The Ragusa Road: Mobility and Encounterin the Ottoman Balkans (1430-1700)

The Harvard community has made thisarticle openly available. Please share howthis access benefits you. Your story matters

Citation Howell, Jesse C. 2017. The Ragusa Road: Mobility and Encounter inthe Ottoman Balkans (1430-1700). Doctoral dissertation, HarvardUniversity, Graduate School of Arts & Sciences.

Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:41141529

Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASHrepository, and is made available under the terms and conditionsapplicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAA

TheRagusaRoad:MobilityandEncounterintheOttomanBalkans(1430-1700)

AdissertationpresentedbyJesseCascadeHowell

to

TheCommitteeofMiddleEasternStudies

inpartialfulfillmentoftherequirementsforthedegreeof

DoctorofPhilosophyinthesubjectof

HistoryandMiddleEasternStudies

HarvardUniversityCambridge,Massachusetts

May2017

© 2017 Jesse Cascade Howell

All rights reserved.

iii

Advisor:Prof.CemalKafadar Author:JesseCascadeHowell

TheRagusaRoad:MobilityandEncounterintheOttomanBalkans(1430-1700)

Abstract

This dissertation is a study of human mobility in the western provinces of the Ottoman

empire in the early modern era. By the end of the fifteenth century, the Ottomans had absorbed

nearly the entire Balkan Peninsula. Dubrovnik (also known as Ragusa), a small mercantile

republic on the Adriatic Sea, found itself surrounded by Ottoman territory. Dubrovnik managed

to maintain its autonomy and preserve its coastal territories by accepting the position of tribute-

paying vassal to the Ottoman state. In this context, the Ragusa Road, which stretched across

Ottoman Rumelia (the Balkan Peninsula) to Istanbul, developed into a major axis of trade,

diplomacy, and exchange. Unlike other pathways in the region, such as the Via Egnatia to the

south, the Ragusa Road did not play a prominent role in earlier Roman transportation networks.

Furthermore, the route was longer and more mountainous than alternatives. Yet, by the early

sixteenth century, the Ragusa Road had become established as the most important East-West

highway across the Balkan Peninsula, a corridor of communications linking the Ottoman capital

to western Europe.

I explore the forces that conditioned and propelled overland travel on the Ragusa Road.

Ottoman and Ragusan actors used complementary policies and practices to reduce obstacles and

encourage overland travel. The results were mutually beneficial, and led to the route's increasing

prominence in long-distance patterns of movement. Merchants, diplomats, pilgrims and spies

iv

increasingly elected to travel in Ragusan caravans, avoiding the vicissitudes of the maritime

route. The cultural ramifications of the Ragusa Road's development are thus significant, as

caravan travel brought together members of multiple religious, ethnic and linguistic

communities, all of whom traveled together across a topographically challenging and culturally

complex region. The records of these travelers reveal the unique cultural space of the road – and

that of Ottoman Rumelia – in the early modern Mediterranean.

v

TableofContents

Frontmatter Abstract iii TableofContents v Acknowledgements vii Introduction 1 Chronology 5 Historiography 7 Structure 21 Abbreviations 24 TransliterationSystem 24 ChapterOne:PoveriRagusei 25 CaravanTravelontheRagusaRoad 33 CurrencyMakesMobility 41 Tribute 44 Law 53 GiftsandRelationships 62 Information 69 TechnologyandExpertise 77 ChapterTwo:PatronageandMobility 83 Uzunköprü 94 Mostar 99 OttomanOfficials,Vaḳıf,andInfrastructure 105 GrandViziers 108 Rudo 116 Čajniče 122 KervanYoldaDüzülür 128 TheShepherdPasha'sBridge 132

vi

ChapterThree:FlorentinesontheRagusaRoad 145 BenedettoDei,FlorentineSpy 151 CemSultan 156 Go-Betweens 158 JanusLascaris 162 BernardoandBonsignore 164 ChapterFour:VenetiansOverland 177 BenedettoRamberti 183 PaoloContarini 190 LorenzoBernardo 203 Conclusion 218 Bibliography 221

vii

Acknowledgements

This project was made possible through the generosity, patience, and talent of so many people. Thanks to all those who helped from the very beginning: Mary-Kay Gamel, at UC Santa Cruz, for the critical initial support; and Joshua and Jago, in Berlin, for helping me make sense of what was possible. At UC Berkeley, where I began my education as an historian, I will always be grateful to Leslie Peirce, Beshara Doumani, Ayla Algar, and Osama Khalil. At Harvard, thank you to everyone at CMES, the Department of History and the Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture. Susan Kahn was especially helpful in helping me get my bearings, and keeping things in perspective. To my graduate school yoldaşlar from History 3910, Calvin St. Beacon St. and The Druid: getting to know your brilliant selves has been a highlight of the past decade. I hope we can all share a vat of borscht again sometime soon. Extra special thanks to the Türker-Cerda's for always being my home-away-from-home. Çok teşekkürler to Sena Balkaya and Carol Ann Litster: I couldn't have asked for better partners for our student programs in Turkey. Thank you to Michael Rocke, Kathryn Bosi, and Joseph Connors at Villa I Tatti; to Scott Redford at RCAC; and to my kind hosts at the Centro Vittore Branca in Venice. Hvala to the most charming people in Croatia: Oda and Ivo in Dubrovnik, and Joško Belamarić in Split. Thank you to the archivists and librarians of the Başbakanlık Ottoman Archives in Istanbul, the Croatian State Archives of Dubrovnik and Zara, the Archivio di Stato in Venice, the Biblioteca Nazionale in Florence and the Marciana in Venice. Thank you to the librarians of Widener, McHenry, KHI, Bibliotheca Hertziana, and Greene Library. Special thanks to András Riedlmayer. Warmest thanks to Lovro Kunčević, and Vesna Miović for sharing their expertise in Dubrovnik. To my Turkish and Ottoman teachers: Hakan Karateke, Helga Anetsofer, Selim Kuru, Yorgos Dedes, Himmet Taskomur (thank you for the editing and comments!), Abdullah Uğur, Ali Yaycioğlu, and my Italian maestra Chiara Frenquelluci: none of this would have been possible without you. Rowan Dorin and Michael McCormick, thank you for the generous advice at the earliest stage of this dissertation - when the scope was even larger than the present form. Thank you to Alison Frank Johnson, Maya Jasanoff, and Gülru Necipoğlu for your invaluable advice and support. Special thanks to Anthony Molho for contributing to project from afar. I could not imagine a more inspiring doctoral advisor and mentor than Cemal Kafadar. May this be the first of many journeys to come.

viii

Thank you, David and Cheryl, for being a constant support, and for Eliana for being the perfect sister. I couldn't have done this without you! My family has sustained me in so many ways. Thank you to the inimitable Wanda who encouraged me to use made-up words with confidence and to always talk to strangers. Thanks to the amazing Howell, Bliss, Dent and Kinew families, especially my mother-in-law Kathi. To my brilliant and beautiful wife, Shawon, thank you for sticking with me through the bus stations of Mostar and Novi Pazar, and for your sharp eyes in reading over these chapters. Ti amo sempre. Thank you for finding Anja Napoli, the world's greatest dissertation dog. This dissertation is dedicated to Dr. Virginia Bliss – my mom Gina – who showed me everything I needed to know about the road.

Introduction

Heureuxqui,commeUlysse,afaitunbeauvoyage1

TheverdantmountainsattheintersectionofBosniaandHerzegovina,Montenegro,and

Serbiadonot,atfirstglance,appeartobeaplacetoseeknodesofconnectionininternational

networksofexchange.SoutheasternEuropeingeneraldoesnotfigurehighlyinthestudyof

connectivity.AstheearlymodernscholarshipoftheMediterraneanhasturnedfromthe

nationaltotheglobal,theOttomancapitalstotheeast(Istanbul,Edirne,Bursa)andtheItalian

centersoftradeandculturetothewesthaveperhapsneverbeencloser.Yetthelandmass

betweenthesecosmopolitanplacesremainsobscure,avaguein-betweenterritoryinan

otherwiseincreasinglyunifiedMediterranean.The"humanunit"oftheMediterranean

describedbyFernandBraudelwasdefinedbymovement.Mobilitywas"thelifeblood"ofan

interconnectedregion,aforcethattranscendedpoliticalandreligiousdivisions.2The

experienceofmovementbysea–thecountlesssailorsfromVenetian,Genoese,Ottoman,and

myriadotherportsgoingaroundtheBalkanlandmass–hasbeenwellstudied.Butflowsof

movementoverlandacrossthecomplextopographyoftheBalkanPeninsularemainvagueand

poorlyunderstood.

1 Joachim du Bellay, Les Regrets, sonnet XXXI, 1558. 2 “The whole Mediterranean consists of movement in space. Anything entering it – wars, shadows of war, fashions, techniques, epidemics, merchandise light or heavy, precious or commonplace – may be caught up in the flow of its life blood, ferried over great distances, washed ashore to be taken up again and passed on endlessly, maybe even carried beyond its shores.” Fernand Braudel, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II, trans. Sian Reynolds, 2 vols. (New York: Harper and Row, 1972). Vol. I, 277.

2

Intheearly1660s,theprodigiousOttomantravelerEvliyaÇelebimadeanumberoftrips

acrossRumelia,thewesternrealmsoftheempireheserved.Notfarfromtheheightsofthe

DinaricAlps,inthesub-province(sancak)ofHerzegovina,hepassedthroughthetownof

Čajniče(BiH).Evliyapaintsavividpictureofthistown'sprecariouslocation,aplacewhere

horses,mules,andevenchildrencouldslipandfallintotheabyss-likevalleyssurroundingit.

Yet,inthisOttomantraveler'stelling,Čajničewasnottheforlornandisolatedvillageonemight

expect.Rather,itwasaprosperouscommercialtown(kasaba-iâbâdan)withfiveMuslimand

threeChristiandistricts(mahalle).3Besidethetown'sOttomanbridge(whichEvliyasinglesout

foritsutilityandvertigo-inducingheight)werethreehans(inns),eachofwhichcontained"the

merchandiseofLuristanandMultanandVeniceandtheLandoftheFranks."4Čajniče,inshort,

wasaninternationallyconnectedplace,justlikethemoreprominentneighboringcitiesofFoča

(BiH)andPljevlje(Montenegro),eachaday'sjourneyinoppositedirections.Thegoldenfinials

adorningtheHasanPashaMosqueinPljevlje,forexample,weresourcedinAlexandria,Egypt,

andthemarketsinthissettlementfeaturedgoodsfromasfarawayasChina.5Meanwhile,the

"thriving,ancientcommercialcity"ofFoča,ontheDrinaRiver,featuredSerbian,Bulgarian,

CatholicandJewishdistricts.6

3 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatnâmesi, 10 vols. (Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınlerı, 1996-2007). Here vol. 6 (eds. Seyit Ali Kahraman and Yücel Dağlı), 253. 4 “Her birinde Laristân ve Moltan ve Venedik ve Firengistân metâ‘ları bulunur”. Luristan/Loristan is a region in western Iran. Multan is a city known for Sufi devotion in Pakistan. Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatnâmesi, vol. 6, 5 Evliya, Seyahatnâmesi, vol. 6, 251. 6 "belde-i bender-âbâd-ı kadîm şehr i Foça" Evliya, Seyahatnâmesi, vol. 6, 254.

3

WhatwerethegoodsofChina,Iran,EgyptandWesternEuropedoinginthesethree

remoteplaces?EvenifweacceptthatEvliyamayhavebeenspeakingfigurativelyaboutthe

geographicoriginsofthegoodsheencountered,thepresenceofcommerciallyprosperous

townsandcitiesdeepintheBalkanhinterlandispuzzling.Whatwasdrivingtheirglobalreach?

Oneanswerisaroad.Čajniče,Foča,andPljevljewereallstoppingplacesontheRagusaRoad,

whichextendedfromDubrovnik(Croatia)ontheAdriaticSeaacrosstheBalkanPeninsulato

Istanbul.7Theroadwasachannelforhumansandanimals,goodsandideas.Itwasanaxis

betweentheBosporus(centerpointoftheBlackSeaandnortheasternMediterraneanregions),

andtheAdriaticSea(betweentheItalianPeninsulaandtheOttomanBalkans).Thehinterland

ofRumeliawasmorethanaplaceinbetweencoasts.Itwascrisscrossedwithroadslargeand

smallwheresettlementsbecameplacesofincreasinginternationalcontactintheearlymodern

period,reachingapeakinthesixteenthcentury.

Despiteconsiderablegeographicalobstacles,caravantradeinlandfromDubrovnikis

attestedfromthelatemedievalera.8WiththearrivaloftheOttomansinsoutheasternEurope

inthefourteenthcentury,andthedefinitiveOttomanconquestsofthefifteenthcentury,all

phasesoflifeintheBalkanPeninsulawereimpacted.InplaceofByzantiumandthemedieval

Slavstates,theentirelandmasswasabsorbedintotheOttomanempire,withtheexceptionof

7 Ragusa and Dubrovnik are synonymous. Ragusa, the term still used by Italian speakers, appears more commonly in the city's early modern archival sources. Dubrovnik, the Slavic name for this multi-lingual state, is more frequently used in Ottoman writings. I will use the terms interchangeably, as they often were in contemporary documents. 8 Francis W. Carter: Dubrovnik (Ragusa) A Classic City-State. (New York, London: Seminar Press, 1972), 138.

4

theVenetianStatodaMarandtheDubrovnikRepublic,bothclingingtoanarrowstripof

islandsandcoastlinealongtheeasternAdriatic.

Dubrovnik'sleadersfirstresisted,laterreluctantlyembraced,andfinallythrivedinthe

newOttomanorder.In1442,therepublicdelivered1000Venetian(gold)ducatstothe

OttomanSultanMuradII,anactofsubmissionthatplacedRagusaunderOttomanprotection.

Inexchange,thesultansignedacharter(‛ahid-nāme,oftentranslatedascapitulations)that

enumeratedthemostfavorabletermsenjoyedbyanypoliticalentityintheOttomanorbit.The

exchangeoftributeforcharterremainedthebasicunitofOttoman-Ragusandiplomacyfor

centuries.Withprotectionfromits(Venetian)enemies,politicalautonomyinitshome

territories,legalrightsforitssubjectsinOttomanterritory,andataxrateongoodssoldin

Ottomanlandsthatwasevenlowerthanthatpaidbytheempire'sMuslimsubjects,Dubrovnik

hadallthatitneededtothriveinthenewpoliticalorder.TheCityofSt.Blaise(asDubrovnik

wassometimesknown)possessedamerchantnetworkthatextendedacrossthe

Mediterraneanand,thankstothecharter,unmatchedaccesstothehugemarketofOttoman

Rumelia.Asacenterpointbetweenlandandseanetworks,Ragusareachednewheightsof

prosperity,beginninginthelatefifteenthcenturyandcontinuingacrossthesixteenth.Oneof

theconsequencesofthemutuallybeneficialOttoman-Ragusanrelationshipwasanincreasein

long-distanceoverlandtrafficfromDubrovnik.Obscureinclassicaltimesandmoderately

successfulinthemedievalera,theRagusaRoadintheOttomanerabecame"undoubtedlythe

5

mostimportantroutefromtheAdriatictotheBosporus,"incontinuoususebymerchants,

diplomats,pilgrims,andsoldiersofmanyMediterraneanstates.9

Chronology

ThehistoryoftheRagusaRoadintheOttomaneracanbeunderstoodasaseriesof

stages.Thefirst(1430-1592),beginswiththeonsetofdirectrelationsbetweenDubrovnikand

theOttomanSultanMuradII,andendswiththedevelopmentoftheVenetianportofSplit,and

theSplit-Sarajevoroad.Inthesecondstage(1592-1645),Dubrovnik'sroadlostitsprimacyas

Venice'seconomicgravitypulledoverlandtraffictotheSplitroadtothenorth.Thistrendwas

temporarilyreversedduringthethirdstage,whichcorrespondstotheOttoman-VenetianWar

inCrete(1645-1669).ThelongwarallowedRagusatoregaintheupperhandinthecarrying

businessastheOttomansembargoedVenetiantradeandthreatenedSplitanditshinterland.

Dubrovnik'swartimeascendancecametoanendwithadevastatingearthquakein1667.Acity-

statewithDubrovnik'senergyandresourcefulnessmighthaverecoveredfromamerenatural

catastrophe.Agradualshiftinthedeepcurrentsofglobalcommercewasanevenmore

consequentialdisaster.TheinfluxoftheAtlanticpowersintotheLevanttrade,aslow-building

processthatbeganinthepreviouscentury,wasreshapinglong-establishedpatternsoftrade

andcommunications,erodingthecentralityoftheAdriaticSea.Thedamagefromthe

9 "Le chemin qui part de Dubrovnik (Raguse) pour se diriger vers Niš, Sofia ou Plovdiv est sans doute la route la plus importante parmi celles qui mènent de l’Adriatique au Bosphore" Stefanos Yerasimos, Les Voyageurs dans l'empire Ottoman (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1991), 38.

6

earthquakeontopofthisinexorabledevelopmentwasacombinationofforcesfromwhich

Dubrovnikcouldnotrecover.Duringtheroad'sfourthandfinalstage(1667-1808),delimitedby

therepublic'sfalltoNapoleonictroopsin1808,overlandtravelfromDubrovnikcontinuedasan

increasinglyminoroperation.

ThisstudyconcentratesonthedevelopmentoftheRagusaRoadinthefifteenthand

sixteenthcenturies(thefirststage),examiningthestrategiesemployedbyRagusanand

Ottomanactorstoenhanceandcontrolthemovementofhumans,animalsandgoodsalonga

mutuallybeneficialoverlandroute.Thesecomplementaryefforts,Iargue,werethebasisofthe

successoftheRagusaRoadandthecauseofitslongevity,despitetheexistenceofshorter,less

physicallychallengingalternatives.ThehistoryoftheRagusaRoadintheOttomaneramakesit

clearthatrouteswereneitherstaticnorneutral.Theirshapeandusagewereprofoundly

influencedbypolitical,economic,andevensocialforces,andtheabilityofroadtowns,traders,

andtravelerstoharnessthoseforcesfortheirownbenefit.Ultimately,thisisneitheraRagusan

noranOttomanstory.ItisaconnectedhistoryofmovementintheMediterraneanasthe

outcomeofmyriadinterlockingvisions,practices,andnegotiations.10Totellthisstory,Idraw

frominternationaltravelaccounts,andOttoman,Ragusan,andVenetiandocumentsfrom

archivesinTurkey,Croatia,andItaly.

10 The concept of connected history is borrowed from Sanjay Subrahmanyam. In his work, e.g., Explorations in Connected History: Mughals and Franks (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), the author applies Braudelian approaches to study of the early modern Indian Ocean. I have interpreted the author's description of the Adriatic and Balkans as "geographical areas that have a tendency to remain distressingly murky" as a suggestion, rather than a warning.

7

Historiography

ThegenerosityofthetermsgrantedtoitsChristianvassalstate,coupledwith

Dubrovnik'sprominenceinthecaravantrademightseemtosuggestOttomandisregardforthe

conjoinedissuesoftradeandmobility.Thenineteenth-centuryhistorianWilhelmHeyd's

influentialthesisofhaughtyTurkishdisdainforcommercialmatterswouldsupportsucha

reading.11Anearlyscholarofinternationaltraderoutesexpressedasimilarviewontheissueof

theissueof"orientaltraffic,"noting"thenotoriousindifference"oftheOttomanstosuch

matters.12Suchassumptionswerewidespreadandenduring.NearlyacenturyafterHeyd,a

prominentOttomanhistorianinvoked"tasksconsidereddistastefulfromthepointofviewof

theOttomanstateideology"asaplausibleexplanationfortheOttomandecisiontogrant

Dubrovniksuchgenerousprivileges.13ThispresentdissertationarguesthattheOttoman

empirewasneitherindifferent,notuninvolvedintheRagusaRoad,forthefollowingreasons:

1. InprivilegingDubrovnik,theOttomanempiregainedaccesstoallmarketsandcourtsof

WesternEurope,atatimewhenthemovementsofOttomanMuslimtradersand

envoysintheWestwerecircumscribed.

2. Theroad(andtrade)wasnotsimplyrelegatedtoanon-Muslimsubjectpopulation,but

wascreatedthroughtheinterconnectedeffortsbyOttomanandRagusanactors.

11 “Avec les Turcs, c’était tout le contraire; non-seulement ils n’avaient aucun gout pour le commerce, aucune idée d’en faire leur occupation, mais leur insatiable passion de conquêtes était précisément une perpétuelle cause de conflits entre eux et les principales nations commerçantes de l’Occident." Wilhelm Heyd, L'Histoire du Commerce du Levant au moyen-âge (Harrassowitz, 1885), 349. 12 A.H. Lybyer, “The Ottoman Turks and the Routes of Oriental Trade” The English Historical Review 120 (October 1915): 588 13Suraiya Faroqhi, "The Venetian Presence in the Ottoman Empire, 1600-30" in The Ottoman World and the World-Economy, Huri İslamoğlu-İnan, ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987): 313.

8

3. Ragusa'sroadandportgavetheOttomansanalternativediplomaticandeconomic

channeltotheWestduringtimesofconflictwithVenice(i.e.1463-79,1499-1503,

1537-40,1570-73,1645-69)

4. Dubrovnik'stributeandcustomspaymentswereasignificantandconsistentsourceof

hardcurrency.

5. WhentheOttomanssawtheopportunitytocreateanetworkwithgreatereconomic

potential,theydidnothesitatetodoso,aswiththedevelopmentofVenetianSplitand

theSplit-Sarajevoroadfromthe1590s.14

Thesixteenth-centuryheydayoftheRagusaRoadcoincidedwithamarkedincreasein

Mediterraneanpiracy.Couldthesuccessofoverlandtravelsimplyhavebeenaspontaneous

reactiontoinsecurityontheseas?IsitpossiblethatRagusanandOttomaneffortstocontrol

patternsoftravelhadonlyaminimaleffect?Thisthesisisnotsupportedbychronology.In

Tenenti'sview,thearrivalofnewforcesthatledtothedeclineofVenice'smarinetrade

occurredonlyinthe1570sand80s.15Bostan,confininghisviewtotheAdriaticSea,likewise

seestheincreaseinpiracyandsubsequentlossinmaritimetradeasalatesixteenthandearly

14 The "Spalato Venture" as it was named by Braudel, is often credited to the vision of the Jewish merchant Daniel Rodriguez (referred to as 'Michael' by Braudel) with the support of the Venetian Republic. Fernand Braudel, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Phillip II (New York: Harper & Row, 1972), vol. 1, p. 286. See also Renzo Paci, La “Scala” di Spalato e il commercio veneziano nei balcani fra cinque e seicento (Venice: Deputazione di storia patria per le venezie [Miscellanea di studi e memorie vol. XIV], 1971), Sergio Anselmi, "Venezia e i Balcani: La 'Scala' di Spalato tra Cinque e Seicento" Studi Storici 13.2 (1972): 408-412. Paci (p. 48) and Cemal Kafadar points out the revealing fact that an Ottoman official proposed the original concept of developing a road from Split as an alternative to the Ragusa Road. The sancakbeyi of Klis (a few miles inland from Split) outlined the proposal in a letter to the Venetian Senate in 1573. Cemal Kafadar, "A Death in Venice: Anatolian Muslim Merchants Trading in the Serenissima,” Journal of Turkish Studies 10 (1986), 204. 15 Alberto Tenenti, Piracy and the Decline of Venice 1580-1615, trans. Janet and Brian Pullan (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967), xvi

9

seventeenth-centuryphenomenon.16Priortothesedevelopments,Bracewellfindsthe

beginningsofthenotoriousUskoks(Dalmatianpirates)in1530s,buteventhisisnotearly

enoughtoexplaintheriseoftheRagusaRoad,whichwaswellestablishedbythispoint.17

Piracycertainlycontributedtothechoicemadebymanymerchantsandtravelerstoselectland

routesacrosstheBalkans,butitwasnottheprimarycauseofincreasedoverlandmobilityin

thesixteenthcentury.CaravantravelfromDubrovnikcouldnevermatchthespeedofafast

shipingoodweatherconditions,butonceOttomansecuritymeasuresandinfrastructural

improvementswereinplace,theoveralluncertaintyandriskofatrans-Balkanvoyagewas

muchlowerthanthesearoute.NottheshortestwaytoorfromIstanbul,theRagusaRoadwas

neverthelessefficient,reliable,andanincreasinglypopularoptionoverthecourseofthe

sixteenthcentury.TheVenetianbailoVettoreBragadin,makinghiswayhomefromIstanbulin

June1566,preferredtofollowthe"straddadiRagusi,"asitwas"morecomfortable,andmore

abundantinthethingsneededtoliveandlodge"18

ThestudyofoverlandmobilityinsoutheasternEuroperemainsheavilyreliantonthe

nineteenth-centuryworksofKonstantinJireček,whotracedthetraderoutesandhighwaysof

theBalkanPeninsula.19IntheYugoslavera,thepoliticaleconomyofthecaravantradebecame

16 Idris Bostan, Adriyatik'te Korsanlık (Istanbul: Timaş, 2009), 56. 17 Catherine Wendy Bracewell, The Uskoks of Senj: Piracy, Banditry and Holy War in the Sixteenth-Century Adriatic (Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press, 1992), 4. 18 “Io mi partirò da qui piacendo a Dio damattina, et mi metterò alla stradda di Ragusi, come piu commoda, et piu abbondante delle cose necessarie al viver et alli alogiar" Vettore Bragadin, Pera, 15 June 1566. ASV, Senato III (Secreta) Dispacci ambasciatori, Costantinopoli, Busta 1, #32. 19 Konstantin Jireček, Die Handelsstrassen und Bergwerke von Serbien und Bosnien während des Mittelalters (Prague, 1879); idem, Die Heerstrasse von Belgrad nach Constantinopel und die Balkanpässe (Amsterdam: Verlag Hamer, 1967).

10

asubjectofinterestformultiplestudies,basedondocumentsfromDubrovnik'sricharchives.

ResearchbyMikhailoDinić,SergijeDimitrijević,andBogumilHrabakrevealsinsightintothe

structureandorganizationoftheRagusancaravantrade,includinginformationonthevolume

andcompositionofcommoditiesimportedandexported.20ResearchonDubrovnikandits

encounterwiththeOttomansoverallisfoundintheworkofIsmailHakkıUzunçarşılı,Bariša

Krekić,IvanBožić,TomaPopović,NicolasBiegman,FrancisCarter,BoškoBojović,Halilİnalcık,

IdrisBostan,andRobinHarris.21VesnaMiović'sstudyofOttoman-Ragusandiplomacyhas

illuminated,amongotherthings,thecriticalroleofDubrovnik'spoklisari(tributeambassadors)

whosediplomaticassignmentrequiredthemtotraveltheRagusaRoadtoIstanbulandback

everyyear.22AnessentialrecentadditiontothefieldisZdenkoZlatar,Dubrovnik'sMerchants

20 Mikhailo Dinić, Dubrovačka srednjevekovna karavanska trgovina (1937); Sergije Dimitrijević, Dubrovački Karavani u južnoj Srbiji u XVII veku/Les Caravanes de Dubrovnik dans la Serbie du Sud au XVIIe siécle (Belgrade, 1958); Bogumil Hrabak, "Kramari u karavanskom saobraćaju preko Sanđaka" in (1470-1720), Simpozijum: Seoski dani Sretena Vukosavljevića Vol. X (1983), 21 Ismail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Tarihi (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1943-), vols. 2, 3, 4. Of the many works of Bariša Krekić, Dubrovnik (Raguse) et le Levant au Moyen Âge (Paris: Mouton, 1961) is the most relevant and accessible. Ivan Božić, Dubrovnik i Turska u xiv i xv Veku (Belgrade, 1952); Toma Popović, Turska i Dubrovnik u XVI Veku (Belgrade, 1973); Nicolaas Biegman, The Turco-Ragusan relationship. According to the firmāns of Murād III (1575-1595) extant in the state archives of Dubrovnik (Paris: Mouton, 1967); Francis Carter, Dubrovnik (Ragusa): a classic city-state, (London, New York: Seminar Press, 1972); Boško Bojović, Raguse (Dubrovnik) et l'Empire ottoman, 1430-1520: les actes impériaux ottomans en vieux-serbe de Murad II à Sélim Ier (Paris: Association Pierre Belon, 1998), Halil İnalcık, "Dubrovnik and the Balkans," in An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300-1914, eds. Halil İnalcık and Donald Quataert (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994); Idris Bostan, "Ahidnâmelere ve Uygulamalara Göre Osmanlı Dubrovnik Ticarî Münasebetleri (XV-XVI Yüzyillar)," Prof. Dr. Mübahat S. Kütükoğlu'na Armağan, ed. Zeynep Tarım Ertuğ (Istanbul, 2006); Robin Harris, Dubrovnik: A History (London: Saqi Books, 2006). 22 Unfortunately, no English translation of the author's Dubrovačka diplomacija u Istambulu (Zagreb, 2003) has yet been published. Many key points can, however, be found in Vesna Miović, “Diplomatic Relations Between the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Dubrovnik” in Karman and Kuncevic, eds. The European Tributary States of the Ottoman Empire (Brill, 2013): 187-208. See also Vesna Miović “Beylerbey of Bosnia and Sancakbey of Herzegovina in the Diplomacy of the Dubrovnik Republic" Dubrovnik Annals 9 (2005): 37-69, and "Dragomans of the Dubrovnik Republic: Their Training and Career," in Dubrovnik Annals 5 (2001): 81-94.

11

andCapitalintheOttomanEmpire,whichcontainsanastonishingamountofinformation,not

limitedtotheissueofRagusantrade.23

Halilİnalcık'sarticle"BursaandtheCommerceoftheLevant,"(1960)begana

comprehensiverepudiationofHeyd'spictureofthesuperciliousOttomanTurk,disdainfulof

tradeandexchange.24StudiesbyTraianStoianovich,PeterEarle,CemalKafadar,KateFleet,and

BenjaminBraudefollowed.25Asaresult,the"mythofTurkishcommercialincompetence,"as

Braudesofelicitouslytermedit,nolongerholdsswayinearlymodernstudies.Ottoman

Muslimshavefinallyrejoinedtheranksof"tradingnations"oftheMediterranean.26

Gradually,manyhistorianshavecometoseewesternRumeliaasaculturallycomplex

region,ratherthanthesiteofongoinghostilitiesbetweenmembersoffixedethnicand

religiousidentities.27TheOttoman-Venetianborderlandshaveproventobeaparticularlyrich

areaforthestudyoftheshapeshiftersandgo-betweenswhofluentlycrossedimperial

23 Zdenko Zlatar, Dubrovnik's Merchants and Capital in the Ottoman Empire (1520-1620): A Quantitative Study (Istanbul: Isis Press, 2011). 24 Halil İnalcik, "Bursa and Commerce of the Levant," Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 3/2 (1960): 131-147 25 Traian Stoianovich, "The Conquering Balkan Orthodox Merchant," Journal of Economic History 20 (1960): 243-313; Peter Earle, "The Commercial Development of Ancona, 1479-1555," The Economic History Review 22 (1969): 28-44; Cemal Kafadar, “A Death in Venice: Anatolian Muslim Merchants Trading in the Serenissima,” Journal of Turkish Studies 10 (1986); Kate Fleet, European and Islamic Trade in the Early Ottoman State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999); Benjamin Braude "Christians, Jews, and the Myth of Turkish Commercial Incompetence,” in Relazioni Economiche Tra Europa E Mondo Eslamico Secc. XIII-XVIII / Europe’s Economic Relations with the Islamic World 13th-18th Centuries, ed. Simonetta Cavaciocchi (2006): 219-240. 26 The reference is to Benjamin Arbel, Trading Nations (Leiden: Brill, 1995) 27 For a revealing look at Catholic attempts to regulate religious practice in the western Balkans, see Antal Molnár, Le Saint-Siège, Raguse et les missions catholiques de la Hongrie ottomane: 1572-1647 (Rome: Accademia d'Ungheria, 2007)

12

boundaries,asworksbyNatalieRothmanandEricDurstelerhaveshown.28Microbes,which

likewiseshowedlittleregardforboundaries,arethesubjectofanothernotablestudyof

movementandtransformationintheregion.29

MobilityintheOttomanempire,acriticalelementinthehistoriesoftrade,diplomacy,

andculturalexchangelistedabove,hasyettobeaddressedinasystematicway.Worksby

CengizOrhonlu,YusufHalaçoğluandColinHeywoodprovideimportantunderstandingofthe

structures–suchasthederbendandmenzilhânesystems–thatestablishedsecurityand

enabledcommunicationsacrosstheempire.30SuraiyaFaroqhi'sprolificscholarshiphas

examinedtheHajjandalsothemovementsofOttomantraders,travelers,andpilgrimsin

specificcontexts.31ReşatKasaba'selegantrecentworkshowstheimportanceofmobilegroups

andtheirchangingrelationshipwithcentersofpower.32

28 Natalie Rothman, Brokering empire: trans-imperial subjects between Venice and Istanbul (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2012), Eric Dursteler, Venetians in Constantinople: nation, identity, and coexistence in the early modern Mediterranean (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006) idem "Fatima Hatun née Beatrice Michiel," The Medieval History Journal 12 (2) (2009): 355-382. 29 Zlata Blažina Tomić and Vesna Blažina, Expelling the plague: The Health Office and the implementation of quarantine in Dubrovnik, 1377-1533 (Montreal: McGill-Queens, 2015) 30 Cengiz Orhonlu, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Derbend Teşkilâtı (Istanbul: Eren, 1990); Yusuf Halaçoğlu, “Osmanlı Imparatorluğu’nda Menzil Teşkilâtı Hakkında Bazı Mülâhazalar” Osmanlı Araştırmaları/The Journal of Ottoman Studies II (1981) 123-132; Colin Heywood, "The Ottoman Menzilhane and Ulak System in Rumeli in the Eighteenth Century," in Osman Okyar and Halil Inalcik, eds., Türkiye'nin Sosyal ve Ekonomik Tarihi (Ankara, 1980): 179-186. 31 Suraiya Faroqhi, Pilgrims & sultans: The Hajj under the Ottomans (London: I. B. Tauris, 2014) and Travel and Artisans in the Ottoman Empire; Employment and Mobility in the Early Modern Era (London: Tauris, 2014) 32 Reşat Kasaba, A Moveable Empire: Ottoman Nomads, Migrants & Refugees (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2009)

13

Addingtotheselargelyadministrativeaccounts,architecturalhistorianshavetakenthe

leadinaddressingthebuiltenvironment,includingroadarchitectureandinfrastructure.For

Rumelia,thisfieldbeginswiththemonumentalsurveysofOttomanarchitectureundertakenby

EkremHakkıAyverdiandtheprolificresearchofMachielKiel.33Thesixteenth-centuryboomin

roadarchitectureandinfrastructureseenacrosstheempireinthesixteenth-centuryhasbeen

exploredbyGülruNecipoğlu.InTheAgeofSinan,Necipoğlushowsthedefiningroleplayedby

OttomanPashas(military-administrativeelites)increatingintercontinentalsystemsofoverland

transportation.AnarticlebythesameauthorpublishedinthecollectedvolumeDalmatiaand

theMediterraneanillustratesasimilardynamicatworkinthespecificcontextofDalmatiaand

itsOttomanhinterland.34

Whatislackingisasystematicunderstandingofhowroutesoftraveland

communicationdevelopedandevolved.Howdidacombinationofphysicalstructures,

economic,social,andpoliticalforces,andaccumulatedexpertiseconditionspecificmodesof

movement?35Andwhatwerethehumanconsequencesofshiftingpatternsinaculturally

complexanddynamicregion?Amodelforsuchanapproachcanbeseeninthecollected

volumeTheViaEgnatiaunderOttomanRule(1996),editedbyElisavetZachariadou.Theessays

33 Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi, Avrupa'da Osmanlı Mimârî Eserleri, 4 vols. (Istanbul: Istanbul Fetih Cemiyeti, 1977). Machiel Kiel, Studies on the Ottoman Architecture of the Balkans (Aldershot: Variorum, 1990), idem, "The Vakfname of Rakkas Sinan Beg in Karnobat and the Ottoman Colonization of Bulgarian Thrace," Osmanlı Araştırmaları 1 (1980): 15-32. Multiple studies by Yugoslav authors of Ottoman architecture in the Balkans are addressed in chapter two. 34 Gülru Necipoğlu, The Age of Sinan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005); idem "Connectivity, Mobility, and Mediterranean 'Portable Archaeology': Pashas from the Dalmatian Hinterland as Cultural Mediators," in Dalmatia and the Mediterranean, ed. Alina Payne (Leiden: Brill, 2014). 35 I am drawing from Michael McCormick's definition of infrastructure as an inclusive category of inter-related forces: “Infrastructure means physical structures: roads, as well as bridges, ports and the like. But

14

collectedhereofferaprismatic,multi-layeredapproachtothereconstructiononeofthe

region'smostimportantroadnetworks.BeginningwithasummaryoftheViaEgnatiainthe

Romanera,thisvolumeextendstemporallytotheseventeenthcenturyandeighteenth

centuries(RhoadsMurphey'sessayonpatternsoftradeandColinHeywoodonthemenzilhane

system).Thecollectedpapersexaminetheinter-relatedissuesofpatronage,trade,

communicationsandmilitaryutility.Aspectsofreligiouspractice,language,industrial

production–perhapsnotsoobviouslyconnectedtothestudyofaroad–arealsoaddressed.I

haveusedZachariadou'scollectedvolumeasamodelforthepresentstudy.Themulti-

perspectivalapproachIuseinexploringthecaseoftheoftheRagusaRoadisindebtedtothis

previouswork.IamhopefulthatotherstudieswillfollowZachariadou'sexampletodevelopof

thestudyofmobilityintheearlymodernera.

Itissomewhatparadoxicalthatthemobilitiesperspective–definedbyanemphasison

politicalandeconomicfactorsregulatingflowsofcirculation–hasnotflourishedintheearly

modernMediterranean,despitetheobviousconnectiontotheworkofFernandBraudeland

theAnnalesSchool.Thehistoryofroads,infrastructure,andoverlandtravelisdominatedby

studiesoftheclassicalandthemodernperiods(includingthenineteenthcentury),withan

especiallyprolifichistoriographyontheBritishIsles.The"geniusfororganization"thatresulted

intheRomanroadsystemhasbeenexploredcomprehensively.36Leapingaheadintime,roads

36 Horst Barow, Roads and Bridges of the Roman Empire, (Stuttgart, London: Axel Menges, 2013), 7. See also Ivan Margary, Roman Roads in Britain (London: Baker, 1967); Raymond Chevallier, Les Voies Romaines (Paris: Picard, 1997); Colin Adams and Ray Laurence, Travel and Geography in the Roman Empire (London: Routledge, 1999); Adams, 2001; C. R. Van Tilburg, Traffic and Congestion in the Roman Empire (London: Routledge, 2007). The Istituto di Studi Romani published fifteen volumes on the "Grandi Strade del Mondo Romano," each centered on a specific region, in the late 1930s.

15

–liketherailroadandtelegraph–havebeenconceptualizedaskeyinstrumentsofthespeed,

technology,anddislocationassociatedwithmodernity.ThetitleofJoGuldi'srecent

monograph,RoadstoPower:BritainInventstheInfrastructureState,encapsulatesthe

argumentofthisapproach.37

Morerecently,the"politicsandpoetics"ofinfrastructurehavebecomeaproductive

subjectinAnthropology,againcloselytiedtoconceptionsofmodernity.38Thetermitselfhas

beenclaimedbymodernists,whoarguethat"Infrastructurehasitsconceptualrootsinthe

Enlightenmentideaofaworldinmovementandopentochangewherethefreecirculationof

goods,ideas,andpeoplecreatedthepossibilityofprogress."39Idisagreewithsuchanarrow

understanding.Thecategoryofinfrastructure(asnotedabove)isvaluableasaconceptthat

bringstogetherthebuiltenvironment,structuralforces,andhumanexpertise.Narrativesof

post-EnlightenmentprogressarenotsignificantinaprojectsuchasJanetRizvi'sTrans-

HimalayanCaravans:MerchantPrincesandPeasantTradersinLadakh(1999).Structured

aroundquestionsofmobilityandinfrastructure,Rizvi'sworkproducesinsightfulfindingsona

37 Roads as expressions of state power in the modern era are explored in two case studies at the edges of the Ottoman world. Dimitris Dalakoglou, “The Road: An Ethnography of the Albania-Greek cross-border motorway,” American Ethnologist V 37 No1 (2010): 132-149 and Fulya Özkan, "The Road in Rebellion, a History on the Move: The Social History of the Trabzon-Bayezid Road and the Formation of the Modern State in the Late Ottoman World," (Phd. Diss., SUNY Binghamton, 2012.) 38 "Infrastructures like roads and railways are in many ways an archetypal technology of post-enlightenment emancipatory modernity. Whilst roads have existed in different forms for millennia, the coming together of engineering expertise, political will and economic ambition to produce standardized structures for the purposes of integrating the nation state is a particularly modern ambition, which has morphed and mutated into its current form which we might argue is now deeply influenced by processes of neo-liberalization." Penny Harvey and Hannah Knox, "The Enchantments of Infrastructure," Mobilities Vol. 7, No. 4 (2012): 523. See also Brian Larkin, "The Politics and Poetics of Infrastructure," Annual Review of Anthropology, 2013: 327-43. 39 Larkin, "The Politics," 328.

16

modesttradingcentersurroundedbymountains.Adistant,HimalayanreflectionofDubrovnik,

thecityofLehused"commercialnecessityandhumaningenuity"tooperatesuccessfulcaravan

routesacrossinhospitableterritory.40

Astudyofaroadnetworkthatconnectedmultiplesub-regionsoftheMediterranean

wouldseemtofitsnuglywithintheparametersofHordenandPurcell'sTheCorruptingSea,

whichgiveshumanagencyisamorecentralrolethanBraudel'sMediterranean.Connectivity,

thewatchwordofthiseruditestudy,wasalsotheraisond'êtreoftheRagusaRoad.

Furthermore,Dubrovnikwaspreciselythekindof"gatewaysettlement"(acoastalenclavethat

interactswithhinterland)singledoutbytheauthorsasapotentformofconnectedplace.41Yet

theemphasisonredistributionbetweenmicroclimaticzonesinHordenandPurcell'sargument

–itselfanadaptationofthethesisofJ.R.McNeill'sTheMountainsoftheMediterranean(1992)

–isapoorexplanatorymodelforthesuccessofthisoverlandroute.Therearetworeasonsfor

this.First,Dubrovnikwasnotunique.Itsportanditsproductswerenotinherentlybetterthan

multiplealternativesfoundupanddowntheeasterncoastoftheAdriaticSea.42Second,the

deficienciesthattheOttomanempirewasseekingtoremedythroughconnectionswiththe

westhadlittletodowithmicroclimates.Possessedofavastandvariegatedempire,the

40 Janet Rizvi, Trans-Himalayan Caravans: Merchant Princes and Peasant Traders in Ladakh (Oxford U Press, 1999), 22 41 Horden and Purcell, The Corrupting Sea (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000), 133. 42 "The site in itself would not have mattered as it did, were it not for the wisdom of its citizens in understanding their peculiar position in the world and making the best out of their circumstances through foresight and skill." Cemal Kafadar, "Evliya Çelebi in Dalmatia: An Ottoman Traveler's Encounters with the Arts of the Franks," in Dalmatia and the Mediterranean, ed. Alina Payne (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 70.

17

OttomanshadlittletogainfromRagusa'scoastalterritoriesandislands.Ofmorevaluetothe

empirewasDubrovnik'sabilitytoprovideaccessandexpertiseinthefollowingways:

1. merchantstotradeandconductbusinessthroughouttheBalkans–andRagusanswerewell-knownasskillfulmerchants,businessmen,andbankers;

2. aneutralportthroughwhichtheycouldtradewithVenice,Spain,thePapalState,andsoon,eveniftheyhappenedtobeatwarwiththem;

3. neutralterritoryfortheexchangeofprisonersofwar;4. amediatorbetweentheOttomansandtheChristianstatesoftheWest;and5. a‘window’totheMediterraneanthroughwhichinformationabouttheChristianstates

inthisbasiswouldbegathered.”43

Merchantnetworks,aneutralportandterritory,mediationwithChristianpowers:theclimate

thatmatteredherewaspoliticalandeconomic,notecological.Theconnectivitythatenlivened

theRagusaRoadwasnotspecifictoitsmicroregion,butcouldhavebeenprovidedbyother

land-sealocationsintheAdriatic.ThepreviouslymentionedriseoftheSplitRoadinthelate

sixteenthcenturyillustratesjusthoweasilypatternsoftravelcouldshift,andhowtenuousthe

Ragusanpositionactuallywas.

