turkish (in Romanian reference
to religious rather than ethnic identity) boy came from the “island of Cyprus”
(ostrovul Chiprului). e editor of the chronicle, Iorgu Iordan, has provided a
plausible explanation of this detail, suggesting the confusion deriving from the
interpretation of the sobriquet Köprülü as deriving from the well-known island
of Cyprus rather than somewhat obscure Anatolian town of Köprü, both pro-
nounced and written in a similar manner in Romanian.18
18 On the basis of the information from Mihail-Dimitri Sturdza, Dictionnaire historique
des grandes familles de Grèce, d’Albanie, et de Constantinople, Paris 1983, 448, Christine
Philliou has taken this story at face value, Philliou, Biography of an empire, 16. However,
the fact that the chronicle of Ion Neculce written in the second quarter of the eighteenth
century is the first recounting of this story and the life courses of Köprülü Mehmed Pa-
sha and Gheorghe Ghica are so neatly mirroring each other casts doubt on the veracity
of this account. Moreover, the future grand vizier was handpicked during the devșirme
levy, an institution that was already defunct at the time when Neculce was writing his
chronicle and his vision of entering Ottoman service reflects the realities when the gran-
dee households took the dominant place in the recruitment.
242
miChAł WAsiuCiONek
However, as Metin Kunt pointed out, the most plausible place of Köprülü’s
origin was the kaza of Berat and his ethnic origin was without any doubt Alba-
nian.19 us, while Neculce’s account should be taken with a grain of salt, it can
be underpinned by the affinitive ties existing between Ghica and Köprülü Meh-
med Pasha on the basis of common ethnic and regional origin and that this was
the factor behind the elevation of Ghica to the throne. In order to examine this
theory, we have to look at the appointment strategy of Köprülü Mehmed Pasha
in a wider Ottoman context.
e first grand vizier of the Köprülü dynasty was without doubt a benefici-
ent of the ethnic-based patronage, being a client of Hüsrev Pasha and subsequ-
ently Tabanıyassı Mehmed Pasha.20 However, his own household and network
of clients was to much extent heterogenous and included a number of offici-
als hailing from different cultural and ethnic backgrounds. For instance, one of
the main pillars of the household was Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa Pasha, son of a
sipahi from the vicinity of Köprü.21 Another of Köprülü’s clients was his Cauca-
sian slave, Abaza Siyavush Pasha.22 No doubt, there was also a number of fellow
“westerners” within the household, as the case of Ahmed Bey Bushnaq in Egypt
suggests.23 In general, however, Köprülü’s faction had a multicultural and mul-
tiethnic features and reflect both the pragmatical approach to the process of
household building (as Jane Hathaway has proven) as well as the gradual accu-
mulation of clients by Köprülü throughout his career.24
However, when we turn our eyes to the appointments in Moldavia and Wal-
lachia, a different pattern emerges. Out of four voievodes elevated under the
vizirate of Köprülü Mehmed Pasha, all except one went to the individuals of
Albanian origin.25 A single case of appointing non-Albanian voievode was
19 Neculce, Letopisețul, 119, fn. 1.
20 Kunt, “Ethnic-regional solidarity,” 235.
21 Ibid., 236-37.
22 Merlijn Olnon, “ ‘A most agreeable and pleasant creature’? Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa Pașa
in the correspondence of Justinus Colyer (1668-1682),” Oriente Moderno 83/3 (2003),
652-54.
23 Abou-El-Haj, “Vizier and Pașa households,” 443.
24 Jane Hathaway, A tale of two factions: myth, memory, and identity in Ottoman Egypt and
Yemen, Albany 2003, 191.
25 ose appointments were: Gheorghe Ghica (1658–1659 in Moldavia, 1659-1660 in Wal-
lachia), Mihnea III (1658–1659, Wallachia), Ștefaniță Lupu (1659–1661, Moldavia), Gri-
gore Ghica (1660–1664, Wallachia).
243
ethnic solidarity in the Wider ottoman empire revisited
the one of Mihnea III (1658–1659), known also in Ottoman sources as Civan
Bey.26 His case was however peculiar as he was clearly not a client of Köprülü
Mehmed Pasha, but of another powerful grandee – Sarı Kenan Pasha, a politi-
cal ally of Köprülü during the early stage of Abaza Hasan Pasha’s revolt.27 e
parallel appointment of Mihnea III and Ghica to the Danubian Principali-
ties can thus be interpreted as part of the political alliance struck between two
powerful Ottoman households that agreed to divide the spoils among them-
selves.28 us, it seems that the choices of Köprülü Mehmed Pasha were solely
those of Albanians.
