"

.. :New 9vf.iaennium (Persp

in tne J{umani.. . . . ··..,­

f£t/itetl
JtuIi Vp on-tVa

~atili 'University
tJ3rigliam 'YOung 'Universi
 New Millennium Perspectives
in the Humanities

edited by

Judi Upton-Ward

with 3D Introduction by Alparslan At;1kgens:

Professor of Philosophy and

Dean of the Faculty of Letters and Sciences

Farih University, Istanbul

Fatih University, Ist3.nbul, Tlllkey

Institute for the Study and Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts

Brigham Young University

Provo, Utah, USA

,
t

t;
Copyright © 2002 by Global Humanities Press

All rights rese...,ed. No portion of this publication may be dupl­

icatw in anywaywithoul: theexpresseO. written consent ofthe
publisher, except in the form ofhriefexcerptl: or quotatiOfL'i for
review purposes.

New Millennium Perspectives

•
libra()' of Congress Cataloging-m-PubUcation Dati in the Humanities
,
Judi Upton-Ward, NewMillennium Pcrspectit'8S in the HumanitiEs

ISBN 0-9J2491~-O-S

Printed by Global Humanities Press

PubU,hed by FaUh U!tiven;ity, ffilanbuJ and
Brigham Young Unviersity. PrlWo. Utah
I
I

Distributed by Global Scholarly Publications

220 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10016
Phone, (212) 679-6410 Fax, (212) 679-64l4
F.·mail: oooks@gsp-online.org 1
www.gsp-oruine.org