Themobilitiesperspective,withitsemphasisonpoliticalandeconomicfactors

regulatingflowsofcirculation,differsfromthemodelofconnectivitybetweenmicroregionsat

theheartofTheCorruptingSea.44Thedifferenceisnotinconsequential.Inconsideringthe

43 List quoted from Vesna Miović, “Diplomatic Relations Between the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Dubrovnik” in Karman Kuncevic, eds. The European Tributary States of the Ottoman Empire (Brill, 2013): 189 44 "Rather than taking the movement of people, ideas, objects for granted, a mobilities perspective questions how such movements are symbolically, materially, economically and politically produced. Of special concern is the institutional and material infrastructure of movement and the economic and political conditions that encourage or inhibit circulation. Circulation is as much about flows as it is about the infrastructure channeling these flows." Javier Caletrío Garcerá and Ramón Ribera Fumaz, “Mediterranean Studies, Braudel and the ‘Mobility Turn’ in the Social Sciences,” (2007).

18

RagusaRoadasanentitythatwascreated,ratherthanaspontaneousreactiontoassymmetries

betweenregions,wefindthespacetoincludetheOttomanempireandtheDubrovnikRepublic

inthestoryinameaningfulway.Thispathwaywaslonganddifficult.Itsusfulnesswasnotthe

outcomeofimplicitadvantages,buttheresultofcontinuousconjoinedactionsbyOttomanand

Ragusanactors.TheOttomansgrantedDubrovnikextraordinarypoliticalandeconomic

advantagesthatenhancedtheport'spositionbetweenlandandsea.TheOttomansimproved

securityinthehinterland,andofficialsinvestedheavilyinroadarchitectureandinfrastructure,

includingalongtheroutepreferredbyDubrovnik'smerchantsanddiplomats.Ragusadeveloped

aneffectivecaravantrade,bringingmanufacturedgoodsandsalttotheBalkaninteriorand

exportingitscommodities.Thetransportationnetworkthatgrewoutofthisbasicscheme

attractedincreasingnumbersofinternationaltravelers,includingmerchants,pilgrims,and

ambassadorialpartiesheadingtoIstanbul.Asoverlandtravelincreased,sodidopportunitiesfor

culturalexchange.

CaravangroupswereMediterraneansocietiesinminiature,oftenincludingofCatholic

andOrthodoxChristiantraders,Vlachdrovers,andOttomanMuslimguards.Throwntogether,

thesepeopleinteractedwithoneanotherforweeksormonths,communicatingandnegotiating

withresourcefulgo-betweensandinhabitingsharingspaceslikecaravanserais.Pierre

Lescalopier,whotraveledtheRagusaRoadin1574onhiswaytoIstanbul,wasstruckbythe

inter-communalmixtureoftheseubiquitousOttomaninstitutions."Itisamarvelthatinthe

samecaravanseraiarefoundallsortsofpeopleandnations:Arabs,Turks,Greeks,Jews,

Armenians,Franks,andothers...Alllodgetogethersopeacefullythatnoonecomplaintsabout

19

theother."45IdonotwishtosuggestthattheRagusaRoadwasamulti-culturalutopia.

Lescalopier'scommentsdonotreflecttheexperiencesofalltravelers,buthisobservationof

thesharedspacesoftheroadshouldbenotedbyscholarsofcross-culturalcommunicationand

exchange.

Trans-imperialroutesliketheRagusaRoadcanbeseenasanecessarycounterpointto

themodelofcross-culturalcommunicationexemplifiedbytheexhibitionVeniceandtheIslamic

World,828-1797.46Thelavishexhibitionwasdescribedbyonerevieweras:"thespectacleof

twodifferentculturesmeetinginonefantasticcity,wherecommerceandloveofbeauty,those

greatlevelers,unitetheminafruitfulbond."47StefanoCarboni,leadcuratoroftheexhibition

usedthephrase"momentsofvision"todescribehisapproach:

TherecurrenceofoccasionsonwhichtheVenetianoligarchymadeanefforttocometotermswiththeIslamicworld,circumventingthereligious,philosophical,andidealisticdisputesthatweresopredominantinotherEuropeancitiesandfocusingondiplomatic,political,andpracticalissues,promptedmetoincludeintheoriginaltitleoftheexhibitionthephrase"MomentsofVision."48

Whilewellintended,suchanapproachisoflimitedutilityforadeeperunderstandingofcross-

culturalexchangeintheearlymodernera.Theagentsofexchangeinthiscasearecertain

45"C'est merveille qu’en mesme caravacerat arrivent touttes sortes de gens et nations, Arabes, Turcs, Grecs, Juifz, Armeniens, Francs et autres...Touts logent si paisiblement que l’un ne se plaint de l’autre." Quoted in Edmond Cleray, “Le Voyage de Pierre Lescalopier, Parisien: de Venise à Constantinople, l’an 1574,” Revue d’Histoire Diplomatique 35 (1921): 21-55. Kraus Reprint, Nendeln/Liechtenstein, 1968, 28. 46 Exhibition: Institut du Monde Arabe, Paris (2006-2007), Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (2007), Palazzo Ducale, Venice (2007). Catalogue: Stefano Carboni, ed., Venice and the Islamic World, 828-1797 (New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 2007). 47 Holland Carter, "The Republic of Beauty, Melding West and East," New York Times, March 30, 2007. 48 Carboni, Venice, 17

20

Venetianoligarchswho,oncertainoccasions,expressinterestandevenexpertiseinthe

productsoftheIslamicworldinawaythattheirmoreparochialpeersinChristianEuropedo

not.TheissueisnotthatthesefiguresareuniquelyVenetian.Otherstudieshavepraisedelite

OttomanMuslimfiguresforovercomingthebiasesprevalentintheirsocieties.Whatis

problematicisCarboni'sunderstandingofcultureasanexpressionofthetasteofelite

consumers.Laudingtheseexceptionalindividualsfortheir"vision"valorizesthemforan

appreciationofculturalproductionthatisadmirabletocontemporarymores.Theeveryday

interactionsbetweentheMuslim,Jewish,andChristianfigureswhoactuallymovedacross

boundariesareobscured.

TheconceptualframeworkofaroadthatphysicallylinkedanIslamicempiretoa

Catholicrepublicrevealsadifferentformofcross-culturalexchange,acontinuous,groundlevel

process.Encountersherewerenotabouttaste,butaboutlogisticsandpracticalnegotiation.

Investigatingculturalhistoryfromthegroundup,thisexplorationofcultureontheroadfits

withthecreativeapproachesseeninsuchrecentworksasCulturalExchangeinearlymodern

Europe(aseriesoffourvolumes.),andthecollectedessayspublishedasDalmatiaandthe

Mediterranean.49Theformerisstructuredaroundusefulcategoriesandsitesofexchange,

includingreligion,cities,andcorrespondence.Inthelatter,asubjectashumbleasthestonesof

Dalmatia'squarriesandruinsrevealssurprisinginsightsabouteast-westdialogueinan

interconnectedregion

49 Robert Muchembled, gen.ed., Cultural Exchange in early modern Europe, 4 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006-2007); Dalmatia and the Mediterranean: Portable Archaeology and the Poetics of Influence, Alina Payne, ed. (Leiden: Brill, 2014).

21

Theroadwasnotsimplyablanklinebetweencities,butadistinctandcomplexspace

wherenomads,farmers,ambassadors,merchants,soldiers,humanistscholars,pilgrims,

drovers,translators,banditsandfixersallcrossedpaths.Outsideforcestriedtocontrolthe

itinerariestheyfollowed,butthenatureoftheirinteractions–inthecaravanseraisandmarkets

ofcrossroadssettlements–wastheirown.

Structure

Thisdissertationiscomposedoftwohalves,eachconsistingoftwochapters.Theopeninghalf

looksdownfromabove,tracingthepoliticaldecisionsandeconomicandsocialforcesthatled

totheriseoftheRagusaRoad.Thesecondhalfviewstheroadasitwasexperiencedfromthe

groundup.Itisconcernedwiththedaily,livedexperienceofoverlandtravelinthefifteenth

andsixteenthcenturies.

Chapterone,"PoveriRagusei,"illustratesDubrovnik'searlyencounterwiththe

expandingOttomanstateandthedevelopmentofamodusvivendithatincludedadvantageous

legalprotectionsforRagusancitizenstradingandtravelinginOttomandomains.Itdescribes

themechanicsofthecaravantradealongtheRagusaRoadandprovidesananalysisofthe

distinctbutmutually-reinforcingformsofcurrencyusedbyDubrovniktoamplifyanddefendits

overlandcommunicationsnetworkintheOttomanBalkans.

Thesecondchapter,"PatronageandMobility,"explorestheactivemeasurestakenby

theOttomansinsupportoftheRagusaRoad.Ottomanarchitectureandinfrastructurewere

essentialtothedevelopmentofanintercontinentalroadsystemcenteredonIstanbulthat

22

reachedacrossthecoreprovincesofRumeliaandAnatolia.Thistransportationnetworkdidnot

seektoemulatethepaved,arrow-straightroadsoftheRomanempire.Rather,theOttomans

concentratedtheireffortsoncreatingsecurestoppingplacesandreducingthefrictionof

physicalobstacles.Thischaptershowstheeffectivenessoftheempire'sdecentralizedpractice

ofinfrastructurecreationintheprovinces.Thecaravanseraisandbridgesreliedonbytravelers

werenottypicallybuiltonordersfromthesultan,butweremoreoftentheproductof

individualOttomanadministrators.Theinstitutionofvaḳıf(piousorpublicendowment)was

instrumentalinthedevelopmentofwhatbecameaneffectivetrans-regionalroadsystem.

Inthethirdchapter,"FlorentinesontheRagusaRoad,"theperspectiveshiftstothe

increasinglyinternationalpracticeoftrans-BalkantravelviaDubrovnikinthefifteenthcentury.

ItconcentratesontheFlorentinetravelerswhoselectedthenewlyviableoverlandrouteto

Istanbulasanalternativetothemarineroutecontrolledbytheirrival,Venice.Therecordsof

thesepilgrims,diplomats,andmerchantssketchtheconditionsofcaravantravelacrossthe

Balkansatarelativelyearlystageintheroute'sdevelopment,showingtheimportanceof

shiftingroutesinearlymoderngeopolitics.

Chapterfour,"VenetiansOverland,"depictstheroadfromRagusaduringitsapogeein

thesixteenthcentury.DetailedreportscomposedbyVenetianenvoysshowanincreasing

interestontheparttheMostSereneRepublicintheOttomanlandslocatedinlandfrom

Venice'scoastalpossessionsintheAdriatic.Theserelazioniwereprimarilyintelligencereports

tallyingtheresourcesandweaknessesofVenice'srival,buttheirauthorswerenotlimitedto

suchutilitarianconcerns.Venetiantravelaccountsofthisperiodshowamasteryoftheformof

informativetravelwriting,blendingtogetherquotidiandetailsandfirst-personexperiences

23

withasurprisinglynuancedunderstandingoftheOttomansubjectstheyencounteredinthe

mountainsandplainsofRumelia.

24

ListofAbbreviationsHAD:CroatianStateArchives,Dubrovnik

DA:DiplomataetActa(Dubrovnik)

LL:LetterediLevante(Dubrovnik)

DAZ:CroatianStateArchives,Zadar

BOA:BaşbakanlıkOttomanArchives,Istanbul

ASV:ItalianStateArvchives,Venice

BNCF:BibliotecaNazionaleCentralediFirenze

EI2:EncyclopaediaofIslam,NewEdition(Leiden:Brill,1960-2009)

EI3:EncyclopaediaofIslam,ThirdEdition(Leiden:Brill,2007-)

TranscriptionSystemOttomanTurkish,writteninarabiccharacters,isnoteasilytranscribedintotheLatinalphabet.Forlegibility,IhaveelectednottofullytranscribepropernamesortermsfoundinstandardEnglishdictionaries(e.g.caravanserai).OtherOttomanwordsaretransliteratedwiththefollowingsystem: -ث,t-ت,p-پ,b-ب,ā-ا s,ج-c,چ-h,ح-ḥ,خ-ḫ,د-d,ذ-ẕ,ر-r,ز-z,س-s,ش-ş,

,h-ه,v-و,n-ن,m-م,l-ل,g-گ,k-ك,ḳ-ق,f-ف,ġ-غ,‛-ع,ẓ-ظ,ṭ-ط,ż-ض,ṣ-ص

y-ى

ShortvowelsaregivenwiththeModernTurkishalphabet:a,e,ı,i,o,ö,u,ü

ChapterOne:PoveriRagusei

Loyaltynotbeingtheirtrait,geographyistoblame.1

Clinginglikeamollusktolimestonecliffsattheedgeofthesea,Dubrovnik’ssobriquet

‘PearloftheAdriatic’isaptinmanysenses.Theoldcityisanoysterlyingopen;theglistening

stonesurfaceoftheStradun–itscentralaxis–isahingeconnectingtwounequalhalves.Like

theabundantshellfishharvestedinthelongtidalinletdefinedbythePelješacPeninsulatoits

north,theRepublicofRagusafeastedontherichcurrentsthatitfilteredfromitstenuousperch

attheconfluenceoflandandsea.

Dubrovnik(knowntoItalianspeakersasRagusa)islocatedatthesoutherntipofthe

DalmatiancoastinwhatistodayCroatia,borderedbyMontenegrotothesouthand

Herzegovinaonlyafewmilesinland.Thesurroundinglandscapeissemi-aridanddefinedbythe

wavesofstonymountains–culminatingintheheightsoftheDinaricAlps–thatrunparallelto

thecoastline.Beginningitsascentjustinlandfromthecity'smedievalwalls,SrđMountainrises

412metersaboveRagusa,providingatoweringvantagepoint.Itwasusedtotragicpurposes

duringthewarsofthebreakupofYugoslaviawhenitwasturnedintoanartillerypositionfor

thebombardmentofthecitybytheYugoslavPeople'sArmy(JNA)from1991-92.

HistoricaldescriptionsofDubrovnikdescribetheubiquityofmountainsandthescarcity

ofarableterrainasexistentialthreatstothecity'sexistence.Withtheseaononesideand

inhospitablemountainsontheother,theRepublicofRagusasimplydidnothavethe

1 Lojo Vojnović, quoted in Vesna Miović, Dubrovačka Diplomacija u Istambulu (Zagreb, Dubrovnik: HAZU, 2003), 298.

26

agriculturalcapacitytofeeditsinhabitants.2This,then,wastheimpetusthatdrovethecity's

fameasamercantile,seafaringcityparexcellence.AstheDominicanauthorSerafinoRazzi

wroteinthefirstpublishedhistoryofRagusa(1595):"ifanythingwaslacking,theconvenience

ofthesea,andtheirmanyships,provideditinabundance."3

WritingoftheBalkanPeninsulaingeneral,JovanCvijićcautionedagainsttheinvoluntary

desiretocombineandconflatenaturalgeographicalfactswithhumancharacterandhistory,an

instinctthatisrifeintheregion'shistoriographyfromRazzitothepresentday.4Theforemost

scholarofmedievalDubrovnik,forexample,articulatesadirectlycausalrelationshipbetween

environmentandmodesofhumanendeavor."Bytheverynatureofitslocation,"Krekićwrites,

"Ragusawasobligedtoorientitselftotheseaandtomaritimecommerceasaprimarymeans

2“ThewholebasisofDubrovnik’sprosperitywastrade.Therepublic’sterritorywastoosmall,andinparttoobarren,toprovidesufficientfoodstuffsforthepopulation,andconsequentlyitwasupontradeandindustrythatthecitizenshadtodependfortheirmeansoflivelihood.”FrancisW.Carter:Dubrovnik(Ragusa)AClassicCity-State(NewYork,London:SeminarPress,1972),135.ThefollowingdescriptionofanadjacentregionsummarizestheconditionsofDubrovnik'sterritoryaswell:"ThegeographyofBilećaRudinafavoredapastoraleconomy.ItispartoftheKarst,abroadbeltofrockymountainsstretchingalongtheAdriaticcoastfromIstriatoGreece.Itaboundsincavesandsubterraneanstreams.Afewofthehigherpeaksarecoveredwithforestsofbeechandpine.Theregion'sclimateisharsh,withcoldwintersandhotsummers.Duringrainlesssummers,theblazingsunscorchesthefieldsandnearlyallthespringsdryup...Afewplains,knownaspolja(sing.polje),createdbydepositsfromstreamsandwinterrains,providedalmosttheonlycultivableland,mostofitconsistingofathinlayerofstarvedsoil.Thesesmallplainsweredividedintoparcels,ownedbyindividualfamilies.Fromhisfragmentedandwidelyscatteredplotsofland,thepeasantbarelyproducedenoughgraintosurvive."WayneVucinich,AStudyinSocialSurvival:theKatuninBilećaRudine(UniversityofDenver,1975),8. 3 "se pure alcuna cosa le mancasse, la commodità del mare, e delle sue tante Navi, abondantemente la provede." Serafino Razzi, La Storia di Ragusa, 10 4“Paruneassociationd’idéestoutenaturelle,nouspassonsdecescaractèresgéographiquesaurôlehistoriquedescontréesenquestion,àleurscivilisationssuccessivesetàleurétatactuel.L’espritchercheinvolontairementlaconnexionentrecesdeuxordresdefaits.”JovanCvijić,LaPéninsuleBalkanique:GéographieHumaine(1918),11.

27

ofexistence."5Indeed,thescaleandreachoftheRagusanfleetisastounding,especially

consideringthesizeoftherepublic.6Dubrovnik'smerchantswereknowninalltheportsand

commercialcentersoftheMediterranean,andwerenotlimitedtotheshoresoftheinlandsea.

“RagusanshipsmayhaveroundedtheCapeofGoodHopenotlongafterVascodaGama;they

certainlyreachedthenewworld.”7InGoa,India,theChurchofSaoBraz(St.Vlaho/Blaise),built

in1563toservetheneedsoftheRagusanmerchantcommunity,stillstands.Dubrovnik's

merchantsalsomaintainedapresenceintheKingdomofKano,intoday'sNigeria(animportant

WestAfricancommercialpower)inthe1560sand1570s.8Yetdespitetheallureoftheseaand

theforbiddinggeographicobstaclesofitshinterland,Ragusanprosperityalsoreliedonrobust

networksofoverlandtradewiththeSlavicpopulationofsoutheasternEurope.Ifmaritime

commercewastheprimarymeansofDubrovnik'sexistence,inlandtradewasavital–and

complementary–second.

5 “Par la nature même de son emplacement, Raguse était obligée de s’orienter ver la mer et de recourir au commerce maritime comme moyen principal d’existence.” Bariša Krekić, Dubrovnik (Raguse) et le Levant au Moyen Âge (Paris: Mouton & Co, 1961), 21. 6 In the mid-sixteenth century: "Ragusan ships were allowed to dominate the waters off Apulia. This was the beginning of a phase of expansion which would see the Ragusan fleet emerge as one of the largest merchant navies in the Mediterranean; Dubrovnik, not the Argonauts of Jason, provided the English language with the word argosy, a corruption of Ragusa." David Abulafia, The Great Sea (Oxford, 2011), 390. 7 Fernand Braudel, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Phillip II, trans. Sian Reynolds (New York: Harper & Row, 1972), 106. "Until the earthquake of 1667, which destroyed the city almost entirely and set an end to its shipping, Ragusan ships were covering the waters between England and Flanders in the north, Alexandria, Tripolis, Ormuz and Goa in the east, and Brazil and the Caribbean in the west." Nicolas Mirkovich, "Ragusa and the Portuguese Spice Trade" Slavonic and East European Review 2/1 (March, 1943): 175. 8AGuidetotheGidanMakamaMuseum,Kano(Kano,Nigeria:NationalCommissionforMuseumsandMonuments,1985):18.IthankAndrásRiedlmayerforthissource.

28

BeforethearrivaloftheOttomanGazisinRumeliainthesecondhalfofthefourteenth

century,Dubrovnikhadestablisheditslucrativeintermediarypositionbetweenlandandseain

themetalstradebetweentheminesofmedievalSerbiaandBosniaandtheportsofthe

Mediterranean.9TherepublicwasalsoanoutletforthehumblerproductsoftheBalkanforests

andapointofentryforItalianmanufacturedgoods,purchasedlargelyatVeniceandAncona:

...acaravanroutestartedfromDubrovnikandcrossedtheBalkansalreadyattheturnofthefourteenthcentury.RagusanmerchantcoloniesalsosettledinthemajorBalkancitiesexportingleather,fats,wool,cheese,fish,honey,beeswax,furs,andslavesandimportingfromItalywoolenclothandothertextiles.10

ThemerchantsofDubrovnikwerecertainlynotconfinedtoshipandshore.Beginninginthe

Byzantineeraandrampingupsubstantiallyfromthe13thcentury,theyestablishedlegally-

protectedcommunitiesinalltheinlandtradingcentersofsoutheasternEurope.11TheRagusan

colonist/merchant/diplomatsofthesecitiesandtownsencounteredtheexpandingOttoman

9“ThereisnodirectconfirmationastowhenDubrovnik’scaravantradebegan,butitappearstohavebeenwell-developedbythetimethefirstdocumentaryevidencewasrecordedinthelastquarterofthetwelfthcentury.”FrancisCarter,Dubrovnik(Ragusa)AClassicCity-State(London,NewYork:SeminarPress,1972),138.“LestraitésaveclaSerbieetlaBosnieluienfournirentlemoyen:enliantsoncommercemaritimeauxcontactsqu’elleavaitétablisdansl’intérieurdesterresbalkaniques,Raguses’assuraletransitdesmarchandisesentrel’OccidentetlesBalkans,etc’estlàqu’ilfautvoirlasourceprincipaledelaprospéritédontelledevaitjouirpendantunelonguepériode.”Krekić,Dubrovnik,21. 10 Halil İnalcık, An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300-1914, eds. Halil İnalcık and Donald Quataert (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 256. 11"Fromthattime[beginningof13thcentury]onwards,DubrovnikwasnotcontentwiththatpartithadformerlyplayedintheBalkantrade–whichwashardlymorethanthatofatransitport–butstartedtoequipitsowncaravans.Thisgrewintoathrivingbusiness,andRagusancolonieswerefoundedalloverthepeninsula,extendingnorth-eastwardstotheSavaregionandBulgaria;andintheFourteenthCenturyasfarasWalachia."NicolaasBiegman,TheTurco-RagusanRelationship.AccordingtotheFirmânsextantintheStateArchivesofDubrovnik(TheHague,Paris:Mouton,1967),25.SeealsoRadovanSamardžić,"L'OrganisationIntérieuredesColoniesRagusainesenTurquieauxXVIeetXVIIesiècles"StructureSocialeetDéveloppementCultureldesVillesSud-EstEuropéennesetAdriatiquesauxXVIIe–XVIIIesiècles.(1975):195.

29

stateataveryearlystage.WiththeOttomantakeoverofBulgarian,Serbian,Bosnian,and

Herzegovinianterritoriesinthefourteenthandfifteenthcenturies,theempire'spracticeof

istimālet,apragmaticpolicyofreconciliationwiththepopulationofnewlyconqueredlands–

favoredthecontinuationofRagusancoloniesinwhatbecametheprovinceofRumelia.12

Dubrovnik'scentralroleinthemetalstrade,however,wouldbesharplycurtailedfromthe

middleofthefifteenthcenturyOttomanselectedtoforbidtheexportofsilverfromtheBalkan

minestoItaly.13AstheOttomanstookcontroloftheBalkansandbroughtRagusaintoitsorbit

asatribute-payingvassal,theresourcefulmerchantsofthecityofSt.Blaiseadaptedto

circumstancesandthrivedundertheneworder.

ThegreatpoweroftheAdriaticwas,ofcourse,theMostSereneRepublicofVenice.

Ragusa,whichwonitsindependencefromVenicein1358(becomingatribute-payertothe

distantkingsofHungary),wastinyincomparison.Venetianleadersbelievedthatallgoods

enteringorexitingthe"GulfofVenice,"astheAdriaticwasfrequentlyknown,shoulddoso

underVenetiancontrol.14Havingestablishedanoverseasempire(StatodaMar)alongthe

12 Halil Inalcık describes how the Ottomans "shrewdly" employed this practice in competition with Venice for the support of Orthodox communities in the Balkans. See "An Outline of Ottoman-Venetian Relations" in Venezia Centro di Mediazione tra Oriente e Occidente, eds. Hans-Georg Beck, Manoussos Manoussacas, Agostino Pertusi (Florence: Olschki, 1977): 83-90. For more detail on istimālet in the Balkan context see the subsection 'Conditions at the Ottoman conquest' in Halil İnalcık's entry "Rūmelı" in EI2. A document sent from Sultan Mehmed II to the monasteries of Bosnia gives a good example of this policy, promising protection for the Bosnian monks and their churches, and encouraging those who fled at the time of the Ottoman conquest to return in safety. BOA A.DVN.DVE.d [Venedik Dubrovnik Defteri] 014/2, p. 1 13 İnalcik, An Economic, 257 14"Ognimercecheentranell’Adriaticooexcedall’AdriaticodevetoccarVenezia"QuotationarticulatingVenice's"goldenmission"bytheCinqueSavii,quotedinBraudel,Mediterranean,128.

30

easternAdriaticcoast,theSerenissimahadtheresourcestobackitsclaimofdominance.

RagusaresistedVenetianhegemonybycreatingstrongtradepartnershipswithItalianportson

theoppositeshore.Treatiesweresignedinabundance,includingMolfetta(1148),Pisa(1169),

Ancona(1188),MonopoliandBari(1201),Termoli(1203),andBisceglie(Puglia)(1211).15These

enduringallianceswereanassettolargerItalianpowersaswell.Inthefifteenthcentury,

Florencechanneleditscommercial,financial,anddiplomaticbusinesswiththeeastthrough

townslikeAnconaandRagusa,keepingitsmerchandiseanditsofficialcorrespondenceoutof

thegraspofVenetianrivals.WhenDubrovnikestablisheddirectdiplomatictieswiththe

OttomanEmpireinthemid-fifteenthcentury,itdidsoonmutuallybeneficialterms.Beginning

in1441,anannualtributepaymentwouldbebrought(alwaysoverland)tothesovereigninthe

companyoftwonobleambassadors(poklisariharača),exchangedforautonomyathomeanda

privilegedtreatmentintheOttomanworld.Followingreceiptofpayment,legalagreements

werecodifiedin‛aḥid-nāmes,orcapitulationstreaties,bearingtheimperialṭuğrā,orsultanic

seal.16‛Aḥid-nāmeswererenewedattheaccessionofeachsultanandzealouslyguardedby

Dubrovnik'sofficials.Ratherthanthreateningorsimplyabsorbingthesmall,wealthyCatholic

republiconitswesternborder,themostpowerfulstateintheeasternMediterraneaninstead

becameRagusa'sbacker.

TofullycapitalizeonitspositionasbrokerandintermediarybetweentheOttomansand

themarketsoftheItalianPeninsula,theRepublicofRagusaneededtodomorethanrelyonthe

15 Krekić, Dubrovnik, 21. 16 See Halil İnalcık, "Imtiyāzāt" EI2.

31

strengthofitsfleetanditsalliances.Dubrovnikneededasecure,efficientconnectionthe

DalmatiancoasttothemarketsoftheBalkans(Belgrade,Sofia,Skopje)andthecentersof

Ottomanpower(Bursa,EdirneandIstanbul).Inshort,tochallengetheVenetian-dominated

maritimeroutearoundthePeloponnese,Dubrovnikneededtodenythedestinyofits

geographicalposition.Havingmasteredthesea,itwasnecessarytotamethemountains.

HordenandPurcellhavepointedoutthecounter-intuitivetruththatMediterraneanmountains

werenotalwaysbarrierstoexchange:“...evenroutesthatcrossdifficultterrain,andthatmight

beexpectedtoproveineffectiveaslinesofcommunications,oftenturnouttoadmitof

surprisinglyfluentandvariedinterchangesbetweenregions.”17Buthowtoconvincethe

merchants,diplomats,spies,andpilgrimsmovingbetweentheItalianPeninsulaandthe

OttomanlandstoturninlandfromRagusaratherthancontinuingbyseaortakingother,

seeminglybetter-locatedoverlandalternatives?TheAlbanianportofDurrës(Dıraç,Durazzo,

Dyrrachium),forexample,wasjustoneofmanyporttownsthatwouldappeartohave

considerableadvantagesoverDubrovnikasagatewaytooverlandtravelintheBalkans.Durrës

standsattheStraitofOtranto,thenarrowestpointoftheAdriaticSea,acrossfromthe

projectingheeloftheItalianPeninsula.Thecitywastheprimarywesternterminusofthe

ancientViaEgnatialeadingdirectlytothePortaAurea,theGoldenGateofthecityof

Constantine.TheoverlandjourneyfromDurrëstoIstanbulwasseveralhundredkilometers

shorterthantheRagusaRoad.Itcrossedfewermountains(atlowerelevations),andpassed

throughthemajorregionaltradingcenterofSalonica(Thessaloniki)alongtheway.YetDurrës,

17 Peregrine Horden and Nicholas Purcell, The Corrupting Sea (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000), 130-131.

32

andindeedthewesternViaEgnatiaingeneral,wasneverhighlydevelopedintheOttoman

period.18

ThischapterillustratesthemeansusedbytheRagusaRepublictodevelopandcontrola

roadnetworkwhich,bytheendofthefifteenthcentury,hadbecome"withoutdoubtthemost

important"overlandroutebetweentheAdriaticSeaandthecommercialcentersofthe

Ottomanworld.19Dubrovnikovercametheobstaclesofdistance,topography,andinsecurityby

makingitselfinvaluabletotheOttomanswho,overthecourseofthefifteenthcentury,cameto

controltheentireterritoryoftheRagusaRoad.Dubrovnik'scurrencyneutralizedthefrictionof

themountainousBalkanhinterland,transformingapathwaythathadbeenaliabilityfortrade

andtravelintoaburgeoningdestination.

Ragusancurrencycameinmultipleforms,allofwhichwerecomplementary.Thehard

currencyofgoldandsilvermaintainedDubrovnik'sspecialpoliticalandeconomicprivileges,

whichinturnmotivateditsmerchantstosetoutincaravansandsettleinOttomantowns.The

bureaucraticcurrencyoflawanddiplomacypreservedRagusa'sstatus,anunmatched

combinationofautonomywithinitsterritoryandaccesstoOttomanmarketswithout.The

currencyofgifts–continuouslyofferedinakaleidoscopicarrayofforms–builtrelationships

withpowerfulofficialsintheprovincesandattheimperialdivan.Thesensitive,secret,highly

18 See Elizabeth Zachariadou, ed., The Via Egnatia Under Ottoman Rule (1380-1699) (Rethymnon: Crete University Press, 1996). Yerasimos views the Ottoman Sol Kol (Via Egnatia) in the sixteenth century as being composed of two unequal parts. The section from Salonica to Istanbul was well developed, while the section west of Salonica was "...incommode, mal équipée et peut être aussi peu fréquentée." Stephane Yerasimos, Les Voyageurs dans L’empire Ottoman (Ankara: Société turque d'histoire, 1991), 36. 19 Yerasimos, Voyageurs, 38.

33

sought-afterinformationthatDubrovnikprovidedtotheOttomanswasanothereffective

mediumofexchange,onethatrequiredOttomansupportofRagusanmobility.Finally,the

currencyofartisanalandtechnologicalexpertisebuiltyetmoregoodwill,andinsomecases

directlycontributedtothecreationoftheinfrastructureoftheroaditself.Thesecategories

(tribute,law,gifts,information,andexpertise)willallbeexploredinfurtherdetailattheendof

thischapter.

CaravanTravelontheRagusaRoad

LiketheSilkRoads,theRagusaRoadwaslessadiscrete,permanentstretchofpaving

stonesandmilemarkers,andmoreofanongoingprocessofmovementbetweenroughpoles.20

Merchants,diplomats,pilgrims,soldiersandspiestraveledtheRagusaRoadbyhorsecaravan

betweenDubrovnikandIstanbul,andtothecitiesandtownsofOttomanRumelia.Forsome,

thiswasonlyasectionofalargerjourney,perhapstotheHolyLandorbeyond.Thecaravans

theyformedwerecomplexmobilesocieties.TheyfrequentlyincludedCatholicandOrthodox

Christianmerchants,OttomanJanissaryguards,andtheVlachs(semi-nomadicpastoralists,

mainlyfromHerzegovina)whoprovidedhorsesandservedasguides.Inremotelocations,local

villagerscalledderbendsguardedmountainpasses,offeringadditionalsecurityandguidance.21

20"...theSilkRoadsconsistedofaconstantlyshiftingnetworkofpathwaysformanydifferenttypesofexchanges."DavidChristian,“SilkRoadsorSteppeRoads?TheSilkRoadsinWorldHistory,”JournalofWorldHistory11,no.1(Spring,2000):2-3.IwillnotrehashthevastliteratureontheSilkRoadshere,excepttopointoutthedebtthatmyprojectowestoJanetAbu-Lughod'sBeforeEuropeanHegemony(OxfordUniversityPress,1989). 21Foranexampleofthetaxexemptionsgiventoderbendvillagesinthe15thcentury,see"Derbendbeliyenhıristiyanreāyāyaverilmişbirmuāfiyethükmü,"TopkapıSarayıMüzesiArşiviN.10737(17May,

34

Cateringtothetransportationneedsoftheirfellow-citizensaswellasoutsidersfromacrossthe

Adriatic,Ragusanbrokerswhospecializedinoverlandtransportationcouldputtogether

sizeablecaravansinaveryshorttime.Inshort,thesecaravansweretrans-national(ortrans-

imperial)groupsthatfunctionedduetoeffectivejobspecializationandcontinuouscooperation

betweenChristiansandMuslims.IndoingsotheyenabledmovementoverlandbyRagusans

andWesternEuropeansalike.

OverlandtravelfromDubrovniktoIstanbulwasflexiblepractice.Itinerariescouldvary

withtheseason,withtradingopportunitiesenroute,orwiththerequirementsofdiplomacy

(suchastrackingdownprovincialofficialsforofficialvisits).Althoughtherewerestandard

itineraries,thiswasnotafixedroute.Itisbestunderstoodasaseriesofstoppingplacesat

intervalsdefinedbythelimitsoftopography.Theswiftestcaravanscouldcompletethejourney

fromAdriatictoBosporusin30days,althoughlongertimesweremorecommon,allowingfor

restdaysandtradingopportunities.22Thedistancebetweenmenzils(dailystages),varied

dramatically,especiallywhencomparingmountainoustoflatterrain.Fromthegatesof

Dubrovnik,ittookcaravansonlyafewhoursbeforecrossingintoOttomanterritory.Trebinje,

thefirstOttomantownontheitinerary,wasamerefivehoursawayonhorseback.Themost

commonprogressionfortravelersalongthewesternsectionincludedthefollowingstops:

1456),Halilİnalcık,FatihDevriÜzerindeTetkilerveVesikalar(Ankara:TürkTarihKurumu,1954),doc.10inAppendix.22Multiplesourcesquotethisfigure,whichseemtooriginateinKonstantinJireček,DieHandelstrassenundBergwerkevonSerbienundBosnienwahrenddesMittelalters(Prague:GesellschaftderWissenschaften,1879):74.Frequentlycitedintermediarydistancesincludethefollowing:5hourstoTrebinje,5daystoFoča,10daystoNoviPazar,15daystoNiš.DetaileditinerariesleftbyItalianandRagusantravelerssuggestaslowerpaceoftravelwascommon.SeeChapters3and4.

35

Trebinje,Černica,Gacko,Foča,Pljevlja,Prijepolje,Mileševo,andNoviPazar.23FromNoviPazar

thereweremultiplevariants:eitheracrossthemountainstoProkupljeandNiš,oracrossa

differentsetofmountainstoPrištinaandSofia.Knowingtheimportanceandrelativeproximity

ofOttomancitieslikeMostar,Sarajevo,andSkopje(Üsküp),itcomesasurprisetofindthat

Ragusancaravanstypicallyavoidedallthesesettlements,followingamoreobscurepathway

thatistodayhardlyusedforlongdistancetravel.

Fig.1:MapoftheRagusaRoad,(undated).DubrovnikMaritimeMuseum.Theupperrightsection istheeasterncontinuationoftheroad.Notethejunctionat'Nissa'

TheRagusaorDubrovnikRoad,asitwasknowntooutsiders,wasinfactcalledtheViadi

NovoPasaro(NoviPazar,insouthernSerbia)bytheRagusansthemselves.Formerlyknownas

Trgovište,NoviPazargainedimportanceasahubforcaravantravelduringtheOttomanera.24

Dubrovnik'scaravanroutewasnot,ofcourse,theonlyimportantroadintheBalkans,butpart

24ZdenkoZlatar,Dubrovnik’sMerchantsandCapitalintheOttomanEmpire(1520-1620)(Istanbul:IsisPress,2011),173.PriortotheOttomanera,Prijepolje,notNoviPazar,wastheleadingcaravanstationoftheRagusaRoad.SeealsoBogumilHrabak“KramariukaravanskomsaobraćajuprekoSanđaka(1470-1720)(KramarsintheCaravanCrossingsthroughSanžak)"SimpozijumX(1983):194.

36

ofawebofmajorandminoraxes.TovisualizetheOttomantransportationnetwork,picture

Istanbulasthethoraxofasix-armedinsect,itsappendagesradiatingoutwardfromtheimperial

center.ThreearmsreachwestwardacrossRumelia,balancedbythreeheadingeastwardacross

Anatolia.IntheBalkansweretheSolKol(leftarmorViaEgnatia),mentionedabove,across

Thrace,NorthernGreece,andAlbania;theSağKol(rightarm)leadingnorthtowardsthe

provincesofWallachiaandMoldova;andthemiddlearm(OrtaKol,formerlytheRomanVia

Militaris).Anorthwesterlydiagonal,theOrtaKolconnectedIstanbultothesecondcapitalof

Edirne,andcontinuedtoBelgrade,Budapest,andVienna.AlinkingbetweentheKayser-ıRūm

(CaesarofRome,astheOttomansstyledthemselves)andtheHolyRomanEmperor,theVia

MilitarisfunctionedasaconduitbetweentheSublimePorteandCentralEurope.25

TheRagusaRoadcanbethoughtofasaspurroutetotheOrtaKol.Caravanscoming

fromDubrovnikintersectedthemiddlearmateitherNiš(Serbia)orSofia(Bulgaria).Fromthis

juncturetotheOttomancapital,theRagusaRoadandOrtaKolwereidentical.Theirpointof

convergencecoincidedwithasignificantshiftintopography.BetweenNištoIstanbulthereare

fewnaturalobstacles.Here,unlikethemountainouswesternhalfoftheroad,theuseof

wheeledcartswaspossible,especiallyonthelongstretchthatfollowedthegentlecourseof

theMaritsa(Meriç)River.BeginningwithSofia,therewerenumerouslargesettlementsonthe

easternsectionwhereatravelercouldrestincomfortandsafety.BytheendoftheOttoman

25Ananonymous,illustratedrecordofthemajortownsalong16th-centuryViaMilitarishasbeenpublished.SeeLud’aKlusakova,TheRoadtoConstantinople:Sixteenth-CenturyOttomanTownsthroughChristianEyes(Prague:ISVPublishers,2002).Thefirstimpressionsof"theTurks"notedbytheHabsburgambassadorBusbecqtakeplaceduringhisjourneyontheOrtaKolfromViennainDecember1554.TheTurkishLettersofOgierGhiselindeBusbecq,ImperialAmbassadoratConstantinople1554-1562.Trans.EdwardSeymourForster(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1927).

37

buildingboomofthesixteenthcentury,theeasternmoststagesoftheroadhadbeenfurther

embellishedwithachainofmagnificentnewcaravanseraicomplexes,markingagrandiose

approachtotheimperialcitiesofEdirneandIstanbul.26

TheorganizationofcaravansinDubrovnikwashandledbybrokerscalledkramar(pl.

kramariIt.cramaro,)whogenerallydidnotmakethejourneysthemselves.Theysupervisedthe

hiringofanimals,drivers,andguardsfromtheirbasesinDubrovnikandothertownsonthe

roadnetwork.27Presumablytheyalsofacilitatedtheissuingofteẓkere,documentsusedby

merchantstoidentifytheirgoodstoOttomanauthorities.Kramariwerepersonallyand

materiallyresponsibleforthesafetyofcaravantravelersandtheirmerchandise.28Ragusan

caravanswerenotonlyincompetitionwiththoseorganizedbybrokersinotherlocations(such

asBosnia),butalsobynetworksdefinedbyreligiousandethnicaffiliation.Thiscompetitionwas

particularlyacuteininthelaterseventeenthcentury,aftertheconclusionofthelongOttoman-

VenetianwarinCrete(1645-1669).29

26“TheIstanbul-Edirnehighway,whichhadpreviouslycausedmajordifficultiestotravellers,thusbecameanimpressivegrandentryforEuropeanambassadorsandtouristsontheirwaytothecapital.”GülruNecipoğlu,TheAgeofSinan:ArchitecturalCultureintheOttomanEmpire(PrincetonN.J.,Oxford:PrincetonUniversityPress,2005),72. 27ThenumberofkramariactiveinDubrovnikisnotknown.Hrabakcounts17inNoviPazar,13inSofia,and9inProkuplje,withoutprovidingadate.Hrabak“Kramars,"203. 28SergijeDimitrijević,DubrovačkiKaravaniujužnojSrbijiuXVIIveku(LesCaravanesdeDubrovnikdanslaSerbieduSudauXVIIesiécle).(Belgrade,1958),185-186.OnhorsesintheOttomanworld,seeSuraiyaFaroqhi,“HorsesownedbyOttomanofficialsandnotables:meansoftransportationbutalsosourcesofprideandjoy”inAnimalsandPeopleintheOttomanEmpire,SuraiyaFaroqhi,ed.(Istanbul:Eren,2010):293-311 29"...afterthelongCretanWar(1669)thetrafficofDubrovniktradersdecreasedastheywerebeginningtobepushedbackbylocaltraders(Jewish,Armenian,Greek,Bosnianandother)whichhadtheirowncaravansandkramars.”Hrabak“Kramars,"200.

38

Onceoutontheroad,caravanswereundertheauthorityofthekervān-başı(fromthe

Pr.root كروان ,caravanbassiinIt.),knownalsoaskiridžije.These'conductors'providedand

lookedafterthe"smallandhardyhorses...called'roncini,'"thatwerebredforridingandforthe

carryingtradeintherollingcountryofHerzegovinaandMontenegro.30Fromthesepastures,

largenumbersofanimalscouldbebroughtswiftlytotheoutskirtsofDubrovnik,appropriateto

theneedsofcaravangroupandthevolumeofitscargo,asdeterminedbythekramar.Most

caravanswererelativelysmall,withonly10-50animals,whilegroupswithover100horsesvery

rare.31

Camels,abletocarrygreaterloadsthanhorses,and,consequently,inconstantusein

otherpartsofempire(includingotherareasintheBalkans)werenotusedintheRagusan

caravans.32Packhorsesdidnottypicallytravelmorethanafewweeksunderload.Theywere

exchangedatintervals,mostoftenatoneoftheroadtownsintheLimRiverbasin(between

PrijepoljeandNoviPazar).33Whilekramarswerepaidincash(normallyhalfinadvance,halfat

theendofthetrip)thekiridžijewouldoftenreceivepartoftheirpaymentintheformofsalt,

30 Hrabak, "Kramars," 206. 31 Mikhailo Dinić “Dubrovačka Srednjevekovna Karavanska Trgovina” (Dubrovnik Medieval Caravan Trade) Jugoslovenski istoriski časopis V. 3 (1937): 145. 32 The mountains of the west-central Balkans resisted both the camel and the wheel. Along the Via Egnatia from Salonica to Istanbul, by contrast, camel caravans appear to have been in continual use, bringing woolen goods manufactured by Jewish weavers to the capital. See Suraiya Faroqhi, “Camels, Wagons and the Ottoman State in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries,” International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 14, No. 4 (Nov. 1982): 532. See also Halil İnalcık, “Arab’ Camel Drivers in Western Anatolia in the Fifteenth Century” Revue d’Histoire Maghrebine 10 (1983): 256-70. 33Dinić,"Dubrovačka,"145.

39

whichRagusanspossessedinabundance.34Muslimkervānbaşlar(kiridžije)arealsoattestedin

Ragusansources,addingtothedemographiccomplexityofthesemobile,adhocgroups.35

Thenimbleanddurablehorsesabletocarryloadsandpassengersacrossthemountains

ofthewesternBalkanswerebredandledbypeopleknownasVlachs.Whowerethey?Vlach

remainsanelusivecategory,asitcouldrefereithertoanethnicgrouporamodeofliving.