How to interpret this discrepancy between the appointments the Danubian
Principalities and within Ottoman administration proper? I would argue that
the difference derived from the relative disjunction (but by no means isolation)
between Moldavian-Wallachian and Ottoman political arenas, the specific sta-
tus of the Danubian Principalities and the inapplicability of the established
household-building repertoire to those specific conditions.
e Ottoman grandees developed a number of means for providing cohe-
sion to their political households, which have been analysed and described in
historiography. e head of the household relied on marriage ties29, political sla-
very30, distributing tax-farms among his clients31, hierarchies within the corps,
Sufi networks32 and – last but not least – ethnic-regional solidarities. However,
the peculiar insitutional arrangement of the Danubian Principalities as Chris-
26 Cândea, O epocă de înnoiri, 172-74; Soreanu, “Țările române,” 134.
27 Caroline Finkel, Osman’s dream : the story of the Ottoman Empire, 1300-1923, New York
2007, 258. On Sarı Kenan Pasha, see Mehmed Süreya, Sicill-i Osmanî, ed. Seyit Ali Kahra-
man, vol. 3, Istanbul 1996, 885.e account of the relationship between Sarı Kenan Pasha
and Mihnea III by Evliya Çelebi in M. M. Alexandrescu-Dersca Bulgaru and Mustafa A.
Mehmet (eds.), Călători străini despre Țările Române, vol. 6, Bucharest 1976, 467.
28 A similar case of dividing the spoils, while keeping the balance between different house-
holds has been described by Jane Hathaway in her analysis of the alliance between
Qazdağlıs and Jalfis in mid-eighteenth century Egypt, Hathaway, Politics of household,
96.
29 Ibid., 124.
30 Ibid., 105; Gabriel Piterberg, “e Formation of an Ottoman Egyptian Elite in the 18th
Century,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 22/3 (1990), 283.
31 Hathaway, Politics of household, 130; Ariel Salzmann, Tocqueville in the Ottoman Empire
: rival paths to the modern state, Leiden - Boston 2004, 106.
32 James A. Reilly, A small town in Syria: Ottoman Hama in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth
centuries, Oxford 2002, 30.
244
miChAł WAsiuCiONek
tian-ruled polities-cum-tax farms prevented the Ottoman officials from acqui-
ring them within the framework of the iltizam system.33 e virtual absence of
imperial military corps in the principalities made the use of barrack factions
impracticable. e structure and attitudes of the local boyar class prevented the
immersion of mamluks into the ruling group. Finally, the religious and status
differences between Moldavian-Wallachian and Ottoman political elites made
the use of marriage ties and utilizing religious networks a non-option for the
Ottoman officials willing to extent the reach of their household. is le out
ethnic-regional solidarities as one of the few tools available for the grandees
to gain access to resources in the principalities and to provide trust and cohe-
sion to their patronage network. In contrast to the Ottoman administration,
where frequent and multiple interactions produced heterogenous and multi-
ethnic households, the relative detachment and low-level permeability of boun-
daries between Ottoman and Moldavian-Wallachian political arenas resulted
in a smaller number of tools that could be applied for providing cohesion and
trust to the patronage networks, which is visible in the case of Köprülü Meh-
med Pasha.
is paper focused on one case of such ethnic-based patronage within the
framework of Köprülü Mehmed Pasha’s faction-building strategy. However,
it is important to keep in mind that Köprülü was by no means unique. Even
cursory review of Ottoman-Moldavian-Wallachian relations throughout the
seventeenth century shows that the opposite is the case. Many Ottoman offici-
als allied themselves with their counterparts on the basis of the ethnicity and
some even paid dearly for supporting their clients in Moldavia and Wallachia;
for instance, Tabanıyassı Mehmed Pasha was executed for his involvement and
support of Vasile Lupu’s failed attempt to gain thrones of both principalities in
the late 1630s.34 More thorough examination of such instances can bring both
a number of other cases as well as more general view of the interaction between
the imperial elite and the elites of their tributary states.
Two more general propositions can be drawn from the cases described
above. Firstly, the patronage relations and solidarities between actors belonging
to different political arenas subvert the state- and community-centered way of
33 Viorel Panaite, “e voivodes of the Danubian Principalities as Harâcgüzarlar of the Ot-
toman sultans,” in Kemal H. Karpat – Robert W. Zens (eds.), Ottoman borderlands: issues,
personalities, and political changes, Madison 2003, 64.
34 e story from Moldavian perspective is narrated by Costin, Letopisețul, 107-08.
245
ethnic solidarity in the Wider ottoman empire revisited
seeing Ottoman governance, metaphorically described by Karen Barkey as “ast-
ronomy of empire”, with the self-contained local and minority elites surroun-
ding the central, reified state without much interaction with each other.35 Even
the members of such seemingly compartmentalized elite as Moldavian-Wal-
lachian boyars participated – although not on the equal footing as the imperial
elite – in the political world of the wider Ottoman Empire. e appointments
in Moldavia and Wallachia and rapid turnover of voievodes were not an exp-
ression of state virtuosity36 – as Barkey suggests – or of officials’ whims and
rampant corruption – as most Romanian scholars see it – but rather an effect
of entanglement between Moldavian-Wallachian and Ottomans political are-
nas connected through factional struggles and households’ scramble for eco-
nomic and political resources. Only by examining these parallel developments,
convergences and entaglements as a histoire croisée with individuals and poli-
tical households as principal actors we can learn more not only about the Mol-
davian-Ottoman relations, but also about broader mechanisms of the imperial
political life.
35 Karen Barkey, Empire of Difference: e Ottomans in Comparative Perspective, Cam-
bridge 2008, 294.
36 Eadem, “In Different Times: Scheduling and Social Control in the Ottoman Empire,
1550 to 1650,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 38, no. 3 (1996), 481.