Cover by Foad Faridzadeh

244 Mllhllrrlrrllld t.~mail Marcinkowski
_ _ _, 'Pt:rsian Religious and Cultural Influences in Siam/1bailand
and :vIaritime Southeast Asia: A Plead for a Concerted Inter­
disciplinary Approach', J~M17JaI of the .fiam J(Jri8ty (Bangkok,
Thailand, forthcoming).
_~_, 'The Reputed Issue of the "Ethnic Origin" of Iran's Safavid
Uynasty (907-1145/1501-1712): Reflections on Selected pre­
vailing Views and Requirements for Future Research',JoMrnal
0/ the Paki,rJpn HiJ/on{al Sode!] (forthcoming).
_ _ _, te., Mea-rum and We~hts in the lJlami( World. An English
Tranl/ation of ProfesIOr Walther Hinz' Handbook 1slamiHhe Mafie
und Cewichle' (Kuala Lumpur: ISTAC, fortheoming).
MawardI, (Abu'Vasan 'Ali b. Mu:ammad b. Ilabib) al-, The Ordinanm
1" Gr.n'frnmort. A Twn..rllJtian of AlA: kcim lJl-SJ/1§tiniUlJ IJ/'a/­
Wi~l'a( a/-Din0a, IT. W.H. Wahba (Reading: Garnet
Publishing Ltd. 1996). ..
Mlnorsky. V., 'A Civil and Military Review in Firs in 881/1498',
BlIl/etin oftht School ~r Oriental and African Studies 10 (1940-4-2):
141--462.
Rivandl, M., Sayr-i qalliin va dtidgIlJtan- do,. tran (Tehran: n.p.,
1368/1989)
Shaw, S.J-, HIStmy ~(the at/oman Empi" and Modern TJlrkry, 2 vols, 1:
Empire of th~ Ga'{js: The Rise and Decline oj the Ottoman EMPire,
f 280- f 808 ,:Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978).
Tadhkirat al-MulJik. A Manllal rf -afavid Administration (cirta 1 f 37/
f 725). Pem(Jr/ Text in Fauimile (B.M. 0,: 9496), IT. V. Minorsky
(London: EJ-W. Gibb Memorial Series, 1943).
Thevenot, J. de, The Trail!!; of MQflfielff de Thi:Jtnot info the uvant,.3
parts (London: 1687).
Ty,n, E. 'K'€!', in EI', 4 (1918), ppJ13-4.
Uzun~aqrlt, LH., Anadolll bryiikleri VI: AkkqyunlN, KorakOYllnlM devletle.ri,
4th edn, TUrk Tarih Kurumu Yaymla.n, VIII. dW, p.2a2 (Anb:ra:
Turk Tarih Kurumu BasIffieyj, 1988).
18
The Millet System in the Ottoman Empire
Ebubekir Ceylan
The f:let that the Ottoman. Empire successfully managed to rule
many religiously and ethnically different societies for six centuries has
atttacted m:my schobrs, not only historians, but also other ~Q(;hrl
scientists, to investigate the mystery of this administration<' The
peaceful coexistence that was successfully accomplished under the
Ottoman rule has been the concern of many multinational states, as
witnessed by the fact that the Prime Ministry's Ottoman Arel-uves in
Isrnnbul has many visiting hit;lollalls from fanner Ottoman natioruilities,
such as Greek, Hungarian, Bulgarian, and so on, as well as Far East
nationalities such as Chinese and Japane~e.
The Ottoman Empire consisted of more than twenty ethnically
and religiously different groups. It is no surprise that today there are
more than thlrty nations in the former territories of the OttDman
Empire.! As in other Islamic states, Ottoman society was mainly
divided into two groups in terms of their beliefs: Muslims and non­
Muslims. Religion was the most important factor that determined the
status of individuals in Ottoman society.
Although tenns such as 'multiculturalism' and 'pluralism' have
reeendy been explored, their basic characteristics can be seen in the
Ottotrum policies towards the non-Muslim subjects of the Empire.
The Ottoman Empire was a\classic example of the plural society.
Despite their differences in ethnicity ~nd religion the Muslims and
non-Muslinis lived together peacefully for eenturies under Ottoman
role, especially in the classical period. When we look a.t population
Y. Erean, 'Non_Mu~liIn Communitie. Umkr U", OtToman Empue (Millet
System)' in K. yo;:ek, ed., ¥lIli Tiirl:qe Drr#: The Great Ottoman Tlffkilh
Cillliigio1t, 4 vob (AMara: Yeni Tfukiye Yaymla.n, 2000), 2, p.381; C. Kiio;:iik.,
'OsmanW:m:Ia Millet Sistcmi ve Tanzimat', in Tan~mal1aJl LiI",IJNnjet'e Tiirkiye
AruilWpldisi (JSlanbut Ileti;.im Yaymlan, 1985), 4, p.1021.
115
246 Ebubekir Ceylan
movements in the lighl of the population and fiscal surveys (tahrir
defierkn) and the records of the Ottoman judges (kadt .rici/$) it is
noticeable that although Muslims and non-Muslims lived in separate
quarters within cities, and in separate villages, there were also many
villages in which they co-existed.2 Moreover, they not only nuxed in
residential dlstricrs bur abu in the market phce, havine; adjacent
shops. Therefore, relations between Muslims ani! non-Muslims were
not restricted to tho.~c of geography; on the contrary, they had also
sodal and ceononUc rehtinns. They sold and purchased goods and
3
products from each other, and they borrowed and lent to each other.
In addition, they became Wi111e:sses fot and a~st each other,4 As a
mrollary, this co-existence brought abour the development of social
relations between Muslims and non-Muslims.
J\5 oppmed to honlOgeneity, umfoIm.ity and standardization of
cultmal forms, Ottoman multit'Ulturalism not only ensured the pre­
valence of dlEterent and mullipJe forms of culture, but it also
liberated the non-Muslim RIoups from the homogenizing logic of
majority identity: As a matter of fact, the Ottomans, for many
centuries until the nineteenth century, had th6 ability, authority and
power to assun.i1ate socia-cultural forms of different ethnic and
religious groups, which was the general prau.icc obscrved in many
empires. However, the Ortomans chose heterogeneity and peacefully
co-existence. As KemaJ Karpat pointed out:
Hau th~ Ottoman st~le >IC~ept~n rhe idea of minority·maJority or
developed ~ poht:ic:J.! sw,e of naDOnaUr}' it could easily have
liquidalcu {he pauhwo", of rale~ and religions W1der its rule
O. C;:etin, 'Bursa (Its ConqueSt, Ethnic Strucrure and lhe Rdatiunship Between
\fuslims ~nd Non-Muilirns)', in The Grrol Ottomw, Tllrkjsh CivilszatlOll, 2, p.396.
Ibid., p.397.
, Ibid., p.396.
Benjamin Buude rightly makes his objection w t1le inconeci use of the lenn
'minority' beCaU3e 1fI the euly centuries of Ottoman history non-Muslims actually
constituTed the majority of the Empire's popubtion, It w~s not until t1lc
conqueST of Syna and Egypt in the lillltec:nth century that this utio began to
chanlle in favor of we Muslims. Therefore, Braude algUes that in the early
centuries of the Empire the non-.\1uslims werl:' lIOt a minority: B. Braude, The
Scrange History of thdoJillel System', in Thl Grral OttOl/ltm Ttn'kirh CvilU4lioll.
2, pA09.
New Millennium Pf?rspectives in the Humanities 247
Iran,forming them into one homogenous Muslim 01 Twkish
glOllp.~
As far as multiculturalism in the Ottoman Empire is LQn~
cemeu. one of the first things chac comes to mind is the mi/Je! system.
From the perspective of multiculturalism, the Ottoman millet system
was committed to the protection, plOD1.0tiOll and maimenancf>. of
ethno-cultural diversities which in tum provided opportunities for
non-Muslims to preserve, maintain and express their mstillctiH':
l..:ullueal forms, lifestyles and rights. There was freedom within each