Vlachs(calledeflāḳbyOttomansandmorlacchibyVenetians)canbeunderstoodasthe

descendantsofa"Romanisedpre-slavicpopulation,"akintotheIllyrianandThraciangroups

foundintheBalkanPeninsula.36Accordingtothisdefinition,Vlachsaretheautochthonous

inhabitantsoftheregion,whosepresencepredatesthearrivalofbothTurksandSlavs.Butthe

termwasalsousedtodescribeanysemi-nomadiccommunityofpastoralistsinthearea,

regardlessoftheirethnicorigins.AswiththetermYürük(anothercategoryofpastoralnomads

intheOttomanlands,originatinginAnatolia),thecriteriausedbyOttomanofficialsto

designatemembershipinthiscommunitywerehazy,buttheadministrativeandtax

responsibilitiestheyinvolvedweremoreconcrete.37Asskilledhorsemenandanimalbreeders,

34 Dinić, "Dubrovačka," 145. 35 Dimitrijević, "Dubrovački Karavani," 186. 36VjeranKursar“BeinganOttomanVlach:OnVlachIdentity(ies),RoleandStatusinWesternPartsoftheOttomanBalkans(15th-18thCenturies)”OTAM,34(2013):117.SeealsoNicoarăBeldiceanu,“LesValaquesdeBosnieàlafinduXVesiècleetleursinstitutions”TurcicaVII(1975):122-134.MoreconcernedwiththeuseandunderstandingofVlachsintheVenetianEnlightenmentisLarryWolff'sVeniceandtheSlavs(Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,2002).ThismonographishighlyindebtedtotheobservationsofAbbéAlbertoFortis,whoseViaggioinDalmaziawaspublishedin1774.Focusingontheferocityofthe'morlacchi,'Fortis'accountwasquitepopularandtranslatedintoGerman,FrenchandEnglish. 37SpeciallawslimitingtaxationofVlachswereknownasKânûn-iIflakiyyeor‘Âdet-iIflakiyye.SeeSnjezanaBuzov,“VlachVillages,PasturesandChiftliks:TheLandscapeoftheOttomanBorderlandsintheSixteenthandSeventeenthCentury,”inMedievalandEarlyModernPerformanceintheEastern

40

VlachswereofobviousutilitytotheOttomanmilitary,intowhichtheywererecruited"as

holdersofsmalltimars,andtheyenlistedintothegarrisonsstationedintheborder

fortresses."38Regardlessoftheirtaxonomicambiguity,theVlachpopulationwasatremendous

assettoRagusa'sexpansionintotheoverlandcarryingtrade.Withoutthecooperationofa

neighboringpopulationcapableofprovidingbothanimalpowerandsecureguidingability,

long-distancecaravantravelontheRagusaRoadcouldnothaveexistedonalargescale.

WithRagusanorganizationalskillandVlachlogisticalsupportreducingthefrictionof

overlandtravel,theDubrovnikcaravantradeflourishedinthefifteenthandsixteenthcenturies.

Caravantravelwasasteadyandsecurealternativetothepotentiallyfaster,butcertainlyriskier

searoute.Thedifficultiesofdistanceandtopography,however,wereneverfullyovercome.

TheRagusaRoadonlymaintaineditscompetitiveadvantagewhenactivelysupportedby

OttomanpoliciesfavorabletoitsDalmatianvassalstate.Thisreliancecreatedastateof

constantanxietyforRagusanmerchantsandofficials.TheywereawarethatOttomantrade

embargoes(yasaḳ,tr.,jassacco,it.)couldbeimposedatanytimebyorderoftheimperial

council.Consideringtheextentoftherepublic'soverlandtradeinOttomanterritory(alongwith

muchoftherepublic'smaritimetrade),suchordersweredevastatingforDubrovnik.Aseriesof

lettersfromtheSenatetotheRagusantributeambassadorsin1646,duringtheOttoman-

Mediterranean,eds.EvelynBirgeVitzandArzuOzturkmen(Turnhout:Brepols,2013),11.IthankDr.Buzovforsharingthisarticlewithmepriortopublication.38 Buzov, "Vlach Villages," 14.

41

VenetianwarinCretedesperatelypressestheenvoystoworkdiligentlytohavethejassacco

revokedassoonaspossible.39

CurrencyMakesMobility

IRaguseisonomoltomodesti,equandovengonoincolpatid’esserefurbicomegliEbrei,erapacicomeiTurchirispondonoumilmente:nonsiamoTurchi,nèEbrei,mapoveriRagusei.40

NonsiamoChristiani,nonsiamoEbrei,mapoveriRagusei.41

Large-scaleoverlandtransportationontheRagusaRoadwasananomalythatflewinthe

faceofenvironmentalrealitiesandlongueduréepracticesintheBalkans.Today,theroutesof

boththeViaEgnatiaandViaMilitarisseeincessanttrafficonthemodernhighwaysthatrun

alongsidetheremnantsoftheirancientpredecessors.Thesmall,meanderingroadsofthe

westernhalfoftheRagusaRoad,bycontrast,arelightlytraveledtothepointofdesolation.

Howdidsuchamarginal,unfavorableroutebecomeoneofthemostimportantcorridorsof

travelandexchangebetweentheOttomancapitalandtheAdriaticSea?IftheRomans

masterednaturebybuildingarrow-straighthighwaysandtheOttomanscreatedspiderweb

necklacesofinfrastructureintheformofinterconnectedcaravanseraisandbridges,whatdid

theDubrovnikRepublicdototamethemountainsandconquerdistance?

39 HAD, Diplomata et Acta (17th Century) box 33, folder 1759a, docs. 4, 7, 10 (1646). Letters to Secondo di Bucchia and Paolo di Gozze, tribute ambassadors to Istanbul. 40"TheRagusansareverymodest,andwhentheyareaccusedofbeingcleverliketheJewsandrapaciousliketheTurks,theyrespondhumbly:weareneitherTurksnorJewsbutpoorRagusans."F.C.H.Pouqueville,ViaggioinMoreaaCostantinopoliedinAlbania(Milan,1816). 41"WeareneitherChristian,norJews,butpoorRagusans.""Levantineadage,quotedbyHammerinGORVIII"Biegman,Turco-Ragusan,29.

42

Thedissatisfyingansweristhatnosinglefactorwasresponsiblefortheriseofthe

RagusaRoad.Mobilityalongthisrouteexpandedandcontractedwiththefluctuating

importanceofthecityofDubrovnikinthecontextofregionalgeopoliticsandflowsoftrade.

Thatsaid,Ragusa'sleaders,merchants,anddiplomatswerefarfrompowerless.They

continuouslyandeffectivelycontributedtothecity'sprivilegedpositionintheOttomanworld.

Currencywasthetoolthatkepttheroadsopenandthesaddlebagsofcaravanhorsesfilledwith

goods.Humbleinlandandpopulationandgeographicallyisolated,poorRagusamadeitselfrich

andcentralbyrecognizingthekindsofcurrenciesthatweremostsoughtafterbytheir

Ottomanneighborsandprovidingtheminabundance.Thecitywaswellequippedforthistask.

Ragusahadbeenfindingwaystomakeitselfindispensabletoitsmorepowerfulneighbors–

Byzantium,theKingdomofBosnia,theSerbianDespotate,etc.–forcenturiespriorthearrival

oftheOttomans.TheformsofcurrencyusedwerenotuniquetoRagusa;manyotherpolities

attemptedtousesimilarmethods.ButDubrovnikwassingularlysuccessfulinnegotiatingwith

theOttomans,despiteitsseeminglyweakposition.Eachofthemajorformsofcurrencywas

enabledbyoverlandnetworksoftravel,andeachledtodirect,positiveimpactsonthestatusof

theRagusaRoad.

In1430,decadesbeforetheeventualOttomanconquestofneighboringBosniaand

Herzegovina,SultanMuradIIsoughttoestablishformaldiplomatictiesbetweentheOttoman

EmpireandtheDubrovnikRepublic.Onceestablished,thesetieswouldendureforcenturies.

ShakenbutunbrokenbythedevelopmentoftheportofSplitinthelatesixteenthcentury,the

Ottoman-Ragusanpoliticalandeconomicorderremainedessentiallyintactuntilthedevastating

earthquakeof1667,fromwhichDubrovnikneverfullyrecovered.

43

AlthoughtheirmotivationwasneverarticulatedinOttomansources,MuradIIandlater

sultansandvizierstreatedRagusaasauniquelyvaluableassettotheempire.Indeed,the

chartersissuedbythePortefromthefifteenthtotheseventeenthcenturysuggestOttoman

awarenessofthefactthatRagusa'sautonomyandprivilegedtradepositionweredirectlylinked

toitsprosperity,whichwasinturnbeneficialtotheempire.Thealternativewouldlikelyhave

beendireforboththecityandtheempirethatdependedonitsrevenue:"HadDubrovnikbeen

annexedtotheEmpireproper,itwouldinevitablyhaveslumpedintothepositionofoneofthe

manynotveryimportantTurkishharborsontheMediterranean."42

Ragusa'sleaders,perpetuallycryingpovertyandproclaimingtheirloyaltytotheHouse

ofOsman(Āl-i‛Osmān)alittletooloudly,didnottaketheirpositionintheOttomanorderfor

granted.Awareoftheirrepublic'sinherentvulnerability,Dubrovnik'sofficialsdevoted

tremendousenergyandresourcestopreservingand,wheneverpossible,enhancingits

privileges.Therepublicuseditsprosperity,itsgeopoliticalreach,anditspragmaticnosefor

negotiationtomakeitsvalueabundantlycleartothemakersofOttomanpolicy.Notonlythe

grandviziersbutallsignificantOttomaneliteswerepotentialalliestobecourted,fromthe

sancakbeyisofHerzegovinatotheaides-de-campofmembersoftheImperialCouncilto

prominentwivesandroyalwomen.

TheRagusannobleswhoservedasthecity'sdiplomatsandenvoyswereprimarily

merchants,andtheyconductedtheirnegotiationswithakeenunderstandingofinvestment

andreturn.Lackingmilitaryorpoliticalpower,Dubrovnik'sdiplomacywasbuiltontheprecisely

42 Biegman, Turco-Ragusan, 45.

44

calibratedexpenditureofcapital,favors,andexpertisetowardselectedtargets.Hardandsoft

formsofcurrencymaintainedtheRepublic'spositionintheOttomanorder,resolvedcrises,and

maintainedchannelsofcommunication.TheflowsofcurrencyfromRagusatoIstanbulwere

designedtorendertherepublicindispensable,andinthistheywerelargelysuccessful.The

wealthandpowerthataccruedtoDubrovnikboostedtradeandnecessitatedcontinuous

communicationswithOttomancenters,furtherdrivingoverlandtrafficontheRagusaRoad.

Currencytookmanyforms,andcanbeclassifiedinmanyways.Ifinditusefultodividetheterm

intofive,mutually-reinforcingcategoriesthatwereconsistentlydeployedbyRagusanswiththe

explicitgoalofpreservingtheirrepublic'sprivilegesandmobilityintheOttomanworld.

Tribute

Everyyear,fromthemiddleofthefifteenthcenturyto1667,Ragusantribute

ambassadorsbroughtthousandsofshiningreasonsfortheirOttomansovereignstopreserve

thecity'sautonomyandtradingprivileges.43

OfgreatestimportanceisthefactthatDubrovnikpaidaconsiderableamountofmoneyintotheOttomanTreasuryinrelationtoitssmallsize.Thisconsistedofayearlytributeof12,500hardducats,andayearlysumof100,000akçe(worthmorethan1,600ducatsatthebeginningofMurad'sreign,andlessthanhalfofthistowardstheend)ascustomsdutyforgoodsimportedintotheempireandsoldinplacesotherthanIstanbul,AdrianopleandBursa;towhichmaybeaddedthecustomsdutiesnotcomprisedinthatsum,onethirdofsaltrevenues,andseveralhundreds–andsometimesthousands–ofducatsspentaspresentstoacquireandkeepupthefriendshipofvariousTurkishauthorities.44

43 The earthquake of 1667 killed thousands and devastated the city. In the aftermath, Dubrovnik was able to renegotiate its tribute obligation, paying 12,500 ducats once every three years rather than annually. 44 Biegman, Turco-Ragusan, 27. On Dubrovnik's mint and coins, see Carter, Dubrovnik, Appendix 1, 556-568. While significant, these sums pale in comparison to the 30,000 ducats plus clocks and automata

45

Thestatusoftribute-payingvassaltotheOttomanempirewasnotsoughtbyDubrovnik.45The

republic'smerchantsencounteredtheempireduringtheearlystagesofOttomanexpansion,

butnoformalagreementsweresigneduntilwellaftertheinterregnumcausedbyTimur's

(Tamerlane)defeatofSultanBayezidIattheBattleofAnkarain1402.46ToSultanMuradII,

whounderstoodthevalueofRagusantradenetworks,themomentfordirectdiplomacywas

longoverdue,asattestedinalettersenttoDubrovnik,datedJuly10,1430.

...sincenomanhasevercomeonyourbehalftorecognizeMyLordshipandseeme,inordertomeetandestablishgoodfriendshipamongourselves,while[you,]havingallthefacilitiesyouneedinmycountry,youtravelthroughallmylandsbytrading;yes,Iamquiteastonished!47

delivered annually to the Ottomans by the Habsburgs from 1548-1606. See Julian Raby, "The Serenissima and the Sublime Porte: Art in the Art of Diplomacy 1453-1600," in Stefano Carboni, ed., Venice and the Islamic World (New Haven, New York: Yale University Press, 2007), 95. 45Forcomparisonswiththeothertribute-payingstatesunderOttomansuzerainty,seeGáborKármánandLovroKunčević,eds.,TheEuropeanTributaryStatesoftheOttomanEmpire,(Leiden:Brill,2013).Inparticular,ViorelPanaite,"TheLegalandPoliticalStatusofWallachiaandMoldaviainRelationtotheOttomanState,"9-42and,onTransylvania,TerézOborni"BetweenViennaandConstantinople,"67-90.Dubrovnik'sstatusisexploredinthesamevolumebyKunčević,"Janus-facedSovereignty:TheInternationalStatusoftheRagusanRepublicintheEarlyModernPeriod,"91-121andMiović,"DiplomaticRelationsbetweentheOttomanEmpireandtheRepublicofDubrovnik,"187-208.46 19th century historians placed the date of formal relations much earlier, based on faulty evidence. See Zlatar, Dubrovnik's Merchants, 65. Ragusan subjects had been living in Ottoman-controlled lands for some time before direct ties were established, as this document from 1436 indicates. “Dans une instruction pour leurs ambassadeurs en Turquie, les Ragusains déclarent que ‘tous les biens de la ville de Raguse sont en Bosnie, en Serbie et en grande partie en Turquie, en Albanie et en Romanie.’ HAD LL XII, f. 2 (May 5, 1436). Published as doc. 865 in Krekić, Dubrovnik. 47 "...attendu que jamais [aucun] homme n’est venu de votre part pour saluer Ma Seigneurie et me voir, afin que nous fassions connaissance et instaurions bonne amitié entre nous, alors que, disposant de toutes les commodités qui vous sont nécessaires dans mon pays, vous voyagez à travers tous mes pays en pratiquant le commerce; oui, je m’étonne beaucoup!" Translation from the document written in Old Serbian by Bojovic, Raguse et l'Empire, Document 1, 184. 15th century ‛aḥid-nāmes were written in Turkish, Slavic, and Greek. The Ottoman Turkish originals have been lost. Biegman, Turco-Ragusan, 49.

46

Notforthefirstorlasttime,thesultan'sletterplacedDubrovnik'sofficialsinadifficult

position.Theyweretribute-payingsubjectsoftheHungariancrown,anarrangementthathad

keptRagusafreefromVenetiandominationsince1358,andHungaryandtheOttomanempire

wereatwar.48AsByzantiumdisintegrated,Hungaryhadinheritedthepositionof'bulwarkof

Christendom'againstOttomanexpansion.Yet,astheOttomansgainedcontrolofmoreand

moreofDubrovnik'stradingterritory(includingterritoriesformerlyunderHungariancontrol),

therepublicwasforcedtochoosebetweenhonoringitspoliticalprotectorandCatholically,or

formalizingitspositionwithin(and'bonneamitié'with)theexpandingOttomanstate.Priorto

1430,Ragusatemporizedandmanagedtoavoidofficialcontactwiththesultansoutoffearthat

tribute,economiclimitations,andmilitaryobligationswouldbedemanded.49Uponreceiptof

theSultan'schidingletter,andwithitsfutureeconomicsurvivalatstake,therepublicsentits

noblestothecourtofMuradII.

Inlinewithlaterpractice,theseenvoysweregivenprecisedirectionsonwhattosayto

theOttomansovereign.Thecruxoftheirmessagewassimple:Ragusanswereeverywhere,and

theyneededtocontinuetotravelandtradetosurvive.50Thesultanwasevidentlypleasedwith

48“TheRaguseihadbeenhappytoacknowledgethesuzeraintyofLouisofHungary,whosekingdomwasnotanavalpower,andwithwhomtheycouldhavelittleconflictofinterest.KennethSetton,ThePapacyandtheLevant,VII,TheFifteenthCentury(AmericanPhilosophicalSociety,1978),75. 49 Carter, Dubrovnik, 199. 50 "nous avons besoin de circuler et de faire du commerce comme nous le faisons, les uns au Levant, à Alexandrie, à Damas et dans d'autres pays du sultan de Babylone, les autres en Romanie et en Anatolie appartenant à Votre grande et excellente Seigneurie, d'autres encore en Occident, dans les terres des Francs." HAD Lett. Lev., X, f. 198 (Sept. 10, 1430). Published as doc. 779 in Krekić, Dubrovnik.

47

Dubrovnik'sreaction.AnOttomandocumentdatedDec6,1430(onlysixmonthsafterthe

sultan'spreviouscorrespondence)namestheRagusanenvoys(PierreLukarevićandCorcide

Goci)andreiteratestheirrequests.Notributeismentionedatthisstage,butthesultan's

responseindicatesthatanofficialletterofagreementhadbeenrequestedbytheenvoys,asa

meansofconfirmingtheprivilegesofRagusancitizensinOttomanlands:

Thentheysolicited[acharter]forthemerchants,giventhatallthosewhotravelthroughmydominionsdesiretohavethem.Iaccedetothisrequest,sothattheymayconductlegaltrade,justasthemerchantsofmydominionsdoinothercountries,sothatnoneoftheneighborswhoareunderthecharterofMyLordshipdamagethemorcreateconflictintheircountry.51

Despitetheabsenceoftribute,thetermsofagreementanticipatethemany‛aḥid-nāmesto

come.52Informalandlackingdetailatthisstage,thelanguageofMurad'sletterislegalisticand

reciprocal,withanemphasisonunrestrictedmobility.Thesecurityandfreedomofmovement

ofbothRagusanandOttomanmerchantsistobehonored.Thiswastobevalidnotonlyin

51Ensuiteilsontsollicité[unecharte]pourlesmarchands,étantdonnéquetousceuxquivoyagentàtraverslespaysdeMaSeigneuriedésirentenavoir.J’accèdeàcetterequête,pourqu’ilspratiquentuncommercelégal,demêmequelesmarchandsdeMaSeigneurie[lefont]danslesautrespays,afinquepersonneparmilesvoisins,quisontdanslachartedeMaSeigneurie,neleurfassetortoucréequelqueconflitdansleurpays."Bojovic,Raguse,doc.2,187. 52AhitnameinmodernTurkish,thesewerediplomatictreatiescomprisedofpoliticalandcommercialelements,generallyandmisleadinglyreferredtoascapitulationstreaties.‛Aḥid-nāmesestablishedacoherentstatusforanentirenationorgroup(taife),anin-betweenkindoflegalcategoryforlong-termresidentsinOttomanlands.SeeDanielGoffman,"NegotiatingwiththeRenaissancestate:theOttomanEmpireandthenewDiplomacy"inTheEarlyModernOttomans,eds.VirginiaAksanandDanielGoffman(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2007)61-74;EdhemEldem,"ForeignersattheThresholdofFelicity:thereceptionofforeignersinOttomanIstanbul,"inCulturalExchangeinEarlyModernEuropeVol.2,eds.DonatellaCalabi&StephenTurkChristensen(Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress,2007);HansTheunissen,"Ottoman-VenetianDiplomatics:the‘Ahd-Names.TheHistoricalBackgroundandtheDevelopmentofaCategoryofPolitical-CommercialInstrumentstogetherwithanAnnotatedEditionofaCorpusofRelevantDocuments,ElectronicJournalofOrientalStudies1(1998):1-698.

48

directly-controlledOttomanlands,butalsothoseareasthatweretechnicallyautonomous,but

hadsignedtreatyagreementswiththeOttomanstate.

ThetributepaidbyRagusaincreasedgraduallyunderMuradIIandmorequicklyunder

hissonandsuccessorMehmedII(r.1444-46,1451-81).Adocumentfrom1442confirmsthe

deliveryof1000Venetiangoldducatsandcontainsasomewhatdetailedagreement,whichwill

beanalyzedinthefollowingsection.53OttomandocumentspreservedintheDubrovnikState

Archivestestifythatby1458thetributehadincreasedto1500goldcoins,risingto5,000in

1470anddoublingto10,000in1475.54By1479thepaymenthadincreasedto12,500andthen

swelledtoapeakof15,000ducatsin1480.Theamountwouldlikelyhaveincreasedfurtherbut

forthedeathofMehmedIIandaccessionofBayezidII(r.1481-1512),whoreducedthetribute

to12,500ducats.55Thismayhavebeenduetothe"greataffection"thatSerafinoRazziclaims

BayezidIIfeltforRagusa.Inanycase,thefigureof12,500ducatsdidnotwaverduringhislong

reignanditwouldremainatthesameleveluntilthelate1660s.56

AccordingtoZlatar,totalrevenuefromallofRumeliaintheyear1527/28was

198,206,192akçe,orapproximately38%oftotalempire-widerevenues,whichwerenearly538

millionakçe.57Thatsameyear,Dubrovnik'stributeof12,500ducatswouldhavebeenvaluedat

53 Bojovic, Raguse, doc. 4, 194. 54 Francis Carter, Dubrovnik, 213. Vesna Miović, Dubrovačka Republika u Spisima Osmanskih Sultana (Dubrovnik: State Archives of Dubrovnik, 2005), 137-138. 55 On the adversarial relationship between Mehmed II and Dubrovnik, see Zlatar, Dubrovnik's Merchants, 66-69 and Miović, Dubrovačka, 139. 56 Sultan Bayezid "portò molta affezione à i Raugei, e fue huomo pacifico.” Razzi, Storia di Raugia, 105. 57 Figures originally calculated by Barkan and Inalcık. See Zlatar, Dubrovnik's Merchants, 15.

49

justover650,000akçe,notincludingtheRagusanpaymentof100,000akçeforcustoms.58

Ragusa'stributepaymentwasthusoneofthemoresignificantindividualsourcesofincome

fromalloftheOttomanBalkans.DuetoDubronvik'smasteryofcommerce,thesefiguresare

slightlymisleading.Tributeambassadorswereexpectedtoengageincurrencyspeculation

betweenthemultipleformsofcoinageinuseintheempire.Duringtheirjourneytothe

Ottomancapital,tradingincurrencymeantatidydiscountonDubrovnik'sexpenditureofthe

actualcoinsdelivered.59

Asthetributeambassadorsmadetheirannualvoyagesacrossthemountains,delivering

theever-increasingtributetoIstanbulandbringingbackinvaluablesigned‛aḥid-nāmes,Ragusa

continuedtoplayadoublegame.Foroverahalf-century,thecitycontinuedtosendnotone

buttwotributes:onetotheirnominalsuzerainsinHungaryandtheothertotheOttomans.Not

untilthedefinitiveOttomanvictoryovertheKingdomofHungaryatMohácsin1526wasthe

Hungariantributediscontinued.ButDubrovnik'shabitofplayingbothsideswentbeyondsimply

continuingtohonoratreatycommitmenttoastatethatbecameanOttomanenemy.Inthe

1460sthecitysentthousandsofducatstoHungarianKingMatthiasCorvinus,designatedfor

anti-Ottomanmilitaryuse.60TheCityofSt.Blaisesupportedothersaswell.Inthe1440s,as

RagusantributeambassadorswereworkingoutsymbiotictreatyagreementsinIstanbul,

58 Ducat to akçe conversion rate for 1527 was 52.5. Zlatar, Dubrovnik's Merchants, Appendix 5, 483. 59 In the 17th century, these transactions typically generated a profit of 10%. In the 18th, when the tribute switched to silver, profits could reach 35%. Miović, Diplomacija, 298. On the money-changing habits of other (earlier) European traders in the Ottoman world, See Kate Fleet, European and Islamic Trade in the Early Ottoman States (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 17. 60 Bojovic, Raguse, 33.

50

Dubrovnik'scitizensweresupportingSerbianattemptstolimitOttomanexpansion.Atthesame

time,Ragusasupportedtheanti-Turkishcrusadeof1444,whichendedinVarnawitha

comprehensiveOttomanvictory.61TherepublicevenharboredfleeingSerbianDespot

Đurađ(George)Branković,refusingtohandhimoverdespitethethreatofsevereOttoman

reprisals.62

InspiteoftheseandmanyotherexamplesofactivesupportforenemiesofthePorte,

Dubrovnik'stributeambassadorswereinstructedtoexpressundyingobedience,devotion,and

evenlovefortheOttomanstate.63AletterfromtheRagusancounciltothetribute

ambassadorsinMay1493instructsthepoklisaritoremindtheGranSignoreoftheancient

benevolenceandfriendshipbetweentheircityandhispredecessors.Whatismore,theyareto

insistthatRagusahonorstheempirenotoutofobligationbutpurelyfrom"bonaamiciza."64It

helpedthatRagusansactivelysupportedOttomansaswell,andnotonlyintheirrequired

tributepayments.65Still,therhetoricoffriendshipstretchedbothcredulityandeventemporal

61 Zlatar, Dubrovnik's Merchants, 66 62 Carter, Dubrovnik, 200. 63 “Almost not a single document can be traced without the Ragusan envoys saying that the Dubrovnik Republic was the oldest and most loyal Ottoman tributary state, upon which they claimed privileges and protection.” Miović, Dubrovačka, 442. 64 "...la anticha bevevolentia et amicizia la qual da molti et molti anni è stat tra la citta nostra et la Suoi predecessori." HAD, LL Box 17, fol. 6v (May 1493). 65"SourcesrelatingtotheliquidationofaRagusantradingcompany,establishedin1573byScipioneBonaandMarinoBucchiaandactiveinOttomanBudinuntilitsbankruptcyin1591,shedlightonsuchactivities.Fromonedocument,welearnthatOttomanofficialsandgarrisonsoldierspossessedsubstantialsumsfromwhichtheymadeloanstoBucchia,theRagusanmerchantwhomanagedthecompany’sbusinessinBudin.AmongBucchia’screditorswefindthemuftiofBudin,Janissaries,sipahis,çavuşesandavoyvoda.”GaborAgoston“DefendingandAdministeringtheOttomanFrontier:TheCaseofOttomanHungary,”inTheOttomanWorld,ed.ChristineWoodhead(Routledge,2012),234.

51

bounds.Eagertodemonstratetheirlongstandingstatusastributepayers,Ragusanofficials

pushedthedateoftheiragreementbacktotheearliestdaysofthe"felicissimaCasa

Othomana."ItwasduringthereignofSultanOrhan(r.1323/4-1362),theyclaimed,justasthe

Ottomanswerebeginningtoventureinto"Romania,"thatRagusafirstofferedtribute.66

Suchclaimsappearabsurd,andoneistemptedtodismissthemasdiplomatic

hyperbole.Yettheaccountof"Dobra-Venedik"(ashepunninglyrenderedthenameDubrovnik)

writtenbytheOttomantravelerEvliyaÇelebiintheseventeenthcenturyreadilyacceptsthe

revisionistRagusanclaimofearlyfealtytotheOttomans,placingitevenfurtherbackintime.67

AccordingtoEvliya,Ragusanleadersweresokeen-eyedandwellinformedthattheyhadbeen

abletorecognizetheincipientgreatnessoftheOttomansevenfromthetimeofthedynasty's

founder,SultanOsmanI.EvliyaclaimsthatitwasduringtheOttomansiegeofBursa(inthe

1320s)thatthefirsttributeambassadorscamewithlavishgifts,includingluxurytextilesand

66InthecontextofadisputeovertheterritorythesmallbutessentialRagusanterritoryofKonavle(Canale),areportwritesof"SoltanOrcà"towhomtributewasoffered:"...gliofferserotributoinnanzichedettafelicissimaCasapassasseinRomania.Fromthattime,thedocumentcontinues,RagusacontinuedtoenjoyitsterritoriesunderthemostfelicitousandmostgloriouswingsoftheHouseofOsman:"EtsempredaqueltemposottolefelicissimeetgloriossissimealidellaCasaOthomanapacificamentehabbiamogodutoetgodiamodellatContradadiCanale,ettuttol'altroterritorionostro."HAD,LLVol.5,f.157v(June11,1568).SeealsoLovroKunčević,"Janus-facedSovereignty:TheInternationalStatusoftheRagusanRepublicintheEarlyModernPeriod,"inTheEuropeanTributaryStatesoftheOttomanEmpire,eds.KármánandKunčević(Leiden:Brill,2013),106. 67Inaplayonwords,dobra,meaning"good"intheSlaviclanguageswidelyspokeninRumeliaandattheOttomancourt,turnsDubrovnikintoDobra-Venedik,thegoodVenice.EvliyaÇelebi,Seyahatnâmesi,10vols.(Istanbul:YapıKredi,1996-2007),herevol.6(eds.SeyitAliKahramanandYücelDağlı),263.ThisorthographyhasalsobeenattestedintheecnebirecordsofthePrimeMinister'sOttomanArchivesinIstanbul.SeeSuraiyaFaroqhi,"TheVenetianPresenceintheOttomanEmpire,1600-30"inTheOttomanWorldandtheWorld-Economy,ed.Huriİslamoğlu-İnan,ed.(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1987),313.

52

150sacksofcoins.BythetimetheRagusansarrivedtopayhomage,however,OsmanGazihad

diedandtheByzantinecityhadfallenintoOttomanhands.Thus,inEvliya'sversionitwasjust

afteranauspiciousmilitaryvictoryattheverybeginningofthereignofSultanOrhan(Osman's

successor)thatthefirstpeaceagreementwasestablishedandhonoredwithwhatbecamethe

annualtribute.68

TributepaymentswerethefoundationofacomplexsystemthatboundtheRagusa

RepublictotheOttomanempire.Theharāç,ortribute,ensuredaconsistentinfluxofgold

coinagetoanempirestrugglingwiththescarcityofpreciousmetals.69Inaddition,the

republic'scustomstariff(gümrük),providedaninfusionofsilver,beingcalculatedinaḳçerather

thangoldcoins.Inexchange,asharāçgüzār,ortribute-payertotheHouseof'Osman,the

republicreceivedformally-articulatedrights,includingprotectionfromrivalsandunmatched

accesstoOttomanRumelia,anenormousimportmarketandproducerofcommoditiesfor

68“...sene(---)târîhinde‛OsmānGâzîBursakal‘asınasarılupmuhâsaraederkenhemânbuDobra-Venedikkâfirleri“Hayiştesâhib-izuhûrhurûcetdi”deyüelçileriyle(---)altunvebukadardîbâveşîbüzerbâfvekemhâvühârâlarileelçilerinBursa’daOsmânGâzî’yegönderdiklerindeOsmânGâzîdevefâtetmişbulunupoğluOrhânGâzîBursa’yıfethetkikdeDobra-VenediklicümlehedâyâlarıOrhānGâzî’yeverüpyüzellimâddeüzre'akd-isulhedüphersenemeblaġ-ımezbûrhazîneyielçileriylegöndermeğider-'uhdeedüpellerineyüzellimâddeiçünyüzellikit‘ayarlığ-ıbelîğ-işâhîleralupbuyüzdenilâhâze‘l-ânsulhkabûletmişbiralayâkıbet-endîşvedûrbîn-fikrkeferevüfecerelerdirkimaslâvekat‘âcemî‘izamândasulhamuğâyirbir'ahid-şikenliketmeyüphersenebaşındacümledenmudakkemelçilerigelir.”["...intheyear(---)whenOsmanGaziwasbesiegingthefortressofBursa,theinfidelsofDobra-Venedik,saying“Hey!Nowanexpectedkingoftimehasfinallyemerged,”senttheirambassadorstorOsmanGaziinBursawith(---)gold,andthismanybrocade,gauze,cloth-ofgold,velvet,andwatermarkedsilk.ButwhentheyarrivedtheyfoundthatOsmanGazihadpassedawayandOrhānGazihadconqueredthecity,sotheambassadorsgaveallthegiftstoOrhanGazi,andwith150sacksofcoinstheyconcludedapeaceagreement.Afterwardstheyundertooktosendtheambassadorswiththeabove-mentionedsumofmoneytotheimperialtreasuryeveryyear."]Evliya,Seyahatnâmesi,vol.6,263.Englishtranslationmine. 69 See Şevket Pamuk, A Monetary History of the Ottoman Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000) and Cemal Kafadar, "When Coins Turned into Drops of Dew and Bankers Became Robbers of Shadows" (PhD. Diss, McGill University, 1987).

53

export.Tributewasrewardedwithtreaties;treatiesprovidedaccesstomarketsandprotections

formerchants.TheseinturnsetthestagefortheexpansionofRagusaneconomicactivityinthe

Balkans,whichdroveincreasedtrafficonalltheroadsthatledtoRagusa.

Thedeliveryoftributewasdonewithgreatsolemnityandcare,usingspecialcaravans

thatfollowedtheRagusaRoad.Thetributewasneversentbysea,anindicationofthegreater

securityofthelandroute.Thenoblemenentrustedwiththeannualmission(alwaystwoincase

onediedenroute)hadauniqueopportunitytoengageinnegotiation,dialogue,andthe

exchangeofsensitiveinformationatthehighestlevelsofempire.UponreachingtheOttoman

court,theyweretodeliverthetributetothesultanorgrandvizierinperson,and,inexchange,

acquiretheappropriatedocuments(generallyḥükümsorfermāns,butalso‛aḥid-nāmesonthe

accessionofeachnewsultan).Thepoklisariweregivendetailedinstructionsonhigh-level

diplomaticnegotiationsandinterventionsneededforindividualRagusansinOttomanlands.

Duringtimesofconflictbetweenthetwopowers,theRagusanenvoysdidnothesitatetopoint

totheconsistently-deliveredtributeasevidenceoftheirenduringloyaltyandvalueasa

tributarystate.

Law

Treaties,imperialcommands,andthedecisionsofOttomanlegalofficialsgaveRagusa

anotherpotentformofcurrency.Withenoughincentive,alongandarduousroadcouldbe

becomeaflourishingtraderoute.Withoutmeaningfullegalprotectionforthetravelersand

merchantswhopopulatedsucharoad,however,itwouldquicklyfallintomediocrity.Itwasnot

enoughtoacquiregeneroustermsinIstanbul.Theempirewasvastanddistancefromthe

54

imperialcenteroftenmeantadiminutionofthepowerofofficialcommands.Regionalofficials

werecontinuouslytemptedtopreyonthewealthyRagusantravelersbyimposingadditional

dutiesorhigher-than-agreedcustomsrates.70ConflictsperiodicallyemergedinIstanbulaswell,

caseswheretheempirewouldabruptlyreverseitsgenerouspolicies,bringingDubrovnik's

commercialtraffictoastandstill.Ininstanceslikethese,Dubrovnikreliedonitslegalexpertise

toprotectitsinterests,protectingtherightsoftravelersandcitizenslivinginOttomanterritory.

Iftheexchangeoftributeforrightswasastraightforwardtransaction,themaintenanceof

Ragusa'slegalpositionwasaconstantprocessbuiltontwoelements:theofficialtreatiesand

commandswrittenbyOttomanauthority,andtheabilityofDubrovnik'srepresentativesto

interpretanddeploythosedocumentseffectively.

TheOttomansmayhavebeennewcomerstosoutheasternEurope,buttheir

agreementswithRagusafollowedwell-establisheddiplomaticpractices.Negotiatinglegal,

political,andcommercialagreementswithpowerfulneighborswasveryfamiliartoDubrovnik's

officials.Thecity'smanymedievaltreatiesandtradeagreementswithAdriaticpowersandits

longstandingagreementwiththeKingdomofHungaryhavealreadybeenmentioned.Tothese

shouldbeaddedRagusa'streatieswithByzantium.Aslateas1451,thefollowingtermswere

confirmedbyEmperorConstantineXII:

• Righttoa‘loge’(fondaco)• Righttoaconsul• RighttohaveRagusan-Byzantinedisputesjudgedbysaidconsul• RighttobuildachurchinConstantinople

70"TheSultanagreedtoprotectthewell-beingoftheRepublicanditscitizens,buttheyprovedimpotentagainstbandsofbrigandsandpiraticalraidersintheshimmerzoneontheEmpire'speriphery."Miović,Dubrovačka,442.

55

• 2%importandexportduty• Ragusanswhowishmayresideinthecity• If a Ragusan merchant departs Constantinople with unpaid debts, other Ragusan

merchantswillnotbeliable.71 Dubrovniksignedsimilaragreementswiththemedievalstatesthatemergedas

ByzantinepowerdisintegratedintheBalkans.Infact,thecommercialelementsofthe

Ottoman-Ragusancharterhavebeendescribedas"thereplacement"forthecity'sprevious

agreementswiththeDespotateofSerbia.72Thesewerenotsimplyproformaagreements,but

ratherdiplomaticeffortsindentedtoprovideincentivesformobilityandexpandedtrade.A

documentwrittenin1431byarepresentativeoftheDespotofMoreastatesexplicitlythatthe

grantingofprivilegestoDubrovnikwasmotivatedbyadesiretoexpandRagusantradeinthe

despot'sterritory."Ifconfirmed,"theauthorwrites,theagreed-uponprivilegeswill"persuade

theRagusanmerchantstocomeandengageincommerce."Inexchange,themerchantsofthe

MoreawillbewelcomedinRagusa"withthegreatestfavor."73

EventhepapacygrantedofficialprivilegestothecityofSt.Blaise,includingexemption

fromforcedparticipationinHolyLeagues(despiteVenetianobjections).TheRomanchurch

understoodthatDubrovnik'sabilitytotradewiththeinfidelwasnecessaryforthesurvivalof

theCatholiccity-stateperchedattheedgeoftheMuslimandOrthodoxworld.TheCouncilof

71 HAD, Acta S. Mariae, fasc. XVe siècle. Published as doc.1222 in Krekić, Dubrovnik. 72 Biegman, Turco-Ragusan, 54 73 The agreement, which includes specific tariff privileges relating to wheat, silver, gold and pearls, is described in HAD LL XI f. 16-17: February 16, 1431. Published as doc. 787 in Krekić, Dubrovnik.

56

Baselin1433confirmedDubrovnik'srighttotravelandtradeinMuslimlands.74Itdidnothurt

thatthesecommercialventureshadothervaluesforRome:“...thecuriadependedupon

RagusanservicestospyontheOttomansandprotectCatholicsinhabitingtheterritoryof

OttomanHerzegovina.”75HavingnegotiatedwithItaliancity-states,Balkanandcontinental

monarchies,theByzantineemperor,andthepapacy,theRagusanRepublichadcenturiesof

diplomaticandlegalexperienceonwhichtodrawwhen,beginninginthe1430s,itsenvoys

werecalledtothecourtoftheregion'srisingpower.

TheOttomandocumentgrantedbySultanMuradIItotheRagusanpoklisariNikolade

GociandPierredePremoin1442establishedthetemplateforall‛aḥid-nāmestocome.76The

generosityofthetermsofagreementarestriking,includingguaranteesoftwofactorsofthe

utmostimportance:freedomofmovementforDubrovnik'scitizensabroadandpolitical

autonomyfortherepublicathome.Morethanthis,thetreatygrantedRagusanmerchantsa

customsrateof2%forgoodssoldinOttomanlands(evenlowerthanthe3%paidbyOttoman

Muslimtraders).77The"circulation"soughtbytheenvoysof1430wascentraltothemore

detailedandlegalisticdocumentof1442.

74 “Ils [the Ragusans] sont autorisés à envoyer des navires avec des pèlerins et des marchandises dans les terres des Infidèles. En outre ils peuvent y bâtir des églises et des chapelles et y avoir leurs cimetières. Finalement, ils pourront y établir leur consuls et d’autres fonctionnaires. Ils ne doivent cependant apporter aux Infidèles ni fer, ni bois, ni victuailles, ni armes, etc." 22 December 1433. HAD Acta S. Mariae, fasc. 15th century. Div. not., XVIII f 215-217. Published as doc. 812 in Krekić, Dubrovnik. 75 Vesna Miović, "Diplomatic Relations," 190. 76 Relations between Dubrovnik and the Porte broke down from 1444-1451 and the republic avoided tribute payments. Despite this, the ‛aḥid-nāme of 1458 is nearly identical to the document of 1442, which can be seen as the prototype for Dubrovnik's extraordinary privileges. Zlatar, Dubrovnik Merchants, 66. 77 Bojovič, Raguse, 190-194.

57

...maythemerchantsandmen[ofDubrovnik]withtheirmerchandiseandthegoodsbelongingtothemmaytravelunhindered,bylandorbysea,acrossthelandsofAnatolia,Romania,Bulgaria,andValachia;acrosstheSerbianandAlbanianlands,andacrossalltheotherplaces,landsandcitiesundermydominion...78

Thisfoundationaldocumentdevotessurprisingdetailtospecificscenariosofconcerntonon-

MuslimmerchantsdoingbusinessinOttomanlands.LegalconflictsbetweenaChristiananda

Muslim,forexample,weretoberesolvedbyakadi.Theestateofamerchantwhodiedwhilein

Ottomanlandswasnottobeconfiscatedbuteventuallyreturnedtohisheirsintact.79

SultanMuradIIcreatedacomprehensiveandmutuallybeneficialagreementthat

guaranteedDubrovnik'sautonomy.The1442‛aḥid-nāmeprovidedmajorincentivesand

protectionsforRagusanstradinginthelandsoftheOttomansandtheirclients.Showing

disciplineandforesight,thedocumentcontainedanotherelementthatwouldbecomeapillar

ofOttoman-Ragusanagreementstocome.Dubrovnikwouldbeconsideredafreeport,withthe

righttotradeevenwithenemiesoftheOttomanstate."InthecasethatIamatwarwith

anotherruler,"thesultanwrites,Dubrovnik'snotablesandmerchantswouldnotlosetheir

rights,includingtherighttotravelfreelyacrossOttomanterritory.80Thiswouldhavebeenan

78 "Ma Seigneurie leur accorde encore la faveur: que leurs marchands et leurs hommes avec les marchandises et les biens leur appartenant puissent circuler sans entraves, par voie maritime ou continentale, à travers les pays de l'Anatolie, Romanie, Bulgarie, et Valachie, à travers les pays serbes, albanais, la Bosnie et à travers tous les autres lieux, pays et villes de Ma Seigneurie..." Bojovič, Raguse, 191-192. 79 "...si un Ragusain meurt dans le pays de Mon Empire, que son bien ne soit pas pris ni par moi le grand empereur (tsar) ni par aucun de mes seigneurs (vlastelin), mais que les Ragusains puissent repartir ce bien à Dubrovnik." Bojovič, Raguse, 193. Whether Muslim or non-Muslim, a deceased person's belongings were initially confiscated and held by the beytü'l-māl emīni (charge d'affaires of imperial property) until the legal heirs arrived to claim their inheritance. I thank Himmet Taskomur for this clarification. 80 "Mon Empire leur promet encore: au cas où j'aurais une querelle avec quelque seigneur en Orient ou en Occident, ou avec quelque autre pays ou nation, sur mer ou sur terre, que le knez et les vlastela de

58

anomalyforothertribute-payingstates,butitwasaconsistentpolicyforRagusa,articulated

withevengreaterclarityinlatercharters."TheterritoryofDubrovnikisopentoallwhether

arrivingbylandorsea,whetherafriendorenemyofthesultan."81

Insum,thetermsofagreementofferedbytheflourishingOttomansshowgreat

similaritytothetermsagreedtowiththeByzantines,atapproximatelysametime.The1442

‛aḥid-nāmeandincludedthefollowingstipulations:

• TerritorialintegrityofDubrovnik'slands• FreedomofmovementforDubrovnik'smerchantsbylandandsea• 2%taxonsoldmerchandise• Ragusan-OttomanChristiandisputestoberesolvedbyRagusanpriest• Ragusan-OttomanMuslimdisputestoberesolvedbykadi• Dubrovnik'scommunityatlargenotresponsiblefordebtsofindividualmerchant• IneventofdeathinOttomanterritory,estateofRagusanmerchantnottobe

(permanently)confiscated• Freetradeinternationally,includingwithenemiesoftheOttomanempire• Apartfromtheemin(taxorcustomsofficial),noOttomanofficialstoenterRagusan

territoryuninvited.82

Naturally,theseelementswouldevolveovertime.Buttheessentialstructureputinplacein

1442wouldremainintactthroughtheseventeenthcentury.SultanMuradhadgivenDubrovnik

alegally-bindingcombinationofsecurity,commercialadvantages,andtherighttoopen

exchange.Cumulatively,thesefactorsmadeDubrovnikthemostprivilegednationonthe

Dalmatiancoast,ifnottheentireAdriatic.Butacapitulationstreatywasonlyvaluableifitwas

Dubrovnik ainsi que leurs hommes conservent leurs libertés, et que leurs marchands puissent voyager librement à travers les pays de Ma Seigneurie." Bojovič, Raguse, 193. 81 Miović, "Diplomatic Relations," 189. 82 On the powers and limitations of the emin, see Vesna Miović, "Emin (Customs Officer) as Representative of the Ottoman Empire in the Republic of Dubrovnik," Dubrovnik Annals 7 (2003): 81-88.