,"diet and equaliry between the various mil/elf, Furthermore, the !lfi/ltr
system in the long run permitted tlle incorporation of non-MusJfn;~
into the Ottoman adnllnistrative. economic and political system:' Itis
for this reaSon thar many people who had expetienced subjugation
under other rcgimes perceived the Ottoman sultans as their protectors
and saviors.
The Basis of the Millet System
The history of the millet system can be traced back to the life of the
Prophet Muhammed. Its basic features clln be~t be seen in the verses
of the Qur'an, where there are man)' verses which advocare multi­
culturalism; the most popularly known is thar 'there is no compulsion
in religion,.7 A~ Arshi Khan po.inted our, the seventh~century treary
between the Jews and Muslims (MiJJk-t Madlna), ensured the con­
tracting comrnwuties &eedom of religion, culture and personallaw. R
Moreover. the practice of ijtihtid (giving learned judgement on issues
not clearly stated in the Qur'an or the Propher's trdwtions) and the
process of .hitro (co~~u1tation) are evidences for the facr that political
"
, K. K2Ipat. An InqUiry into tbl So'iui F"ul'Idatio"J ojNOliQllolJrm ill flJ" Ottoman S""t.:
Fro", Milk~ la Notio», &search MoooglJlph 39, Center of Inlernational
Studies of the Woodrow WlIson School of Public md International Aff:llrs of
, Princeton University (princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973), p,39.
Qur'm, 2:256.
A. Khan, 'TI,e OUom:lfl Empire: An Oriefl[~ Architect of Multiculnualisrn', in
Thl Grrol OttwAo" T IlrkiJb C:llilisalillll, 2, p.400.
248 Ebubekir Ceylan
pluralism and tolerance are perfectly compatible with Islam. Thus the
basis of the millet system rests upon the Islamic law. ~
-~'
Under Islamic law, non-Muslims are divided into two groups in
terms of their political relations with the Muslims: eh/-i hariJ (those
who are in a srlle of war with the Muslims) and eh/-i ahd (those who
have made a treaty with the Muslims). Eill-i ahd is further divided into
three groups in rerms of their status in the Islamic state: mJlahed,
miisle'min and dpfmmi. 1D MJla!gd is the community wjth which peace
has been made. Miisle'min are those people who have entered the
Islamic state mostly for commercial purposes and for a limited.period
of time; they are also under the protectjon of the state. Lastly, dhimmis
are people who remain permanently in the Islamic state. It is the
dhimmi.r with whom we are mainly concerned in this article.
The word 'dhimml comes from 'rjmm.d which means 'pro­
tection'. Under this system the Ottom:t.n Empire could effectively
protect its subjects regardless of their language, ethnicity and religion,
on condition that they accepted the superiority and domination of
Islam. The dhi,!A.11i communities who lived within the borders of the
Ottoman Empire were divided into millets.
Before progressing further. it would be benefi6al to explain
what the term 'millet means. Literally, the word 'milk! corresponds to
the English word 'nation'. However, the Ottoman use of the term
was quite different from 'nation'. Following the Qur'an, where the
lerm is used with the meaning 'religion',l1 in the Ottoman Empire it
referred mainly 10 communities that shared the same belief, religion
or sect. Hence, in this context, it means 'religiously defined people',
and does not correspond to any word in Western languages. As a
system of government, it referred to a system that ruled religiously
and ethnkally different communities. In other words, jt was a
, For the Ish.mic background of the millet system see C.E. Bosworth, The
Concept of dhimma in Early Islam', in B. Braude and B. Lewis, eds, ChristiPl'lS
rmd J~s in rht Ott~"'a1/ E",pirt: Tht Fll1ImD"i1/l, of,z Pillmi Sodety (New York:
Holmes and Meier Publishers, Inc., 198Z), pp.3 7-51. See aho Kii<jUk.
n
" B. Eryllmaz, OSm<111" Dep1efi1/de G<ryn"mii!1iJtt T~h :'II"tll" Yii1/etimi (Istanbul: Risale
Yaym]ar1, 1990), p.18.
p.ll.
" Qrn:':ln, 2:135, 1:128.
New Millennium Perspectives in the Humanities 249
framework within which the Ottoman state ruled its non-Muslim
subjects. Apm from denoting a group of people belonging 10 the
same religious confession, Davison maintains that two further
meanings were attached to the term millet. First, the term W:l.S also
used as an adjective, to denote primarily the body of the doctrine and
practice common to one of these confessions (thus, millet worship,
millet law, "'iUeI ritual). Secondly, the lerm denoted a fonnal organization
of the religious community: its ecclesiastical hierarchy, its clerical or
judicial organs, its partial autonomy as recognized by the Ottoman
sultan. 12 Milkl was also used for the JllRma, the people of Islam (In;!!f.I
islam!Jye), which was equated 10 the popular mind.. ··t;;--ihe milkl·i
hakim, the ruling millet, as opposed to the mi//el-i mahkli"'e, the ruled
millets. 13 The non-Muslims were mostly referred as dhimmi (those under
state protection), leba'a·i gtryn'miislime (non-Muslim millets), ce1/Iaat-l
mJlhlelifC (differenr societies) or mile/-i sam (other 'llillels). 14
The term n'i!.'ya was used to denote the whole Ottoman
population, including non-Muslims. Re'qya, which means 'subject of
the sultan', was commonly used in the nineteenth century to refer
only to non-Muslim subjects oftlle Ottoman Empire.l~ Again, between
the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries, we see a differentiallon in the
terms used for Christians and Jews; in this period the term 'dhim",l
referred only to Christian subjecrs of the Empire, and did not include
Jews. Therefore, it is d~f!r that in the Ottoman Empire the tmns
used to denote non-Muslims differed over time. Among the 'People
of the Book', the Jews were mostly referred to as 'YehudI, perhaps
because the Ottomans perceived the Jews as one religious community
'\
" RH. Davison, The Millets as Agents of Change in the Nineteenth Century
Ottoman Empue', in Braude and Lewis, p.320.
Ibid.
" B. Erj1lmaz, Osmo1//J Dt1I1eti"de Millrf Sisttmi (Istanbul: Ag-a<j Yaj'1Jlcllik, 19(2),
" R. Davison, &jo""s i1/ the Olfomo1/ Empin 1856---1876 (Nt:w York: Gordion
Press, 1973), pp.55-6, n.13. Kii<jiik nses the term in this sense.
250 Ebubekir Ceylan
and the Christians as several. There are documents that refer to
individual Christians as 'RJtm', 'Ermem', etc. 16
The MJ1letSystem: Rights and Responsibilities
The dominant mille/ (mtile/-i hdkime) in the Ottoman Empire was the
Muslim Turks. However, as long as the non-Muslim subjects fulfilled
their re~ponsibilitie5, they could enjoy nearly the same rights as the
Muslims. The sta{e had to provide securiry of their lives and pro~
petties, and freedom of religion, work and so on, as long as they did
not infringe upon or come into conflict with'the adminisuation of
the government and the lives of Muslim subjects. In return, each
millet had the legal olght to use its own language, develop its own
religious and cultural and educational institutions, collect taxes and
even maintain judicial courts for trymg members of the community in
all cases except those involvint public safery and criminal 'acts. 17 In
the words of HaW inalcik:
Islam guaranteed the lives and propeny of Chnsrians :lnd Jews on
the condicion of obedience :lnd payment of poll [2Jl. It allowed
them free eJlercise of their own religIOns and to live according to
thru own religiou~ laws ... The Ottomans applied these prim:iples
H their own' courts, especially when the matter concerned communal
of Islam with the gn':.lreSI liberality Ind loleunce.
Non-Muslims were also allowed a large degree of autonomy in
matters of personal status, that is family law: birth, marriage, death
and inheritance. However, they were denied certain behavior such as
bearing arms and riding horses, and were obliged to wear certain
coloured hats and shoes, according to their milJet.'9 It is clear that
political concerns were very high in such applications, the dominant
millet making the other millet.r feel its supremacy. Despite such
restrictions, non-Muslims enjoyed many rights and facilities which
did not exist in any mulrinational states before the Ottoman Empire.
'" B. Ery1lmaz, 'OsmanWards Miller Sistemi', OIll'lal'l/r Al'/siklopuJisi (Istanbul:
YaymcWk, 1996), 6, p.249.
" Khan, pAm.
" H. inalctk, The Ottamall Empin: Th6 CIasJi(al Age 1300-1600 (London:
Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1973), p.7.
" Ery1lmal, 'Osmanltlarda "Millet Si~temi', p.247.
New Millennium Perspectives in the Humanities 251
Every m21let in the Ottoman Empire had its owu leader
(milktbop), 'who was elected by its members and approved by the
Sultan. These mrlk/ba.ps were responsible to the Ouoman government
for the legal, financial and administrative attitudes of their fellow co­
religionists. Therefore, they were the only mediators between the
Ottoman government and members of the mi/l~t. They reptesented
the community in its daily dealings with the Ottoman administration
and were responsible for pUblic order, security, the collection of
taxes, and so on, in the community. The Ottoman government usually
dealt with dhimmis of all denominations as members of:l community,
not as individuals.2l.I Consequently, each non-Muslim dealt with the
state only through the head of his community.21 /
Each millet had its own spiritual assembly. OrigfuaJly, these
assemblies comprised only clergymen, but larer laymen were also
accepted. While the Ottoman governmenr did not interfere in the
religious matters of its non-Muslim subjecrs, the mrllels, 111 return,
were required not to engage in politics. One of the most important
rights that non-Muslim subjects enjoyed was thar they could apply to
civil law. However, in instances regarding public order and criminal
law they had to obey Islamic law. 22 Furthennore, the coutr of the
Ottoman judge (kariJ) was open to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
There are many recorded instances where non-Musluns applied to
the feriat cOurt even in their- -own internal communal matters, often
for practical reasons. Fot example, Catholic men could divorce their
wives in the fmat courts.
Non-Muslims paid the poll tax (dtye) in return for exemption
from military service.<"lhis ta,; was collected from the heads of non­
Muslim households, while the clergy, women, children, the poor, the
sick, and the very old Wete exenpt,< from payment. Once the amount
iz
~
B. Braude, 'Foundation Myths of the Mtller System', in Brande and Lewis, p.69.
"
~
lrimt, 'The Sn-;mge f-{iMory of the t-.fillet System', p.409.
K-u~iik, p.1008.
n
For detaih of elt"emptlOn from milirnry service see Ery1lmaz, D.wan!t Devktinik
G'!JrimiiJIi", Trb~"m Yiillttlf11i, pp.98-1 Ot.
252 Ebubekir Ceylan
of the ci:;;ye was detennined by the stale, the community leaders
supervised the collection of the necessary amount from individuals.
The ,mile' system was based firstly on religion, and secondly on
ethnicity, which in tum often reflected linguistic differences. Religion
supplied to each ",iilel a universal belief system while ethnic and
linguistic differences provided for divisions and subdivisions within
each millel. 24
Evolution ofthe MiUet System
As Karpat pointed out, the ",illet system emerged gndually as an
an~er to the effo~ts of the Ottoman administration to take into
account the organization and culture of the various religio-ethnic
groups it ruled. zs The multi-ethnic and multi-religious Ottoman
society worked remarkably wetr. As Gibb and Bowen put it:
". the Ottoman sultans did not illtroduce the milkt system imo
lhl."lt Empire only on the capture of Constantinople, but were
alrl."ady applymg its principles 10 the uon-Moslem comllluniries
under then nz/e. 1G
Thus, the Ottoman subjects (rr!'tljo) were already infonnally
grouped, but it was during the reign of Mduned II that the non­
Muslim subjects were given the millet status more fonnally.27 Before
that they had no status within the hierarchical structure of the Empire.
Mehmed II wanted to make Istanbul a microcosm of all the races and
religious elements; and many non-Mushms, especially Jews, were
welcomed at a time when they were facing a new wave of persecution
in other countries. After the conquest of Constantinople, Mehmed
issued a famous firma", known as the 'Galata Contracl' or the '1453
Istanbul Contract', guaranteeing the lives and properties of 'non­
Muslims,za
" K. Karpat, ':Millets and Nationality: The ROOfS of the Incongruity of Nation
and State in the POst-Ottoman Era', in Braude and l...twis, p.142.
~
Ibid., p.141.
" H.A.R. Gihb and H. Bowen, Illomu Sonny and tb, W'JJ, 2 vols (Oxford, 1962­
1963),1:2, p.214.
"
~
Eryilinaz, '05manWarda Millet Sis/emi', p.233.
For details of this contnlCl ~ee H. Ozdemir, 'AZIfl-hklar ic;in bir Osmanh-Tiirk
J(l~~;n;' 1<1<;, i ~I~flh"l So:desmesi'. in K Ci<;ek, I'd., ¥mi Tiirkiye Drryjii: Olmana
New Millennium PerspeC:live.v il1 Ihe Humanities 253
The- most outstanding non-Muslim Ottoman subjects were the
29
Greeks, Annenians, Jews, Bulgarians, and Serbians. Here I will dwell
mainly upon the Greeks, Annenians and Jews.
Tbe Greek Millet
In 1454, Mehmed II approved the patriarchate of the Orthodox
Christian millet.X> He revived the Orthodox Church as a suategic plan
to prevent the unity of the Christian world. In doing so he succeeded
in gaining the hearts and minds of his Christian subjects and thus
decreased the importance of the Rorrutn Catholic Church as a ceorer
of gravity for Ottoman Christians. Mehmed ordered th~ election of a
p.:l.c:rtlrch .and respected the election results. Consequdtly, Georgios
Scolarios Gennadios was approved by the Sultan and E;iven milk/bop
status. Gennadios became an officer of the Sultan and was of the
same rank as a vizier. Hence, the patriarch had both spiritual and