59

obeyedandenforcedacrossthehugeterritoryofOttomanRumelia.Mobilitywascontingenton

theconsistentapplicationofthetermsofthe‛aḥid-nāme,whichwasnotalwaysthecase.Ifthe

travelersoftheRagusaRoadweretargetedforadditionalfeesor,evenworse,ifthePorte

imposedablockadeonthepassageofDubrovnik'sgoods,thearteriesofcirculationwould

constricttodevastatingeffect.83RagusanfluencywithOttomanpoliticalandcommercial

agreementswasessentialtomaintainingtheflowofhumansandcommodities.

DubrovnikdidnothesitatetoremindeventhehighestOttomanofficialsoftheir

agreementsandobligations.AlettersenttoRagusanrepresentativesinIstanbulin1568,

directsthemtoexplaintoGrandVizierSokolluMehmedPashathatisunfairtoraise

Dubrovnik'stributewithoutraisingthatofallotherChristiantribute-payingsubjects.84The

lettergoesontoexplaintherepublic'sspecialstatus,usingOttomanterminologytranslated

intotheunrulyItalianofRagusandiplomaticcorrespondence."We,"theletterremindsits

readers,"areatributaryoftheGranSignoreunderthetermknowninTurkishaschesim,which

meanssomethingcutandcompleted."85Thislineofargumentmayhavehelpedensurethat

Dubrovnik'stributedidnotrisebeyondthefigureestablishedinthelatefifteenthcentury.

83 In 1653, during the Ottoman-Venetian war in Crete, a yasaḳ or trade embargo was imposed on Dubrovnik. Some 15,000 to 20,000 horse loads of goods were impounded in Novi Pazar as Ragusan officials scrambled to convince the Porte to rescind the embargo. Hrabak, "Kramars," 206 84 HAD LL Ser 27.1, Vol 5., f. 170v (September 10, 1568). 85 "Havete a sapere come noi siamo tributarij del Gran Signore sotto il nome chiamati in turchesco chesim, che vuol dire una cosa tagliata et terminata, alla quale terminatione si debbe stare et mantenere secondo la prima della achehiama [‛aḥid-nāme] nostra." HAD LL Ser 27.1, Vol 5., f. 170v (September 10, 1568). Kesim, which has the standard meaning of cutting, reaping, or slaughtering, can also be defined as something fixed or agreed. Redhouse Yeni Türkçe-İngilizce Sözlük (Istanbul, 1968), 643.

60

OneofmanyexamplesofDubrovnik'seffectiveuseofitstreatyrightsstemsfroma

conflictwithCastelnuovo,theOttomanportdirectlytothesouthofDubrovnik(inpresentday

Montenegro).Castelnuovo,adjacenttotheRagusanterritoryofKonavle,wasaconstantthorn

inDubrovnik'sside.In1568,thekadiofCastelnuovomanagedtoobtainafavorablejudgement

fromtheimperialdivan,grantinghimtherighttosendhisnā'ib(akindofsubstitutejudge)to

Dubrovnikto"adjudicatealllegalconflicts"betweenthetwocities.86Ragusa'sresponsewas

immediate,andtookmanyforms.Thecity'srepresentativeinIstanbulwasinstructedto

petitionthegrandvizier(SokolluMehmedPasha),seekinghisassistanceingettingthekadi's

"cocchiumo"(ḥüküm)revoked.Theenvoywastobringgifts,ofcourse,andwasalsoprovided

withanumberofargumentswithwhichtoswaythevizier.Amongthemwastheassertionthat

theḥükümwas"contrarytotheformofthe‛aḥdnāme."87TherecanbenodoubtthatRagusa's

vigorousdefenseofitstreatyrightswasexecutedwithaneyeonoverlandmobilityandtrade.

Twomonthslater,aletterfromRagusanofficialsindicatesthattheconflicthadbeenresolved

intherepublic'sfavor.TheenvoyinIstanbulwasinstructednottofailtoobtainaḥükümthat

wouldconfirmDubrovnik'srights,"sothattheroadsmaybefree–foralltypesof

merchandise"88Theenvoy'sinstructionsconfirmthatthepreservationoffreemovementwas

attheheartofDubrovnik'slegalanddiplomaticefforts,evenincasessuchasthisthatwould

seemonlymarginallyconnected.

86 HAD LL, Ser 27.1 Vol. 5, f. 144v (June 26, 1568). 87 HAD LL, Ser. 27.1 Vol. 5. f. 155r (Undated). 88 "Non mancarete procurare ad ottenere cocchiumo in buona forma, che le strade siano libere – tanto per tutte le sorti della mercantie." HAD LL, Ser. 27.1 Vol. 5. f. 162r. (August 23, 1568).

61

Ragusanmerchantsoftencarriedofficialcopiesoftreatydocuments(endorsedbya

kadi),topreventmisunderstandingsanddepredationsbyprovincialofficialsandcustoms

officers.89Theprecaution,however,wasnotalwayseffective.Therepublicusedofficiallegal

channelstoacquirespecialdocumentswhenneeded,evenforthebenefitofasingleoverland

traveler.AmessengernamedYorgidispatchedfromConstantinoplein1579wasgivenaspecial

fermāntoensurehissecurityandfreemovement.Addressedto"thesancakbeysontheroad

betweentheGateofFelicity[Istanbul]andDubrovnikandthecadisinthosesancaks,"the

documentaffirmsthatYorgiandhishorseandhisthingswerenottobeinterferedwith"onthe

roadsandtracksandintheinnsandhalting-places."90

Dubrovnik'sextraordinarilylowrateoftaxationwasnotalwayshonoredbyprovincial

officials,whosometimesattemptedtoimposethe5%taxexpectedofEuropeanmerchants.A

fermānwassentin1463toSjenica,asmalltownontheRagusaRoadwestofNoviPazar,

orderingthelocalauthoritiespermitRagusanmerchantstotravelwithoutconstraintortransit

tax,andtobechargedonlytheagreed-uponamountof"twoasperson100aspers"forgoods

sold.91ThesingularstatusofDubrovnik'scitizensinOttomanrealmsledinevitablytothiskind

ofconfusion–willfulorotherwise.Adirectivesentin1580tothejudgesofRumeliareflectsthis

89 Biegman Turco-Ragusan, 69. 90 DAZ (Zadar State Archives) Carte Turche IV, 89. Published as doc.100 in Biegman, Turco-Ragusan, 186. 91"Etqu'onleurimposeaucunecontrainteenaucunlieu,ouleversementdeladouanedetransit,maisqu'ilspayentsurleslieuxdevente:2aspressur100aspresenemportantoùbonleursemblelamarchandiseinvendue."Bojovic,Raguse,204

62

ambiguity,reaffirmingtheprivilegedstatusofRagusansandthecontinuingimportanceofthe

capitulationsagreements.

TheenvoysoftheBeysofDubrovnikhavesentaman,andmadeknownthatthemen,voyvodas,subaşısandworkers(işerleri)ofthesancakbey[s],beinginlustofgrain,causetroubletothetraderFranoRado,bearerof[this]firman,andtohisservants,becauseheridesahorse,wearsspurs,putsonhiswaistcoatandcarriesarmsonmountainpassesandotherdangeroussiteswithintheOttomanterritories,forfearofhighwayrobbers.Well,theRagusansareliketherestoftheSultan’stribute-payingsubjects(haraç-güzārra‘iyetler),anditisnotallowedtodothemwrongagainsttheCharter.92

Dubrovnik'smerchantsandofficialsknewthattheirabilitytotravelandtradeeffectivelyin

Ottomanlandsdependedonconsistentapplicationoftreatyagreementsandimperial

commands.Therepublicwasextraordinarilyskilledatacquiringfavorableagreements,and

understoodhowtonegotiatethroughofficialchannelsforadditionalsupportwhenagreements

werenotbeinghonored.Tribute(usedtoobtainagreements)andlaw(usedtoensurethat

agreementswerehonored)weretwoveryeffectiveandintertwinedformsofcurrency.

Supportingandamplifyingthesewasathirdform,whichcomplementedRagusa'sstrengthsin

politicsandcommercewithanacuteunderstandingofOttomandesires.

GiftsandRelationships

WhateverprivilegestheOttomancentralauthoritiesmighthavebeenwillingtograntin

theirnegotiationswithEuropeandiplomaticrepresentatives,applicationoftheahidnamestookplaceonlytotheextenttowhichtheseprivilegescouldbefittedintowhattheOttomanbureaucracyregardedas'properprocedure.'Ottomanofficialdommaynothaveobeyedalltheordersitreceivedfromabove,butitfollowedintelligibleprinciplesinwhatitacceptedandwhatitrejected.Inthissense,onemightevenclaim

92 HAD Acta Turcarum 15/30 (September 21-30, 1580). Published as doc. 13 in Biegman, Turco-Ragusan, 88.

63

thattheverylimitationsupontheapplicabilityoftheahidnamesdocumentthecohesion,andnotthedecline,ofaflexibleandlong-lastingstatemechanism93

IftributeandlawrepresenttheprescriptivenormsthatgovernedtheOttoman-Ragusan

relationship,realitywasmorecomplex.Asexamplesintheprevioussectionindicate,the

privilegesofanimperialcharterwereoftenselectivelyappliedontheOttomanfrontiers.

Dubrovnikpositiondependedonmasterfulcultivationofformalandinformaltiesto'Ottoman

officialdom.'Officiallydefinedobligationssuchastributeandcustomspaymentswerenotthe

onlyvaluablecommoditiesflowingfromRagusantoOttomanhands."Gifts,"astheywere

known,weredeliveredcontinuously;theiramountandtheirformtailoredtotheposition,

status,andeventheindividualpersonalityofeachrecipient.Asastandardelementofearly

moderndiplomacyandnegotiation,diplomaticgiftswerecarefullynotedinRagusan

documentsasthenecessary(andeffective)stateexpensestheywere.Insomecases

–particularlyinmomentsoftensionbetweenDubrovnikandthePorte–thesegiftscouldbe

astoundinglyvaluableandvaried.

TheannualtributeitselfwasspokenofasagiftfortheGranSignore,andlessergiftsof

preciousmetalsweredistributeddownthepoliticalhierarchy,beginningwiththegrandvizier.

Everythingwasgovernedbyproportion,rank,andprecedent.Thewrittencommissiongivento

tributeambassadorsAndreadiRestiandVladislavodiBonain1593includedbudgetitemsfor

giftsof100ducatsandtwosilvertraysforeachmemberoftheImperialDivan,andthesame

93SuraiyaFaroqhi,"TheVenetianPresenceintheOttomanEmpire,1600-30"inTheOttomanWorldandtheWorld-Economy,Huriİslamoğlu-İnan,ed.(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1987),344

64

forthe"BassadiRomania"(Rumelibeylerbeyi).Inaddition,thefollowingofficialswerenot

neglected:

• GrandAdmiral("CapitanodelMare")..........100ducats,2silvertrays• Defterdars(3).................................................10ducatsand1silvertrayeach• DragomanofthePorte...................................10ducatsand1silvertray• Imperialkapıcıbası(HeadGatekeeper)..........1silvertray• Kethüda(Steward)oftheSultan....................6ducats• SancakbeyiofHerzegovina............................100ducats• ÇavuşofthesancakbeyiofHerzegovina(whoaccompaniedthepoklisariontheirjourney)

........................................................................16ducatsplus4fortravelexpenses• Kapıcıbaşıofthesancakbeyi..........................1silvertray• Additionalfundsfortravel(3ducats)andfortimespentinIstanbul(70ducats)94

Theattentiontodetailisimpressive,iftypicalofRagusandiplomacy.Yettheamounts

themselvesarenotoutlandish.Ragusa'sperpetualpleasofpovertywereeffectiveinkeeping

giftinflationfromgettingoutofhand.95

Dubrovnik'sleaderswere,however,alwayswillingtospendmajorsumsongiftsat

momentsofcrisis.In1568,thegrandvizierSokolluMehmedPasharejectedagiftof1500

ducats,andthenrejectedtheincreasedofferof3000.Desperatetoresumegoodrelations,

Ragusaeventuallyofferedasumof5000ducats,whichSokolluaccepted.96Thesetypesof

extraordinarypaymentsweredecriedas'innovazione'anditrequiredextremediplomatic

dexteritytopreventthemfrombecomingestablishedprecedent.Butthenagain,Dubrovnik's

94 HAD, DA Box 441, Doc. 1. (April 19, 1593). 95 Compare Dubrovnik's gifts to Grand Vizier Rüstem Pasha in the mid sixteenth century to those of the Habsburgs: "If Ferdinand's ambassadors regularly brought payments of 2,000 Hungarian ducats for each vizier, Dubrovnik's poklisari gave each vezir 200 Venetian ducats..." James Tracy "The Grand Vezir and the Small Republic: Dubrovnik and Rüstem Paşa, 1544-1561" Turkish Historical Review I (2010), 209. 96 HAD LL 27.1, Vol 5, fol. 167r (September 10, 1568) and fol. 182r (undated).

65

giftswerenotlimitedtocashandsilverplate.Sumptuousfabricswerepartandparcelof

Ottoman-Ragusandiplomacy,asonescholarhasnotedinthecaseofanearliergrandvizier:

"...virtuallyeveryencounterbetweenRüstemandthepoklisariincludedreferencestosample-

cutsofsilkpresentedtohim..."97

LuxurytextileswerehighlyvaluedinOttoman,Ragusan,andwesternEuropean

societies.Italiansilksandvelvetswereparticularlyadmired.Ottomansultanswrapped

themselvesincostlykaftanstoprojecttheirwealth,power,andsophistication."Asitemsof

dress,thosekaftans[madefromItaliantextiles]rankedhighamongthemostconspicuous

itemsofforeignmanufactureattheOttomancourt."98Italiansilkscouldalsobeusedasthrone

coversorre-giftedasḫil'at,robesofhonorgrantedincourtlyritual.Ottomanminiature

paintingsandforeigntravelaccountsattesttothemagnificenceoftextilesinOttomanpolitical

life.Voluminousturbansandostentatiousfurtrimsetoffthesilkandvelvetkaftansthat

signaledhighstatusinOttomanofficialdom.99

RagusauseditspositionasabridgebetweenItalyandIstanbultodelivermuch-admired

Italianluxurytextilestotheimperialcourt,buildingfavorwithinfluentialofficialsinthe

process.Diplomaticgift-givinginvolvedgreatnumbersofcarefullyselectedtextiles.Toresolve

thecrisisof1568(inadditiontothegiftof5000ducatsmentionedabove),Ragusan

97 Tracy, "Grand Vezir," 209. 98 Louise W. Mackie, "Ottoman Kaftans with an Italian Identity," in Ottoman Costumes: From Textile to Identity, eds. Suraiya Faroqhi and Cristoph K. Neumann (Istanbul: Eren, 2004), 219. 99 A study of the inventories of two Ottoman viziers in the 18th century shows the elaborate care given to kaftans, fur and silk garments, and their centrality in projecting the authority of a vizier. Cristoph K. Neumann, "How did a Vizier dress in the eighteenth century?" in Ottoman Costumes, 181-217.

66

ambassadorswereinstructedtodelivertothefollowingsilksandvelvetstoSokolluMehmed

Pasha.

• 2Cavezzi(samplecut)ofcrimsonvelvet• 4Cavezziofcrimsondamask• 2Cavezziofpurpledamask• 1Cavezzoofgoldsatin• 1Cavezzoof'altobasso'velvet• 1Cavezzooftawnydamask('lionato')• 1Cavezzoofskybluedamask('turchino')• 1Cavezzoof'colombino'damask100• 1Cavezzoofwhitedamask• 1Cavezzoofgreensilk101• 1Cavezzoofpurplesilk• 5handsofscarlet• 5handsofpurple• 6handsofsoftdarkgreenwool('peluzzo')• 6handsofsoftyellow-greenwool102

AddingtothisimpressivepolychromedeliveryarethenamesoftenotherOttomanrecipientswhoalso

receiveddesignatedtextiles.Includedonthelistarethewivesanddaughtersofprominentofficials.

Specificfabricandcolorcombinationsweredesignatedeverynameonthegiftlist,allthewaydownto

thenişāncı("nisangibeh"orcourtchancellor),whowastoreceiveasinglecavezzoofcrimsonsilk.In

total,theRagusandocumentenumerates37textilesamplestobedeliveredinthissinglediplomatic

mission,includingtheabovementioned15itemsforSokolluMehmed.Ragusa'saccesstoEuropean

100 Colombino was a color developed in the sixteenth century, apparently iridescent deep blue with a little red, "similar to the neck of a pigeon." Luca Molà, The Silk Industry of Renaissance Venice (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2003) 101 Festechino: a green color "similar to the fields under crop in April" Molà, Silk Industry. 102 HAD LL 27.1 Vol. 5, fol. 184r (December 13, 1568).

67

marketsallowedtherepublic'smerchantstoacquirethefinest,mostsought-aftertextilesanddeploy

themasinstrumentsofdiplomacy.103WithnopermanentrepresentativeinIstanbul,thissupple

currencyhelpedtheever-changingrepresentativesofDubrovnikdemonstratetheirregardand

affectionforinfluentialOttomanfigures.104

GiftswerenotdeliveredonlyinIstanbul.EverywherethatRagusantraderswent,the

republicfollowed,buildingrelationshipswithdiplomacyandgifts.ThebeylerbeyiofBosniaand

sancakbeyiofHerzegovinawereofparamountimportanceduetotheirproximityandthefact

thatthemajorcaravanroutesfromDubrovnikcrossedtheirterritories.ThebeylerbeyiofBosnia

heldanelevatedpositionintheOttomanhierarchy,andhisjudgementcoulddetermine

importantoutcomesfortheRagusanRepublicinIstanbul.ThecityofSt.Blaisewasacutely

awareoftheneedtostayinhisgoodgraces.In1703,withDubrovnik'sprominencelong

undercutbythesuccessoftheVenetian-controlledSplit-Sarajevoroadandwiththecitynot

fullyrecoveredfromthedevastatingearthquakeof1667,theimperialcouncilagreedto

officiallyreduceRagusa'sannualtributebytwo-thirds(thefullamountof12,500goldcoinswas

tobedelivered,butonlyevery3years).ThiswasamajorcoupforRagusandiplomacy.Yetthe

agreementmadeinIstanbulofficiallyhingedonareportbytheBosnianbeylerbeyi,whowas

103Dubrovnikdevelopeditsowntextilemanufacturingcapacity,includingsilkproduction,inthesecondhalfofthefifteenthcentury.SeeJoškoBelamarić,"ClothandGeography:TownPlanningandArchitecturalAspectsoftheFirstIndustryinDubrovnikinthe15thCentury,"inDalmatiaandtheMediterranean,ed.AlinaPayne(Leiden:Brill,2014). 104 Hard and soft currencies could be interchangeable. A letter to the tribute ambassadors in the 1560s gives them the choice of an appropriate bonus gift to the pashas, defterdars, and other ministers of the court: "...you will give out an additional 450 ducats either in coins or in silk fabric, as you see fit...to be good expenses with which to obtain our intent." HAD LL 27.1 Vol. 5, fol. 142 (Undated, 1560s).

68

requiredtosubmitareportonRagusa'sfinancialsituation.105ThepoklisarVladislavBućawas

dispatchedtoSarajevoforacharmoffensivewhichwastolastayearandahalf.Duringthis

time,Bosnianofficialswereinundatedwithgifts,ofwhichapreciseaccountwaskeptbythe

fastidiousRagusans:

[The]Beylerbey,hisson,kethüda,defterdar,mulaofSarajevoandmuselimweremostgenerouslyrewardedwith14piecesofatlas,3ofcloth,2barrelsofmarinaded[sic]fish,3barrelsofolives,8barrelsoflemons,650oranges,2demijohnsoforangejuice,1smallerdemijohnoflimejuice,4demijohnsofcinnamonherbaldrink,6bowlsofcandiedlime,3bowlsofcandiedrosepetals,1boxofcandiedpeaches(It.persicata),2boxesofmostacionibiscuits,8boxesofquinces,20loavesofsugar,5pairsofspectaclesincases,6pairsofspectacles,2coraltespihs,geographicalcharts,2silverjugswithartificialflowers,8sproutsofunnamedflowers,malvasia,plustheordinarygiftofferedto[the]beylerbey,newlyappointedamidstBuća'smission.Lastly,[the]kapıcıbaşı,whocarriedthefirmanonthediminutionofharaçfromthePortetoSarajevo,wasrewardedwiththepromised400ungarsand700Ragusanducats,amugandawashingbasin.Beylerbeyreceivedthepromised3,000reals(about5,030Ragusanducats),kethüdareceived500reals,whiledivan-efendiandacertainMehmed-efendi20ducatseach.106

Bydeliveringeverythinguptoandincludingasink(alongwithanunspecifiedamountof

malvasia,Dalmatia'slocalredwine),DubrovnikgavethebeylerbeyiofBosniaeveryincentiveto

sendafavorablereporttoIstanbul,andhefulfilledtheirhopes.107Thegovernor'sreporthelped

confirmthenewtributearrangement,savingtherepublicover8000goldcoinsperyear.

105 Vesna Miović “Beylerbey of Bosnia and Sancakbey of Herzegovina in the Diplomacy of the Dubrovnik Republic” Dubrovnik Annals 9 (2005), 63. 106 Miović, "Beylerbey," 64 107 Ragusan officials provided ingenious gifts that were not always costly. Sweets, fresh vegetables and flowers were also common. On occasion officials asked for and received specific items, including writing paper, windowpanes, lanterns, tobacco, animals for hunting (dogs and birds), and corals. Strings of prayer beads (tespih) made of coral were an extremely popular gift. Miović, "Beylerbey," 57.

69

ThiscasebeautifullyillustratesthewayRagusa'sdiplomaticexpertisewasenhancedby

itsdetailedknowledgeofthemarkets,commodities,androutesoftheMediterranean.

Dubrovnik'sexperienceinthecaravantradewasalsoinstrumental.Thepoklisardeliverednot

onlycashanddesirabletextiles,butalsofreshcitrusandotherperishableitemsto

mountainousSarajevo–hundredsofkilometersfromthecoast–thankstotheRepublic'sskillin

organizingoverlandtransport.TheabilityofDubrovnik'smobilediplomatswassupportedby

theirwidely-rangingmerchants,givingthemaccesstocommoditiesbothluxuriousand

mundane,aswellastheresourcestotransportthemefficiently.Theseoverlappingmobile

factorsworkedinunisontogivetheRagusanstateapowerfultooltouseinall-important

negotiationswithitspowerfulOttomanneighbor.

Information

“Wepaytwotributes,andnotonlyone,becauseofourgreatandcontinuousexpenseskeepingpeopleineverypartoftheworldinorderthatweknowwhathappens(there)andwhatisgoingon,thentoreportittotheBlessedPorte...”108 Bytheyear1550,Dubrovnikhadestablished44consulatesinthewestern

Mediterranean,complementingsixitheldintheeast.From1750-1808,thenumberswere57in

thewest,and27intheeast.109Thesediplomaticpostsfulfilledmanyfunctions,includingacting

aslisteningpostsfortheinformation-hungryrepublic.Localinformantstradeduseful

informationlikemerchandise,andambassadorshadaspecialbudgetforintelligence

108HADLL(August8,1590).QuotedinBiegman,Turco-Ragusan,129. 109 Miović, "Diplomatic Relations," 198.

70

gathering.110Theformalapparatuswasimpressive,butpaledincomparisontoDubronvik's

commercialnetworks,whichwerefarmoreextensive.FormercantilestateslikeRagusaand

Venice,everybitofinformationwaspotentiallyvaluable,andeverysubjectwasapotential

informant.111

"HoratioLauretano"isthepseudonymusedbyamerchantwhowasalsodiligent

providerofinformation.HesentdetailedletterstotheRagusangovernmentfromhisposition

in"Harente,"ariverportalsoknownasGabela,nearthemouthoftheNeretvaRiver(now

Metković,Croatia).OfgreatimportanceintheBosniansalttrade,theNeretvawaslocatedto

thenorthofDubrovnikattheintersectionofRagusan,Ottoman,andVenetianspheres.From

thismodestyetinternationally-connectedlocation,Horatiohadaccesstoagreatdealof

intelligence,whichheforwardedtomultipleinterestedparties.InaletterofFebruary1,1566,

hedescribesthepreparationsbeingmadebytheOttomansforagreatoverlandcampaign("per

terraferma")towardVienna,tobeledbytheSultanhimself.1121566indeedwitnessedan

overlandcampaignledbySüleymantheLawgiver,justasthereportsuggests.(TheRagusan

informantcouldnothavepredictedthatitwouldbeSüleyman'sfinalcampaign,ashewoulddie

duringthesiegeofSzigetvár,Hungary).Thesameletterof1566alsorevealsthedangerof

faultyinformationcominginfromRagusa'sfar-flungnetworkofinformants.Horatiowritesof

110 Miović, "Diplomatic Relations," 199. 111 "Il che vuol dire che per lo Stato mercantile ogni informatione è interessante e che, di conseguenza, non soltanto gli esperti professionisti dei vari settori dei servizi d’informazioni (servizi segreti), ma tutti i sudditi dello Stato sono in grado di fornire materiale informativo utilizzabile." Hans Kissling, "Venezia come centro di informazioni sui Turchi" in Venezia Centro di Mediazione tra Oriente e Occidente, eds. Hans-Georg Beck, Manoussos Manoussacas, Agostino Pertusi (Florence: Olschki, 1977). 112 HAD LL Ser 27.1, Vol 5, f.133v (February 1, 1566).

71

anOttomanarmada"tobeevenlargerthanthatofthepreviousyear"beingbuilttoresume

theattackonMalta(whichneverrestartedaftertheOttomanfailureof1565).113

Overthecourseofthespringof1566Horatiocontinuedtowritelettersfilledwith

impressivedetail.InMarch,henamed"PialiBassà"(PiyalePasha)asgrandadmiralofthe

Ottomanfleet,which,hesays,included2000janissariesand2000horsesbutwhosedestination

wasasyetunknown.Thismerchant-spyseemstohavehadhisownnetworkofanonymous

informants,presumablyothermerchantsand/orcouriers.Drawingfromtheircollective

observations,"Horatio"wasattunedtomovementsofallkinds:armies,navies,supplies,

traders,andmore.HeevennotesimportantadvancesinOttomaninfrastructure,suchasthe

bridgesovertheSavaandDanubeRiversinBelgrade,whichhenoteswere"finishedandin

order,"inMarch1566.114

TheinformantfromNeretvasignedoffonhisletterswithhispseudonymandthen

wrotebriefpostscriptswhichexplainedthathewassendinganothercopyofeachletterto

Ragusabyalternativemeans,toensurethedeliveryofatleastoneofhisreports.Thiswas

standardpracticeformerchantsanddiplomatsintheearlymodernMediterranean.Whatis

unusual,isthathealsostatesexplicitlythatheissendingthesameinformationtotheviceroy

ofNaplesandSicily.Theseletters,heexplainstohisRagusanreaders,aresignedwithstill

anothername:"LucioPisone."115Aservantofatleasttwomasters,theactualidentityofthis

113 HAD LL Ser 27.1, Vol 5, f133v (February 1, 1566) 114 HAD LL Ser 27.1, Vol 5, f136v and 135 (March 26, 1566) 115 "Et due altre simil furono scritti alli illmi [illustrissimi] S.re Vicc Re di Napoli et di Sicilia sotto il nome di Lucio Pisone. Adi primo di Febraio 1566 di Harente [Neretva]." HAD LL Ser 27.1, Vol. 5, f133v (February 1, 1566).

72

individualremainsunknown.116Thiswasnotdoubtbydesign,duetothedangerousnatureof

hiswork.Indeed,attheendoftheletterofMarch26hebegstheRagusangovernmentfor

protection,claimingtobeafraidforhislife.117Whoisthreateninghimisnotmadeclear,but

theflowoflettersfrom"Horatio"inNeretvapreservedinthearchivesstopsatthatpoint.

Ottomanofficialswerenotunawareoftheproblemofstrategicinformationleakingout

fromDubrovniktotheirantagonistsintheMediterranean.In1591,afermānwasissuedtothe

beylerbeyiofBosniaorderingthatreliableçavuşes(imperialmessengers)accompanyall

RagusanenvoystravelinginOttomanterritory,toprotectagainst"themanyspiesofthe

Frankishmisbelievers."118Littleseemstohavecomeoutofthisdirective,and,ingeneral,there

werefewseriousattemptstoregulatethemultidirectionalflowofinformation.Onereasonfor

thisisthatalltheRagusanmerchantswhohadbeenlivinginOttomanlandssincethelate

fourteenthcenturywerepotentialspies("c’étaientdesinformateursexcellents”).119Yetno

116VesnaMiovićhasidentifiedthepseudonymLucioPisoneinuseahalf-centurylater,inaverydifferentcontext.ThisfollowingquotationhintsattheserendipitywithwhichthearchivesoccasionallyrewardavirtuosicresearcherlikeDr.Miović.“Throughouttheseventeenthcentury,particularlyduringtheCretanWar,letterstothePapalCuriaweresentfromDubrovnikandsignedby‘LucioPisone,’‘MartinodeTurra,’‘FabritiodeTersis,’ThesenderwouldalwaysaddresstherecipientwithBeatissimoPadre,andcontinuethat‘afriendfromIstanbul’hadnotifiedhimofcertainnewsthroughaletterwithacertaindate.HaditnotbeenforthesecretaryoftheVaticanChancellerywhomarkedthemwith‘TheRepublicofDubrovnik,’thelettersthemselvescouldnotinanywayhavebeenrevealedwhotheactualsenderwas.”Miović"DiplomaticRelations,"201. 117 HAD LL Ser 27.1, Vol 5, f138r (March 26, 1566). 118 Biegman, "Ragusan Spying," 239. 119 Krekić, Dubrovnik, 154.

73

majorreprisalswereevertakeagainstthem,due,mostlikely,totheirrelativelysmallnumbers

androbusteconomicoutput.

Aswithtributeandgifts,theRagusangovernmentinstructeditstributeambassadorsto

sharespecificunitsofinformationwithtargetedOttomanofficials.Thepoklisariof1566,for

example,weretoldtoinformthegrandvizieraboutthemovementsoftheSpanishfleetin

NaplesandMessina;aboutthestatusofFlorentinegalleysinLivorno;andthenewshipsbeing

builtinvariousItaliancities.120SokolluMehmednodoubtappreciatedbeinginformedthatthe

HolyRomanEmperorMaximillianIIplannedtoarriveinAugsburgonMarch19,1566fora

meetingwith"tuttiiPrincipi"ofGermany,andthatDonCarlos,heir-apparenttoKingPhillipII

ofSpain,haddiedin1568("notaviolentdeath,butanaturalone").121Thestreamsof

informationflowingintoDubrovnikfromitsnetworksofinformationweresifted,edited,and

selectivelyforwardedtoIstanbul.Themostsensitiveinformationcouldnotriskbeingwritten

down,butwastransmittedorallybyspecialcouriers.122ContainingupdatesonAustria,Spain,

France(mentioningthe'Hugonoti'),theItalianstatesandtheLowCountries,thesedocuments

encapsulatethemilitary,politicalandeconomicmovementsoftheMediterraneanand

northernEurope,acombinationofspyingandnews-gatheringthatwascommodifiedby

RagusanofficialsfortheconsumptionofOttomanleaders.123

120 HAD LL Ser 27.1, Vol 5, f135r (March 1, 1566). 121 HAD LL Ser 27.1, Vol 5, f135v (March 1, 1566) and f169v (September 10, 1568). On the 1566 Diet of Augsburg, see also f139r-139v. 122 Miović, "Diplomatic Relations," 201. 123 For a comparable phenomenon in the practice of Dubrovnik's major rival, see the section on "The Commercialization of Information" in Peter Burke, "Early Modern Venice as a Center of Information and

74

Dubrovnik'svalueasacenterofinformationwasobvioustotheOttomansfromanearly

stage.Moreover,therepublic'spositionmadeitanidealtransitionpointforsensitivemissions

intoChristianlands.124InJune1431,justafterthefirstdirectcommunicationswithMuradII

andthe"BeysofDubrovnik,"thesultansentacertainAliBeytoDubrovnik.UsingtheRepublic

asabase,Aliwastotakepossessionofafortandthree"cantons"intheterritoryofDukeof

Herzegovina.125Halfacenturylater,in1481,theOttomandynastywasshakenbyasuccession

crisiswiththedeathofMehmedII.BayezidIItookpower,hisforceshavingdefeated(butnot

killed)hisbrotherandrival,PrinceCem,whotookflight,firsttoMamlukEgypt,latertoRhodes,

beforeeventuallylandinginsouthernFrance,andthen,finally,Rome.126Eveninexile,Cem

representedasignificantthreattotheOttomanorder,anditwasnecessarytokeeptrackofhis

movements.Yetatacertainpoint,Bayezidseemstohavelosttrackofhisbrothercompletely.

In1482,afermānwassenttoDubrovnik,seekingtherepublic’saidintrackingdownthe

fugitiveprince,aboutwhoselocationtheyhadnonews.ThedocumentsurvivesinanItalian

Communication," in Venice Reconsidered, eds. John Martin and Dennis Romano (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000): 389-419. 124MissionsintheoppositedirectionfromEuropeintoOttomanterritoryalsotransitedthroughDubrovnik:“labaseperl’inviodispieinterraottomanaèRagusa,perennementeinbilicotrasudditanzaalsultanoesolidarietàreligiosaepoliticaconilpapaelaSpagna.”PaoloPreto,IServiziSegretidiVenezia(Milano:IlSaggiatore,1994),29.TheHabsburgstoousedDubrovniktocollectinformationandsendagentstotheLevant.SeeEmrahSafaGürkan,"Espionageinthe16thCenturyMediterranean"(Phddiss.,GeorgetownUniversity,2012).Mostrelevantarepages206-213. 125 "Le Sultan envoie Ali Beg qui à pour mission de prendre possession du fort du Klobuk et des cantons de Trebinje, Vrm et Lug." Bojovic, Raguse, 188. 126SeeNicholasVatin,SultanDjem(Ankara,1997)and,bythesameauthor,“Itinérairesd’agentsdelaPorteenItalie(1433-1495)"TurcicaXIX(1987)29-49.Relateddocumentsareexploredhere:İHakkıUzunçarşılı,“CemSultan’adairbeşorijinalVesika”Belleten24(1960):457-475.Ragusa'sroleintheCemaffairisexploredinmoredetailinchapter3ofthisdissertation

75

translation,completewithanapproximationofthesultan'sṭuğra,orimperialseal."Iconfidein

you,"thesultanwritestohisRagusanvassals,"thatdiligentlyyoumaydiscoverwherehemight

be."127

127"Nonhabiamohavutoancoranovanisunadovesiaandato...ioconfideinvoichediligente[mente]losaperetedovesarà."HAD,ActaTurcarumP.P.50(1482).DubrovnikwasnottheonlyChristianallyenlistedbyBayezidtokeeptrackofhisbrother.GülruNecipoğluhasdiscovereddiplomaticgiftspresentedbyFrancescoIIofMantuatotheOttomanambassadorKasımBegin1493.OneisarepresentationofPrinceCem,presumablyintendedtohelpkeepthesultan"...informedaboutthehostageprince'scondition."GülruNecipoğlu,"VisualCosmopolitanism,"Muqarnas29(2022):48.

76

Fig.2:Letter(inItalian)fromSultanBayezidIItoDubrovnik(1482).HADActaTurcarump.50.

77

Aprosperous,independentRepublicofRagusathusprovidedtheOttomanswitha

bespokeintelligenceservice,onethatcouldpenetrateeveryport,court,marketandfairof

westernEurope.Dubrovnik'smerchantsandspieslevelledtheinformationaladvantagethat

otherwisewouldhavebeenheldbytheempire'spowerfulEuropeanrivals,aboveallVenice

andtheHabsburgs.ThisresourcecameatpracticallynocosttotheSublimePorte.Oneofmost

effectiveinformation-gatheringsystemsoftheMediterraneanworldkepttheOttomans

informedof(mostof)itsdiscoveriesinexchangefortheempiresimplyhonoringitsobligations

toprotectDubrovnik'smerchantsanddiplomatsandmaintainsecure,openchannelsof

mobilitybetweentherepublicandIstanbul.

Technology&Expertise

Thetransferoftechnology,skills,andexpertiserepresentsyetanothercategoryof

currencywithwhichDubrovnikmaintaineditsprivilegedstatusintheOttomanworld.Despite

officialprohibitionsbythepapacyonsharingmilitarilysignificanttechnologieswiththe

Ottomans,firearmmakingandshipbuildingtechniqueswereoftenintroducedtoOttoman

realmsthroughRagusa,alongwithvaluablecommercialconcepts:"...allthenovelbusiness

practicesthenfoundinItaly,suchasthecollegantiatypeofcompany,billsofexchangeandthe

variousbankingprocedures,wereadoptedbyRagusanmerchants."128Specializedlaborwas

anothervaluableservicethatRagusaprovided.

128Inalcik,AnEconomic,264

78

Inmakingthemostoftheirneighbourlyrelationship,theRagusansattendedtovariouskindsofconstructionandengineeringprojectsbyprovidingskilledcraftsmenfromDubrovnik(builders,stonemasons,limeburners,miners)forthereconstructionoftheharbourinGabela,constructionoffortificationwalls,towersandforts,buildingbridges,wells,publicbuildingsinNadin,Skadar,Herceg-Novi,Foča,Pljevlja,Mostar,Klobuk,Onogošt,Trebinje,Ljubinje,andSlanoinPopovopolje.129

ThefollowingchapterwilldescribetheroleofDubrovnik'sstonemasonsintheconstructionof

numerousimportantOttomanbuildings,includingtheMostarbridge.Farlesswellknownare

the14mosqueswithdistinctivesquare'campanile-minarets,'discoveredinHerzegovinaby

MachielKiel.InatleastonecasetheseDalmatian-Ottomanhybridmosqueswerebuilt

alongsidetransportation-enhancingstructureslikecaravanseraisandcisterns.130

TheformsofcurrencyemployedbyDubrovnikwereflexibleandinterconnected.Inthe

1568disputewiththekadiofCastelnuovomentionedabove,law,giftsandexpertisewereall

broughtintoplayintheresolutionofasingleissue.Dubrovnikbrandisheditstreaties,delivered

exorbitantgifts,andevenbroughtinallies(includingthebailoofVeniceandthesancakbeyiof

Herzegovina)toreversetheearlierrulingfavoringtheOttomanjudgewho"neverallowedusto

liveinpeace."131Afterallthis,therewasstillanothercardfortherepublictoplay.Aletterfrom

theRagusangovernmenttellsthetributeambassadorstohighlighttheservicesrenderedbythe

129 Miovic, "Beylerbey," 58. 130ItisextremelylikelythatDubrovnik'scraftsmenworkedontheseuniquehybridstructures.SeeMachielKiel“Thecampanile-minaretsofthesouthernHerzegovina:ablendofIslamicandChristianelementsinthearchitectureofanoutlyingborderareaoftheBalkans,itsspreadinthepastandsurvivaluntilourtime,”inCentresandperipheriesinOttomanarchitecture:rediscoveringaBalkanheritage,ed.MaximilianHartmuth(Sarajevo,2011),75.TheworkofDubrovnik'sartisans–stonemasonsinparticular–onOttomanarchitecturalprojectsisexploredinthefollowingchapter. 131 HAD LL 27.1 V. 5 f174r (September 19, 1568).

79

republicforaprojectcompletedbytheinfluentialOttomanofficialwhowasacousinofthe

grandvizierSokolluMehmedPasha:

[ExplaintoSokolluMehmed]thatwehadtosendcarpenters,stonemasons,blacksmithsandmanyothernecessarysuppliestoSignorMustafaPashaofBuda,becausehisLordshipwishedtobuildabridgeinGoraždeasapiousaction,andwedidthiswillingly.132

Ragusa'sspecializedlabor,too,couldbedeployedaninstrumentofdiplomacy.Humancapital

wasanotherofDubrovnik'sgifts;aninvestmentusedtofostergoodrelationswithOttoman

officials,whocouldbereliedonindifficultmoments.Accordingtothedocument,Musfata

Pasha(whosepatronagewillbediscussedinthefollowingchapter)showedhisgratitudeby

sendingaletterofrecommendationtohisrelative(thegrandvizier)onbehalfoftheRagusans

whohadprovidedhimwithsuchfaithfulservice.

Goražde(BiH),wherethebridgebuiltbyMustafaPashawithRagusansupport,spanned

theDrinaRiver.ItwaslocatedatthejunctionoftheroadfromSarajevotheroadfromRagusa.

Anineteenth-centuryobserverdescribedthebridge,locatedapproximately200kmfromthe

Adriaticcoast,as"Ragusan,"madeof"fivearchesofwoodwork,restingonpiersofdeftly-hewn

stoneblocks,oblonginshape."133Nolongerextant,itsarchedstonepierswerecreatedinpart

byDalmatiancraftsmen,whileitswoodenwallsandarchedcoveringtookadvantageofBosnia's

plentifultimber.InhelpingconstructMustafaPasha'sbridge,Ragusawasenhancingmobilityby

buildinggoodwill.Atthesametime,therepublicwasquiteliterallybuildingasignificantstepof

itspathwaytoIstanbul.ItisimpossibletocalculatehowmanysubsequentRagusanmerchants,

132 HAD LL 27.1 V. 5 f174v (September 19, 1568). 133 Arthur Evans, Ancient Illyria: An Archaeological Exploration (Tauris: London, 2006), 126.

80

ambassadors,andmessengersmighthavecrossedthebridgetheircountrymenhelped

constructinGoražde.

Astheseexamplesshow,mobilitywasnotagiftoffortune,butitcouldbetheresultof

initiative,resourcefulness,andopportunism.Theoverlandcommunicationsnetworkthat

complementedDubrovnik'smaritimeendeavorswascreatedinsymbioticpartnershipwiththe

territorialstatesoftheBalkanPeninsula:Byzantium,themedievalSlavicstates,and,ultimately,

theOttomanempire.Thebasisofthesepartnershipswasneveraninherentgeographical

advantage,butanarrayofRagusaninitiativesthatreachedapeakinthefifteenthto

seventeenthcenturiesunderthepaxOttomanicathatdidawaywithinternalbordersand

politicalinstabilityinsoutheasternEurope.Ottomanreceptivityandamplificationof

Dubrovnik'sinitiativescreatedincentivesforOttoman,Ragusan,andinternationaltraders,

envoysandtravelerstocrossthemountains.

Theroadwasalinerunningbetweeneastandwest.Buttheforcesthatmaintainedits

viabilitywerecircularandinterconnected.Thepoklisariwhodeliveredtribute,gifts,and

informationtotheSublimePortemadetheirvoyageontheRagusaRoad.Asdidthetraders

whosewhoinhabitedandenrichedthecitiesandtownsofRumelia.Asdidtheartisansand

craftsmenwhocontributetomasterfulworksofOttomanarchitectureandinfrastructure.The

roaditselfwasavehicleforthemovementofthecurrencythatsustainedit.Thepacksaddlesof

Bosnianhorseswereloadedwithgoodsthatconstitutedacompellingargumentforthe

maintenanceofoneparticularpathwaywithinamultitudeofopportunities.Distance,difficulty,

andinsecuritywereneverconquered,butonlykeptatbay.Maintainingtheflowofoverland

81

trafficandtraderequiredaconstantflowofattentionandexpenditure.Currency,inmyriad

forms,wastheheliumthatkeptthefragileballoonofcaravantravelontheRagusaRoadaloft.

Fig.3."MuletiersTurcsTraversantl'Herzégovenie,"Valerio,1875.

ChapterTwo:PatronageandMobility

Ienlargedthefootpaths,straightenedthehighwaysofthelandImadesecuretravel,builtthere‘bighouses’,Plantedgardensalongsideofthem,establishedresting-places,Settledtherefriendlyfolk,(Sothat)whocomesfrombelow,whocomefromabove,Mightrefreshthemselvesinitscool,Thewayfarerwhotravelsthehighwayatnight,Mightfindrefugetherelikeinawell-builtcity.