temporal responsibilities. Unlike the Bishop of Rome, the Orthodox
Pal:I:Urch of Istanbul was only flIst among equals. However, hc
enjoyed greater autonomy when compared with his office in the
Byzantine Empire. In the words of bishop Theophilos of Kampania:
In the d~ys of the Chris tim Empire (alas) p~dates
adrniniste~ed only the prieSlhood and ecdesi~stilal m:l.lters aud
did not inteIVene in civil matters.... Now, however, .. provincial
prelates undertake seculal lawsuit, and trials, m connection wi{h
inheritance, with debt and .""j{h almost any aspen of Christian
civillaw.ll
Therefore, the civil and relig10us authority of the patriarch was wider
than that enjoyed by the ChW'ch in the Byzantine Empire. Further­
mOre, a group of soldiers from the Janissaries was assigned to protect
the patriarch.
Dn>~riIJin KMTJl&/IiIJIi1l .700. ¥,1 o':(!/ Soym, 12 vols (Ankara: Ycni Tiirkiye
Yayulhn, 1999), 4, pp.223-8.
" K~iik, p.1011.
'" Braude, 'FoWldation Myths of the Millet System', p.77; A.E. Vacalopoulos, Th,
Gnel: Nation, 1453-1669: The Gfftliral IJnd ECOIJMnC B.ukgrvlilJd ofMod/!17l Gn:el:
Som!7, tt. 1. and P. Moles (New Brufls.""jck: Rutgers University Press, 1976),
p.l03.
" Quoted from Bishop Theaplwos's Nom;korl of 178B by R. Clogg. The Greek
U;JI••• ~ .l.Q n""<T>~n F.m"irf'.'. ill Braude and Lewis, p.186.
254 Ebubekil" Ceylan
The patriarch also enjoyed freedom of expression in religious
and inleUectual matters. That Mehmed II had intellectual and
philosophical debates with Gennadios is expressed in many primaty
sources. A book written by Gennadios on Christian beliefs ~'1s even
translated into Turkish. It has been pointed our by many scholars that
Menrned II had cordial rdation:; with the community leaders; and
that there were 'mutual visits between the Sublime Porte and the
Patriarchate. However, some scholars who lack objectivity insist on
interpreting this relationship as indicating that Menrned II was
actually a Christian. They forger the facl that Ottoman sultans
behaved towards their non-Muslim subjects with due respect nor
only for humanitarian reasons but also because they believed that
once non~Muslims accepted Ottoman sovereignty, their protection
and well-being was th~ir Islamit duty. It is also known that due to the
Ottoman tolerance towards non~Muslims, approximately 5,000
people who fled during the conquest of Constantinople later returned
to istanbuL lZ
Although the Eastern Orthod01O Church included Greek,
Rumanian. Slavic, Bulgarian and Arabian believers, it was refened to
as the ',mllet·j R....m· or 'Greek milk/, becIUse the Greeks weee always
J
the dominant ethnic group within ie. J · They were also the largest
group of non-Muslim Ottoman subjects. The Greek hegemony and
financial control over the Orthod01O Church were qnite visible.
However, there was a considerable degree of ethnic differentiation
whil:h l:an be;: seen clearly in the bnguages spoken in the miilet:'i RJmr.
As Clogg put it: 'A Greek of Epims, for instanee, would have had
much difficulty in comprehending one of the Greek dialects of
Cappadocia, v:.h1Je .a Greek of Cappadocia would have experienced
equal difficulty in understanding the Greek or Pontos ... '~ Needless
to say, besides the ethnic differentiation there was also a '"ery 'Wide
range of social differentiation.
The Chclstians who gathered around the Eastern Orthodox
Church constituted the most imponant non-Muslim ",illet. According
" EH. Ayverw, Maka/ller (Is[anbul: Fetih Cemiyeti Yaymlan, 1989), p_334.
" Clogg, p.186.
" Ibid.. '0.185.
New Millennium Perspectivej ill the Humanifie.~ 255
to the populatioll census carried out in 184-4, the total percentage of
Ottomall Muslims was 58, while non-Muslims constituted 42 per
cent. Of Ihe.se, the Orthodox milk! accounted for 39 per cent JS
Greeks were often employed in the translation office of the
Sublime Porte; p:lCtlcularly in the ninereenth ct'ntury, they attained
high office, becoming pashas and even ambassadurs (bJ!yilkdfl). More­
over, certain occupations were monopolized by specific milkts For
instance, Greeks and Annenians had the sole righr to sell pOJlml1iJ
(pastrarm.) ."
Tht A""tl1ian Millet
The Armenian Church was divided by competing cenrers of
hierarchical authority. oftell be)'ond the borders of the Ouoman
Empire. Me;:luned II wished Bishop Yovakim Ooachim, Ovakim) and
six Annenian families ro move to Istanbul. They were settled inside
the city, especially in Galata. TIlls was a patt of Mehmed's plan to
increase the populatioll of Istanbul and make it a center of attIaction.
However, the number of families is interesting because, as Bardakjian
pointed out, the Armenian community VS defi.l}ed as the 'alIt :/J",oal
tabir ohmlir Emwli 1'f!'?)osl (the Armenian subjects known as the six
congregations).)? In 1461 the Annenians were recognized as a millet
and a patnarehate was e_stablished in Istanbul, thus making Istanbul
the center for the Annenians. In time. the city became the religious
center for most of the millets in the Empire and consequendy the
population density of non-Muslims w~s always higher in Istanbul
than in other Ottoman provmces.
It is still a mauet of guestion whether the Patriarch had
authority over all Annenian subjects or only over the six (.:on­
gregarious that came to Istanbul from Bursa. During the reign of
Mehmet II the Armenian communities of Bursa. Kiitahya, Ankara,
Kataman, Trabzoll. and'Crimea were aU subordinate to the Annenian
" ErytImaz, <O~manWardil ~d Sistemi', p.249.
" SJ. Shaw. The Jewish Millet in the Ottom:rn Eml?lre', in The Gnat Ottomall
"
TJrrJ.:iJh Civi/ilaw", 2, p.455.
K..B. Bardakjian, The Rise of the Armenian P~uiarchate of Constantinople', in
R~~".-I.. ~".-l T ,.,,~~ n 0n
256 Ebllbekir Ceylan
patriarchate of Istanbul. However, later, the existence of other
bishops suggests that the Annenian communities were recognized as
independent groups, distinguished by geographic and administrative
division:>.
The recognition of the Catholics as a milkt was relatively late
because it was difficult for the Otromans to rule over societies whose
religious center. swas outside the borders of the Empire. Under
pressure from France, the Catholic Armenians were given the status
of a millet in 1831. Similarly, under pressure from Britlin and Prussia,
a frrman granting pertpission to build a Prorestant Church in Jerusalem
was issued in 1845; in 1850 Protestants were recognized as a separate
milid.3a
As noted earlier, the principal criterion for division of Ottoman
subjects mto millets was reli~ous. However, most religions werc
divided into distinct sects. For instance. although every Armenian
Ottoman subject spoke the Armenian language, they were divided
into three groups: Gregorian Armenians, Catholic Anneruans and
Protestant Armenians. Moreover, while some Catholics, such as the
Atmenians, worshipped according to the Easrern Church, some
others, such as the Catholic Greeks and Siryanis (Christians living in
south-east Turkey and presenr-day Syria) worshipped in accordance
with the Westem Church. It is clear from this that the Ottoman milk!
system had successfully prevented sectarian conflicts emerging from
such ideological differences.
The Jewish I\1illet
The history of the Jewish presence in Ottoman geography can be
traced back to the first century AD. It was with the second de­
struction of the Temple in Jerusalem in AD 70 thar the fitst Jewish
migration to Asia Minor began. The principal reason for the Jewish
migrations was their maltreatment and persecution by members of
other religions. With the establishment of ,the Ouoman Empire,
Jew.ish refugecs who fled from Christian persecution found the
'" T. Suba~J, ARgh.Ottol'l/(}1I &lotionJ a1ld tht &form Q/liition in 11K Ear!! TaR:;jmld
PrrWd 1839-52: With S/Xrial FJJ~m'(t (0 &Jo""J C01lcmri1l8 OffOl1IQ1I NOII-MJlJliIllJ,
unpubli~hed Ph.D. thesis (University of Birmingham. 1995), pp,285-321.
New Mille"nium Perspectives in the HIlmanilies 257
tolerance and freedoln that enabled them to live withour fear. Until
the nineteenth century there were many Jewish migrations into
Ottoman tenitory, and there were several reasons why the Jews
preferred the Ottoman Empire over other lands. 39 Firsr of all, Jews
had the earliest experience of peaceful coexistence with Muslims. In
the seventh century, Muslims and Jews started to share the Same city,
Medina, under the Treaty of MiJak-1 Madino, Actually this treaty was
the fitSt implementation of the milkt system in a Muslim society.
Secondly, thc migration of J ews was -e'ricouraged nor onJ)/I by their co­
religionists but also by the Ottoman administration. Many Ottoman
sultllns, including Mehmed II 'and Bayczid II, encourag~d the per­
secuted Jews of Europe to immigrate ro the Otto~'-Empire. For
instance, the invitation of Sultan Bayezid II ro the Jews of Spain in
1492 is well known. 40 Finally, the Ottoman artitude rowards irs non­
Muslim subjects and their well-being was another facror thar attracted
many Jews. Ottoman rulers felt a closer affmity to the Jewish com­
munity because of its grearer contribution to the Ottoman conquest
41
of Constantinople and other major Byzantine cenrers.
When compared with other milielJ, the Jews received special
treatment. For example, though Islamic law limited the height and
repair of houses and places of worship as well as the construction of
new ones, Jews were allowed to evade this requirement, rebuilding
and enlarging buildings, and in return paying a fee to the kodt
Gudge).~z Ths special treatment might h3ve stemmed from the faCI
that until 1948, when they achieved control of a srate,Jews were not
perceived by the Muslim world as nearly as dangerous or treacherous
as Christians. It was with thc Zionist movement led by Theodore
Herzl in the second half of the nineteenth century thar Ottoman
attitudes rowards Jews began to change.
" for the background ofJewish migrations inlo Ottoman territory ~ce S.]. Shaw,
Thl Jews of 11K Otto11Ja/l Empin QJlrJ tIN T/lrkiJh &p/lbli( (London: Macmillan/
New York: New York University Press, 1991, 1992), pp.1-36.
~
For the text of the invitation see Shaw, The Jewish Millet in the Ottoman
EmplR:', p.448.
" Ibid.
" Thiel.. nAS4.
258 Ebubekir Ceylall
Shaw clearly pointed out that for cenrories the Ottoman
Tutkish Jewry was the largest and prosperous Jewish community in
the world, numbering almost 200,000 people in the late sixteenth
century.41 They settled down mostly in Istanbul, Salonica and Izmir in
the west, and in Jerusalem, Baghdad and Mosul in tht: !;;ast. After thc
conquest of Consontinople Mehmed II appointed Moses Capsali, me
Chief RJlbbi undfr the last Byzantine Emperor, as Grand RJlbbi
(hahamba,rr). Initially, Mehmed tried to unite all the Jews in a single
religiously defined community under the leadership of the Grnnd
RJlbbi. However, since there is no hierarchy in Judaism, the Grand
Rabbi could noe secute the automatic obedience of other rabbis.
Therefore, the Ottomans refrained from appointing new Grand
Rabbis until new regulations were introduced in the nineteenth
century. Instead of a united Jewish community there were separate
local communities such as the Ashkma1js (German Jews), Sephardi",
(Spanish Jews), Gn~gos (Greek Jews) and MNnarob (Arabized Jews).
The synagogue (havra) served not only as a place of prayer but
also as a centcr for education, a hQspit:ll, ll:O orphanage, and even as a
prison. 44 Although there was always a religious court (bet dil1) com­
posed of leamedJewish judges, in many cases members of the Jewjsh
community applied to the court of the kadI in economic as well as
social matters such as inheritance, marriage, and divorce because of
the strictness of the rabbinical courts, which were chaired h the
rabbi. However, it is known that they also dealt with issues such as
the consttUcuon, maintenance and lighting of sUt:ets, the collection
of waste, and the security of the quarter.
Ottoman Jews were famous for being bankers, moneylenders
and financial entrepreneurs, ll:nd as such the): made important con­
tributions to the Ottoman economy. The development of Ottoman
financial institutions owes much to Jewish bankers. They mono­
polized the gold and jewelry trades (although in the period of
Ottoman decline the Armenians took over these monopo~es~~, and
became very influential in controlling the Ottoman financial and
" Ibid., p.449.
• Ibid" pp.450--51.
" Ibid., pASS.
New Millennium Per.>pecti'o'es ill rhe Humanities 259
economic system. Two examples are Dona Gracia Mendes (1510­
1568) and her nephew, Don Joseph Nasi (1524-1579), whose
influence was felt in the sixteenth century, especially during the reigns
of Sulcyman the Magnificent and Selim lJ. 46 The Baht and Galata
mstncts were among the most densely populated by the Jews. These
districts became very significarit because in the late nineteenth century
the Ottoman administration took out internal loans from Jewish
entrepreneurs. Jewish influence was not only prominent ip Isranbul,
but in the Middle Eastern cities as well To quote from Charles
Issawi
In Syua, Jews a.nd Clui~tian~ w"f/~romineny"'in money-lending,
Eordgn u~de and some handicrafls. In Iraq, trade and finance
were dominated by Jews 10 an extent unknown in other parts of
the region; both the import and export tnde were largely in the
hand~ oE Jews (with ~o<:h intcrn!tionally famous nameS sn<:h as
Sassoon and Zilkha), w:ith operations strelcrung from Bahrain 10
India or ClunaY
Decline of the MiiletSystem
It was in the seventeenth and eighteenth centunes that the balance
between the millets began to change. These centuries witnessed the
decline of Ottoman central authority and ll: concomitant rise in
Christian influenee, based mainly on the economic privileges given to