-HymnofShulgi,KingofUr1

AswiththeancientempiresofRome,China,Persia,andAssyria,theoverland

transportationsystemoftheOttomanstatewasextensive,effective,andgreatlyadmiredby

outsiders.2UnlikeKingShulgi,however,theseeminglyall-powerfulOttomansultanscouldnot

anddidnottakecreditforitscreation.Sultanicpatronagewasconcentratedinthecapitalsof

Bursa,Edirne,and,aboveall,Istanbul.Sultansandgrandviziersgreatlyenhancedafewcentral

channelsofoverlandexchange,butlefttheinfrastructuralneedsofamuchoftheempire'svast

territorytobemetbyothermeans.Intheabsenceofaconsistentcentralauthorityinchargeof

roadbuildingintheprovinces,thecreationoftravelinfrastructurefellintothehandsofan

1LionelCasson,TravelintheAncientWorld(Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1994),35.ShulgiwasthesecondruleroftheThirdDynastyofUr,sonofillustriousUr-Nammu,founderofthedynasty.SeealsoSamuelNoahKramer,“ShulgiofUr:ARoyalHymnandaDivineBlessing,”JewishQuarterlyReview,NewSeries75(1967),371.2 Fernand Braudel, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Phillip II, trans. Sian Reynolds (New York: Harper & Row, 1972), 284.

83

arrayofOttomanofficials,proceedingdowntheranksofahierarchicalsystem.3Individual

actorssteppedforwardtosupplythemajorityofthebridges,caravanseraisandmulti-

functionalcomplexesthatprovidedsecurity,settledvulnerableandunder-populatedareas,and

reducedthefrictionofoverlandtravel.Concentratingonthesixteenthcentury,thischapter

addressesthedouble,orrathertripleroleplayedbytheseofficials,andhowtheirindividual

actionscollectivelyshapedpatternsofmobilityacrossthewesternprovincesof

Rumeli/Rumelia.Ottomanpatronagedefinitivelyshapedpatternsofoverlandtravelinthe

Balkans,helpingtoamplifyandcontrolthetrafficoftheRagusaRoad.

Bythesecondhalfofthefifteenthcentury,theOttomanshadestablishedcontrolover

AnatoliaandtheBalkanPeninsula.Bytheearlysixteenthcentury,theempirehadexpandedto

ruleoveraterritorialcolossuslocatedonthreecontinents,straddlingvitalroutesof

communicationbetweentheMediterranean,theBlackSea,andtheIndianOcean.Thiswasnot

simplyconquestforconquest’ssake,perpetuatedbyanIslamic“warmachine”obsessedwith

expandingthehorizonsoverwhichitruled.Ottomanexpansionfrequentlytargetedareasthat

wereofvitalstrategicandeconomicimportanceinaglobalizingworld,asworksbyPalmira

BrummetandGiancarloCasalehaveshown.4

3Theterminfrastructurecarriesdifferentconnotationsindifferentfields.Iusethetermasaninclusivecategorythatcanrefertoworksofarchitectureandengineeringaswellhumanandsocialstructures.McCormickarticulatesthiswell,ifforanearlierhistoricalera:“Infrastructuremeansphysicalstructures:roads,aswellasbridges,portsandthelike.Butitshouldalsoincludegroupsandinstitutionsthatfosteredtravel:theconstellationofmen,beasts,obligationsandresourcesthatconstitutedtheimperialpost,forexample,orthehumanexpertiseittooktobuildandmaintainships.”MichaelMcCormick,“ByzantiumontheMove:ImaginingaCommunicationsHistory,”inTravelintheByzantineWorld,ed.RuthMacrides(Hants,EnglandandBurlingtonVT:Ashgate,2002):4-5. 4 Palmira Brummet, Ottoman Seapower and Levantine Diplomacy in the Age of Discovery (Albany, NY: State University of NY Press, 1994) and Giancarlo Casale, The Ottoman Age of Exploration (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010).

84

TheOttomanunificationofRumelia,whichhadbeenapoliticallyfragmentedlandmass

inthelaterByzantineperiod,reducedtheobstaclesoflong-distanceoverlandtravel(insecure

roads,multipleinternalborders,andunpredictablecustomsregimes).Imposinggeographic

obstacles,however,remainedsignificant.ThemountainousterrainofthewesternBalkan

Peninsulamadewheeledvehiclesunfeasibleandlimitedthestate’sabilitytoprovidesecurityin

remoteareas.Thedisincentivesforoverlandtravelwerealsosubstantial,asthewell-

established(Venetian-dominated)maritimeroutearoundthePeloponnesewasreadily

available.Asshownthepreviouschapter,arobustoverlandconnectiontoDubrovnikwasa

valuableassettotheOttomanempire.Buthowtobringitabout?Thesolutionwasnotatobe

ageography-defying,neo-Romanfeatofroadconstructionthatdisregardedenvironmental

challenges(“Clearlythegeometricsimplicityoftheconceptandthepowerdisplayedinignoring

physicalobstacles,werebothpartoftheRomanengineer’spoint.”),5butamoreflexible

networkbuiltaroundcaravanseraisandbridges.Theseutilitarianstructuresbecamethenuclei

ofchainsofmenzils,orstoppingplaces.Located,intheory,oneday’sjourneyapart,Ottoman

infrastructuraldevelopmentscontributedtoaresurgenceoflongdistanceoverlandtravelin

thesixteenthcentury.6InthemountainousWesternBalkans,wherecaravansbasedonteams

ofhorseswerethenormandwheeledvehiclesimpracticalandrare,aconsistentsystemof

purpose-built,multifunctionalhaltingplacesenabledoverlandtraffictothrive.

5 Peregrine Horden and James Purcell, The Corrupting Sea: A Study of Mediterranean History (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2000), 127. 6 "Menzil (منزل) 1. halting place; station; goal, place of destination. 2. lrnd. stage, day's journey. 3. lrnd. inn, caravanserai; house, mansion; hotel" Redhouse Yeni Türkçe-İngilizce Sözlük (Istanbul, 1968), 792.

85

Howcouldasprawling,cash-strappedempirebearthecostofbuildingsuchan

enormoussystem?ThischapterwillshowthattheroadarchitectureofwesternRumeliawas

rarelyexecuteddirectlybyOttomansovereignsandwasnotcoordinatedbyaconsistentcentral

agency.

WeknowthattheOttomansdidnotprovideaspecialadministrativeofficetolookaftertherepairofroadsandbridges,accommodationfortravelersandallthosemattersthatfacilitateajourney...Bridgeswereerectedandtherevenuesofmanyvillagesweredevotedtotheirmaintenancebythesepersons,functioningnotasstateofficialsbutasindividuals.7

Demetriades’finalcommentishelpfulbutmisleading.Operatingthroughvaḳıf,asystemof

piousendowmentthatwasopentoallOttomans(fromthesultantolocaladministrators)the

officialswhobuiltandmaintainedBalkanroadsandbridgeswereactingnotonlyasindividuals

butalsoexplicitlysupportingimperialaimsinthecreationofacoherentsystemthatfostered

transportation,communication,andsettlement.8Thesetwooutcomes–individualpiousact

andcontributiontoalargersystem–werecomplementary,notcontradictory.Theresulting

roadnetworkservedtheneedsofbothlocalandinternationaltravelerswhilesimultaneously

supportingthegeopoliticalgoalsofthestatebyencouragingflowsoftrafficalongcertain

favoredaxes,tothebenefitofcertainfavoredpartnersliketheRepublicofRagusa.

Fromitsoriginstoitsapogee,theOttomanEmpireexcelledataccomplishingimperial

goalswithoutdrainingthebeytülmāl,orImperialTreasury.TheearlyGaziLords,forexample,

7VassilisDemetriades“VakıfsalongtheViaEgnatia”inTheViaEgnatiaUnderOttomanRule(1380-1699),ed.ElizabethZachariadou(Rethymnon,Greece:CreteUniversityPress,1996),85.8 "Waḳf," in Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, eds. P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs.

86

wereprimarilyremuneratedthroughthespoilsoftheirraids.Thetimarsystemmaintainedthe

Ottomancavalrycorpsthroughthedistributionofagriculturalsurplusforwhich–critically–it

wastheresponsibilityofthesipāḥis(timar-holders)tocollectandconvertintohardcurrency.

Closertotheworldofoverlandtravel,thederbendsystem,whichprovidedsecurityinremote

areas,wasfundedentirelyontaxexemptions–requiringnodirectoutlayfromthecenter.9

Comingfromthewordformountainpass,thederbendsystemwasatypicallypragmatic

Ottomansolutiontothecontinualproblemofinsecurityinremotemountainareas.Attested

fromthe1430s,thesystemreducedtheneedformilitarygarrisonsandpatrolsbygiving

responsibilityforthesecurityoftravelerstotheinhabitantsoflocalvillagesnearstrategic

locations.Inexchangefortheirservice,thevillage’staxeswouldbereducedorcancelled

entirely.10Aswiththetimarsystem,derbendallowedtheempiretomobilizeabroadly-

distributedsecurityforcewithoutsacrificingagriculturalproduction,asthevillagescouldcarry

onwiththeirnormalpastoralandagriculturalactivitiesinadditiontotheirdutiesasguards.11

9OntheDerbendsystem,seeCengizOrhonlu,Osmanlıİmparatorluğu’ndaDerbendTeşkilâtı(Istanbul:Eren,1990).OrhonlupointsoutequivalentsystemsusedbytheMongolsandMamluks(6-7)andtheTutkavulluksystemusedbytheIlkhanids(15).ForanexampleoftaxprivilegesgiventoDerbendvillagers(Christian,inthiscase)seethe“Muâfiyethükmü”(Imperialstatueoftaxexemption)issuedin1456bySultanMehmedII,publishedbyHalilİnalcikinFatihDevriÜzerindeTetkilerveVesikalar(Ankara:TürkTarihKurumu,1954),appendix10.Inthedocument,FatihMehmedreleases20“infidels”(kâfirler)fromtheirnormaltaxobligationstothestate,specifyingexemptionsfromharacandispencetaxesaswellascorvéelaborduties.Inreturn,thevillagersaretoguardtheirareafrombanditry“nightandday”(“gecelerdevegündüzlerde”).10 Orhonlu, Derbend Teşkilâti, 19. 11 Ömer Lütfi Barkan has pointed to the existence of derbentçi dervishes, showing that derbends could be new settlements as well as existing villages.“Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Bir Iskân ve Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak Vakıflar ve Temlikler I: İstilâ devirlerinin Kolonizatör Türk dervişleri ve zâviyeler” Vakıflar Dergisi 2 (1942): 279-386. Barkan gives specific examples (in Anatolia) pp. 295-296.

87

Co-optingpopulationsonthemarginsofOttomansociety,thederbendsystemalsoreducedthe

likelihoodofvillagerspursuingbanditry,doublingtheeffectivenessofthesecuritymeasure

withnoadditionalcost.12Thoughpotentialincomewaslostthroughtaxreductions,nohard

currencywasdeductedfromcentralaccounts.Reflectingthescaleofempire,thederbend

systemwasenormous:“Inthemid-sixteenthcentury,thestateappointed2,288villagefamilies

inAnatoliaand1,906intheeasternBalkans,asderbendcis.”13Theresurgenceofinternational

overlandtravelinthemountainsofwesternRumeliainthefifteenthandsixteenthcenturyis

partlyduetosecurityprovidedbythederbendsystem.

Inadditiontocombattingbanditry,derbendvillagerswereexpectedtocontributetothe

constructionandmaintenanceofessentialinfrastructuresuchasbridges(presumablyrelatively

simplewoodenconstructions).14Therewerepracticallimitations,however,towhatthesesmall

villagescouldbeexpectedtoproduce.Theirsmall-scaleinterventionswereadequateforthe

needsoflocaltravels,butnotequaltotheneedsoftrans-regionalortrans-imperialtravelers.A

farmoreeffectiveandwidespreadmeansforbuildinginfrastructurecameintobeingthat

wouldsupersedesuchhumbleinitiatives.Itwouldnotbeacentrallyorderedandlocally

12IthasbeennotedthattheAdriaticpiratesknownasuskokswereasimilarlyself-sustainingfrontierorderthatservedHabsburgimperialgoalsatminimalcosttotheAustrianimperialtreasury.Thecomparisonbetweenuskoksandderbendismadeexplicitlyhere:CatherineWendyBracewell,TheUskoksofSenj:Piracy,BanditryandHolyWarintheSixteenth-CenturyAdriatic(Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,1992),43.13 Halil İnalcık, The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age (London: Phoenix Press, 200), 149. Note that the number is measured in families, not individuals. Debates persist on the proper multiplier, ranging from 3-5 individuals per family. 14 “Geçid vermiyen nehirler üzerinde inşa edilen köprülere, yolcuları muhafaza etmek şartiyle, civarında bulunan köy halkı derbendci tâyin ediliyordu.” Orhonlu, Derbend Teşkilâtı, 14.

88

executednetworklikethederbendsystem,butanadministrativeandsocialpracticethatis

difficulttocharacterizeasasystematall.Thecontinuousendowmentofproperty,monuments,

andinfrastructurebyindividualsactingthroughtheinstitutionofvaḳıfemergedasthebasic

templateforthearchitecturalpatronagethatsupportedlarge-scaleoverlandtravel,andindeed

muchofthesocialstructureofempire.Describedas“...theubiquitousformalvehiclefor

Muslimmenandwomenwhoownedpropertyoutright,whetherinlargeorsmallholdings,”

vaḳıfendowmentsgeneratedaconstellationofutilitarianandmulti-functionalstructures

throughoutOttomanterritory,adevelopmentthatwasessentialtotheexpansionofoverland

travelalongtheRagusaRoad.15

FromtheearlystagesofOttomanexpansion,modestvaḳıfendowmentscontributedto

mobility.“AtIpsalatherewasavaḳıfcreatedbyacertainResul,whodedicatedaçiftlikforthe

maintenanceofaboat(gemi),bywhichpeopleweretransportedfromonebankoftheriverto

theother.”16Suchhumbleinitiativesweretheseedsofwhataccumulatedintoan

intercontinentalsystemofmobilityOvertime,theimpactofvaḳıf-basedinfrastructure-building

wastransformational.InBosniaandHerzegovina,duringthecourseofthesixteenthcentury,

“232inns,eighteencaravanserais,thirty-twohostels,tenbedestansandforty-twobridgeswere

built.”17FromthefamilycomplexesofthefrontierlordsalongtheViaEgnatia(acrossNorthern

15AmySinger,ConstructingOttomanBeneficence:AnImperialSoupKitcheninJerusalem(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,2002),4.Singerillustratesthelegalbasisofwaqfinhadith(16)andshowspre-IslamicbeneficenttraditionsinJudaism(22)andinearlierByzantineandRomanpractices(23).16 M. Tayyib Gökbilgin, XV-XVI asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa livâsı (Istanbul: Üçler Basımevi, 1952), 296. 17 İnalcık, Classical Age, 148. For a comprehensive look at Ottoman hans and caravanserais in Bosnia, see Hamdija Kreševljaković, Hanovi i Karavansaraji u Bosni i Hercegovini (Sarajevo, 1957).

89

GreeceandAlbania)inthemid-fifteenthcenturytothemonumentalcaravanseraicomplexes

(essentiallyready-builtsettlementsinthemselves)builtfromthesecondhalfofthesixteenth

centuryalongtheViaMilitarisfromIstanbultoBelgrade,Ottomanofficialsusedvaḳıfto

dedicateenormoussumsanddeployvastlaborforcesinthecreationofnew,multi-functional

structuresthatsettledstrategicareas,servedtheneedsoftravelers,andcelebratedthepower

andgenerosityoftheOttomanDynasty.18Inthesparsely-populatedareasawayfromthe

primaryarteriesofstatepower,lesserofficialspopulatedthemountainsandplainswiththeir

ownendowments,leadingtoincreasingcaravantravelacrossformerlyforbiddingareas,

includingthewesternhalfoftheRagusaRoad.19

ThegloryoftheOttomandynastywastypicallyextolledininscriptionsornamenting

vaḳıfstructures,butthecentralstatewasonlygivensecondarycreditforwhatwereclearly

understoodasthebeneficentactsofindividualpatrons.Asİnalcıkclarifies,despitetheolder

Sasaniantraditionof“...theestablishmentoftowns,villages,roadsandbridgesasthe

fundamentaldutyofthesovereign,”thingshadchangedmarkedlybytheOttomanera.“Inthe

Islamicperiodtheideaofpublicworksasapiousorcharitableactsupplantedthistraditionand

18“TheOttomaninstrumentforurbandevelopmentwasthevakıf(piousfoundation,endowment),andbyendowingmosques,caravanserais,schools,libraries,baths,orbridges,patronscouldcontributetothedevelopmentoftheirtownsorvillagesororigins.”MaximilianHartmuth,“De/constructinga‘LegacyinStone’:OfInterpretativeandHistoriographicalProblemsConcerningtheOttomanCulturalHeritageintheBalkans,”MiddleEasternStudies44/5(2008):706.OnthepatronageoftheMarchLords(UçBeyleri)see:MachielKiel,“TheIncorporationoftheBalkansintotheOttomanEmpire,1353-1454”inTheCambridgeHistoryofTurkey,vol1;VassilisDemetriades,“VakıfsalongtheViaEgnatia”inTheViaEgnatiaunderOttomanRuleed.ElisavetZachariadou(Rethymnon:CreteUniversityPress,1996);SlobodanĆurčić,ArchitectureintheBalkans(YaleUniversityPress,2010);HeathLowry,TheShapingoftheOttomanBalkans(Istanbul:BahçeşehirUniversityPublications,2008). 19 “According to an official survey of 1546, there were 2,517 vakıfs which non-royal persons had founded and to which 1,600 new vakıfs were added in the following half-century.” İnalcik, Classical Age, 144.

90

thus,evenwhenundertakenbyasovereign,theycametoberegardedasindependent

institutionsoutsidetherealmofstateactivities.”20Inbuildingtheseindependentinstitutions,

patronsweresimultaneouslyfurtheringtheaimsofthestate,performingabeneficentactfor

thebettermentoftheirsouls,andmakingasecureinvestmentforthebenefitoftheir

descendants.AnyonewhohasseentheIstanbulskylinecanattesttothemagnificenceofthe

SüleymaniyeandtheSultanAhmed(Blue)Mosquecomplexes,bothofwhichwerecreatedas

piousendowments.Yetthepracticewasbynomeanslimitedtosuchelites:

Manypublicleaders—sultansbutalsolocalgovernorsandbureaucratsaswellasalltypesofnotablesatallhierarchicallevels—markedtheirpoliticalpower,oftentransformingandmodifyingthecharacterandtopographyofcitiesandtownsintheprocess,thankstoproceedscomingfromwaḳfassets,byestablishingandsubsidizingreligio-educationalstructures21TheQur’anisfilledwithadmonishmentstogenerosity.22Theinstitutionofvaḳıf(the

TurkishequivalentoftheArabicwaqf),however,isnotmentionedintheQur’anbutisattested

innumeroushadiths,orsayingsattributedtotheProphetMuhammad.23Comingfroman

Arabicrootmeaning“stopping,”thetermcanbetranslatedaseitherpiousorpublic

20 İnalcik, Classical Age, 140. 21 “Waqf,” EI2, subsection “In the Ottoman Empire” by Randi Deguilhem. 22 For example: “Those who spend their wealth [in Allah’s way] by night and by day, secretly and publicly - they will have their reward with their lord.” Qur’an Verse 2-274 (Surah al-Barqah) ‘Sahih International’. 23“AccordingtoIslamictradition,thefirstwaqfwasmadebytheProphetfromthewealthlefttohimbyoneofhisfollowers.Alternatively,thefirstwaqfisascribedto‘Umarb.Al-Khaṭṭab,whoaskedtheProphetwhetherheshouldgiveawayascharity(ṣadaqa)valuablelandshehadreceived.TheProphettoldhim:“inshi‘taḥabbastaaṣlahāwa-taṣaddaqtabihā”(“ifyouwant,retainthethingitselfanddevoteitsfruitstopiouspurposes.”)This‘Umardid,specifyingthatthelandshouldneverbetransferredbysaleorinheritance.”Singer,Constructing,4.

91

endowment.Thingsendowedcouldbeenormous,suchastheSüleymaniyecomplex(where

“Large-scaleurbanutilities,suchasthewatersystem,storehousesforprovisions,

slaughterhouses,etc.,wereallbuiltbytheSultânaspartofthepiousfoundationofthe

mosque”).24Theycouldalsobemodestandhumble:wells,fountains,placesofprayer,small

guesthouses,etc.25Infact,notonlyarchitecturebutallkindsofthingscouldbeendowedas

vaḳıf,includingvillages,gardens,tractsofland,andmoveablepropertysuchasbooksand

Qur’anholders.Animalscouldbeendowedaswell,especiallythoseusedforpurposeslike

pilgrimage.26Evencashcouldbepreservedasvaḳıf,throughthecounter-intuitiveyet

legitimizedpracticeof“usuriouspiety.”27MachielKielcapturesthemultifaceted,seemingly

contradictorymotivationsforapatronofvaḳıfinthecaseofRakkasSinanBeg,anOttoman

officialactiveinBulgariainthesecondhalfofthefifteenthcentury:

ItbecomesclearthattheintentionsofSinanBegweretwofold,acombinationofmagnanimityandconcerntopromoteIslamiccultureinthispartoftheempire,andahealthydowntoearthconcernforthewellbeingofhisdescendants.Itisacombinationofaltruismandself-interestwhichcanbeobservedinmanyOttomanvaḳıfs,andwhichisperhapstheveryreasonwhythesystemworkedsolongandwell.28

24 Halil İnalcik “Istanbul: An Islamic City” Journal of Islamic Studies I (1990): 11. 25 İnalcik, Classical Age, 148. 26 “Waqf,” subsection “In the Ottoman Empire” by Randi Deguilhem, EI2. 27 Jon E. Mandaville, “Usurious Piety: The Cash Waqf Controversy in the Ottoman Empire” International Journal of Middle East Studies 10 (1979): 289-308. 28 Machiel Kiel, “The Vakfnâme of Raḳḳas Sinân Beg in Karnobat (Karîn-âbâd) and the Ottoman Colonization of Bulgarian Thrace (14th-15th century).” Osmanlı Araştırmaları/The Journal of Ottoman Studies I (1980): 24.

92

Thischapterdescribesthemultiplemodesofinfrastructure-creationpracticedbythe

Ottomans,offeringcasestudiesofeach.Despiteoverlapandambiguity,Iarguethefollowingto

bedistinctcategoriesfortheendowmentofpublicworks.Thesedivisionswerenotregulated

throughexplicitlyarticulateddecrees,butgrewoutofpracticeandwereenforcedlargelyby

socialpressures.Generallyspeaking,large-scalepatronagewascarriedoutinthefollowing

ways:

1. Sultanicvaḳıfs2. Centrallyplannedandexecutedprojects(non-vaḳıf)3. GrandVizieralvaḳıfs4. Vaḳıfsbyprovincialofficials(Pashas,Beys,&lowerstatusadministrators)5. Publicworksbynon-stateactors(e.g.derbendvillages,dervishorders)

Categoriesonethroughthreeblurthedistinctionbetweenindividualandstate.Sultans,grand

viziers,androyalfamilymembershadaccesstoenormousstateresources,includingthe

servicesofthechiefarchitect(başmi‛mār),asseeninthecaseoftheBüyükçekmeceBridgeto

thewestofIstanbul.CommissionedbySultanSüleyman,thebridgewasconstructedin1563-

1567byheadarchitectSinan(1489/90-1588),whosecalligraphicsignatureasYusufbin

AbdullahislocatedalongsideinscriptionsinArabicpraisingSultanSüleymanandhissuccessor

SelimII.29Thisedificeisclearlymeanttobereadasbothapersonalactofpatronagebythe

sultanandastateinvestmentinoverlandmobility.30Grandviziers,too,workedona

monumentalscalebyleveragingtheresourcesofempiretomagnifytheimpactoftheir

substantialpersonalassets.WhilethepatronageofOttomansultanswasconcentratedinthe

29 Gülru Necipoğlu, The Age of Sinan: Architectural Culture in the Ottoman Empire (Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2005), 72, 132. 30 Cevdet Çulpan, Türk Tas Köprüleri (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1975), 6-8, 142-147.

93

imperialcapitals,grandviziersoperatedacrossavastgeographicalspace,commissioning

projectsfromHungarytotheArabianPeninsula.31Thesestatesmensupportingtheirpolitical

visionsbyfacilitatingcommunicationandcommerceacrosstheempire'sdomains.

InthecaseoftheRagusaRoad,themoremodestpatronsbelongingtocategoryfour

(provincialofficialsandlocalactors)weretheubiquitousbuildersofinfrastructure;worksby

theuppermosteliteareconspicuouslyrare.Inthe650kmstretchofcaravanroadfrom

DubrovniktoNiš(Serbia)–wheretheRagusaRoadmettheViaMilitaris–Iknowofonlytwo

importantstructuresbuiltbyasultanorgrandvizier:thestonebridgeandnowlost

caravanseraiatTrebinje(Herzegovina,locatedjustinsidetheOttomanborderwiththe

DubrovnikRepublic),andthemosqueofMehmedIIinPristina(Kosovo,locatedonarelatively

minorvariantoftheroad).32ItistruethattheRagusaRoadavoidssuchnearbylocationsas

Skopje,Sarajevo,andMostarwhereexamplesofsuchelitepatronagecanbefound.Thetowns

ofFočaandPljevlje,however,whichalternatedastheadministrativeseatofthesancak

(district)ofHerzegovina,weresubstantialprovincialtownslocateddirectlyonthestandard

routefromDubrovnik.Despitetheirstatus,thepublicmonumentsandinfrastructureofthese

towns(andtheoverwhelmingmajorityofthosefoundalongentirewesternhalfoftheRagusa

Road)wereentirelytheworkofprovincialofficialsandlocalactorsusingvaḳıf.

31 On architecture and the global visions of grand viziers, see Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan, 314-341, 345-368, 578-579; idem, "Connectivity, Mobility, and Mediterranean "Portable Archaeology": Pashas from the Dalmatian Hinterland as Cultural Mediators,” in Dalmatia and the Mediterranean, ed. Alina Payne (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 318-325, 328-332. 32TheArslanagićBridgeinTrebinje(BiH)islikewisetheworkofSokolluMehmedPasha,builtinthenameofhissonKasımPashaandsubsequentlyrenamedforanunknownArslanAğa.SeeNecipoğlu,“Connectivity,"333andfootnote33.

94

Uzunköprü

Fig.1:BridgeandComplexofMuradIIattheErgeneRiver.Lokman,Hünernâme(1584-85).

Inhisaccountoftheconstructionofthe1,329-meter-longstonebridgeatUzunköprü–

thecrowningarchitecturalachievementofSultanMuradIIandstillinusetoday–theOttoman

chroniclerĀşıkpaşazādedoesnotdwellonthestupendousscaleofthemonumentitself.33

Rather,heemphasizestwolessovertlynotableelementsofthestory.First,Āşıkpaşazāde

33 The Uzunköprü Bridge across the Ergene is the longest stone bridge in Ottoman lands, 1,329 meters long, composed of 174 arches, some round and some pointed. Restored in 1963, the bridge remains in use. “Previous attempts to maintain a wooden bridge in this location had failed repeatedly, hence the sultan’s decision to build this stone bridge.” Ćurčić, Architecture in the Balkans, 612.

95

describesthetransformationofwhathadbeenadangerousandunpopulatedobstacleintoa

flourishingsettlement.Next,theauthorforegroundsthehumilityandaccessibilityofthesultan,

downplayingthegrandiosityofhisarchitecturalachievement.Thechapterdescribesindetail

thepersonalroleplayedbyMuradIIintheextensiveceremoniesthataccompaniedthebridge’s

completionin1443.Exemplifyingthelinkagebetweenpiousactandutilitarianachievement,

themodelofUzunköprüwaswidelyemulatedbyviziersandlocalofficialsacrossRumelia.

Āşıkpaşazādebeginstheaccountofthebridge’sconstructionbydescribingthearea

aroundtheErgeneRiver(inTurkishThraceneartheGreekBorder)aswild,depopulated,

dangerous,andmuddy,surroundedbyaforestthatharboredruthlessbrigands.34SultanMurad

II,hewrites,orderedtheforestcutdownandhadthelongbridgeconstructed,accompaniedby

severalrelatedstructuresatbothofthebridge’stwoends.An‘imāret(hospice),amasjid(small

mosque),ahamām(publicbath)andacoveredmarketroundedouttheproject.Soon

afterward,thechronicletellsus,thetownofUzunköprüwasflourishing,inlargepartduetothe

economicopportunitiesprovidedbythenewbridgeandassociatedstructures,andinpartdue

tothefarmlandthatwasdistributedinthevicinityandthetaxexemptionsthatwerehanded

outtothesettlerswhopopulatedthetown.

34BuErgineKöprüsü’nünyerievvelormanlığıdı.Çamurveçökekidi.Veharâmilerdurağıyıdı.Hiçvakitolmayayıdikimandaharâmiadamöldürmeyeyidi.SultanMuradHanGâzihazînevemeblağlarharcetdi.Olormanlarıkırdurdı.Pâketdürdi.Olaradabirâlîbinâyileköprüyapdurdı.Köprününikibaşınıma‘muretdi.Şehiretdi.İmâret,cum‘amescidiyapdı.Hamamvebazarlaryapdı.Gelengidenmüsâfirlereziyâfetlerederler,ni‘metlerbişürürler.Veolvaktinkimimâretyürüdü.SultanMuradkendüsiEdrene’denulemâyıvefukarâyıaldı.Olimâretevardı.Birnicegünziyâfetleretdi.Akçalarveflilorilerüleşdürdı.Evvelta‘ambişdüğıgünkendüsimübârekeliyilenfukarâyaverdi.Veçırağındahikendüuyardı.Veyapanmi‘marahil‘atgeyürdi.Çiftlikyerlerverdi.Olşehrünhalkınıcemî‘avârızdanmu‘afvemüsellemetdi.ĀşıkpaşazādeTarihi,ed.NecdetÖztürk(İstanbul:BilgeKültürSanat,2013):102Bâb,p.152.

96

Âşıkpaşazâde’sadmiringdescriptionofMuradII’spersonalinvolvementinthebanquets

andthedistributionoflargessetothe“‛ulemāvefuḳarā”atthetimeofthebridge’scompletion

certainlyfitsthecritiquesmadebyHalilİnalcıkandCemalKafadaroftheauthor’sidealistic

politicalagenda.35Thesultan’sactionsasdescribedhereservetheneedsofawriterwhowasa

partisanofthelessostentatiouslyverticalmodeofrulepracticedbyearlierOttomansultans

likeMuradII,whichwasabandonedduringthewriter’slifetimeforthecalculatedquasi-divine

remotenessinauguratedbyMehmedII.36Giventheauthor’sknownbias,wecanquestionthe

veracityofthedescriptionofMuradIIgivingoutfoodtothepoor“withhisownblessedhands.”

Leavingthispointaside,thebridgeandbuildingcomplexescertainlydidcomefromthesultan

directly,throughvaḳıf.HereisasovereignwhofitsthemodelofShulgiofAssyriaandthe

Romanemperorsinwhosenamesmonumentalprojectswereconceivedandbuilt.Unlikethe

MostarBridge,thefundsforUzunköprüdidn’tcomefroman‛avārıżtaxonthehouseholdsof

thesurroundingareasorfromaone-timeappropriationofcustomsrevenues.37Rather,itwas

financedfromtheSultan’spersonalrevenuestream.Asaproductofvaḳıf,thebridgeremains

35 ‛ulemā ve fuḳarā is a compact formula that refers to religious authorities, the poor, and members of dervish orders; all of whom were worthy recipients of vaḳıf patronage. 36 “There was obviously much resentment, from various corners, toward Mehmed II’s systematic pursuit of an 'imperial project,' starting with the establishment of Constantinople as the new capital. Much of the resentment found expression in the earlier centralization-cum-imperialization drive attributed to Bâyezid I. But the most sweeping transformation and the broadest-based uproar came toward the end of Mehmed’s reign when he confiscated more than a thousand villages that were held, as freehold or endowment, by descendants of early colonizers, mostly dervishes.” Cemal Kafadar, Between Two Worlds (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), 97. 37 See the following section of this chapter for the funding of the Mostar bridge project.

97

closelyassociatedwiththememoryofSultanMuradII,unlikestructuresbuiltfrompublic

funds.

LiketheMostarBridge,Uzunköprüisatextbookcaseofinvestmentinpublicworksasa

meanstoencouragesettlement,toensuretheeaseandsafetyoftravelers,andtopromote

trafficalongselectedtrajectories.InĀşıkpaşazāde’sclippedprose,SultanMuradII“...hadan

exaltedbridgebuiltinthatplace.Bothendsofthebridgeflourished.Itbecameacity.”38İnalcık

describesthesameprocessingreaterdetail:

Attheheadofthebridgehebuiltahosteltoshelterandfeedtravelers,amosqueandamedrese,andmettheexpensesofthehostelandthecostofmaintainingthebridgeoutoftheincomeofabozashop,bath-houseandshops.Hesupplementedthisincomewiththerevenuesfromacaravanserai,bath-houseandshopswhichhehadbuiltinEdirne.Hesettledpeople,mainlyTurcomannomads,nearby,toguardandmaintainthebridge,inreturnforwhichtheywereexemptedfromtaxation.Ontheotherbankoftheriverhesettledyayas–farmer-soldiers.IntimethepopulationaroundthisnucleusincreasedandthetownofUzunköprücameintobeing.39

Besidesreinforcingamessageofimperialbeneficenceandpiety,theUzunköprübridgeandits

newsettlementincreasedthespeedandreducedthedangerofoverlandtravelthroughthe

creationofanewnodeoftransportationthatdrewsettlersandtravelersaliketowhathad

beenadangerous,muddyobstacle.Theproblemofpopulatingadesertedareaandthe

problemofsettlingadisruptivenomadicgroupwereresolvedinonemovewiththe

38 Āşıkpaşazāde, Tarihi, 102 Bâb, 152. 39Inalcik,ClassicalAge,147.Itisstrikingthatnozâviyeortekkeislistedhere.AsimilarprojectbuiltonlyafewdecadesearlierontheTuncaRiveroutsideEdirnebyMihaloğluBeyin1422wasbuiltaroundadervishcommunity.Located“...oppositethecity,onthemainroadtoSofiaandBelgrade.ItisagoodrepresentativeoftheearlyOttomanzaviye,designedtogiveaccommodationandfoodtothetravelleraccordingtotheethicsofahibrotherhood.”MachielKiel,“TheIncorporation".FormoreontheroleofthezāviyeintheurbanhistoryofEdirneandotherOttomantowns,seeGrigorBoykov,“TheT-shapedZaviye/İmaretsofEdirne:AKeyMechanismforOttomanUrbanMorphologicalTransformation,”JournaloftheOttomanandTurkishStudiesAssociation3:1(May2016):29-48.

98

sedenterizationofTurcomans.40TheresultingtownofUzunköprüislocatedinastrategic

locationatthecenteroftheshortverticallegofrighttriangleformedwiththeViaMilitaristo

thenorthandtheViaEgnatiainthesouth.Althoughsuchpragmaticconcernsarenot

mentionedbythechronicler,thelocationofUzunköprüontheroadthatconnectstheempire’s

secondcapitalofEdirnetothemajorportandnavalbaseofGelibolu/Gallipolicouldhardly

havebeenaccidental.41

TheprocessbywhichsitesofmajorinfrastructuralworkslikeUzunköprüwereselected

remainslittleunderstood.Whomadethedecisionsofwheretoinvestsuchanenormous

expenditureofcapitalandlabor,andonwhatbasis?Howwerethelocationsandthespecific

typesofstructuresdetermined?AsystematiclookatOttomaninvestmentinmobility

infrastructureshowsthatthenode,intandemwiththeroad,wasakeyunitinthelarger

systemofmobilityandcommunications.ThenodescreatedbyOttomanpatronswereready-

madeurbansettlementscreatedeitherexnihilorinpre-existingsettlementsatamultitudeof

locations,includingcrossroads,rivercrossings,andmountainousareas.TheUzunköprübridge

showshowanareathathadbeenadangerousobstacletomobilitycoulddevelopquicklyintoa

keynodethroughthebenevolentactionofasinglepatronorbystateinvestment.Especially

successfulroadtownsdevelopedintoregionaladministrativeandeconomiccenters,further

supportingbothsettlementandoverlandmobility.Spreadingacrossnewlyconquered

territoriesandincreasingdramaticallyoverthefifteenthandsixteenthcenturies,stopping

40 On Ottoman policies towards its nomadic populations, see Reşat Kasaba, A Moveable Empire: Ottoman Nomads, Migrants & Refugees (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2009). 41 Demetriades “Vakıfs,” 85.

99

placeswithhansandcaravanseraiseventuallyreachedadensitywhichensuredthattravelers

werenevermorethanaday’smarchfromasecurehaltingplace,evenwhenmovingacrossthe

mountainousandthinlypopulatedwesternBalkans.42

Mostar

Inthesummerof1565,ordersweresentfromIstanbultotheofficialsofHerzegovina,

requestingtheallocationoffundsfortheconstructionofanewbridgetobebuiltacrossthe

NeretvaRiverinMostar.Theadjacentdistricts(każās)ofMostarandNevesinje,thetaxoffice

ofKilis,andthetaxcollectorofNova(Hercegnovi)wereallinstructedtocollectseveralhundred

thousandakçetocontributetotheconstructioneffort.43KaragözMehmedBeg,patronof

Mostar'sdomedFridaymosqueinMostar(builtbyMimarSinan),wasplacedinchargeof

42 A major section of the system of stopping places can be seen in Hamdija Kreševljaković, Hanovi i Karavansaraji u Bosni i Hercegovini (Sarajevo: Djela, 1957). The author reveals a network of hans and caravanserais in Bosnia which, in the sixteenth century, were located one day's distance apart (p.157). Continuous development of travel infrastructure meant that by the seventeenth century, the density of stopping places doubled with a han or caravanserai at every half day of travel. Existing in parallel and frequently overlapping with the overland travel system was the menzil system of swift overland communication. On the mezil system, see two works by Colin Heywood: “The Ottoman Menzilhane and Ulak System in Rumeli in the Eighteenth Century,” in Osman Okyar and Halil Inalcik eds., Türkiye’nin Sosyal ve Ekonomik Tarihi (Ankara, 1980): 179-186, and “The Menzilhanes of the Sol Kol in the late 17th/early 18th Century,” in Zachariadou, Via Egnatia, 129-144. 43“HerseksancakbeyineveNevesinKadısınahüküm,”BOA,MAD,2775,s.81.CitedinIdrisBostan,StariMostuOsmanskimDokumentima/TheOldBridgeinOttomanDocuments(Mostar:MuseumofHerzegovina,2010),26.OntheMostarBridge,seeAndrejAndrejević,"NeimarHajreddiniNjegovRaduHercegovini,"Hercegovina7-8(1900),39-51;Çulpan,TürkTaşKöpruleri;DžemalČelić,StarimostoviuBosniiHercegovini(Sarajevo:Sarajevo-Publishing,1998),AmirPašić,TheOldBridge(StariMost)inMostar(Istanbul:ResearchCentreforIslamicHistory,ArtandCulture,1995);HivzijaHasandedić,MostarskiVakifiiNjihoviVakufi(Mostar:MedžlisIslamskeZajednice,2000)AndrásJ.Riedlmayer,"FromtheAshes:ThePastandFutureofBosnia'sCulturalHeritage,"inIslamandBosnia,ed.MayaShatzmiller(Montreal:McGill-QueensUniversityPress,2002),98-135;GülruNecipoğlu,AgeofSinan,155,441,565;idem"Connectivity,"346-49.

100

overseeingtheconstructionofwhatwouldbecometheMostarbridge,builtbytheroyal

architectMimarHayrüddin.44KaragözMehmed(alsoknownas'al-HajjMehmedBegal-Za'īm)

wasmuḳaṭa'anâzırı(fiscalsuperintendent)ofthesancakofHerzegovina.Heemergesfroma

seriesofḥükümsasthedominantorganizationalfigureonthegroundinMostar;thiswasthe

manwithwhomOttomanofficialsinIstanbulcommunicatedregardingcosts,modifications,

andfundingsources.45Aḥükümsentonthe16thofDecember,1565givesafigureof40,000

akçerequiredatoncetobegintheprocurementofnecessarybuildingmaterials:stone,wood,

leadandiron.46

Theelegantsingle-archedspan,alongwiththetowersthatmarkitsoppositesides,was

completedswiftly(in974/1566),andadornedwiththefollowingchronogram,whichpraises

thereigningSultanSüleymanandhisgreat-grandfatherMehmedII,whoseearlierbridgewas

replacedbythenewstructure:

RûhuSultanMehemmed’inolaşâdKıldıbunungibihayreseriHemSüleymân-ızamânsağolsunDevletibuldubinâyazaferi

44 Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan, 441. On Mimar Hayrüddin in the Ottoman corps of royal architects, see Age of Sinan, 153-57, 565. See also Semavi Eyice, "Hayreddin, Mimar" in TDV Islâm Ansiklopedesi vol. 17, p. 56. 45“HersekSancağıMukataaNâzırıZaimMehmed’ehüküm,”BOA,MAD,2775,s.433,citedinBostan,StariMost,29-30.Sixteenth-centuryOttomanbuildingpracticesincludedstandardizedpricesformaterialsandlabor—bothskilledandunskilled.OnthissubjectseeCengizOrhonlu,“Köprücülük,"VIITarihKongresi,Vol.2,Ankara1973;CengizOrhonlu,OsmanliImparatorluğundaŞehircilikveUlasim(Izmir:EgeUniversitesiEdebiyatFakültesi,1984),ŞerafettinTuran,“OsmanlıTeşkilâtındaHassaMimarları,”TarihAraştırmalarıDergisi1(1963):157-202;andSevgiAktüre,“MimarbaşıSinanandtheBuildingPracticesoftheOttomanState,”EnvironmentalDesign5/6:98-105.46 “[Mostar] Kadısına ve Hersek Mukataa Zazırı Zaim Mehmed’e hüküm,” BOA, MAD, 2775, s. 641, cited in Bostan, Stari Most, 30-31.

101

Sa’y-iNâzırileoldubutamâmYazdıtârîhini“kudretkemeri” 974(1566)47MaythesoulofSultanMehmedrejoice,ForleavingbehindsuchanobledeedAnd(sultan)Süleyman—mayhebewellForinhisreignvictoriouslywastheworkcompletedWiththeeffortsofthemonitorthebridgewasfinishedAndthechronogramwritten:“TheArchAlmighty”48

TheinscriptionshowsproperdeferencetothetwogreatOttomanrulerswhilealsoslyly

managingtoattributefinalcredittheprojectoverseer–presumablyKaragöz(Zaim)Mehmed)–

whoseeffortsensuredthatthestructurecametogetherflawlessly.49Thechronogram’s

completiondateshowsthephenomenalpaceofconstruction.Thebridgewasfinishedlessthan

oneyearafterfinancialarrangementsandcallsforlaborwerebeingsentoutfromIstanbul

(thesecontinueduntilatleastDecember1565[finance]andMarch1566[labor]).Thespeedof

constructionandtheextraordinaryqualityanddurabilityofthebridgeitselfareindicationsofa

well-organized,highlymotivatedeffortcarriedoutbyaskilledlaborforce.

47 Mehmed Mujezinović, Islamska epigrafika BiH, knjiga 3 (Sarajevo, 1982), 149. 48 Transliteration and English translation from Bostan, Stari Most, 14. 49Thespeedofconstructionisevenmoreimpressivewhenconsideringthebridge’sbolddesign.TheMostarBridge’scentralspan(28.7meters)isgreaterthanthespanofthedomeofSüleymaniyeCamii(26.5meters)andonlyslightlysmallerthanthatofSelimiyeCamii(31.28meters).“Thearchspanofover28meterswasanimpressiveengineeringachievementforitstime.”Ćurčić,ArchitectureintheBalkans,785.

102

Acentrally-plannedproject,theStariMostwasbuiltbytheroyalarchitectHayrüddinin

theSultan’snamebutnotwithhispersonalfunds:itwasnotavaḳıfendowment.50Rather,it

waspaidforwithfundsleviedacrossabroadregiontocreateastructurethatboostedthe

economiccapacityofakeyregionnearacontestedborder.51Inadditiontofunds,documents

senttothesancakbeyiofHerzegovina,thekadiofNova,andtothebeysofDubrovnikinMarch,

1566alsocontainedrequestsforworkersforbridgeconstruction,revealinghowtheSublime

Portewasabletochoreographlaborsolutionstoprojectsdistantfromthemetropolis.52The

lettertoDubrovnikspecificallyrequestsustaandḳalfa(mastersandoverseers),anindication

thatthecity’sfamedstonemasonswererequiredinMostar.53FromHerzegovinaandthe

DalmatiancityofHercegnovi,hiṣārerleri(castleworkers/guards)includingguardsfromthe

50 Note that the inscription specifies only that it was built in the time of Sultan Süleyman, rather than explicitly crediting him as its patron. 51 It has been pointed out that a number of strategic infrastructural improvements were made in Dalmatia (near the Ottoman border with the Venetian Stato da Mar) in the years leading up to the Ottoman-Venetian War of 1570-73, which saw the Ottoman conquest of Cyprus and the Holy League’s victory at the Battle of Lepanto (1568-71). See Necipoğlu, “Portable Archaeology,” 346. 52 "Masons from Dubrovnik were employed in other Ottoman building projects in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including the aforementioned caravansaray and bridge that Sokollu Mehmed Pasha commissioned in Trebinje for the soul of his late son. In these cross-cultural exchanged, architectural knowledge mush have flowed in both directions." Necipoğlu, "Connectivity," 347. 53 “Dubrovnik beylerine hüküm,” BOA, MAD, 2775, s. 1061, cited in Bostan, Stari Most, 34-35. The Dubrovnik archives reveal the frequency with which Ragusan artisans and skilled workers were sent to work on Ottoman projects. This was one way of fostering good relations with the leaders of adjoining provinces. “In making the most of their neighborly relationship, the Ragusans attended to various kinds of construction and engineering projects by providing skilled craftsmen from Dubrovnik (builders, stonemasons, limeburners, miners) for the reconstruction of the harbour in Gabela, construction of fortification walls, towers and forts, building bridges, wells, public buildings in Nadin, Skadar, Herceg-Novi, Foča, Pljevlja, Mostar, Klobuk, Onogošt, Trebinje, Ljubinje, and Slano in Popovo polje. Ragusan ship builders and constructors built boats in Gabela.” Vesna Miović, “Beylerbey of Bosnia and Sancakbey of Herzegovina in the Diplomacy of the Dubrovnik Republic” Dubrovnik Annals 9 (2005): 58.

103

fortressesofBlagajandMostarwereinstructedtobetransferredtothebridge’slaborpool.In

addition,ustalar(masters)fromPopovainthekażāofHercegnoviwererequested.54

Ottomandocumentsshowmorethanaunidirectionalmodelinwhichthecapital's

commandswerecarriedoutintheprovincesbyatalentedadministrator.Theyalsorecord

significantinput(andresistance,insomecases)fromlocalactors,andawillingnessonthepart

ofthecentertoaccommodatereasonablerequests.TheVlachpopulationofNevesinjeKaza,for

example,successfullycontestedthe30akçe‛avārıż(exceptional)taxlevieduponeachoftheir

householdsforbridgeconstruction,pointingoutthattheirregionwasalreadypoorinarable

landandfurthermoresufferingfromdrought.55ThepopulationofMostarmadeitknownto

projectoverseerKaragözMehmedthatonesideoftheNeretvawaschronicallyshortofwater.

Theyrequestedthatthebridgedesignbeamendedtoincludeawaterpipebringingwaterfrom

theoppositeside,andthesuperintendentdulyreportedtherequesttothecentralauthorities.

TheresponsefromIstanbulwaspositivewiththecaveatthatthenewwaterdistributionsystem

shouldnotdamagethebridgeinanyway.Therequesterswouldbeliableforanyunforeseen

damages.56

54“HerseksancakbeyineveNovakadısınahüküm,”BOA,MAD,2775,s.1061,citedinBostan,StariMost,34.TheparticipationofDubrovnik’sstonemasonshasbeenattestedinmanyOttomanprojectsinthewesternBalkans.SeeMachielKiel,“Thecampanile-minaretsofthesouthernHerzegovina:ablendofIslamicandChristianelementsinthearchitectureofanoutlyingborderareaoftheBalkans,itsspreadinthepastandsurvivaluntilourtime.”ProceedingsfromCentresandperipheriesinOttomanarchitecture:rediscoveringaBalkanheritage,MaximilianHartmuth,ed.(Sarajevo,2011)andCvitoFiskovic,“DubrovaciiprimorskigraditeljiXIII-XVIstoljea”(ConstructeursdeDubrovnikedduLittoral)Peristil5(1962):36-44.55 BOA, MAD, 2775, s. 81, cited in Bostan, Stari Most, 26. 56 BOA, MAD, 2775, s. 1023, cited in Bostan, Stari Most, 32.

104

TheconstructionoftheMostarBridgedemonstratestheOttomanstate’sseemingly

effortlessabilitytoundertakepublicworksprojectsinacentralizedmode.Theroyalarchitect

Hayrüddin,workingwithalocaloverseer,deployedresourcestoovercomeanobstacle–the

Neretva–onitsdistantwesternborders.The“infrastructurestate”inwhichacentralized

hegemonicpowerisableto“penetratecivilsocietyandimplementlogisticallypolitical

decisionsthroughouttherealm”hasbeenbroadlyunderstoodasanessentialattributeof

contemporary,industrializedpolities.57YettheplanningandexecutionoftheStariMostproject

showsanefficientandpowerfulOttomanbureaucraticapparatusabletocoordinatecomplex

projectswithprecisionandflexibilityacrossgreatdistances.Idonotwishtousethisexample

torehashanargumentaboutperiodizationordefinitionsofmodernity.Rather,themost

strikingelementoftheMostarBridgeprojectishowrarelythesekindsofcentrallyplannedand

controlledconstructionprojectswereexecutedinthewesternBalkans.58

TheconstructionofMostar'sbridgeconfirmstheempire'simpressiveplanningand

logisticalcapabilities.ThegeneraldisinclinationonthepartoftheOttomanstatetobuildinthis

modeinthewesternborderlandshadnothingtodowithinstitutionalcapacity.Rather,itshows

howtwoparallelmodes–centralizedandperipheral–botheffective,tookplace

57 Michael Mann, “The Autonomous Power of the State” Archives europénnes de sociologie 25/2 1984: 189. For a compelling case study of road construction and state formation in 18th and 19th-century Britain, see Jo Guldi, Roads to Power (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012). A late Ottoman example is Fulya Özkan’s doctoral dissertation, “A Road in Rebellion, a History on the Move: the Social History of the Trabzon-Bayezid Road and the Formation of the Modern State in the Late Ottoman World” (Binghamton University, New York, 2012). 58 Another centrally-planned project in the region was the fortress constructed by Mimar Hayrüddin (also with the support of paid Ragusan masons) in 1568 at the Ottoman port of Makarska, between Split and Dubrovnik. Necipoğlu, "Connectivity," 346.

105

simultaneously.Thelarge-scalepatronageofcentralauthoritieslikeRüstemPashaandSokollu

MehmedPashaconcentratedonthecentralaxesofOttomancirculation,fromextendingfrom

CentralEuropetothePersianGulfandtheRedSea.59InwesternRumelia,despiteoccasional

projectslikethebridgeinMostarandTrebinje,mostroadarchitecturewasbuiltthroughthe

decentralized,individualpiousactionsofregionalgovernorsandlocalofficials.Thesixteenth-

centuryboominarchitecturalandinfrastructuralconstructionthattransformedtheOttoman

landssurpassedthelogisticallimitsofthecentralizedsystembyharnessingthetremendous

productivityofofficialsintheprovincesactingontheirowninitiativethroughtheinstrumentof

vaḳıf.Ratherthanan“infrastructuralstate,”whatemergesisaninfrastructuralclass:abroad

stratumofofficialsholdingarangeofadministrativepositionsforwhomthebuildingofbridges

andcaravanserais,plusinnumerablemosques,medreses,hamāms,markets,andwater

systemsandwasbothacontinuouspractice,apragmaticinvestment,and,itwouldappear,an

unspokenobligationtotheOttomandynasty.

OttomanOfficials,Vaḳıf,andInfrastructure

Theinstitutionofvaḳıfwaswell-suitedforbuildingaflexibleoverlandtransport

network.Comparedtothemonumentalchallengeofbuildingaxialpavedhighwaysinthe

Romanstyle,thecaravans,bridges,markets,mosquesandhamāmsthatdefinedOttoman

stoppingplaceswereself-supportingandcomparativelysimpletobuild.EvliyaÇelebi’s

travelogue(Seyahatnâme)illustratesthealacritywithwhichanofficialcouldproducean

59 Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan 578-579, "Connectivity," 331-332.

106

endowedmonument,showingasenseofdutytothedynasticorderconjoinedwithanalmost

spontaneousgestureofpiousmagnanimity.TravelingacrossKosovoPolje–thePlainofKosovo

–in1660(thelocationofatransformativebattlein1389andahighly-contestedspace

today)EvliyaÇelebiandhispatronMelekAhmedPashawereshockedbythedilapidationofthe

monumenttoSultanMuradI(r.1362-89)whowaskilledonthebattlefield:

AstrangethingoccurredasweenteredthismausoleumofKosovoPolje.EventheskirtofourmasterMelekAhmedPashawasbesmirchedwithfilth.ItseemsthatalltherayahinfidelsfromthesurroundingvillagesusedtostopatthismausoleumontheirwaytoPrishtinaandVushtrriaand,asaninsult,useitasaprivy.MelekAhmedPashabecameenragedwhenhesawthestenchandthefilth.60

InEvliya’stelling,hetookituponhimselftoinflamehispatron’srighteousindignationinto

piousaction,contrastingthedegradedtürbe(mausoleum)withaluxuriouslyappointed

OrthodoxChristianMonasterylocatednearby.Evliyacloseshiscasebypointingtotheease

withwhichanewandappropriatelyresplendentmemorialstructurecouldbebuiltand

maintained:“WithoneloadofakçedrawnfromthehasofZveçan,strongwallscouldbebuilt

arounditandakeepercouldbeappointedtoliveherewithhisfamily.”61MelekAhmed,beinga

righteousandwealthyman,acceptstheproposalandthesiteisswiftlytransformedthroughhis

magnanimity,restoringthehonoroftheHouseofOsman,asEvliyaexplains:

Therefore,thePashagavethepopulaceofthevilayettwopurses[500kuruşeach]ofkuruşandsummonedtherayahfromthesurroundingareatocleanupthemausoleum.Inoneweektheybuiltahighwallwithaloftygatearoundthemausoleumsothatpeopleonhorsebackcouldnotgetin.Theyalsoplanted500fruittreesanddugawell.Akeeperwasappointedtolivetherewithhisfamily,receivingaregularsalaryfromthe

60EvliyaÇelebi,Seyahatnâmesi,vol.5,167a-169a;RobertDankoffandRobertElsie,EvliyaÇelebiinAlbaniaandadjacentregions(Kosovo,Montenegro,Ohrid):therelevantsectionsoftheSeyahatnameeditedwithtranslation,commentary,andintroduction(Leiden,Boston,Köln:Brill,2000),19.61 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatnâmesi, vol. 5, 21.

107

voyvodaofZveçan.Hisdutywastocareforthesilkcarpets,candlesticks,censers,rose-watercontainersandlampsintheradiantmausoleum.Atthesametime,thenotablesofthevilayetappointedanofficialtooverseethischaritableinstitution.Thus,agreatactofcharitywasaccomplished,andnowithasbecomeapilgrimagesite––God’smercybeuponhim!62

Evliya’stellingofthestorynaturallycompressesthenarrative(itisdoubtfulthatthe

perimeterwallandgatewasbuiltinoneweek),buthisaccountpointstoalargertruth.Melek

Ahmed’stransformationofthemausoleumofMuradIshowshowoneofficial’srelatively

minimalinterventioncantransformamonumentandimpactbroaderpatternsofmobility

aroundit.Evliya’scelebrationofthemonument’snewfunctionasapilgrimagesiteillustrates

thetightlyboundrelationshipbetweenpersonalpiety,dynasticreverence,andpatternsof

movement,functioninginmuchthesamewayasMuradII’sbridgeandsettlementat

Uzunköprü,albeitonasmallerscale.WithanentireofclassofOttomanofficialsgiventhe

motivationandthemeanstobuildsimilarlyproductivestructures,thebuiltlandscapeofthe

Ottomanprovinceswastransformedandthebarrierstooverlandtravelwerecontinuously

lowered.Thefollowingsectionsinvestigatethisprocess,dividingthecategoryofnon-royal

patronsintotwosubcategories:grandviziers,whoseaimswereoftenparallelwiththoseofthe

empire;andlowerrankingofficials,whowereinstrumentalinconstructingtheroad

architectureoftheirlocalregions.

62 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatnâmesi, vol. 5, 21.

108

GrandViziers

AfterextollingthevirtueofSultanMuradforhisbeneficentgenerosityatUzunköprü,

ĀşıkpaşazādegoesontoprovideasurveyofendowmentsbuiltbymembersoftheOttoman

elite.Theauthortakesitasagiventhatthesultan’sactionsareaparadigmtobeemulatedby

hisleadingofficials.63Onechapterofhischronicleisdevotedtothedescriptionofpiousworks

of32namedofficials,comprising54individual‘imarets,mosques,medreses,zāviyesandother

publicworksbuiltacrosstheempire.64Followingthisimpressivelistofvaḳıfconstructions,

Āşıkpaşazādeanticipatesthereader’sconfusionregardingthemotiveforallthisconstruction.

Thetextseguesintoadiscussionoftheessentialfunctionofvaḳıf-basedmonuments,shifting

toadiscursiverhetoricalmodetomakehisargumentastransparentaspossible:

Question: O Dervish, these great medreses and great ‘imârets built by the OttomanDynasty,was their intention to create flourishing provinces or to create a flourishingafterlife?Answer:Tocreateaflourishingafterlife.Andalltheviziers’‘imâretsmaybeunderstoodthus,thattheirpiousintentionswerelinkedtothepiousintentionsofthePadişah.With‘imârets,thetracesofintentionaresometimesvisibleandsometimesinvisible.65

Thechronicle’sunambiguousexplanationoftheintentionofvizieralfoundationsbeliesthe

inherentlackofclarityaboutthepurposeofvaḳıfendowments,whichisevidentinthe

questionitself.WhywouldĀşıkpaşazādefeelcompelledtoincludesucharhetoricaldeviceif

63“...severalofMurad’sdignitariesfollowedhisexampleandimprovedtheroutebyfoundingvariousinstitutionsandendowingthemwithvakıfs.”Demetriades,“Vakıfs,”89.64ĀşıkpaşazādeTarihi,ed.NecdetÖztürk(Istanbul:BilgeKültürSanat,2013),293-299, 65ĀşıkpaşazādeTevarih-iÂl-i‘Osman,ed.AliBey(Istanbul:Matbaa-yiÂmire,1914),194.Englishtranslationmine.

109

therehadnotbeendivergentunderstandingsofthesystem’sessentialvalue?This

conventional,prescriptivedialogueemphasizesthepiousaspectsofpatronage,butinsodoing

revealsapragmaticunderstandingoftheways‘imāretsandothermonumentswerebeingused

tocreate“flourishingprovinces.”Inaclassical‘mirrors-for-princes’convention,thepossibility

ofworldlymotivesinthebuildingofpiousendowmentsisdeflecteddownwardonthesocial

hierarchy.Laterinthesectiontheauthorattributesthesebasermotivestothestewardsof

viziers(kethüdas)duetotheirsusceptibilitytothewordsof“commonpeople”and

“uneducatedclasses.”66

ItisdifficulttooverstatetheimportanceofthegrandviziersRüstemPasha(grandvizier

1544-1553,1555-1561)andSokolluMehmedPasha(grandvizier1565-1579)increatingthe

flourishingprovincesofthesixteenth-centuryOttomanempire.Theirexceptionalcareersas

patronsincludedtremendousoutlaysspentondozensofarchitecturalprojects.67Great

builders,thepositionofthesemenatthesummitofOttomanpowercausesthedistinction

betweenindividualpiousactionandstate-ledbuildingprogramtocollapse.SokolluMehmed,in

particular,hasbeendescribedasthe“virtualemperor"oftheOttomandominions.”68Heused

allthemechanismsofstateavailabletohimtocompletehisfar-flungprojectsinan

astonishinglyshortperiodoftime.DuringtheconstructionoftheHavsacaravanseraicomplex

(ontheroadtoEdirne,itwasbuiltinthenameofhisson,KasımPasha),thevizierdidnot

66 Āşıkpaşazāde, Tevarih-i Âl-i ‘Osman, 194. 67 Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan, 314-341, 345-368, 578-579; idem, "Connectivity," 318-325, 328-332. See also James D. Tracy, “The Grand Vezir and the small republic: Dubrovnik and Rüstem Paşa, 1544-1561,” Turkish Historical Review 1 (2010): 196-214. 68 Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan, 347.

110

hesitatetoinvolvesubordinateofficialsintheconstructionofhisendowment.GülruNecipoğlu

haslocateddecreessentbySokolluMehmedto“thekadisofBulgaria,”in1573and1575

orderingthemtoprovidecartsneededtotransportleadfromSofiafortheroofsofSokollu's

Havsacomplex.69

Thedistancebetweenthesegreat16thcenturyviziersandthesovereignstheyserved

narrowsevenfurtherwhenconsideringthatthesemenwerenotonlythefunctionalheadsof

empire,but,ashusbandsofOttomanprincesses,theywerein-lawsoftheroyalline.70The

powerandprestigeofthesetwodevşirmeproductsisreflectedinthefactthatoftheOttoman

elite,onlytheywereabletobuildfoundationsinthecentralareasofConstantinople,while

otherviziersoftheirtimewereconfinedtotheareasaroundthecitygatesandinthe

provinces.71

AmapofthemonumentsendowedbyRüstemandSokolluMehmedPashacorresponds

closelywiththemajorarteriesofimperialpowerfromCentralEuropetotheArabianPeninsula.

Military,commercialandpilgrimageroutes;theseweretheprimarychannelsofmobilityinthe

Ottomanworld.72VaḳıfendowmentsdotalineofpatronageacrossOttomanterritory,linking

69 Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan, 444-445. 70RüstemPashawasmarriedtoMihrimahSultan,daughterofKanuniSüleymanandHürremSultan(Roxelana),herselfaprominentpatronwithcommissionscompletedbyMimarSinan.SokolluMehmedmarriedEsmahanSultan,daughterofSelimIIandgranddaughterofKanuniSüleyman.GillesVeinstein,“SoḳolluMeḥmedPasha,”EI2. 71Someexamplesofpatronageawayfromthecitycenter:KaraAhmedPasha(TopkapıGate),HadimIbrahimPasha(Silivrikapı),KazaskerIvazEvendi(Eğrikapi),ZalMahmudPasha(Eyüp).SeeStephaneYerasimos,“SinanandhisPatrons:ProgrammeandLocation”MimarSinantheUrbanVision,publishedinEnvironmentalDesign,JournaloftheIslamicEnvironmentalDesignResearchCentre,ed.AttiloPetruccioli.5/6:129.72Necipoğlu,AgeofSinan,578-579;idem,“Connectivity,"331-332.

111

BelgradetoAleppothroughthefulcrumpointofIstanbul.Inthecaseofthecommercially

mindedRüstemPasha,endowmentsareconcentratedbetweentheMarmaraSearegionand

thetradingcitiesofeasternAnatoliaandwesternIran.73

RüstemPasha,ofDalmatianorigins,builthiscelebratedtile-coveredmosqueinthe

heartofIstanbul’scommercialcenteramongtheshopsaroundtheEgyptianMarket(Mısır

Çarşısı).Hislarge-scalepatronagecanalsobeseenasanindicationofhismercantileconcerns.

Thebedestān(asecurecoveredmarket)hebuiltinthedevelopingcityofSarajevowascalled

the“BedestānofBursa,”dueoftheabundanceofBursasilkstobefoundthere.74Onethe

perimeteroftheOttomanworld,RüstembuiltbedestānsinthecitiesofAfyon,Van,Erzurum,

andErzincan,allneartheborderofSafavidIran,whichalsoplayedamajorroleintheglobalsilk

trade.Rüstem’sbrotherSinanPasha,whoservedassancakbeyiofHerzegovina,builtamosque

withanelementaryschoolnearFoča–animportanttownontheRagusaRoad–andanother

73 Cumulatively, it has been observed that the endowments made by these two statesmen strongly favor the eastern provinces: “We find foundations in the capital, Mecca and/or Medina, and in the newly conquered territories north of the Danube – Sava line – all of which, one could argue, would be expected of Ottoman dignitaries of their rank – but most in fact are in the Asian parts of the empire. Of the 72 Ottoman towns they bestowed with endowments only five were in Bosnia...” Hartmuth, “Legacy in Stone,” 707. 74 Rüstem Pasha also commissioned “five stone bridges in the sanjak of Bosnia that were accompanied by paved roads, a caravansaray, a thermal bath, a public fountain, and a bedesten. Built in Sarajevo in 1551, the latter is an extant covered bazaar with six hemispherical domes, which was known as the Bedesten of Bursa because it specialized in the sale of Ottoman silk brocades made in that Anatolian city.” Necipoğlu, “Portable Archaeology,” 330. See also Aydın Yüksel, “Sadrazam Rüstem Paşanın Vakıfları,” in Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi Hatıra Kitabı (Istanbul, 1995): 219-281.

112

elementaryschoolinSarajevo.75SinanBeyalsopursuedthedevelopmentofHercegNovi,a

portunderdirectOttomancontrollocatedimmediatelytothesouthofRagusanterritory.76

IfRüstemPashasetanewstandardforthepatronageofinfrastructure,his

accomplishmentsweresooneclipsedbythoseoftheBosnian-bornstatesmanSokolluMehmed

Pasha.ThecaravanseraicomplexesbuiltbySokolluMehmedwerelavishvaḳıfendowments

representingtheapogeeofOttomansettlement-buildingthroughindividualpatronage.Unlike

Rüstem,Sokolluwascomfortableprojectingimperialpowerfarbeyondthealreadydistant

borders.77Nevertheless,likemanyboyswhowerebroughttotheOttomancapitalasdevşirme

recruits,SokolluMehmedmaintainedclosetiestohishomeland,wherehebuiltseverallarge-

scaleprojects.78ThebridgeatVišegradthatstillbearshisnameanddedicatoryinscription

remainsthedominantarchitecturalfeatureofeasternBosnia,andapotentreminderof

Ottomanimperialpowerandvision.79Another,lesser-knownstonebridgewasbuiltbythe

vizierinmemoryofhisson,KurdKasımPasha,whodiedin1572.CrossingtheTrebnišnjicaRiver

75 Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan, 418-419. 76Despitethisseeminglyhostileactionbyhisbrother(fromtheRagusanperspective,atleast),RüstemPashamaintainedextensiveandlucrativecontactswithDubrovnik'smerchant-diplomats.HeseemstohaveusedthevassalstateasavehicletoprocurelargenumbersofhighqualityluxurytextilesfromtheItalianPeninsula,especiallyfromVenice.RüstemandtheRagusanpoklisari(tributeambassadors)couldspeaktogetherintheGrandVezir'snativeSlaviclanguage,whichmaypartlyexplainhisrelianceonDubrovnik,ratherthanapproachingtheBailoinConstantinople.SeeTracy,“TheGrandVezir,"214.77 See Giancarlo Casale, The Ottoman Age of Exploration (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012, esp. chapters 4 and 5. 78 Metin Kunt, “Ethnic-Regional (Cins) Solidarity in the Seventeenth-Century Ottoman Establishment” International Journal of Middle East Studies 5 (1974). 79 “He was especially concerned with such utilitarian structures as caravanserais and bridges which would facilitate traffic and communications in Rūmeli, such as the bridge at Višegrad on the Drina and other lesser known ones, e.g. at Trebnišnjica in Herzegovina.” Veinstein, “Sokollu,” EI2.

113

inTrebinje(BiH),approximately30kminlandfromDubrovnikontheRagusaRoad,itis

popularlyknowntodayastheArslanagićBridge.80Thebridgewascompletedsometime

between1572and1574(aswiththeMostarBridge,Ragusanstonemasonscontributedskilled

labor).81TheFrenchtravelerPierreLescalopiercrossedtheTrebinjebridgeonthe11thof

March,1574,shortlyafteritscompletion.Thisoutsider,describinghisveryfirstdayoftravelin

Ottomanterritory,wasabletocorrectlyascertainthebridge’spatron(“MechmetBassade

SolimanII”)andevenhisintentiontohonorthememoryofand“deprierDieupoursonfilz.”82

Lescalopier’saccountshowstheclaritywithwhichOttomanworksofinfrastructure

communicatedtheirrhetoricalaswellaspracticalfunction.Theidealexpressedby

Āşıkpaşazādeofvaḳıfstructures“creatingaflourishingafterlife”iscogentlyparaphrasedbythe

admiringFrenchtraveler.

SokolluMehmed’selegantbridgesrevealthestatesman’sattachmenttohishomeland

andfamilialroots.Thepasha’spragmaticcommitmenttofosteringoverlandcommerceand

80ThebridgeandcomplexatTrebinjeisaclearinstanceof16thcenturyOttomanpatronagefavorabletocommunicationswiththeRagusaRepublic.Ayverdidescribesitsintentionallocationonthe“traderoadfromDubrovnik”EkremHakkiAyverdi,Avrupa’daOsmanlıMimârîEserleri:Yugoslavya,IICild,3Kitab(Istanbul:IstanbulFetihCemiyeti,1981),470.Necipoğluagrees,writing:“Thoseroadsidecomplexes[ofSokolluMehmedPasha]aimedtocultivatecommercialrelationswiththeportofRagusa(Dubrovnik).”...Only31kilometerseastofRagusa,alongthatinlandroute,wasthetownofTrebinjeinHerzegovina,whereSokolluMehmedPashaimprovedtravelconditionsbycommissioningabridgeandcaravansaraycomplexcommemoratinghislateson,sothattravelerswould‘prayforhissoul.’Thesestructureswerebuiltbetween1572and1574bylocalstonemasonsimportedfromDubrovnik.”Necipoğlu,“Connectivity,"333.ThevakfiyeofKasımPashamentionstwostructuresbuiltbyhisfather,SokolluMehmed:thecaravansarycomplexatHavsa,Turkey,andthe“longbridge”inHerzegovina,whichwasaccompaniedbyacaravansaray,masjid,sourceofrunningwater,andpavedroadsections.”SeeNecipoğlu,AgeofSinan,444.

81 Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan, 444. 82 Cited in Edmond Cleray, “Le Voyage de Pierre Lescalopier, Parisien: de Venise à Constantinople, l’an 1574,” Revue d’Histoire Diplomatique 35 (1921): 27.

114

mobilityisreflectedinthearrayofextraordinarycaravanseraicomplexesacrossOttoman

territory,whichwerenaturallycommissionedaspiousendowments.TheVenetianbailoPaolo

Contarini,whocrossedRumeliaviatheRagusaRoadinthesummerof1580,wroteadmiringly

ofMehmedPasha’sbridgeandcaravanseraiinTrebinjeaswellashisedificesinHavsaand

Lüleburgaz.Thesesettlements(alongwiththeBabaeskicomplexbuiltbySinanforSemizAli

Pasha)contributedtoamagnificentimperialcorridorbetweenEdirneandIstanbul,“an

impressivegrandentryforEuropeanambassadorsandtouristsontheirwaytothecapital.”83At

LüleburgaztheVenetiannotedthemosque,the“bellissimobagno”(hamām),andthedouble

caravanserai,allofwhichwasbuiltforSokollubyMimarSinanasoneoftheempire’smost

elaboratestoppingplaces.Beyondshelter,Contarininotedthegeneroussustenancethat

SokolluMehmed’sendowmentprovidedforwayfarers:“Theyservethreemealsadaytothose

wholodgeinthe48rooms.Inthemorningandeveningtheygiverice,bread,andmeat,and

applesandbreadatmidday.”84SokolluMehmed’scompleximitatedtheexampleofMuradII’s

pragmaticpietyinmanyways.Itfosteredconnectivity,createdasettlementinastrategicarea,

andadvertisedthewealthandpoweroftheOttomanstate.AsContarini’scommentsindicate,

thecomplexalsoperformedthebeneficentactionofnourishingtravelers,acategorysingled

outinahadithforparticularattention.85

83 Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan, 72. 84PaoloContarini,DiariodelViaggiodaVeneziaaCostantinopoli(Venice:TeresaGattri,1856),36.85 “ʿUmar had acquired land in Ḵẖaybar and came to the Prophet to consult him in this matter saying: 'O Messenger of God, I have acquired land in Ḵẖaybar which is more precious to me than any property I have ever acquired.' He [Muḥammad] said: 'If you want, make the land itself unalienable and give [the yield] away as alms (in sẖiʿta ḥabbasta aṣlahā wa-taṣaddaḳta bihā ).' He (Ibn ʿUmar) said: 'Thereupon ʿUmar gave it away as alms [in the sense] that the land itself was not to be sold, inherited or donated. He gave it away as alms for the poor, the relatives, the slaves, the ḏjihād, the travellers and the guests. And it

115

WithvastwealthandaccesstheserviceofroyalarchitectslikeMimarSinan,Rüstemand

SokolluMehmedsetthestandardforindividualendowmentofOttomaninfrastructureinthe

sixteenthcentury.Buttheirworkrepresentsonlyafractionofthevaḳıfendowmentsthat

fosteredtheflourishingcaravantradeintheOttomanprovinces.HamdijaKreševljakovič,inan

exhaustivestudyofhansandcaravanseraisinBosniaandHerzegovina,enumeratesafewofthe

knownpatronsofOttomantravelinfrastructureintheregion.ThestoryofOttomantravel

infrastructure-buildinghereonthewesternperipheryofempirebeginswithGaziIsaBey

(Ishaković),whosehanbuiltin1462(oneyearbeforethedefinitiveconquestoftheBosnian

kingdom)wasakeyelementinthefoundingofSarayBosna,orSarajevo.IsaBeywasfollowed

byanenormousnumberofindividualpatronswhosepiousendowmentsservedtheneedsof

travelersintheprovince:

ThefirstdecadesofTurkishruleinthesecountriesgeneratedgreathansandcaravanserais.Theywereprimarilybuiltbygreatdignitariesandotherwealthypeoplewiththeirendowments.OfthesedignitarieshanswerebuiltbySancakbeys:IsaBeyIshakovic,SkenderPasha,HusrevBey,KaraMustafaBegSokolović,SofiMehmedPasha,TuraliBey,SinanBey,SelimPasha,byBeylerbeys:FerhadPashaSokolovic,SijavušPasha,IbrahimHanandMusaPasha;bytheGrandVizierRustemPashaandMehmedPashaSokolović,bytheDarüssaasdeAğas:MustafaofVarcarandanotherMustafanativeofVarcarandanotherMustafaofLjubinje.Almostallofthemwereborninourregion,andtheylivedandworkeduntilthesecondhalfoftheseventeenthcentury.And,finally,severaloftheBosnianviziersoftheeighteenthcenturybuiltseveralhans.86

Notethat,withtheexceptionofRüstemandSokolluMehmedPasha,thedignitarieslistedare

alllocalauthorities—headsofthesancakofHerzegovina,theeyaletofBosniaandlowerstatus

will not be held against him who administers it if he consumes some of it(s yield) in an appropriate manner or feeds a friend who does not enrich himself by means of it' (Ibn Ḥaḏjar al-ʿAsḳalānī, Bulūgẖ al-marām, Cairo n.d., no. 784)." “Waqf," EI2. 86 Hamdija Kreševljakovič, Hanovi, 27.

116

officials.Theprevalenceofnative-bornofficialsonthelistisalsostriking.Ottomanofficialswith

stronglocalties,thesemenpossessedbothpersonalfunds(ormorespecificallyforvaḳıf

endowments,accesstorevenuesources)andanawarenessoftheneedsoflocaltransportation

networks–gapswhereanewlyendowedhan,bridge,orcaravanseraiwouldserveauseful

purpose.Inlargenumbers,theyputthatknowledgetouse.Thefollowingsectionsshowthe

processbywhichtworemoteareasineasternBosniaweretransformedintoimportantstops

onoverlandtransportationnetworksthroughtheinvestmentofindividualpatrons,beginning

withoneoftheofficialslistedbyKreševljakovičabove:MustafaBey(laterPasha)Sokolović.

Rudo

Regionalofficialsnaturallyoperatedonasmallerscalethanthoseatthesummitof

imperialpower.Still,theycouldanddidcreatesettlementsoutofvaḳıfpatronage,following

principalssimilartothoseseeninthecasesofUzunköprüandLüleburgaz.MustafaBey

Sokolović,sancakbeyiofBosnia(cousinofSokolluMehmedPasha),isagoodexample,ashe

waslargelyresponsibleforthecreationofthetownofRudo(BiH)inthemid-sixteenth

century.87Located,likemanyBosniantowns,inarivervalleybetweenforbiddingmountains,

MustafaBey’svaḳıfcreatedamultitudeofstructurescomprisingRudo’surbancore,all

87MustafaBeywaslaterelevatedtothepositionofgovernor-generalofBuda(1566-88),beforeattainingtherankofvizierin1574.RadovanSamardžič,MehmedSokolovitch(Lausanne:Aged'Homme,1994):306.AyverdicallsMustafa“amcazade”orcousinofSokolluMehmedPasha:Avrupa’davol.2,book3,p.305.ForMustafaPashaandhisvakıfs,seeNecipoğlu,AgeofSinan,40-41,439-40.Hisbiographyandpartialvakfıye,Cevahirü'l-menakib,isinFatih,MilletKütüphanesi,AliEmiri,no.1031.ItispartiallysummarizedinGyulaKáldy-Nagy,"MachtundImmobiliarvermögeneinestürkischenBeglerbegsim16.Jahrhundert,"ActaOrientaliaAcademiaeScientarumHungaricae25,441-51.

117

centeredaroundanewbridgeacrosstheLimRiver,encouragingsettlementandeasing

transportationineasternBosnia,notfarfromtheSokolluancestralhome.Thevakfiyeor

endowmentdeedof1555,theyearoftheRudo'sfounding,expressesmanyofpatron's

aspirationsforthenewtown.Inonesweep,Mustafa'spatronagecreatedalltheallthe

elementsneededtosupportanOttomansettlement,includingreligious,commercial,andsocial

structuresallbuiltaround“afirmstonebridgeforpeopletocrossthedeepLimriver.”88

Justoveracenturylater,EvliyaÇelebicrossedtheLimRiverona“magnificentbridge”

(cisr-iazîm)offivearchesatthecenteroftheflourishing(ma‘mur)town(ḳaṣaba)ofRudo,

whichhecomparestoamythicalgardenbuiltinemulationofthegardenofParadise(bâğ-ı

İrem).89Evliya’saccountomitsthepatron’sname,butcreditsananonymousbenefactor–

identifiedonlyasoneofthepashasofSüleymantheMagnificent–asbeinginstrumentalinthe

creationofwhathadgrownintoacongenialtown.TheSeyahatnâmedescribesaverdant

settlementcomprisingfourdistricts,supportingfourMuslimhousesofworship,with400stone

houses,and50shops,alladjacenttothebridgeonthebanksoftheLim.90Evliya’saccount

clarifiesthatthebridge,whileimpressive,wasahybridstoneandwoodstructure,lesscostly

88NedimFilipović,“VakufnamaKaraMustafa-PašaSokolovicaiz1555.godineoosnivanjegradoRudo”inRudoSpomenicaprovodom30-godišnjicePrveproleterskebrigade(RudoMemorialonthe30thanniversaryoftheFirstProletarianBrigade)(Pljevlja,1971):174.OnSokolluMustafa’slegacy:“Hisarchitecturalpatronageshedslightonthesharedconcernsofpre-eminentprovincialadministratorswhosebuildingprojectswereaimedtofosterurbandevelopment,improvetravelconditions,andpromoteSunniIslam.”Necipoğlu,AgeofSinan,439-4089 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatnâmesi, vol. 6, 247. İrem: “The mythical gardens said to have been devised by Shaddad bin Ad in emulation of the garden of Paradise.” Redhouse Yeni Türkçe-İngilizce Sözlük, 8th ed., 1986: 576. 90 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatnâmesi, vol. 6, 248.

118

thanSokolluMehmedPasha’snearbyedificeinVišegradortheMostarbridge,bothofwhich

wereconstructedinthefollowingdecade.ThefivepiersreachingupfromtheLimRiverandthe

archesconnectedthemwerestone,whiletheupperlevelandthecoveringroof(“suspended

fromstoutpoleslikeships’masts”)werewooden,takingadvantageofabundanttimber

resourcesnearby.91

BesidestheRudoBridge,MustafaBey’sendowmentdeedspecifiestheconstructionofa

mosque,aschool,apublicbath,andhan.92Evliyanotesonemedreseandthreeprimaryschools

(mekteb-isıbyan),alongwithtwodervishlodges(tekye-idervîşân),suggestingcontinuinglocal

actsofpatronagesupportingthePasha’soriginalendowment.Inaddition,theKaraMustafa

vakfiyecommissionscommercialenterprisesincludingamill(poweredbytheriver)andmarket

withspacesforcraftsmen.Establishinganarrayofmutuallysupportinginstitutions,Kara

Mustafaprovidedthepreviouslyisolatedsettlementwithalltheelementsnecessarytodevelop

intotheflourishingtownvisitedacenturylaterbytheOttomangentlemantraveler.Beyondthe

costofbuildingthestructuresthemselves,Mustafa’svaḳıfwouldalsoprovidepermanentfunds

forpositionsatthemosqueandschool.Evliyaconfirmsthatrepairsandmaintenancecostsfor

thebridgewerepaidoutofrentscomingfromthetown’sshops,hamāmandhan.93Themill

representsanothercapitalimprovement–anexplicitlycommercialenterprisepaidforbythe

91 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatnâmesi, vol. 6, 248. Ayverdi succinctly paraphrases Evliya’s description of the bridge: “kârgir ayaklı, beş gözlu pek sağlam ahşap köprü.” Ayverdi, Avrupa’da, 305. 92Filipovic,“VakufnamaKaraMustafa-Paša,”174.SokolluMustafa’sworksinBosniaareonlyafractionofhisvaḳıfconstruction.AsbeylerbeyiinBudafrom1566hecreatedmosques,masjids,schools,caravanserais,hamams,millsandhousesacrossOttomanHungary.Káldy-Nagy,“Macht,"446-49. 93 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatnâmesi, vol. 6, 248.

119

samepiousendowmentthatcreatedthemosqueandschool.Inadditiontoproviding

permanentemploymentandrevenueforthetown,themillwouldstrengthenthelinkbetween

Rudoanditsruralhinterland:villagerswouldcometothenewtowntogrindtheirgrain.The

han,inadditiontoprovidingameritoriousservicetotravelersandthusaccruingspiritualcredit

tothepatron,alsopairswiththebridgetoincreaseefficiencyandsecurityforlong-distance

travelersonthecaravanroad.TheendowmentdeedandEvliya’sfirst-handobservationsagree:

MustafaBeyputthetownofRudoonthemapforbothlocalandinternationalpopulations.

Rudo,inthekadılıkorjudicialdistrictofFoča,wasadjacenttobutnotdirectlyonthe

RagusaRoad.Itislocatedapproximately40kmfromVišegrad(thesiteofMustafa'scousin

SokolluMehmed’scelebratedbridgeontheDrina).Theproximityofthesetwolarge-scale

endowmentstothebrothers’nativevillageofSokolovićiisobviouslynotaccidental.Infact,itis

mentionedexplicitlyinthevaḳfiye.94MembersoftheSokollufamilywouldlikelyhavebeen

givenpositionsinthenewlybuiltinstitutions,creatingasecurelegacythatwouldendure

whatevermisfortunesMehmedandMustafamightencounterintheirimperialcareers.95

Havingseenandlistedinnumerablestructuresoverthecourseofhistravels,Evliya

assumestheOttomanmonumentsheencounterstobetheresultofindividualpious

endowment,evenwhenheisunabletoidentifythepatron.Rudo’sbridgeovertheLimriver,

thecenterpointofthetown’sdevelopment,issimplydescribedas“hayrât”orbeneficent

94 Filipovic, “Vakufnama Kara Mustafa-Paša”, 173. 95SeeKunt,“(Cins)Solidarity."SokolluMehmedPaşa’sconnectiontoVišegradisdescribedonpage235.OnSokolluMehmed'seffortstosupporthishomeregion,seeNecipoğlu,AgeofSinan,40-41.

120

action,withaspaceleftblankforthenameofitsbenefactor,tobefilledinlater.96Thetraveler

furthernotesthedirectimpactthatthissingleinfrastructuralworkcouldhaveonlarger

patternsofmobility.OnceMustafaBey’sbridgewasconstructed,hewrites,“thosecoming

fromthecityofÖziçewouldcertainlycross(theLimRiver)atthisbridge,passingthetownof

Rudo.97Inadditiontotheeconomicallysustainingworksmentionedinpreviouschapters,Evliya

showshowthecreationofabridgeinawell-thoughtoutlocationbroughtlongdistance

travelerstothegrowingsettlement,bringingfurtherprosperitytoRudobygivingitasmallbut

importantroleinthelargerOttomantransportationsystem.

Rudo’sgrowthwasdramatic,butnotexceptionalforthesixteenthcentury.Manysmall

settlementsintheregion(noweasternBosniaandsouthwesternSerbia)sawsimilar

development,atrendthatisdirectlylinkedtoincreasingoverlandtrafficintheregion:

Averyfavorableinfluenceonthedevelopmentofnewlinesofcommunicationandtheintensityoftrafficontheexistingandthenewroadsinthisperiodwasexertedbythegrowthofanumberofeconomicpointsinthearea,suchasVišegrad,Priboj,Užice,Pljevlje,Čajniče,andGoražde,whichhaddevelopedintoimportanteconomiccentersalreadyinthe16thcentury.Therewas,however,aconverseinfluencealso–thelargenetworkoflinesofcommunicationcontributedtothedevelopmentoftheseplacesaswell.ThemostcharacteristicexampleinthislatterrespectistheurbansettlementofRudoitself,notonlyasregardstheroadnetworkofthisregionbutalsoofthewholeofBosniaandHerzegovina.98

96 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatnâmesi, vol. 4, 248. 97 Öziçe is Užice, Serbia—a significant provincial center approximately 80 km northeast of Rudo. “El-hâsıl hemân bu kasaba bu cisir hâtırıyçün amâr olmuşdur ve şehr-i Öziçe’den gelen elbette bu cisirden ubûr edüp kasaba-i Roda’ya girir.” Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatnâmesi, vol. 6, 248. 98 Alija Bejtić, “Stari trgovački putevi u Donjem Polimlju (Old Trade Roads in Lower Lim Valley),” Prilozi 22-23 (1972): 189.

121

Transportationinfrastructureleadtoeconomicgrowthasanexpansiveroadsystembuilt

aroundimperialandlocalpatronagelinkedevenremotemountainareasintheBalkans.

Buildingactivityreachedazenithinthesixteenthcentury,butarchitecturalpatronage

continuedtoenhancemobilityintheregionlongafterwards.Evenaslateastheeighteenth

century,asingleambitiousBosniangovernorbuiltnofewerthanfourmosques,fivebridges

andthreecaravanserais,manyofwhichwerenearorontheRagusaRoad.99

Vaḳıfendowmentsweremeanttoendureinperpetuity.Inreality,changingpolitical

circumstancesaswellasenvironmentalfactorshaveledtoaradicalerasureoftheOttoman

architecturallegacy,particularlyincontestedareaslikeeasternBosnia(muchofwhichistoday

iswithintheconfederatedterritoryofRepublikaSrpska,oneofthepoliticalentitieswithin

BosniaandHerzegovina).ThevolumeofEkremHakkıAyveri’smonumentalsurveyofOttoman

architecturedealingwith“Yugoslavya”waspublishedin1981,basedondecadesofresearch

andfirst-handobservation.InthesectiononRudo,theauthorlists12attestedOttoman

edificesinRudo,ofwhichfivewerenolongerextant.MustafaBey'sbridgewasultimately

destroyedbyaflood,andhisotherendowedpropertiesinRudoweredestroyedbytheburning

ofthetownandsurroundingareasbySerbianrebelsin1807.100AtthetimeofAyverdi’svisit,

thebridge,school,hanandhamāmrecordedinthe1555vaḳfiyeandseenacenturylaterby

EvliyaÇelebihadallvanished,saveasingleminaretfromthemosqueofMustafaSokolović.101

99AlijaBejtić,“BosnianGovernorMehmedPashaKukavicaandhisfoundationinBosnia(1752-1756and1757-1760).”Prilozi6-7(1956):113. 100 Ayverdi, Avrupa’da, 305. 101 Ayverdi, Avrupa’da, 305-306. Image 446 from the same volume is a photograph of the decapitated minaret from the Sokollu Mustafa Paşa Camii in Rudo.

122

Čajniče

Betweenthewell-chartedAdriaticSeatothewestandthegentleMaritsarivervalleyto

theeast,travelersinthewesternBalkansfacedprodigioustopographicalchallenges.