European states by means of the Capitulations. The rise of Christian
influence also meant the relative decline of the Jewish community.
However, with the refonn movements in the nineteenth century
Ottoman Jewry revived considerably.
The intervention of Western countries in Ottoman internal
affairs was the most significant element that led to changes ill the
mIle! system, and the ptetext for such intervention was the desire for
control over specific millets. The French were the first to be granted
thi:; privilege, gaining conteol over the Catholic mIlk! in the reign of
Suleyman the Magnificent. The privilege was further increased in
%
., Ibid., pp.452-3.
C. Iu2\>l:i, 'Ee;onomic Structure and Gwwth', in C.E. Bilek and L.c. Bwwn,
eds, MqJm,iZOholl ill fm Middlt Emf (princeton: The Darwin Press, 1992),
260 Ebubekir Ceylan
1740,48 while in 1774, with the Treaty of KiiC;iik Kaynarca, the Russians
won the right of protection over the whole Orthodox !!nllel.4<1 The
situation was exacerbated by the debate over increasing conttol and
protection over the milleli in the Holy Place5 of Jerusalem, paving the
way for the Crimean War of 1853. Foreign intervention in the fonn
of extending protection rights over nun-Muslims dcarly indicated
that the st.uus. 9f non·Muslims had already become a matrer of
international CUIll.;ern.
As Ozcan has clearly pointed out, the non-Muslim communities
under the protection of the F.urop~an states became more-and more
politicized and involved in separatist activiti es.5O Greek independence
in 1829 W;lS the first sign of the bleak~up of the traditional Ottoman
milkt system. Nationalist rebellions in the Balkans and ever~inCJeasing
pressure from foreign ~ove[1\.ments resuited in new arrangements
within this system. It was also in the ninereenth century that non~
Muslim Ottoman subjects began to abandon their Ottoman identity
and assume the 6tizenship of European cOWltries, which pcovided
them with extra privileges, especially in the economic sphere.
With the 'lalfif'ma( (Re-ordering-18J9) and blaha( (Refonn­
1856) Edicts the rn;Jlet system lost its original framework and took on
a new shape. In the 18605 it was l.;ompletcly rcorganized. New
regulations enabled non-Muslims to enter important bodies of central
and provincial adtnin.i1;lIation, such as the Supreme Council of Jurlicial
Ordinance. With the issue of new firma1fI, non-Muslims became
almost equal to :Muslims. They were :ll-reany tecruited in the central
and local admmistrations; with these refonns the poll tax was
removed ~nn non-Muslims were treated .as Ottoman citizens. Many
non-Muslims were recruited in the foreign office of the Empire. The
first Ottoman parliament had many non-Mu~lim members.
.. Eryl1maz, OsmCiflh Dwlrti"rk Miflel Sirlef/ii, p.59.
Ibid., p60.
50 A. Ozun, 'Th~ Mill~l Syst~m in the Ottoman Empire', paper presented n
Monb\l~ho lnterniitiOfl:>J Symposium, Inf"rnaOQnal Area Studies COIIference.
Islam In Middle EaMe.m Srodies: Muslims and Minorities, 20-22 January 1998,
Osaka,Japan (unpl1blished), p.6.
New Millennium Perspectives in the Humanities 261
As a corollary of this, the difference between the dominant
miller, that is Muslims, and non-Muslims disappeared and a new
concept 'Ottoman citizenship' began to be emphasized." The new
ideology aimed at uniting the different nationalities of the Empire by
fusing them into a single Ottoman nation irrespective of their religious
affiliations.s~ 'fhis was not acceptable to conservative Muslims amI
reswted in a clear resentment among them. With the Ottomanist
ideology (OJ11laTllt..ltk) the notion of the mi/M"i Mkime lost its
meaning. .,0
I The socio-econuullc and cuJturaJ sq:ucture of OttomOln society
made the TI11f~mat regulatio.ns diffJcult i to implement, and it was
Ii pret:iscly in the afrcnna\b of the Ct:irneOln/Wu thOlt the foreign pOWelS
were pressing for an improvement in the conditions of non-Muslims
within ~e OttOUl:ln Empire. lInUke the Tallzjmar, the hhhaf of 1856
was essentially made in Europe by a commission comprising British,
French, Ausui;ln :lnd Ottoman members. 51 The lJiahlltEmct not only
repeated what had been guaranteed in the ra~",al, but also brought
further improvements concerning the status of non-Muslims. The
abolition of the pon tax reiterated the equal liability of J\tuslims and
non-Muslims, the latter by this time being allowed to repair their
religious buildings without prior permission H
More important still was the introduction of new con­
stitutionallife to the ml11et.r. Each millet was asked Lo carry out eon­
stitucional reforms, the new regulations being approved by the
Ottoman central governnlt:.nr for thc Orthodox community in 18(il
(aeeord11:tg to some sources 1862), for the Annenians in 1863, for the
Jt:w~ ill 1865, and latcr for the Protest:."lnts in 1878.55 The impetus for
these changes came not only from the Ottoman government but also
from within the ",ilkb themselves. For instance. in some villages
Greeks were subject to over-taxation and extortion by their own
clergy. There wece even mstwces where the clergy lent money at 60
" ErylltnllZ, ·Os.m:o..,W:ud. Millet Sistemi', p.265.
"
~
Ozan,p.4.
Erytlmn, Or1/'1fJff/, Devktiflrk Millet Siruf/ii, p.63; Davison. RtjOf7l'lS, p.54.
"
~
Kiio;:iik, p.1017.
OZCllfl. p.5.
262 Ebu.bekir Ceylull
per cent interest to Bulgarian peasants.~6 Clerical over-taxation was
one of the reasons for transferring from one mill~t ro another. 57 In
order to prevent clerical abuse, the central govemrneat fixed the
salaries of the clergy.
With these new regulations the clerical influence within the
?lit/lets was diminished and lay control exrended.~8 Ibe constitutions
,
created two cQuncils: one religious and one civil,S? with the general
assembly acring as a supreme council, and ro which the patriarch was
;'Iccoumable. As Davison remarked:
The religious council ""as concuned with dogma, religious
education, and ordination of clergy. The civil council operated
chielly through a number of standing committees appointed to
look after education, hospitals, milleT property, fioance, justice,
lmd the like. Final control of these was, of cOUJ~e, vested in the
generalassembly.w
One of the most significant consequences of the 1856y:fotnls
was the division of the Orthodox Church into several national
churches. For example, the Bulgarians seceded from the Greek
Church and established their own national church. In this, Russian
pan-Slavist politics were influential.61
In addition, non-Muslims gained new privileges concerning
private ownership and their representation on provincial councils. On
the one hand, Wlth the promulgation of the Vilt7Yet Nizafl1namesi
(provincial Reform) in 1864, non-Muslims were representcd on
provillClal counclls according to the ratio of their popu1;;ltion in the
provinces. 62 Midhar Pasha successfully introduced these regulations in
the provinces where he was governor. We should also note that the
fIrst Ottoman parliament (1877) had forty-six non-Muslim members
1 I di~tinguish among my subjects Muslims in the mosqne.
" Davison, &[omu, p.llS.
Chcistillns in the church, Jews in the synagogue, but I have the
" Ibid
'" Ibid., pp.114-15.
j subjects whom I tleat as if they were my very own children.~s
" In the Grc:ek (Orthodox) ",ilkl, however, there was no purely civil council:
ibid., p.l2S.
w
.. Ibid., p.l24.
Kiic;:tik, p.I022.
" Ibid., p.1023.
J ~
New Millenniu.m Perspe<.fives in the Humanities 263
out of 115.63 On the other hand, '\;l,ith the hod reform of 1858, the
right of private property was allowed only to Muslims, but starting
froro as early as 1862, non-Muslims demanded the extension of this
refonn to their benefit. They eventually obtained this right with an
amendment to the mw in 1867.64
With the Tallifmat and Is/aha! Edicts the mi"~t sysrem lost its
origina.l framework and took on a new shape. Muslims lost the
privileged position which they had enjoyed foe centuries. \
**>i<
In conclusion, it is clear that the Ottoman ruling class practiced
multiculturalism for centuries,"~thout being compelled to do so, as
they were the most powerful rulers of Eurasia. Their rolerance was
clearly teflected in the mille! system, which emphasized the universality
of faith and transcended ethnic and linguistic differences without
assimilating and destroying them.
It is an undeniable fact that while their co-religionists were
encountering persecution in other countries, the religious corrununities
under the Ottoman millet system were freer than most non-Muslims.
We can say that the Ottoman Empire had developed the dhimmi
law of Islam into the millet system and effectively used Jt as a govern­
mental system. With this sysrem the non-Muslim subjecrs of the
Empire were given the right to govern themselves. Consequenlly, an
atmosphere of peaceful co-existence was maintained for centuries.
In a nutshell, the basic notion of the mille! system was very
clearly indicated in a speech made by Mahmud II. It is quite
approprnte to finish this article with a small passage from his speech:
strongest love 'and equal regard for each and every one of my
"
M
Ozcan,p.5,
Ibid., p.1020.
Suhasl. 11.126. See also Davison. &fomn. 0.31,
264 Ebubekir Ceylan
Bibliography
Ayverdi, E.H., Makaleler (Istanbul: Fetih Cemiyeli Yaymlan, 1989).
Bardakjian, K.B., 'The Rise of the A~nian Patriarchate of
Constantinople', in B. Braude and B. Lewis, eds, Christians and
Jews /n the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Piliral SocittJ, 2
vols (New York/London: Holmes and Meier Publishets, Inc.,
1982),I'fP89-100.
Bosworth, CE., The concept of dhimma in Early Islam', in Btaude
and Lewis, 1, pp.37-51.
Braude, B., 'The Strange History of The Millet System', in K. ys:ek,
ed., The Grrat Ottoman Turkish Civilisation, 4 vols, 2 (Ankara:
Yeni Tiirkiye Yaymlan, 2000), ppA09-18.
~--., 'Foundation Myths of the Millet System', in Braude ::and
Lewis, 1, pp.69-88.
- - - . , 'OsmanlJ Millet Diizerunin Kurulu~ Efsaneleri', Part I, Tq,ih
w Toplf,(ffl,No: 40, (April, 1987); Part II, No: 41, (May 1987).
Braude, B. and B. Lewis, eds, Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empirt:
The Functioning of a P!lIral So;ie~y, 2 vols (New York/London:
Holmes and Mt':iet Publishers, Inc.• 1982).
Clagg, R., 'The Greek Millet.in the Ottoman Empire'. in Braude and
Lewis, 1, pp. I 85-207.
C::etin. 0.. 'Bursa (Its Conquest, Ethnic Structure and the
Relationship Betv.·een Muslims and Non-Muslims)" in (,:i<;ek,
2, pp392-8
c,:i<;ek, K., ed., Yeni Tiirk&~ De'l,isi: Osman/z Droletinin M11JIII!knUn 700.
Y," 0if' St!}f.rr, 12 vols (Ankara: Yeni Tii.rkiye Yaymlan, 1999).
- - - , ed., Yeni Tkrkfje Dq;isi: The Great Ottoman Twkish Civilisation,
4 vols (Ankara: Yeni Tiirkiye YaymJan, 2000).
Davison, R.H., &jomr in the OJtoman Empire. 1856-1876 (princeton:
Princeton Universlty Ptess, 1963).
- - - , 'The Milletl as Agents of Change mJhe Nineteenth Century
Ottoman Empire', in Braude and Lewis, 1, pp.319-37.
EIdem, E., 'BatJ1L~ma, Modemle~me ve Kozmopolitizm: 19. Yiizytl
Sonu ve 20. Yiizyu Ba~lIlda istanbul' (Westernizacion,
Modernization and C:osmopolitanism: Istanbul at the End of
the Nineteenth and Beg1nning of the Twencieth Centuries), in
Nt:'>'>, Millennium Perspectives in the Hu""mitie! Z65
Z. Rona, ed., Oman Hamdi Bry l'e Diinemi (Istanbul: Tarih
V,kfi Yurt Y'ymlan, 1993), pp.12-26.
Ercan, Y., 'Non-Muslim Communities Um.lt::I the Ottoman Empire
(Millet System)" in ~i<;ek, 2, pp.381-90.
Eryilinaz, B., Osmanlt Devktinde Gayri1l'1iislim Teb'an11l Yiinetimi (istanbul:
Risa/e YayJ.Il..kn, 1990).
- - -.• Omanlt Devletinde Millet Sirtemi (lstanbul~ Aga.-;: Yaymcilik,
1992).
- - - " 'Osmanhlarda Millet Sistemi'. Osmanl: Ansiklopedisi (istanbul:
iz Yaymcilik, 1996):
Gibb, H.A. R. and H. Bowen, Ishmic Society and the Welt, 2 vols
(Oxford, 1962-1963).
inalctk, H., The Ottoman Empirt: The ClassicalAge 130(J-1600 (London:
r
Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1973).
Karpat, K., An InqJtiry into the Social Foundations of Nationalism in the
Ottoman State: From Mi!/ets to Nationf, Research Monugraph 39,
Center of Intemacional Studies of the Weodrow Wilson School
of Public and ~ntemational Affairs of Princeton University
(princeton, 19}3).
- - - . , 'Millets and/Nacionality: The Roots of the Incongruity of
Nation and State in the Post-Ottoman Era', in Braude and
Lewis, I, pp.141----69.
Khan, A., 'The Ottoman Empire: An Oriental Architect of Multi­
, cultunllism', in c,:i\iek, The Gnat Ottoman Tur!eiJh Civilisation, 2,
pp.399--40S,
Ku<;iik, C, 'OsmanWarda Millet Sistemi ve Tanzimat', Tant!maJ'tan
Cumhurfyet'e Tiirkjyt: Anriklopedisi, (Istanbul: ileti~im Yaym.lan,
1985),4, pp.l007-24.
Ozcan, A., The :Millet System in the Ottoman Empire', paper presented
at Monbusho International Symposiwn, Intemational Area
Studies Conference, Islam in Middle Eastern Studies:
Muslims and Mirlorities, 20-22 January 1998, Otiaka, Japan
(unpublished).
Shaw, S.j., The Jews of tbe OUoman Empin and the Turkish &public
(London: Macmillan/New York, New York University Press,
1991,1992).
266 Ebubekir Ceylon

- - - . 'The Jewish Millet in !.he Ottoman Empire', in <;ic;ek. The

Great O/lo",an Turkish Civilisati()n, 2, pp.447-62.
Suba~l, T., Anglo-Ottoman Relation.r and the Reform Question in the EarlY
Tan'{j"'at Period 1839-52: With Special Referrna to &/orms
Concerning Ottoman Non·MuslimJ, unpublished Ph.D. thesis
(University of Birmingham, 1995).
Tekeli, i., 'Tanzim/t'tan Cumhuriyet'e Kentsel Doni..i~Um', Tan?jmat'ton
CIl?f'hJlrryet'e Tiirkiye An.liklopedi.'1 (Istanbul: Ileti~im Yaytnhrt,
1985), 4, pp879-90.
Vacalopoulos, A.E., The Gnek Nation, 1453-1669: The CultllrtJl and
Eronomic Background 0/ ModmJ Gnek Soddy, tr. I. and P. Moles
(New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1976). r