MountainousterrainstacksagainstthecourseoftheRagusaRoadlikeaseriesofincreasingly

forbiddingstationarywaves.Onesetofnaturalobstaclesisfoundintheareabetweenthe

townsofFočaintheDrinaValley(southeasternBiH)andPljevlje(knowntotheOttomansas

Taşlica,locatedintoday’snorthernMontenegro).Here,theRagusaRoadmakesa90degree

turntothesoutheastafteritsinitialnorthwesterlydirectionoutofDubrovnik.Caravantravelers

wereforcedtocontendwithmountainousanddenselyforestedterraincutwithintimidatingly

steepandnarrowvalleys.Perhapsevenmoredauntingthanthearea’sgeography,however,

wasthelackofsettledandproperlyequippedstoppingplaces.ThetownofČajniče(BiH,onlya

fewminutesbycarfromtherudimentarybordercrossingintoMontenegro)isroughly

equidistantfromthetownsofFočaandPljevlje,bothofwhichservedattimesasthe

administrativecenterofthesancakofHerzegovina(Pljevljeafter1572).TheFrenchtravelerdu

Fresne-Canaye,writingin1573,describesthe“verynarrowtrails”hispartyfollowedoutofFoča

andhissubsequentcrossingofahighmountainsummit,wheretheymadetheirwayacrossan

areathatwas“isolatedanddangerousforthecaravans”beforereachingthesafehavenof

Čajniče,whichdescribesas“fullofbeautifulmosquesandgoodcaravanseraiscoveredwithlead

roofs.”102Thedevelopmentofthissettlement,whichwasapparentlythrivinginthe1570s,in

102 Philippe du Fresne-Canaye, Le Voyage du Levant (Paris: Ernst Leroux, 1898), 26.

123

suchaninhospitablelocationwasinimpressivefeat.ThedevelopmentofČajničewasthe

outcomeofconsistentinvestmentbylocalpatronsofdifferingsocialstratainthecreationofan

important–ifhighlyremote–locationwithinthelargeroverlandtransportationsystem.

EvliyaÇelebispentthreedaysinČajničeafterastopinPljevljeashezigzaggedhisway

acrossHerzegovinain1661.Hisaccountcomparesthe‘imāretsclingingoneaboveanotherto

thetown’ssteepslopestothevertiginoushousesofaneighborhoodinhishometown

(“IslâmbolCihângîrYokuşu”–Istanbul’sCihangirdistrict).103Themountaintown,heclaims,

regularlylostmules,horses,andevenchildrentofallsintotheabyss-likecanyonoftheJanjina

Riverbelow.104Anentiresub-sectionoftheSeyahatnâmeisdedicatedtothejuxtapositionofa

prosperoustown(ḳaṣaba-iābādān)ofČajničeanditstenuouslocation.Evliya’sdescription

containsanoutpouringofsynonymsforcomicalandterrifying;theworldtravelerclaimsnever

tohaveseensuchaplace.105

AccordingtotheSeyahatnâme,thetown’screationwastheresultofanearly

miraculousactofpatronage:theconstructionbyoneHacıBâlîofagreatbridgeacrossthe

JanjinaGorge.Evliyawarnsthattravelerswhodaretolookdownwhencrossingthisspan,

which“reachesfromonebouldertoanother,”willexperiencethebreakingoftheirgall

bladderswhiletheirbodies“tremblelikeautumnlightning.”106AdjacenttotheHacıBâlîbridge

103 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatnâmesi, vol. 6, 252. 104 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatnâmesi, vol. 6, 252. 105 “Bu rabtanın zemîni gibi bir turfa mudhik ve maskara ve mahûf u muhâtaralı dereli ve depeli bir garîb ü acîb zemînli şehir görmedim.” Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatnâmesi, vol. 6, 252. 106“HattâHacıBalınâmbirsâhibü’l-hayrâtbugayyâderesiüzerebirsirâtcisr-iazîminbirkayadanbirkayayabinâetdirmişkimhakkâkianıyapmakmakdûr-ıbeşerdeğildir.Bundandahiaşağıbakanınzehresisiyupvücûduberk-ihazângibiditrer.”EvliyaÇelebi,Seyahatnâmesi,vol.6,253.

124

henotesthreehans,oneofwhichwastheworkofthebridge’spatron.AswithRudo,the

bridgeinČajničedrewtravel,commerceandsettlementtowhathadbeenaremotevillage.In

Evliya’stelling,allthetown’shansarefilledwithmaterialfromacrosstheworld,fromIranto

theLandoftheFranks.107Themanyblacksmithshenotesintheareaadjacenttothehanof

HacıBâlîareafurtherindicationofČajniče’sroleasafunctionalroadtown.Blacksmithsprovide

horseshoes;anessentialserviceforthecaravantrade.108

Aswithothercasestudiesnotedinthischapter,thesingleinfrastructuralproject–the

bridge–servedasanchorforthedevelopmentofasettlementwhoseprosperitywasassured

byamultitudeofcomplementaryvaḳıfendowments,whichperformedreligious,educational,

andsocialfunctions.ThebridgeandhanofHacıBâlîbelongtothefirstphaseofthetown’s

developmentintoanOttomanḳaṣaba.Buildingonsuchinitialimprovements,thetownof

ČajničeadmiredbyEvliyawasenhancedinthesecondhalfofthesixteenthcenturythroughthe

worksofthesancakbeyiSinanBeyBoljanić,whosebrother,BodurHüseyinPasha,wasthe

leadingpatronofthenearbytownofPljevlja.109GiventhatSinanBeywasmarriedtoasisterof

107 “Her birinde Laristân ve Moltan ve Venedik ve Firengistân metâ‘ları bulunur.” Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatnâmesi, vol. 6, 253. This observation of the richness of merchandise found in Rudo mirrors Evliya’s description of Pljevlje/Taşlica, the next stopping point to the east. This town also features 3 hans, this time featuring the products of territories even farther east: “Cümle üç aded vekâle-i tüccârân-ı sevdâgerânları var. Cümle Çîn ü Hıtâ vü Hoten metâ‘ları bulunur hânlardır.” Ibid, 251. 108 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatâmesi, vol. 6, 253. 109SinanBegBoljanićwassancakbeyıofHerzegovina(1552–57,1563,1564–67,1569,1574–80)andofBosnia(1562–64).SeeSalihTrako,"ZnačajnijivakufinapodručjujugoistočneBosne"[Themostnoteworthywaqfsintheregionofsouth-easternBosnia]”AnaliGaziHusrev-begovebiblioteke9-10(1983),75-85.TheHüseyinPashaMosqueinPljevljeisremarkablyintactandfeaturesaminaret(reconstructedintheearly20thcentury)saidtobethetallestintheBalkans.TheBoljanićbrothers–whobothservedtermsassancakbeyiofHerzegovina–arenamedas“Bulehnikli”intheSeyahatnâmesi(c.f.vol.6,p.251).BodurHüseyinPashaheldmanyofthemostimportantgovernorshipsintheempire.TheirnamesakevillageofBoljanićiliesbetweenČajničeandPljevlje.

125

SokolluMehmedPasha,itisnotdifficulttoseeintheutilitarianstructuresendowedbyheand

brotherHüseyin–anechoofthepatronageofMustafaandMehmedSokolovićinRudoand

Višegrad.

The1582vaḳfiyeofSinanBeyBoljanićlistsasignificantnumberofthepublicbuildings

inČajniče,includingamosque,medrese,‘imāret,konak(mansion)andtürbe(mausoleum).110

ThepreeminenceofSinanBey’sbuildingprogramwasobvioustoEvliya,whonotedthatthese

werethetown’sonlystructureswithleadroofs.111TheSinanBeyCamii,acentrallydomed

mosquefrontedbyanentranceporchofthreesemihemisphericaldomes,ispraisedby

Ayverdi,whonotesitsgracefulproportionsandoverallharmony.112ItwasSinanBeywho

imprintedadefinitivelyOttomanformontothemountaintown.AswithmanyOttoman

monumentsinthearea,theworksofSinanBeyinČajničewerecomprehensivelydestroyedin

theBosnianwarofthe1990s.EventherubblefromthedynamitedSinanBeyMosquewas

removedfromthesite.Photographsthatappeartobefromtheearly2000sshowthevacant

locationoftheformermosqueinuseasaparkinglot.Themosquehassincebeenlistedasa

nationalmonumentandplansforreconstructionappeartoexistatthetimeofthiswriting.113

110 Ayverdi, Avrupa’da, 98-99. 111 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatâmesi, vol. 6, 253. 112 Ayverdi, Avrupa’da, 98. See plan p. 99, section p. 100, exterior photographs p. 91. 113 The Bosnia and Herzegovina Commission to Preserve National Monuments listed the Sinan Bey Mosque and the adjacent Türbe as a National Monument in 2004. Description of decision can be found here, with summary of damage and known repairs prior to destruction in 1992. Undated photographs of the vacant site can be seen at the end of the web page: http://kons.gov.ba/main.php?id_struct=50&lang=4&action=view&id=2487

126

ThepatronageofthetownofČajničeshowsflexibilityandchangingmodesof

infrastructurecreationinOttomanRumelia.HacıBâlî’sidentityremainsobscure.HistitleHacı

suggestsamerchant,butthenameBâlîmayindicateaconnectiontoadervishorder.114Ifthe

lattertheoryiscorrect,HacıBâlî’sbridgeinČajničewouldbeoneofmanyexamplesofthe

valueofantinomianordersinthecreationofsettlementsinremoteareas.ÖmerLütfiBarkan’s

seminalarticle“KolonizatörTürkDervişleri”articulatestheimportantroleplayedbyantinomian

groupsassettlersandguardiansofsparselypopulatedfrontierareasduringanearlierperiodof

Ottomanhistory.Barkandescribesthemultiplefunctionsperformedbyzāviyesordervish

lodgesoutsideoftheirprimaryspiritualconcerns,includingfoundingvillages,guardingpasses,

buildingbridgesandmills,andsharingfoodstoreswithtravelers.115Inexchangeforlandand

taxexemptions(i.e.thesameincentivesgiventoderbendvillages),zāviyesperformedasimilar

roleforthestateinsettlingandprotectingvulnerableareas.Notingtheirvaluetotravelersin

insecureareas,theauthorcomparesthefunctionofzāviyesto“jandarmakarakolları,”frontier

outpostsofthemilitarypolice.116Beyondsuchutilitarianroles,zāviyesettlementswerealso

associatedwithagricultureandorchards.Bakan’sdescriptionofthecultivationofroseand

114 There are a number of Balis active in the region but none can be confidently identified as the patron of the Čajniče bridge. On Shaykh Bali Efendi, Kadı of Sofya, see Nikolay Antov, “Imperial Expansion, Colonization, and Conversion to Islam in the Islamic World’s ‘Wild West’” (PhD diss, University of Chicago, 2011). On Hızır Balı, also known as Balım Sultan, şeyh of the tekke of Seyyid Ali Sultan at Dimetoka, see “Bektaşiyye," EI3. 115Barkan,“Kolonizatör,"279-386.Seeespeciallythedescriptionofthe“Kurdi”communitynearErzerumandworkofYakubHalife’sfamilynearTrabzon,p.296.SeealsoSaraWolper,CitiesandSaints:SufismandtheTransformationofUrbanSpaceinMedievalAnatolia(UniversityPark,PA:PennStateUniversityPress,2003).116 Barkan, “Kolonizatör,” 297.

127

lemongardens,pearorchards,olivegroves,chestnutsandotherfruittreesbydervishsettlersis

congruentwithEvliya’sdescriptionofČajniče,wherethefear-inducingmountainouslandscape

istamedbythetown’smanyparadise-likegardensandorchards,includinggrovesofsour

cherrytrees.117

TheSeyahatnâmeconfirmsthecontinuingactivityofspiritualordersinthewestern

Balkansintheseventeenthcentury,buttheaccountalsoshowsaclearshiftinpatternsof

patronage.Evliyalistsfourfunctioningconvents(tekkes)inČajniče(ofwhichthoseofthe

HalvetiandKadiriordersarethelargest),whiletheGaziMuradBabaTekkeoftheBektaşi

order,locatedjustafewmilesuptheroad,meritsitsownseparatedescriptionasasiteof

interest.DespitethecontinuingprominenceofSufiordersinsociallife,bythemid-sixteenth

century,however,publicpatronagehadclearlyshiftedawaythezāviye/tekkemodeland

towardsthebuildingofstructuresthatprioritizedorthodoxSunnipractices,includingmosques,

medresesandschools.Ottomanofficialswithlocalrootsandstrongconnectionstocentral

authoritiessuchasSinanBeyandhisbrotherBodurHüseyinPashaandMustafaPashaandhis

cousinSokolluMehmedwerethenewdriversofpublicinfrastructurethatwasmoreexplicitly

orthodoxandSunni,overlayingandexistinginparallelwithanearlierwaveofhumblerworks

performedviaauxiliarieslikederbendvillagersanddervishsettlements.118

117“Hattâbukasaba-iâbâdânınüctarafıevc-isemâyaurücetmişmehîbdağlarüzreâsumânekad-keşânolmuşdıraht-ımüntehâlarıvekirazşecereleriilezeynolmuşdağlarveniçeyerlerisâfîhadîka-iravza-irıdvânmisillibâğlardır.”EvliyaÇelebi,Seyahatâmesi,vol.6,252.SeealsoBarkan,“Kolonizatör,”298.T-typezaviye/imaretswerenotlimitedtosuchbucolicsettings.Thesestructureswerealsoinstrumentalinthecreationand“Ottomanization”ofurbanspaces.SeeGrigorBoykov,“T-shapedZaviye/İmarets"118 Heghnar Zeitlian Watenpaugh’s work on Ottoman Aleppo shows a resurgence of patronage by dervish orders in Syria in the seventeenth century following the chaos of the Celali Revolts. See Chapter Four of Image of an Ottoman City: Imperial Architecture and Urban Experience in Aleppo in the 16th and 17th Century (Leiden: Brill, 2004).

128

TheworksofSinanBeyinČajničeandHüseyinPashainPljevljecontributedtoan

increasinglyprosperousstringofroadtownsalongtheRagusaRoad,acrosswhathadpreviously

beenremoteandunder-developedterritory.Movingfromwesttoeast,thefollowingisa

selectivelistofthemostprominentcomplexesbuiltalongtheroad’swesternhalfinthe

fifteenthandsixteenthcenturies:

• Arslanagićbridgeandcaravanserai,Trebinje(SokolluMehmedPasha,1572-74)• AladžaMosque,Foča(HasanBalijaNazir,1550-51)• SinanBeycomplex,Čajniče(SinanBegBoljanić,1570s-1580s)• HüseyinPashamosqueand‘imāret,Pljevlja(BodurHüseyinPasha[Boljanić],

lastquarterof16thcentury)• IbrahimPashaMosque,Prijepolje• Altun-AlemMosque,NoviPazar(MuslihudinAbdulGani,ca.1540s)• FatihMosque,Priština(FatihSultanMehmed,1461)119• BaliReisMosque,Niš(1516-1523)

KervanYoldaDüzülür120

Althoughtheprimarybuildersofroadinfrastructurewerestateofficials,the

developmentofmobilityinthewesternprovincesremainedanindividualandidiosyncratic

process,evenasbuildersconsistentlyrepeatedrecognizablyOttomanforms.Patronsbuilding

vaḳıfendowmentscontinuedtodosoontheirownvolition,notasagentsunderthecontrolof

adedicatedcentralauthority(withtheexceptionsofRüstemandSokolluMehmedPasha,who

119 Priština is located on one of several possible routes for Ragusa Road travelers between Novi Pazar and Sofia). 120 Literally: 'the caravan sorts itself out on the road.’ Roughly: to improvise or make it up as you go along.

129

effectivelyweretheempire’scentralauthority).SinanBey’sbuildingsinČajniče,hisbrother

Hüseyin'sendowmentsinPljevlje,andMustafaBey’sinRudo,areimmediatelylegibleasworks

intheOttomanimperialstyle,repeatingformsperfectedbyMimarSinan.121Tobesure,allof

thesemenwerecloselyconnectedtotheGrandVizierSokollu,yettheymusthavehadgreat

flexibilityintheirexpendituresonpublicworks.Bytheendofthesixteenthcentury,the

accumulationofvaḳıfpatronagehadtransformedmuchoftheregion,andtheRagusaRoadhad

becomeanarchipelagoofsettlementsmarkedbyOttomaninstitutions.Whetherneworsimply

transformed,theseroadtownswereinvariablycenteredaroundaninstitutionalclusterof

bridge,caravanserai,mosque,market,andschool.122Thattheseinvestmentsenabledlocal,

regional,andlong-distancemobilityisevident.Whatremainsunclear,however,isanylegible

setororderingmechanism.Whatwerethelimitsandconstraintsofthissystem?Towhat

degreecouldpatronsdeterminethescale,form,andlocationoftheirworks?Howdidlocal

authoritiesconceiveoftheirendowmentswithinthelargersystemofcommunicationsacross

theOttomanrealms?

121 The “Leiden Sketchbook” of city views from the road from Vienna to Istanbul shows how the Ottoman skyline was distinct and legible to outside viewers. The sketches of city skylines bristle with minarets and semi-domes from Belgrade to the capital. Published by Lud’a Klusáková as The Road to Constantinople: Sixteenth-century Ottoman Towns through Christian Eyes (Prague: ISV Publishers, 2002). The visibly Ottoman character of these structures made them a target in post-imperial times. Referring to the single-domed mosque, Ćurčić writes: “Its simple design without exception provided a stamp of monumentality, while its forms invariably differed from those of the existing Christian churches, thereby giving the Muslim community a cherished sense of identity, visibility, and social superiority. Needless to say, it was this very factor that fueled the retaliatory destructive backlash in later times. Ćurčić, Architecture in the Balkans, 76. 122 “These mosque-centered complexes articulated the transformation of the Ottoman state from a heterogeneous frontier principality into a relatively homogenous world empire with an officially cultivated Sunni identity.” Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan, 76.

130

GülruNecipoğlu’sconceptofdecorumasanorderingmechanismforarchitectural

patronageisusefulindecodingthenormsforindividualsbuildingpublicworks.“Prestige

mosques”commissionedbysultanswere“denselyconcentratedinIstanbul,”whilegrand

viziersbuiltmassivecomplexesinstrategiccenters,aboveallalongtheimperialdiagonalfrom

BudapesttotheBosporus.123Itwaslefttolesserofficials–governorsandregional

administratorsinparticular–toprovideworksofinfrastructureinmoreperipheralareas;

aligningtheirownpiousandpragmaticintentionswiththeeconomic,social,andmilitaryneeds

ofthestate.Decorumwasnotlimitedtolocation.Thescale,materials,andeventhe

ornatenessofendowedstructureswerelikewisedelimitedtothepatron’sstatus.

Theunderlyingpressuretoconformtoestablishedhierarchiesisrevealedinanumber

ofepisodeswhereoverlyambitiouspatronsranintotroublewithcentralauthorities.Evena

figureaspowerfulasHürremSultan,wifeofSüleymantheLawgiver,wasexpectedtoconform

tothedictatesofpropriety.Hürrem’spatronageintheroadtownofSvilengrad(onestagewest

ofEdirne,ontheMaritsaRiver)wascenteredaroundareligiousstructurefirstconceivedofasa

mosque(withtwominarets)andsubsequentlyreducedtoahumblermasjid(withasingle

minaret),possiblyduetotheinterventionofthesultanhimself.124Anepisodefromastopping

placeinontheRagusaRoadintheeighteenthcenturypointstopotentiallysevere

consequencesforoversteppingtheboundsofpropriety:

WhentherulerofTrebinje(Herzegovina),ResulbegovićOsmanPasha,waspatrontoamosquebearinghisnamethatwasjudgedtobemorebeautifulthanthemosqueofSultanAhmetIIIinthesametown,hewasexecutedbythesultanin1729,asattestedby

123 Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan, 21. 124 Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan, 279.

131

aferman.Ottomanarchitecturewasthusconditionedbythedifferencebetweenthecapitalandtheprovincesandsocialranksofitspatrons.125

OtherOttomanofficialsweresimplyoverzealousintheirbuildingpractices.“Whenthegrand

vizier,MahmudPasha,wasdismissedin1637,hewasaccusedofhavingbuiltinnsthatwere

unnecessaryandaburdenonthepeople.”126Oversteppingarchitecturalproprietycouldgetan

Ottomanofficialfiredorevenkilled.

Otherpatronsfoundwaystobuildexceptionalworkswithoutprovokingcensure.The

oncesplendidAladžaMosqueinFoča(builtin1550-51,nowdestroyed)wasdescribedbyEvliya

ashavingnomatchinallthedistrictsthatsurroundedit.Heclaimsitssweetnesswaspraised

fromthelandsofRumtotheArabandPersianlands.127Allthisdespitethefactthatitspatron,

HasanBalijaNazir,heldthemodesttitleofchiefcaretakerofthesultan’spropertiesinthe

sancakofHerzegovina.128Inanotherexampleofostentationwithintheboundsofprotocol,the

gleamingfinialsadorningthedomesandminaretoftheHüseyinPashaMosqueinPljevljewere

broughtfromEgypt,wherethepashahadbeenpostedpriortohisreturntoHerzegovina.Evliya

takescaretomentionthatthegoldenalemler(finials)ofPljevljewerebroughtfromtheportof

Alexandria,EgypttoDubrovnikonRagusanships(“Dobra-Venedikgemiler”),andthatthe

shiningadornmentshadnotdulledsincethemosque’scompletioninthetimeofSüleyman.129

125 Hartmuth, “Legacy in Stone” 699-700. 126 Inalcik, Classical Age, 148. 127 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatnâmesi, vol. 6, 255. 128 Ćurčić, Architecture in the Balkans, 781. 129 The traveler mis-identifies the patron as Hasan Pasha. Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatnâmesi, vol. 6, 251.

132

Ofthe10mosquesandmasjidsintheadministrativecapitalofPljevlje,HüseyinPasha’swasthe

grandestofall,somagnificentthatitpushedwithoutbreakingthelimitsofdecorum.AsEvliya

sawit,“it’sasifitwereasultanicmosque.”130

TheShepherdPasha'sBridge

Theambiguouslimitsthatdefinedwhatmightappropriatelybebuiltwhere,andby

whom,wereconstantlytested,notleastbyasomewhatobscureOttomanofficialnamedÇoban

(Shephard)MustafaPasha(d.935/1529).TheBosnianpasha–likeothersmentionedinthis

chapter–wasaproductofthedevşirmesystem.Mustafarosethroughtherankstoattainthe

governorshipofEgyptand,ultimately,thepositionofsecondvizier.131Anenthusiasticpatronof

architecture,heendowedmoveableandnon-moveablepropertiesinAnatoliaandRumelia,

includingtwocaravanseraisinEdirneandasubstantialcomplexinEskişehir.132LikeSokollu

MehmedandRüstemPasha,hisvaḳıfinvestmentswerelocatedonimportantroutes.Çoban

MustafaisbestknownforhiselegantmosquecomplexinGebze(justeastofIstanbul,

completedin1523),andthestonebridgeandassociatedstructureshebuiltinSvilengrad,

Bulgaria(completedin1528-29,immediatelyafterhistermasGovernorofEgypt).Thetown

130 “gûyâ bir câmi‘-i selâtîndir” Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatnâmesi, vol. 6, 251. 131SemaviEyice,“Svilengrad’daMustafaPaşaKöprüsü(Cisr-iMustafaPaşa)”Belleten28(1964)735;SemaviEyice,“Cisr-iMustafaPaşa,”IslamAnsiklopedisi;FatihMüderrisoğlu,“BâniÇobanMustafaPaşaveBirOsmanlıŞehriGebze”VakiflarDergisi25(1995),67. 132 Müderrisoğlu, “Bâni,” 68.

133

thatgrewuparoundtheSvilengradbridgewasknownthroughtheOttomaneraas‘Cisr-i

MustafaPaşa.’133

ÇobanMustafawasawealthyandwell-connectedofficial,buthisstatusandresources

cannotbecomparedtothatoftheabovementionedsultans,nortoroyalwomenlikeHürrem,

nortothegrandviziers.Stillthepashafollowedtheleadofelitesfromthehighestlevelsof

stateinhiszealouspatronageofpublicarchitecture.Moreover,heplacedhisworksinhigh

profilelocationsalongtheempire'scentralaxis:GebzeisonestageeastofIstanbul’sAsian

shore;SvilengradisonestagewestofthesecondcapitalofEdirne.Theselocationsensuredthat

almosteverymajorapproachtoordeparturefromthecentersofimperialpowerwouldpass

withinsightofstructuresendowedbyÇobanMustafaPasha.Ottomansoldiersonthewayto

confronttheFrankswouldcrosstheMaritsaRiveronhisbridge.Campaignstotheeastern

frontierwithSafavidIranwouldpasshisGebzecomplexontheirfirstday’smarchfrom

Üsküdar.EuropeanandOttomantravelersoftheRagusaRoadandothertrans-Balkanroutes

wouldarriveattheroyalcityofEdirneafterpassing“ilpontediMostaffaBassa.”Itwasthelast

stopbeforeenteringtheimperialcorridorbetweenEdirneandIstanbul.134

The295-meter-longÇobanMustafaPashaBridgeatSvilengradsharesmany

characteristicswiththesultanicbridge/settlementsatUzunköprüandBüyükçekmece.The

monumental,multi-archedstonebridgeeliminatesatopographicalobstacle,crossingthe

133“BesidestheseitisknownfromvariousdocumentsthatMustafaPaşahadschoolsbuiltatRumelihisar,SeyyitgaziandinEskişehir,bathsinSilistreandPravadi,andtenementhousesinFilibe,Ahıska,Selânik,Pravadi,Gebze,Edirne,Yenişehir.”Eyice,“Svilengrad’da,”754.Forthepasha'scomplexesinGebzeandSvilengrad,seeNecipoğlu,AgeofSinan,53-54,278ff. 134 Benedetto Ramberti, Delle cose dei Turchi, Libri Tre (Venice, 1541), 8v.

134

Maritsariveratastrategiclocation30kmeastofEdirne.Thepashaalsoendowedseveral

adjacentbuildings,includingacaravanserai,bazaarandhamām.135AswithUzunköprü,this

clusterservedasamotorforsettlement.ThesubsequentconstructionsofHürremSultan(a.k.a.

Roxelana)inthelate1550sandearly1560saddedanotherlayeroffunctionalandprestigious

architectureinthegrowingtown.Hürrem’scomplexwasconstructedbyMimarSinan,and

consistedofamosque/masjid,‘imâret(hospice),andmekteb(elementaryschool).Now

“disappearedwithoutatrace,”Hürrem’sworkswerebuiltalongsidethoseofÇobanPasha,an

expressionofthecyclical,multi-layeredpracticeofOttomaninfrastructurecreation.Building

typesalsoshifted.Hürrem’sstructuresaddresstheneedsofthelocalpopulationratherthan

transienttravelers–hernewlyconstructedelementaryschoolsuggestsagrowing,stable

community.136Onceagain,thebridge/settlementendowmentschemeseemstohaveworked

asintended.AcenturylaterEvliyaÇelebivisitedthetownandcountedsevenhundred

houses.137

ThefameofSvilengrad'stwopatronsenduredastheirendowmentsflourishedandtheir

nameswerenotedbymanytravelers.In1534,onlyafewyearsafterthecompletionofthe

bridge,theVenetianBenedettoRambertiwashighlyimpressedwiththepasha’sbridge.He

describesitashaving20arches,beingverybeautifulandlarge,andmadeentirelyofmarble.

Rambertinotesthefoundationinscriptionfoundnearthecenterofthebridge,whichhe

135HansDernschwamTagebucheinerreisenachKonstantinopelundKleinasian(1553-55),ed.FranzBabinger(Berlin:Duncker&Humblot,1986),23. 136 Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan, 278. 137 Evliya visited ‘Kasaba-ı cisr-i azîm Mustafâ Paşa’ or Svilengrad in 1063/1652-52. Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatnâmesi, vol. 3, fols. 147b-148a.

135

describesasapanelinsetintoagildedstoneinwhichcarvedTurkishlettersofsky-bluecolor

describesthedateofthebridge’sconstruction,its‘mastro’and‘autore’andtheexpensesthat

werespentonit.138

In1555,justpriortotheinitiationofHürrem’scomplex,theHabsburgambassador

Busbecqalsoadmiredthe“splendidbridgeofMustafa”onhisapproachtoEdirne.139After

Hürrem’sadditions,however,itbecamemoredifficultfortravelerstosortoutwhatbuildings

hadbeenbuiltbywhom.DuFresneCanaye,writingin1573,describesthe“pontdeMustafa-

Pascha,”butclaimsthelargecaravanseraiadjacenttoitastheworkofHürrem(knowntohim

as“LaRossa”),justlikethelead-coveredmosquenextdoor.Thesamechroniclecommentson

thegenerosityofthetown’s‘imāret,whereanynumberofTurksandChristianswerefedfor

threedays.140

TheVenetianbailoPaoloContarini,writingin1580–ahalfcenturyafterthebridge’s

completion–givesanextraordinaryinterpretationofthebridge’sorigins.Likehispredecessor

Ramberti,Contariniclaimstheoriginstorywasfoundinthecarvedinscriptionstoneatthe

centerofthebridge.ThisistheearliestversionIhaveyettodiscoverofastrangeandenduring

138“7thMarch[1533]Edirne:PassammoilpontediMostaffaBassacheèsoprailfiumeMaritza,&èdivoltiXXmoltobello&largo,tuttodimarmo,&conunapietranelmezzodorata:nellaqualesonointagliateletteredicoloreazzurroturcheschechediconoiltempo,ilmastro,&l’auttorediessoponte,elaspesachevifufattadentro."Ramberti,Dellecose,fol.9r.Itake‘mastro’and‘autore’tobereferencesthemasterbuilderandthepatron,respectively. 139 The Turkish Letters of Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq, Imperial Ambassador at Constantinople 1554-1562 (Translated from Latin [1633 Elezvir ed.] by Edward Seymour Forster. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1927) 23. 140 du Fresne-Canaye, Le Voyage, 44-45.

136

anecdoteaboutadisputeinvolvingSultanSüleyman,ÇobanMustafaPasha,andtheSvilengrad

bridge:

...wearrivedatthebridgeofMustafaPasha,with21arches,allinstone,withaninscriptioninthemiddleofthebridgeonagreatstoneinTurkishletters.TheysaythatSultanSüleymanhadbeensoughtbyhissister,whowasthewifeofMustafa.Shehopedtoborrowmoneyfromherbrothertocompletethework,astheyhadspentalltheirmoneyonthetwoheadsofthebridge.TheSultanrespondedthathewantedtodoit,butthentheSultana[apparentlychanginghermind]persuadedherhusbandtosellalloftheirfurnitureandfinishit.AndthisannoyedtheSultansomuchthathesworenevertopassthatwayagain,andduringthewarofZighethedidn’tcrossit,eitheraliveordead,buttooktheMaritsaroad.Roxelanathenbuiltthecaravanseraiattheedgeofthebridge,andthemosquewithmanyshopsthatsellnecessities,andthereweboughtsomecherries.141

Contarini’saccountisfascinatinglyrichtaleofrivalryandtensionovertheexpensivebridge

betweentheSultan,hissister,andhisbrother-in-law,ÇobanMustafaPasha.Mustafawas

indeedaroyalson-in-lawofSelimI,makinghimbrother-in-lawtoSüleymantheMagnificent.142

HowdidaVenetiandiplomatacquirethisinformation,andlearnaboutthestrangestory?Not

fromthephysicalinscription,which,besidesbeingwrittenincomplexArabiccalligraphy,

containsnothingresemblingthesedetails.Theactualdedicationisquiteterseandformulaic,

praisingboththeSultanandhisvizier:

Thisbridge,fromthetimeofSüleymanHan,sonofSultanSelimHan,successortothegreatSultans–maysecurityandmercyendureunderhisauspices.MustafaPaşa–mayGod’swishesuponhimbesuccessful–haditbuiltandmadestrong.Amostenduring

141 “...arrivammo al Ponte di Mustafà Bassà, di archi 21, tutto di pietra, con una iscrizione al mezzo del ponte sopra una gran pietra in lettere turche. Dicesi che Sultan Suliman fu ricercato dalla sorella, ch’era moglie di Mustafà, che gl’imprestasse denari per fornir detta opera, avendo speso quanto aveva nelle due teste del ponte; il gransignore rispose che lo voleva far lui, ma la sultana persuase il marito a vendere tutto il suo mobile e finirlo, e se l’ebbe Sultan Suliman tanto a male, che giurò non passarvi mai, e nella guerra di Zighet non lo passò, nè vivo nè morto, ma fece la strada di là dalla Marizza. La Rossa (Rossolana) poi fece il caravanserà ch’è passato il ponte, e la moschea con tante botteghe da vendere roba da vivere, e là comprammo delle ciliegie.” Contarini, 32-33. 142 Eyice, “Cisr-i Mustafa Paşa,” 32.

137

structurebeingahighbeneficence,itwascompletedintheyear“ḥasanatabadīatan”[eternalgood(work)]143

SurelyamemberofContarini’scaravangrouporalocalinformantmusthavefurnishedthetale,

whichwasthenrelayedtoContariniviaoneofhisdragomansorinterpreters.Butwhy?Hadthe

storybecomeastockelementoflocalloreby1580?Ifso,wherediditcomefrom?

IfthebridgeanecdotehadbeenconfinedtoContarini’saccount,itcouldeasilybe

dismissedasananomaly,thekindofhalf-understoodobservationthatmakestravelaccounts

suchtrickysources.AfterContarini,however,versionsofthestoryofthedisputebetweenthe

sultanandhispashabecomeacommonfeatureofdescriptionsoftheSvilengradBridge.Peter

Mundy,whocrossedthe“MustaphaPashaCupreesee”fortyyearslater,in1620,infusesthe

scenewithevenmoredrama.Inhisversion,insteadofsimplyre-routingtheimperialarmy,the

sultannowleadshishorsedowntotheriverbank,haughtilyfordingthewatersoftheMaritsa

inviewoftheviewofthecontestedbridge.Thecentraldisputeoverthebridge’sownership

persists,butnowitistoldinanalmostcinematicmanner,andthetaleisnowgivenlethal

consequences.TwoofSüleyman’spagesdrownintheentirelypreventablerivercrossing:

Ofthisbridgeitisthusreportedforcertain,ThatSultanSolimantheMagnificenthavingwarrswithHungary,atthisComeingethisway,sawthebridge,anddemaundingewhoecausedittobebuilt,theaforenamedM.P.presentedhimselfe,sayeingheedidit.TheKingethenprayedhimtobestoweitonhim,whereuntoheereplyedthat,inregardheehadbuiltitforthegoodofhissoule,itcouldnotbegivenaway.TheKinge,beingediscontentedwiththisanswere,wouldnotpasseovertheBridgeattall,butsoughtafoordealittleabovethesaidBridgewithhishorsesandfollowers;whereinpassingeovertherewasdrownedtwoofhisownePagesamongtherest.SoethatitisaCustome

143Buköprüyü,büyükSultanlarınhalefiSultanSelimHan’ınoğluSultanSüyleymanHan(zamanında)–emniyetveemân,sâyesindedevametsin–MustafaPaşa–Allahonudilediğinemuvaffaketsin–yaptırdıveonusağlamlaştırdı.Endevamlıyapıyüksekiyiliklerolduğundan,tarihi“ebediiyilik”oldu.Translation(ArabictoTurkish):Eyice,“Svilengrad’da,”743.Englishtranslationmine.

138

tothisday,whenanyVizerorBashahathoccasiontopassethiswayonwarfare,heegoethnotovertheBridge,butwheretheKingedidpasse.144

EvliyaÇelebi,whovisitedSvilengradin1652-53,isunusuallyevasiveaboutwhat

structureswerebuiltbywhom.Hesimplysaystheflourishingtown’smosque,elementary

school,han,hamāmandcoveredmarketwerebuiltbyMimarSinanintheageofSüleyman.145

Hedescribesthebridgeasahayrât(piousorphilanthropicwork)ofMustafaPasha,andgivesit

aplaceofhonoramongthegreatandpraiseworthystonebridgesofthe“Diyâr-ıRûm”

(Rumelia).ThenEvliya,whorelishedagoodanecdote,launchesintohisversionofthesultan

andpashastory.

SultanSüleyman,theSeyahatnāmetellsus,wasonhiswaytotheBudacampaign,when

heandhisarmypassedbythevillagecalledCisr-iMustafâPaşa.Afterfriendlygreetings

betweenthepadişahandtheagedpasha,thereisanabruptanddramaticshiftintone.Mustafa

declinesSüleyman’soffertoaccompanyhimonthegazacampaign,butmerelywishesthem

success,usingwhatappearstobeapolitelyformulaicresponse.IsitthePasha’srefusaltojoin

themission,orsomethingabouthisuseofthetermṣavāb(divinerewardforapiousact)inhis

responsethatthenprovokesthesultan’sfuriousreaction?“MyPadishah!Uponyourreturn

maythecominggaza'sdivineglorybelongtoyou”seemstobebothappropriateand

144 The Travels of Peter Mundy in Europe and Asia, 1608-1667 (Cambridge: Hakluyt Society), 51-52. 145OnSinan’sinvolvementinthestructuresbuiltbyÇobanMustafaandHürrem,seeNecipoğlu,AgeofSinan,278-279;andEyice,“Svilengrad’da,”738-739.TheÇobanMustafaBridgeatSvilengradappearsinSinan’s(auto)biography.HowardCraneandEsraAkın,Sinan'sAutobiographiesed.GülruNecipoğlu(Leiden:Brill,2006);SâîMustafaÇelebi,BookofBuildings:Tezkiretü’l-BünyanandTezkiretü’l-EbniyeMemoirsofSinantheArchitect.(Istanbul:KoçBank,2002).

139

innocuous.146Nevertheless,thesultanisenraged,and,followingthestructureoftheearlier

Europeanversionsofthestory,heabruptlydivertsfromhisoriginalpath,leadinghishorse

acrosstheriverratherthancrossing(andgivinggloryto)thepasha’sbridge.Thesultan’s

actionsforcetheentirearmytodivertitscourse,resultingintheridiculousspectacleof

MustafaPashastandingonanemptystonebridgewhilenumberlessOttomangazisstruggle

withtheirhorsesacrosstheMaritsa.Notcontentwithdescribingthesemelodramaticactions,

EvliyaalsoprovidesSüleymanwithabarbedcoupletfortheoccasion:

Minnetilekokmagülüalelindesuseni Geçmenāmerdköprüsündenkoaparsınsuseni147Theversespeakstothesubtextoftheconflict.Thefirstline,roughly‘Don’tsmellsomeone

else’srose,butratherthe[bad-smelling]lilyinyourownhand,’suggeststhatthepashawas

oversteppinghispositioninhisconcealedattempttoattractforhimselfsomeoftheheavenly

glory(ṣavāb)beingjustlyearnedbyhissovereign.Thesecondline,‘Don’tcrossthebridge,

coward;Letyourselfbecarriedawaybythewater’seemsamorestraightforwardattackon

MustafaPasha’slackofhonorandrefusaltojointhecampaign.Evliyathusconditionshis

exorbitantpraiseofthebridge(whichhecallsoneofthefinestphilanthropicworkshehasever

seen)withthisdetailedretellingofthestoryofthedisputebetweenthesultanandthepasha.

146 “Pâdişâhım! Allah gazânı müyesser ide! Avdetde geçen guzâtın savâbı pâdışâhımın olsun” Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatnâmesi, vol. 3, fol. 147b. 147 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatnâmesi, vol. 3, fol. 148a.

140

Variationsofthestoryofthesultanandhisviziercontinuetocirculate.Anundated

onlinearticletitled“AlongSuleimantheMagnificent’sBridgeinSvilengrad”fromthewebsite

balkantravellers.comincludesanupdatedretellingofthebridge’scontestedorigins.

StoryhasitthatMustafaPashacommissionedamastermasonfromEpirustobuildabridgeforthegoodofthepeople.Theconstructionprovedsomagnificentthatthesultanhimselfdemandedtobuyit:notonlyforaestheticreasons,butalsoinhopesofmakingagoodprofitfromthetoll.148

Newdetailshavesurfacedhere(whoisthismastermasonfromEpirus?),buttheconflict

betweenSüleymanandÇobanMustafaremainsthecruxofthematter.Ratherthanadding

pathostothetalewithdrownedsoldiersorwittyinvective,thismodernversioninvolvesa

curse,asuicide,andapaternalsacrifice:

Pressedwithanultimatumandthreatenedwithdismissal,thevizierdecidedthattheonlywaynottolosefaceandatthesametimekeepthebridgeforhissubjectswastocommitsuicide.Whichhedid,leavingSuleimanfuriousbuthelpless.Inaddingafinaltouchtohisabominableimage,thesultanputacurseonthefirstmanwhowastowalkacrossthebridge.ThesuperstitiousBulgariansgrewscaredandreachedatacitconsensusnottosetfootontotheconstruction.Thesituationwassavedbythevizier'sfather,whodecidedtosacrificehimselfsothathisson'ssuicidewouldnotbeinvain.Thelegendendswithhisspectacularstrollacrossthebridge.149

Thefactthattalespostedontheinternethavelittlehistoricalvaluehardlyneedsmentioning.

Yet,inadditiontotheirkitschystagedconfrontationsandsuperstitiousBulgarians,thelong-

enduringtalesofCisr-iMustafaPaşaalsoilluminatethepeculiarityoftheOttoman

infrastructure-buildingsystem.ThefluidityoftheOttomanpatronagesystemmentionedearlier

inthischapterensuredthatsuchmonumentalworkscouldalwaysbereadonmultiplelevels.

148http://www.balkantravellers.com/en/read/article/682 149 http://www.balkantravellers.com/en/read/article/682

141

Towhomdidtheirdivinegloryproperlybelong?Totheofficialwhoendowedthestructure,or

tothesovereignunderwhoseauspicestheworkwascompleted?Doesthespiritualand

practicalcreditfortheSvilengradBridgeaccruetoÇobanMustafaPashaorKanuniSüleyman?

Asthresholds,bridgesareoftenthesiteofspookyfolkmemories(hencethemany

“Devil’sBridges”tobefoundacrosstheBalkans),butthetaleoftheSvilengradbridgeisunique.

IbelievethestorypersistsbecauseoftheintuitivesenseitmadetolocalsandtotheOttoman

andEuropeantravelerswhoheardandrepeatedit,addingnewdetailsovertime.Hadthe

bridgebeenmoremodest,orperhapslocatedfurtherfromthesecondcapitalofEdirne,it

seemsdoubtfulthattheconflictoverownershipwouldhaveresonatedaswellasithas.Çoban

Mustafa,however,transgressedtheexpectationsofpropriety,creatingastructurethatcould

easilybereadas“sultanic”byforeignersandOttomansubjectsalike.Hadthestructurebeen

locatedintheremoteprovinces(liketheHüseyinPashaMosqueinPljevlje),150ratherthan

sittingatthethresholdoftheimperialcorridorlinkingthetwoOttomancapitals,this

antagonisticstoryisunlikelytohaveresonatedsoclearlywithsomanytravelers.Asitwas,the

natureofbuildingpublicworksalwayscelebratedthegloryofbothpatronandsovereign,but

therulesofdecorumnecessitatedthecleararticulationofthecorrectratio.TheSvilengrad

bridge,forallofitsutilityintheempire'stransportationnetwork,seemsalmosttochallenge

thesupremeauthorityoftheOttomanDynasty.Iteffectivelystealsanopportunityfor

Süleymantoprovideforhissubjectsandmarkhisindividualauthorityinaprimelocation.This

was,ofcourse,adrawbacktothede-centralizedpracticeofinfrastructure-building.With

150 See Chapter 1.

142

pashas,beys,andcountlesslesserofficialsbuildingarobustsystemthroughamultitudeof

individualacts,theyplacedaclaimonthespacesofOttomanmobility,evenwhenexplicitly

honoringthedynastyininscriptions.

TheflourishingoftheRagusaRoadintheOttomanerawasdueinlargeparttothe

victoryofinfrastructureandsettlementoverdistance,topography,anddepopulation:itisa

triumphofthemenzil(stoppingplace)overthemountains.Whatismoststrikingisthe

effectivenessofthissystemintheabsenceofaconsistentcentralizedregulatingauthority.

ThereOttomansnevercreatedaversionoftheRomancursuspublicus.Rather,thevast

majorityoftheempire’spublicworksintheprovinces–thebridges,caravanserais,markets,

watersystemsandbathsreliedonbylong-distancetravelers–werebuiltasindividualpious

endowmentsbyregionalandlower-statusofficials,oftenwithlocalties.151Althoughthereign

ofMehmedII(duringwhichBosniaandHerzegovinawereconqueredandabsorbedintothe

Ottomanempire,layingthegroundworkfortrans-Balkancaravantravel)isuniversally

understoodasatimeofincreasingcentralization,theconstructionofpublicworkscontinuedto

bedonebylocalofficialslargelyontheirowninitiative.Suchapracticeisacontinuationofthe

workdonebythecolonizersandbuilderswhatisthoughtofasanearlierera–theGazi

marcherlordswhobuiltthefirsthans,bridges,androadtownsinthefrontierspaceof

Rumelia.152Thebuildingexplosionofthefifteenthandsixteenthcenturiesislargelytheresult

151 “These utilitarian buildings are an eloquent witness to the pragmatic spirit of the Ottomans, combining, as they did, beauty with usefulness” Machiel Kiel, Studies on the Ottoman Architecture of the Balkans (Aldershot: Variorum, 1990), x. 152 The first known purpose-built utilitarian buildings providing services for travelers in the Balkans were constructed by Evrenos Bey in what is now northern Greece, between 1375 and 1385. Ćurčić, Architecture in the Balkans, 611. See also Lowry, Shaping of the Ottoman Balkans.

143

ofthecontinuationoftheseearlieropportunistichabitsofpatronage.Evenasspecificroutes

liketheonethatterminatedatDubrovnikwerefavoredforstrategicpurposes,thepatternsof

patronageessentialtomobilityonthoserouteswerecontrolledlargelythroughunwritten

pressuresandtraditions,andwerenotcuratedbyanappointedofficialorofficeinIstanbul.

Thischapterhasfocusedonworkscreatedbyofficialsattheupperendoftheimperial

ladder.Theirstructures,elegantandeye-catching,arenotedincontemporarytravelaccounts

andhavebeenthesubjectofYugoslavandTurkishscholarlyattention.Theybearthemost

detailedtracesofmemory,eveninthenotinfrequentcaseswhentheirstoneshavebeen

demolishedandscattered.Bearinmind,however,thattherewere2,517vaḳıfsdocumented

acrosstheempirebynon-royalindividualsin1546,and1,600newvaḳıfsthatwereaddedinthe

following50-yearperiod.153Recallthat1500Ottomancaravanseraisandhanswerefoundin

BosniaandHerzegovinaaloneinasurveyof1878.Fortheseventeenthcentury,23hanswere

mentionedbyEvliyaÇelebiinthecityofSarajevo.154Thebulkofthesewerenotbuiltbypashas

orbeysbutbymodestofficialsorprivateindividuals.TheinfrastructuralneedsofOttoman

territorywereoverwhelminglyaddressedbytheseoftenanonymouspatrons,responsiblefor

thousandsofinterventionsaccumulatingovercenturies.AspectrumofOttomanofficials

emulatedtheirsocialsuperiorsinthededicationofvaḳıfstructuresforpublicgood.Fillingin

theblankspaces,theircollectiveactionsmultipliedtheeffectivenessoflarge-scale

constructionsbyOttomanelites.InthecaseoftheRagusaRoad,anincreasinglyaccumulation

oflargeandsmallendowmentstransformedwhathadbeenaremoteregionintoatrans-

153 İnalcik, Classical Age, 144. 154 Kreševljakovič, Hanovi, 157.

144

Balkanhighway.TheroadsystemofRumeliaeventuallybecamesoeffectivethateventhe

VenetianmastersoftheseabegantoexploreoverlandoptionsfromtheAdriatictothe

Bosporus.

ChapterThree:FlorentinesontheRagusaRoad May25.Thysnyghtinahenroost. May26.Thysnyghtonbenchesinourdraggaman'sfather'shouse. May27.Thysnyghtinacartbyapeasant'shouse. May28.Thysnyghtwegottgoodstorofhayandlaylykekynges. May30.Thysnyghtwelayinapeasant'shouseupontheground. May31.AndthysnyghtoveragainstPyrott[Pirot]ontheground. June1.Thysnyghtinapeasanthouse. June2.ThysnyghtatSophya.1

Anarrayofmutually-reinforcingpracticescontributedtotheefflorescenceofoverland

travelacrosstheBalkanPeninsulafromthemiddleofthefifteenthcentury.Ragusa–favored

politically,economically,andthroughthedevelopmentoftravelinfrastructure–thrivedinits

positionasakindof“HongKongoftheAdriatic,”partofandyetdistinctfromtheOttoman

Empire.2YetOttomanandRagusandocumentstelluslittleabouttheactualconditionsoflife

ontheroad.Howdidcaravansfunctiononaday-to-daybasis?Whatweretheconcernsof

travelersinunfamiliarterritory?Howdidforeigntravelersinteractwiththelocalpopulation

andhowdidtheyunderstandthecustomsandhabitstheywitnessed?Whattypesofconflicts

brokeoutandhowweretheyresolved?TerseOttomanfermānsand‘ahid-nāmesarenohelp

here,andsicils,therecordsofthekadicourts,onlydocumentthoseexceptionaldisputesthat

requiredofficialadjudication.ReportsfromtheRagusanmerchantsandambassadorswho

1 From the notes of "Fox," a laconic British traveler on the Ragusa Road in 1589. In Omer Hadžiselimović, At the Gates of the East: British Travel Writers on Bosnia and Herzegovina (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001), 4. 2 The Hong Kong analogy is from F.W. Carter, “The Commerce of the Dubrovnik Republic, 1500-1700,” The Economic History Review, New Series, 24/3 (1971), 389.

146

wouldhavebeenthemostknowledgeabletravelersontheroadlikewisetellsurprisinglylittle

abouttheexperienceoftravelitself.Thefocusoftheirsurvivingdocuments–whichfillthe

shelvesoftheDiplomataetActaandLettereeCommissionidiLevantecollectionsintheState

ArchivesofDubrovnik–isnotlocalintheslightest.Rather,theygivetremendouslydetailed

accountsofhighlevelnegotiationswithOttomanofficials,apracticeatwhichRagusans

excelled.3

ByfarthemostdetailedandabundantbodyofwritingonthedailylifeoftheRagusa

Roadinthefifteenthandsixteenthcenturiesisfoundintheaccountswrittenbytravelersfrom

theItalianPeninsula.Forthesemerchants,pilgrims,diplomatsandspies,theDalmatian

hinterlandandtheinteriorofOttomanRumeliawasaprofoundlyforeignzonethatneededto

bemeasured,observedandinterpreted–added,inshort,totheknownrealmsofarapidly

expandingworld.Thesequattrocentotravelerswereexperiencingunfamiliarterritoryatatime

whenworldgeographiesand“writersontheexotic”werereachinganexpandedaudience

throughthenewlydevelopedprintingpress.4AlthoughMediterraneancoastlineshadbeen

chartedinminutedetailovercenturies,themountainousinternalregionsofthecentralBalkan

Peninsularemainedlittleknown.5Travelaccounts–builtaroundof“spinalcolumn”ofthe

3 On Ragusan diplomacy, see Vesna Miović, Dubrovačka Diplomacija U Istambulu (2003) and “Diplomatic Relations Between the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Dubrovnik,” in Gabor Karman & Lovro Kunčević, eds., The European Tributary States of the Ottoman Empire (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 187-208. 4 Anthony Grafton, New Worlds, Ancient Texts (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1992), 40. 5 For an overview of portolans, see Tony Campbell, “Portolan Charts from the Late Thirteenth Century to 1500,” in J.B. Harley & David Woodward, eds., The History of Cartography Volume One (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 371-463; idem, “Census of Pre-Sixteenth-Century Portolan Charts,” Imago Mundi 38 (1986), 67-94. For Ottoman cartographical practices, including portolans, see Svatopluk Soucek, Piri Reis & Turkish mapmaking after Columbus (London: Nour Foundation/Azimuth Editions,

147

journey’sstages,butflexibleenoughtoincludeanecdotesofwonderandevenfragmentary

revelationsofthepsychologicalstates–areourbestsourcesforrecoveringthelived

experienceofoverlandtravel.6PreviouschaptershaveexploredhowtheOttomansattempted

toshapepatternsofmobilityintheirwesternprovinces.ThischapterusesItaliantravelwriting

torevealhowthenewoverlandtransportationnetworksactuallyfunctionedonaday-to-day

basis.

Thefifteenth-centuryItaliantravelerswhocrossedthewesternrealmsoftherapidly

expandingOttomanstatewereconfrontinganalarmingnewpoliticalrealityinthe

Mediterranean.InItaly,authorsrespondedtoOttomanmilitarysuccessesandimperial

ambitionswithawelterofpolemicaltexts,scaldingtreatisescraftedtobringthereader’sblood

toaboilasameansofbuildingsupportforaunifiedChristianresponsetowhatwas

characterizedastheTurkishmenace.“Crusade”resonatestodayasamedievalphenomenon,

butthecrusadingspiritinfusedtheRenaissanceaswell,especiallyaftertheshockofthe

OttomanconquestofConstantinoplein1453.JamesHankinshasidentifiednolessthan400

survivingtextscallingforanti-OttomanCrusade,writtenbymorethan50differenthumanists,

allfromtheeraofSultanMehmedII:7

1992); Ahmet Karamustafa, “Introduction to Ottoman Cartography” in J.B. Harley & David Woodward, eds., The History of Cartography Volume Two, Book One: Cartography in the traditional Islamic and South Asian Societies (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992). For a discussion of portolans, mapmaking, and shared cultural production in the Mediterranean, see Jerry Brotton, Trading Territories: Mapping the Early Modern World (London: Reaktion Books, 1997) 6 “L’itinéraire et ces étapes constituent ainsi la colonne vertébrale du récit de voyage.” Stephane Yerasimos, Les Voyageurs dans L’empire Ottoman (Ankara: Société Turque d’Histoire, 1991), 5. 7 James Hankins, “Renaissance Crusaders: Humanist Crusade Literature in the Age of Mehmed II,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 49 (1995), 117.

148

ThehumanistswrotefarmoreoftenandatfargreaterlengthabouttheTurkishmenaceandtheneedforcrusadethantheydidaboutsuchbetter-knownhumanistthemesastruenobility,liberaleducation,thedignityofman,ortheimmortalityofthesoul.8

Withafewexceptions,thesetextswerefull-throatedcondemnationsofOttomanTurkish

savagery,composedwithalltheforceandclassicalrefinementthatRenaissancehumanism

couldprovide.

Overthecourseofthefifteenthcentury,HankinsandNancyBisahahaveargued,

crusadingtextsreplacedwhathadbeenasacredmissionforcontroloftheHolyLandwitha

secularvisioninwhichthesuperiorityofEuropewasexpressedoncivilizationalgrounds.9Inthis

argument,noItalianstatecouldcompetewiththeOttomansmilitarily,butthebackward,

practicallynomadicTurkswerenomatchfortheculturallysophisticatedItaliansandtheir

potentialalliesintheWest.Thispolemicalshiftwasaccompaniedbyageographicalpivot,as

IstanbulreplacedJerusalemasthetargetofEuropeanmilitaryintervention.Humanistauthors

8 Hankins, “Renaissance Crusaders,” 112. 9 The articulation of a contest between Western civilization and Eastern barbarism has been treated by a number of scholarly works. James Hankins shows 15th century Italian humanist production on the Ottomans to have been vital to the shift to a more secular identity in the development of a modern idea of Europe, as theorized by Denys Hay and many others (“Renaissance Crusaders,” 145-46). Nancy Bisaha agrees and goes further, viewing the wholesale disparagement of Islamic culture in the 15th century as precursor and foundation for the later practice of Orientalism as illuminated by Edward Said. Margaret Meserve is more circumspect, finding less exceptionalism and rupture in 15th century writings, and more continuity with (and reliance on) Medieval texts in the later writings of humanist authors. See Nancy Bisaha, “New Barbarian or Worthy Adversary” in David Blanks & Michael Frassetto, eds., Western Views of Islam in Medieval and Early Modern Europe (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999); Nancy Bisaha, Creating East and West (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004); Margaret Meserve, Empires of Islam in Renaissance Historical Thought (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008); Kate Fleet, “Italian Perceptions of the Turks in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries” Journal of Mediterranean Studies 5/2 (1995), 159-172; Edward Said, Orientalism (London: Routledge & Kegen Paul, 1978).

149

excavatedtheterm‘barbarian’fromitsclassicalcontext(describingGermans)andre-deployed

itagainstanewlyimposingrivalintheMediterranean(describingTurks).

Despitetheubiquityofhumanistwritingsonanti-Ottomanthemesinthefifteenth

century,theOttomanandItalianworldsweredeeplytied,throughgeographyandby

innumerablecommercialandpoliticalconnections.Merchants,spies,diplomats,andeven

humanistsfromItalianstateswerenotstrangerstotheOttomancourtandtheempire’sbusy

entrepôts.AtatimewhenoverlandtravelacrossthenewlyunifiedBalkanPeninsulawas

becomingaviablealternativetothesearoute,theRepublicofFlorencewasmakinganattempt

toexpanditspresenceintheLevantineturflongdominatedbyGenoaandVenice.Infact,“no

soonerhadtheOttomanTurksseizedConstantinoplethanFlorentinesquicklysoughttotake

advantageofthemarketopportunitiesthatopenedupinthecapitalofthisnewpowerfuland

richstate.”10FlorentineeffortswereencouragedbythepoliciesofMehmedII,thesame

emperorwhosesupposedlymonstrousbehaviorwasextensivelydetailedinfifteenth-century

crusadeliterature.AsHalilInalcıkexplains,MehmedwaswellawareofrivalriesbetweenItalian

states,andactivelysoughttoexploitthem:“TheConquerortriedtofreehisempirefromthe

economicdependenceontheVenetiansbyencouragingFlorenceandDubrovnik,rivalsof

Venice,intheircommercewiththeOttomandominations.In1469hegrantednewtrade

privilegestoFlorence...”11ThefavorableconditionsoftradeofferedbytheOttomansto

10 Richard Goldthwaite, The Economy of Renaissance Florence (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 2009), 183. 11 Halil İnalcık, “An Outline of Ottoman-Venetian Relations,” in Hans-Georg Beck, Manoussos Manoussacas, Agostino Pertusi, eds., Venezia Centro di Mediazione tra Oriente e Occidente (Florence: Olschki, 1977). The year is not incidental. The Ottomans and Venetians were at war from 1463-79.

150

FlorencewerematchedbytheprivilegedtermsgiventoFlorentinemerchantsbyAncona,on

theItaliansideoftheAdriatic,drawingmerchantsacrosstheApenninestotheAdriaticcoast,

ratherthanutilizingthecloserwesternportsofPisaandLivorno.12

Thischapterdetailsthefifteenth-centurytravelerswhogiveusthefirstglimpsesinto

thefunctioningoftheRagusaRoadforinternationaltravelintheOttomanperiod.Thefirst

tracesofthisshiftbeginduringthereignofMehmedIIandcontinueintothesixteenthcentury

underhissonandsuccessor,BayezidII.TheprevalenceofFlorentinesatthisstageisstriking,

butnotentirelysurprisinggiventheclosepoliticalrelationshipbetweenMehmedIIand

Lorenzode’Mediciatthetime.Beginningwithaspyandconcludingwithapairofbumbling

humanistbook-hunters,fifteenth-centuryFlorentinesweretheearlyadaptorsofthenew,

effectiveaxisofmobilitylinkingtheBosphorustotheItalianPeninsula.Ultimately,Florence's

attemptstocircumventVenice'spositionwereunsuccessful.TheendofOttoman-Venetianwar

of1463-1479andFlorence'sdevelopmentoftheportofLivornoontheTyrrhenianSeaoverthe

courseofthesixteenthcenturyreducedtheurgencyofFlorentine-Ragusan-Ottoman

communications.Counter-intuitively,Venice,thegreatItalianmaritimepower,wouldexpand

itsoverlandtraveloperationsintheOttomanBalkansinthesixteenthcentury.

12 Ancona “specifically targeted Florentine merchants by offering them lower customs charges and permitting them to invest directly in maritime trade” Goldthwaite, The Economy, 189. On the role of Ancona between Ragusa and the Italian Peninsula, see Peter Earle, “The Commercial Development of Ancona, 1479-1551,” The Economic History Review, New Series 22/1 (1969), 28-44.

151

BenedettoDei,FlorentineSpy

AroundthetimeofthesigningofFlorence’sfirstcommercialagreementwiththePorte

in1461,aremarkableshape-shiftingcharactercalledBenedettoDeiarrivedintheinternational

merchantcommunityofPera,acrosstheGoldenHornfromIstanbul.13“[U]npleasantasaman,

veryimpassionedaboutthewritingandenthusiasticabouttheeventsofhisFlorentine

homeland,"14DeienthusiasticallysupportedFlorence’sinterestsbycollectingsensitive

informationwhilesomehowmaintaininghiscoverasamerchantworkingintheserviceofthe

VenetianalummerchantGirolamoMichiel.InDei’schronicle,hedisplaysa(somewhat-suspect)

knowledgeofpoliticsandgeography,aswellashisfamiliaritywiththeleadingmenofhisday.15

Dei’swritingalsorevealsapassionatehatredofVenice,notwithstandinghisongoing

employmenttoaVenetianmerchant.IncludedinLaCronicaisatauntinglettertothe‘Viniziani’

containingnolessthanthreementionsofVenetiansbeingfedtoanelephantinfrontofthe

“GranTurco.”16LikelymoreworrisomefromtheVenetianperspectivewashisclaimtohave

13 Benedetto Dei, La Cronica dall’anno 1400 all’anno 1500, ed. Roberto Barducci (Firenze: Papafava, 1985); Paolo Orvieto, “Un esperto orientalista del ‘400: Benedetto Dei,” Rinascimento 9 (1969); “Benedetto Dei,” Dizionario biografico degli Italiani (accessible online via Treccani.it). 14 “antipatico come uomo, molto appassionato all scrivere e entusiasmato dalle vicende della sua patria Fiorentina” Franz Babinger, “Lorenzo de’ Medici e la Corte Ottomana,” Archivio Storico Italiano (1963), 310. 15 “Somma in tutto Benedetto Dei è stato e in Asia e in Africha e in Uropia, per tutte le città chonte e dette, e sso benissimo l’entrata di ciaschuna signoria, e sso chi ghovernna, e sso la traversia e la nimicizia di ciascheduno e a cche modo si può ofendere e in che modo si può sochorere, e sia qual vuole, e sso ogni merchantia sottile e di pregio e di valuta là ov’elle naschono e chi nn’è signiore.” Dei, Cronica, 125. 16 Dei, Cronica, 129-137.

152

advisedthesultanonawaytogaintheadvantageovertheSerenissimaintheaccumulationof

sensitiveinformation.HereportsthatcertainunnamedFlorentines–presumablyhimself–had

coachedtheOttomansinapracticeofsendingspiestocriticallocationswheresensitive

VenetiancorrespondenceheadedformerchantsinAlexandria,Beirut,andConstantinople

couldbeinterceptedandread.Theonlylocationhementionsbynameforsuchintelligence

gatheringis“laviadiRaugia.”17

Undertheentryfor1461,asrelationsbetweenVeniceandtheOttomansdeteriorated,

BenedettoDeirevelsinFlorence’sstrongpositionvis-a-visVeniceandGenoa,boastingthatno

otherstateenjoyedsuchbenevolenceandreceivedsuchgoodcreditfromthesultanasdidthe

“nazionefiorentina.”18ContradictingdescriptionsofthebloodthirstyGranTurcoprevalentin

crusadeliterature,theFlorentinespystressesthemagnanimityofthesultan,aswellashis

interestingatheringinformationabouttheItalianPeninsula.Atonestagehedescribesthe

sultanboardingaFlorentinecommercialvesselinportinConstantinopleinordertolearnthe

factsabout“Italia”fromthemerchantsaboard.19Deiagainmentionsthe“viadiRaugia”

17 “The Ottomans had sent their spies to all the places that the Florentines has showed them...” (“avea mandato gli spioni in tutti que’ luoghi che ‘Fiorentini gl’aveano insegnato e detto, di modo ched egli venne alle mani per la via di Raugia lettere ch’andavano in Alesandria e a Baruti e in Ghostantinopoli, ischritte da Vinegia ai merchanti loro.”) Dei, Cronica, 160 18 “Laonde i gienovesi e i viniziani, li qual’erono in Pera e per la Romanìa, n’ebbono ischoppio e tremore, visto che’l turcho portava tanto amore e tanta benivolenza e tanto chredito a la nazione fiorentina.” Dei, Cronica, 161. 19 Dei, Cronica, 160.

153

explicitlyasanessentiallinkforthesecureexchangeoftime-sensitiveinformation,thistime

relatingtoeventsin1464.20

Unfortunately,norecordofBenedettoDei’spersonaltravelrouteshassurvived.His

chronicle,however,isanimportantrecordofthevalueplacedonRagusaasanodeof

intelligencegathering,areflectionofitscentralityintheAdriaticSeaanditsoppositionto

Venice.Despiteitsflightsofhyperbole,Dei’stextconfirmsthataneffectiveOttoman-Florentine

workingrelationshipwasfirmlyinplacebytheearly1460s,andthatbothpartieswerewell

awareoftheusesofRagusa,especiallyasamediatorofstrategicinformation.Moreover,his

depictionofSultanMehmedIIasanastuteobserverofthefactionsandalliancesofItalian

statesshowsasovereignwhounderstoodhowtoleveragehisrelationshipswithusefulwestern

partnersbymultiplemeans(diplomatic,economic,andthesharingofintelligence)toweakena

commonenemy.Thus,whenabloodyattemptedcoupnearlytoppledtherulingestablishment

inFlorence,theIstanbul-Ragusa-Florenceaxiswasalreadywellestablishedandpreparedto

dealwiththeconsequences.

Onthe26thofApril,1478,Lorenzode’MediciandhisbrotherGiulianowereassaulted

duringhighmassatFlorence’sDuomo.Giulianode’Medicidied,havingbeenstabbedsome19

times,butLeonardomanagedtoescapewithonlyminorinjuries.ThePazziConspiracy,asit

cametobecalled,wasacrisisfromwhichtheMediciwereabletosurvivewithanenhanced–if

20 The Sultan heard from his spies (who were sent from a Florentine by way of Ragusa) about Venetian plans to send 43 galleys to the port of Mytiline (on the island of Lesbos), which had been conquered by the Ottomans in 1462: “E sentì [Sultan Mehmed II] anchora per via di Raugia, dai suoi ispioni mandati da uno fiorentino, chome la signorìa di Vinegia avea meso a ordine 43 ghalee di già uscite fuori a chanpo, per andare all’asedio di Metelino chol chapitano Orsatto Giustiniani gentilomo.” Dei, Cronica: 162

154

stilltechnicallyindirect–holdonFlorentinepolitics.21Duringtheperiodofreprisalsthat

followed,BernardoBandinodeiBaroncelli,whowasoneoftheleadingconspirators,eludedthe

enragedpopulaceandeventuallymadehiswayasfarasIstanbul.BernardoBandinohad

powerfulconnectionsintheFlorentinemerchantcommunityinPera,includingtheFlorentine

consulCarloBaroncelli.Nevertheless,Bandino’spresencewaseventuallymadeknownto

SultanMehmedII,whowasfavorablyinclinedtowardLorenzoilMagnifico.22Inthemiddleof

June,1479,aresidentofPeranotifiedthecommuneofFlorencethatBandinohadbeen

arrestedbytheOttomans,andthatheshouldbecollectedandrepatriatedwithoutdelay.The

Florentinesrespondedwithgreatspeed.OnthethirdofJulyAntoniodiBernardode’Medici

wasrecalledtoFlorencewhere,on11thofthesamemonth,hereceiveddetailedinstructions:

hewastoproceeddirectlytoConstantinople,wherehewastotakepossessionofthe

conspiratorBernardoBandiniandreturnhimtoFlorence.23

Antoniode’MedicileftFlorenceonJuly14th1479,andhisjourneycanbepartially

reconstructedfromtheProtocolli,aledgerofthecorrespondencesentbyLorenzode’Medici

andhissecretaries.Althoughthelettersthemselveshavenotsurvived,theirdestinationsand

intendedrecipientsarelisted.AntoniotraveledfirstnortheasttoFaenza,thenontothe

AdriaticportcitiesofRiminiandPesaro.FromherehecrossedtheAdriatic,makinghiswayto

21 Angelo Poliziano, Della Congiura dei Pazzi, Alessandro Perosa, ed. (Padova: Antenore, 1958). 22 Babinger, “Lorenzo,” 316. 23 Marcello Del Piazzo, Protocolli del carteggio di Lorenzo il Magnifico per gli anni 1473-74, 1477-92 (Florence: Olschki, 1956), 93.

155

Ragusawherehecontinued“perterra”toreachIstanbul.24Carryingoutoneofthemore

sensitivediplomaticmissionsofthefifteenthcentury,Antonioselected(orwasinstructed)to

traveloverlandbytheRagusaRoad,eventhoughtheregionofHerzegovinathroughwhichthe

roadpassedwasstillnominallyindependent.25Morethanachannelofcommunicationand

informationexchange,themissionofAntoniode’MediciconfirmstheRagusaRoadhad

becomeaviablerouteforoverlandtravelbetweenItalyandtheOttomancapital.

ItisnotknownhowAntoniode’MediciandthedisgracedBernardoBandinidei

BaroncellireturnedtoFlorence.ItisknownthattheyarrivedinFlorenceonChristmasEve,

1479afterstoppinginVeniceontheseventhofDecember,suggestingamarinereturn

voyage.26Antoniowasabletocompletehisround-tripmissioninfiveandahalfmonths,

despitetravelingoverlandacrosstheBalkansatanearlystageintheRagusaRoad’s

development,anddespitereturningtoFlorenceinwinter.Fromthispointonward,theRagusa

Roadwouldcontinuetoexpanditsroleanimportantchannelfordiplomaticmissionsofall

typesbetweentheArnoandtheBosphorus.27

24 Del Piazzo, Protocolli, 93-94; Babinger, “Lorenzo,” 317. 25 Bosnia, on the north side of the Ragusa Road, was conquered by the Ottomans in 1463. Vladislav, son of Hersek/Herzog Stefan (Stjepan Vukčić), and ruler of Herzegovina, was not defeated by the Ottomans until 1482. Vladislav’s younger brother was a convert to Islam who eventually become the five-time Grand Vizier Hersekzade Ahmed Pasha. See Heath Lowry, Hersekzâde Ahmed Paşa: An Ottoman Statesman’s Career & Pious Endowments (Istanbul: Bahçeşehir University Press, 2011) 26 Poliziano, Della Congiura, 53. 27 Lorenzo de’ Medici was not present in Florence when Bernardo Bandini was hanged from a window of the Bargello (dressed “alla turchescha,” all in blue) on the 29th of December. But Leonardo da Vinci was, and his study of the executed conspirator survives at the Musée Bonnat in Bayonne, France.

156

CemSultan

ThecontinuingimportanceoftheIstanbul-Ragusa-Florencechannelofdiplomacycanbe

seeninanothermajorpoliticalcrisis,thistimeoneafflictingtheHouseofOsman.When

MehmedIIdied,onMay3,1481,histwosurvivingsonswerepreparedtoactquickly.Both

racedtowardsIstanbultostaketheirclaimtothethrone,BayezidcomingfromAmasyaand

CemfromKonya,wheretheyhadservedasprovincialgovernors.PrinceBayezid,whoenjoyed

powerfulsupportfromthejanissarycorpsandhighofficials,wontherace,andwasinstalledas

SultanBayezidII,whosetenurewouldlastsome31years.HisbrotherCembeganaperipatetic

lifeofexilethatwouldlastuntilhisdeathontheroadbetweenRomeandNaplesin1495.

BayezidII’sruleremainedunsettledaslongashisbrotherwasalive.Thesultanneeded

reliableinformationabouthisbrother’slocationandphysicalstate,bothtoensurehisown

politicalsecurity,andtomakeclearthatthe45,000ducatshepaidyearlyforhisbrother’s

upkeepwasnotbeingwasted.28TheCemaffairbringstolightanextensivenetworkofspies

andagentswhocrisscrossedthelandandsearoutesoftheMediterraneaninordertokeep

tabsonthefugitivePrince.29

28 Halil İnalcık, “Djem,” EI2 29 There is a sizeable bibliography on the Cem affair. See Louis Thausne, Djem-Sultan (Paris: Leroux, 1892); I. H. Ertalyan, Sultan Cem (Istanbul, 1951); Nicolas Vatin, Sultan Djem: un prince ottoman dans l'Europe du XVe siècle d'après deux sources contemporaines (Ankara, Société Turque d’Histoire, 1997); John Freely, Jem Sultan: the adventures of a captive Turkish prince in Renaissance Europe (London: HarperCollins, 2004).

157

AtleastfivemissionsinvolvingOttomanagentssenttoWesternEuropetogather

informationonPrinceCemhavebeendocumented,andmanymorearehintedatfrom

documentsandlettersintheTopkapıPalaceArchives.30Florence–stillunderthecontrolof

LorenzoilMagnifico–wasoneofmanyItalianstatesthatactivelyassistedOttomanagentsin

thewest:sharinginformation,smoothingdiplomaticpathways,andprovidingpracticalsupport

withguidesandtranslators.Venice’sambivalentpositionbetweenitsChristiandutytosupport

anti-Ottomancrusadeandthecommercialnecessitiesofitscommercialdependenceonthe

easternMediterraneanearnedtheRepublicthetitle“WhoreoftheTurk.”31Underthepolicies

ofilMagnifico,Florenceinhabitedasimilarlymurkyarea.“ThankstoLorenzo'sfameasa

philoturk,Florencefurtherenhanceditsexistingreputationforgreedandimpiety.”32Florentine

merchant/agentsstationedinPeraas(suchasBenedettoDei)directlyassistedtheOttomans.

OtherFlorentinesnotonlysharedsensitiveinformationbutalsoaccompaniedOttomanagents

ontheirmissionsinEurope,bringinglettersandreportsbacktoIstanbul,oftenviaRagusa.

30 I. H. Uzunçarşılı, "Cem Sultana dair beş orijinal vesika," Belleten 24 (1960): 457-475; V.L. Ménage, “The Mission of an Ottoman Secret Agent in France in 1486” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 3/4 (1965), 112-132; Nicolas Vatin, “Itinéraires d’agents de la Porte en Italie (1433-1495),” Turcica XIX (1987), 29-49. 31 Molly Greene, Catholic Pirates and Greek Merchants: a maritime history of the Mediterranean (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010), 61. 32 James Hankins, “Renaissance Crusaders,” 126. As with contemporary Italian States, Florence’s direct assistance to the Ottomans was at variance to its nominal support for anti-Ottoman crusade. Lorenzo de’ Medici’s correspondence underlies this awkward posture: “June 14, 1477: “Al papa. Risposta, per la contributione contra il Turco.” Protocolli, 13. With the capture of Prince Cem, Christendom acquired a key element around which to potentially roll back the advances of a now divided Ottoman empire. Instead, intra-European rivalries prevented any coordinated action. Benedetto Dei’s description of Mehmed II’s understanding of a divided and ineffective Europe was not incorrect.

158

Go-Betweens

OnefigurewhostandsoutinthiswebofactivityrelatedtoCemSultanistheFlorentine

merchantPaolo(orPagolo,orPagholo)daColle,recipientofmultiplelettersdocumentedin

theProtocolli,suchasthisnoticefromJune15,1481(shortlyafterthedeathofMehmedII):

“ToPaolodaColle,intheLevant;thankinghimforthereportsandencouraginghimtocontinue

tosendnoticesrelatedtothenewlord[SultanBayezidII].”33DuringtheperiodofCem’s

Europeancaptivity,daColle(whowasactiveinPeraforsomefourteenyears)waswell-

positionedtoofferassistancetothenewOttomansultan,astheFlorentineRepublicworkedto

continuethecloserelationshipenjoyedwithhisfather.34DaCollewascomfortablewriting

directlytoLorenzode’MediciwithmessagesfromtheOttomansultan,ashedidinaletterthat

survivesfromMarch31,1483.AccompanyinganOttomanagent(identifiedbyBabingerand

VatinasIsmail)fromIstanbultoSavoy(viaFlorence),daColletooktimeatPesarotoupdate

Lorenzoofhismovements,andtoarticulatethesultan’shighesteemfortheMediciprince.35

DaCollethensentanotherFlorentine,the“aportatore(messenger)GirolamoSpinegli”ahead

toFlorencetocommunicatehisintentiontoarriveinthecitysoonwiththe“huomodelGran

33 June 15, 1481. “A Paolo da Colle, in Levante; ringratiando d’avisi, et confortandolo a seguire dando notitia particulare delle [cose] di là e del signore nuovo, etc.” Protocolli, 150. 34 Strangely, Paolo da Colle is never mentioned in La Cronica of Benedetto Dei although both men lived and worked in similar functions in Pera. 35 Babinger, “Lorenzo,” 329. Vatin “Itinéraires,” 30. The Turkish emissary Ismail was presented “avec honneur” at the Florentine Senate on April 4, 1483.

159

Turcho.36Intotheletter,daCollecommunicateshisintentiontolodgehisOttomanchargeat

thehomeofhis(Paolo’s)brotherinFlorence.

Agents,go-betweens,andtranslatorsweretheinvisiblemotorsofeffectivecross-

culturalcommunication.MenlikeBenedettoDei,PaolodaColleandGirolamoSpinelliarea

visiblefractionofthearrayoffiguresbehindeverysuccessfuljourneybetweentheItalian

PeninsulaandtheOttomancentersofpower.“Culturalamphibians,”theyinhabitedafluid

stratumofsocietywhereclearconceptionsofidentityareoftendifficulttomaintain.37Natalie

Rothmanhasexploredthehistoryofwhatsheterms“trans-imperialsubjects”intheearly

modernMediterranean,particularlythoseofVeniceanditsoverlandempire.Commercial

brokersarethesubjectofcloseanalysisinherwork,whichnotestheireffectivenessinlinkinga

broadspectrumofotherwisediscreteelements:“...brokersoperatedattheinterfacebetween

thegovernmentandforeigners,betweenthemercantileandartisanalsectorsofVenetian

society,betweenstateinstitutionsandthemarket,andbetweenrichandpoor.”38Rothman’s

attentionislargelyconfinedtocosmopolitanbrokerslivinginthecityofVenice.Yether

36 Archivio di Stato di Firenze, Archivio Mediceo avanti il principato, filza XXXII, n. 118. Facsimile and edited version of the letter published in Babinger, “Lorenzo,” Table II and page 328. No information of their route is contained in the letter, except a mention of the “Dardanegli” and an unspecified number of days “in mare” suggesting the sea route from Istanbul). 37 On go-betweens, see Peter Sahlins, Boundaries: the making of France and Spain in the Pyrenees (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989). See also Vesna Miović-Perić “Dragomans of the Dubrovnik Republic: Their Training and Career” Dubrovnik Annals 5 (2002): 81-94 and Eric Dursteler. “Identity and Coexistence in the Eastern Mediterranean, ca. 1600.” New Perspectives on Turkey 18 (1998): 113-130. See also L. P. Hartley’s excellent novel The Go-Between (1953) for the conflicted origins of this useful term. 38 Natalie Rothman, “Between Venice and Istanbul: Trans-Imperial Subjects and Cultural Mediation in the Early Modern Mediterranean,” (PhD diss., University of Michigan, 2006): 42 and her subsequent book Brokering Empire (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2012).

160

formulationholdsforthemobileagentswhoareencounteredinItaliantravelogues.Theywere

vitalintermediariesabletosmooththetransitionsofinternationalvoyagersincountlessways.

DuringtheyearsofheighteneddiplomaticactivityduringCem’scaptivity,Avlona(Vlorë,

Albania),anOttomansancaksince1466loctedtothesouthofRagusa,wasthekeytransfer

pointtotheAdriaticforallthedocumentedOttomanmissionstoWesternEurope.39Yetit

comesasnosurprisethatRagusawasalsoinvolvedasanimportantcommunicationandtravel

channelbetweenFlorenceandIstanbul.40Followinglongstandingpractice,criticalmessages

weresentalongmultipleroutes(bothbylandandbysea)toensuredelivery.Theoverland

routefromRagusaisspecifiedbynameinmultipleinstancesdocumentedintheProtocolli.

Dubrovnik,ataconfluenceoflandandsearoutesradiatinginalldirections,enjoyedfrequent

andrelativelysecuremaritimecommunicationswithItaliancitiesontheoppositeshoreofthe

Adriatic,andwasusedevenbythosetravelerswhodidnottraveloverlandbytheRagusaRoad.

Forexample,Ismail–whoreachedtheAdriaticatAvlona–bookedpassagetoItalyforhisparty

onashipfromRagusatoAnconaonthebasisofaletterfromthesultan.41

PaolodaColle’scourierGirolamoSpinellialsoseemstohavehadsomeexperienceon

theRagusaRoad.AlettersentfromLorenzotoRagusaonAugust25,1483isrecordedthus:“To

39 “Avlona – to which they [Ottoman agents] travel overland, had long been in Ottoman hands and was at this period the base for all Ottoman enterprises – warlike, diplomatic and secret – in Italy.” Ménage, “Report,” 119; Vatin, “Itinéraires,” -41. 40 For example, the letter of June 28, 1483: “Alla signoria di Ragugia, che mandino le sopradecte lettere al Gran Turco” Protocolli, 249. 41 Vatin, “Itinéraires,” 30.

161

theSignoriaofRagusa,forGirolamoSpinelli,whowillgotoTurkey.”42TheextentofSpinelli’s

involvementwiththeOttomanmissionof1483remainsunclear.DidhetravelwithdaColleand

IsmailalltheywayfromIstanbul,ordidhesimplyjointheminPesaro,orelsewhere?Itis

temptingtoassumethatSpinelliwasinvolvedintheentiretyoftheOttomanagent’smission,

andthathisreturnto“Turchia”laterintheyearwasmotivatedbyadesiretocommunicateup-

to-dateinformationaboutCem’ssituationinFrancewithareliable,informedsource.Inany

case,theevidentwisdomofsendingimportantcorrespondencebymultipleroutesis

underscoredbythefactthattheOttomanemissaryIsmail(whohadbeenassistedinItalybyda

Colle)wascapturedbytheKnightsofSt.Johnandendedupspendingfouryearsincarcerated

ontheislandofRhodes.43ThankstoBayezid’srelationshipwithLorenzoandthenetworkof

mobileFlorentinemerchant/spies,thePortewouldstillhavelearnedthedetailsofIsmail's

mission,courtesyofGirolamoSpinellitravelingoverland.ThefactthattheRagusanleadership

wasalertedtohismissionbyLorenzo’slettersuggeststhatGirolamo’s(presumablysuccessful)

returntoIstanbulinvolvedtheoverlandroutefromDubrovnik.Evenintheseearlydaysoflong-

distancetravelintheOttomanBalkans,thesloweroverlandroutewasattimespreferredtothe

unpredictablesea,evenforurgentmissions.44

42 August 25, 1483: “Alla signoria di Raugia, per Girolamo Spinelli che va in Turchia.” Protocolli, 255. As Babinger has written, it can be deduced from the text that this letter and its bearer also took the “lunga strada di Ragusa”. Babinger, “Lorenzo,” 330. 43 Babinger, “Lorenzo,” 194. 44 “Per la spedizione si sceglieva la strada per terra dei Balcani, probabilmente molto più sicura di quella marittima...” Babinger, “Lorenzo,” 337-338. In order to avoid Venice's dominance at sea, Ottoman travel to Italy tended to be “le moins maritime possible, tout en quittant le plus tard possible le territoire ottoman.” Vatin “Itinéraires,” 34-35.

162

TheexperiencesofFlorentineslikeBenedettoDei,Antoniode’Medici,PaolodaColle,

andGirolamoSpinellishowthehighlevelofcooperationbetweenFlorenceandtheOttoman

Empireintheintertwinedworldsofcommerce,politics,andespionage.Renaissancehumanism,

atopicmorereadilyassociatedwithquattrocentoFlorencethantheempireofthegazis,also

motivatedinternationaltravelbetweenTuscanyandtheOttomanlands,andhereagainRagusa

playedanimportantintermediaryrole.AstheOttomansexpandedacrossthelandsof

Byzantium,manyGreekscholarshadelectedtorelocatetothecitiesoftheItalianPeninsula,

whereclassicallearningwasindemandanderuditespeakersofGreekwereaprized

commodity.Some,embracingCatholicism,simplyremainedinItalyaftertheirparticipationat

thecouncilsatFerraraandFlorence(1438,1439-1445).OthersmadetheirwaytoItalyafterthe

OttomanconquestofculturalcenterslikeConstantinople(1453),Trebizond(1461),and

Negroponte(1470).

JanusLascaris

JanusLascaris,borninConstantinoplearound1445,wasoneoftheseperipateticand

influentialGreeks.45HewasstillquiteyoungwhenhearrivedinVenice,wherehewastaken

underthepatronageofCardinalBessarion,himselfanémigréfromByzantium.Lascarisstudied

attheUniversityofPaduaand,followingBessarion’sdeathin1472,madehiswaytoFlorence

45 On Janus Lascaris see Jonathan Harris, Greek Emigres in the West: 1400-1520 (Camberley: Porphyrogenitus, 1995); Börje Knös, Un Ambassadeur de l’Hellénisme, Janus Lascaris (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1945).

163

wherehegavelecturesatLorenzo’sAcademy.Italiancourtsinthefifteenthcenturywere

engagedinaheatedrivalryfor,amongotherthings,classicalmanuscripts.Humanistscholars

likePoggioBracciolinihadmadeexplosivediscoveriesinmonasticlibraries,primarilythose

locatedinGermany,Switzerland,andFrance.Manuscripts,ofcourse,werenotconfinedtothe

north,butcouldalsobefoundintheeast,inprivatecollectionsandinthelibrariesofOrthodox

monasteriesinOttomanRumelia.Intheearly1490s,JanusLascariswentontwoextensive

journeysintheeasternMediterraneanonbehalfofhisFlorentinepatronLorenzode’Medici.

HewasinstructedtoobservetheOttomanpoliticalandmilitarysituation,butaboveall,his

missionwastocollectasmanyraremanuscriptsaspossible.InaletterhelatersenttoCharles

V,Lascarisdescribeshistwovoyages:

SenttothePrinceoftheTurkswiththetitleofAmbassadorforanhonestandnotunprofitableundertaking,IwenttheretwicewithlettersofaccreditationandlivedtwoyearsinTurkey,havinggoneandreturnedbyvariousroutes,somebysea,othersbyland.46Takingdifferentroutes,LascariscoveredagreatdealofterritoryintheOttomanand

Venetianlands,includingveryproductivestopsinIstanbul,Salonika,themonasteriesofMt.

Athos,andCrete.Unfortunately,nocomprehensiveitineraryofLascaris’routesurvives,other

thanhismentionoftakingbothlandandsearoutes.OnecertaintyisthattheFlorentine

merchantcommunityinPeraandtheOttomanSultanhimselfwerebothkeptapprisedofthe

46 “enuoyé vers le Prince des Turcs en tiltre d’Embassadeur pour couse honeste et icelle non peu prouffitable. . . y allé deux fois euec lettres de creance et ayant demeuré deus ans en Turquie, estant allé et reuenu par diuers chemins, telle fois par mer, autre par terre.” The letter from Lascaris to Charles V was published by Belle-Forest in Harangue de seigneur Iean Lascaris Constantinopolitain, au nom du Pape Clement 7 à l’Empereur Charles le Quint pour la concorde de la Chrestienté et la guerre contre le Turc (Paris, 1573). Quoted in Knös, Janus Lascaris, 33.

164

importanceofhismovementsthroughletterssentfromsecretariesofLorenzode’Medici.A

lettersentJune25,1490wassentinsupportofhisacquisitionalmission:“tothesultan,tothe

consulofPera,toMasterNicolòdaSiena.”47InAprilofthefollowingyear,moremessageswere

senttothesamerecipientsforthesamepurpose.48TheGreekhumanisthimselfcarriedthree

letters:oneforBayezidII,onefortheaforementionedNicolòdaSiena,andoneforthe

FlorentineconsulatPera.49Althoughitisimpossibletogiveaprecisenumber,ithasbeen

estimatedthatLascariswasabletobringbackapproximately200manuscriptsfromOttoman

landstoenhanceLorenzo’slibraryinFlorence.50

BernardoandBonsignore

ItisnotknownifLascaristraveledtheRagusaroad,butnotlongafterhissuccessful

antiquarianmissions,twowell-connectedFlorentineecclesiasticssetoffonajourneythrough

theBalkansandtheeasternMediterraneanthatcombinedbook-huntingandpilgrimage.

BernardoMichelozzi,sonofthefamoussculptorandarchitectMichelozzoMichelozzidi

Bartolomeo,andhiscompanionBonsignoreBonsignoriwerebothwelltrainedinthestudia

humanitatisandeagertomakediscoveriesoftheirownintheLevant.InJulyof1497thesetwo

47 “Al turco, al consolo di Pera, a maestro Nicolò da Siena per lo spaccio di messer Lascari” Protocolli, 416. 48 Protocolli, 444. 49 Knös, Un Ambassadeur, 45. 50 Knös, Un Ambassadeur, 51.

165

setoffwithasmallpartyfora16-monthtripthatwouldtakethemfromFlorencetoPesaroto

Ragusa,fromwhichtheywouldcrosstheBalkanPeninsulatoConstantinople.Fromthe

OttomancapitaltheycontinuedontoBursa,thensouthalongtheeasternAegeancoastof

Anatolia,crossingtoRhodesandCyprusand,finally,Jerusalem.Thankstonumeroussurviving

letters(writtenprimarilybyBonsignori)preservedintheBibliotecaNazionalediFirenze,wecan

piecetogethertheirjourney,representingthefirstdetailedandcompleteaccountofthe

RagusaRoadintheOttomanera.51

NiccolòMichelozzi,brothertoBernardoandsecretarytoLorenzode’Medici,wasthe

primaryrecipientofthetravelers’letters.BasedoninternalevidenceitseemsthatNiccolòhad

himselfpreviouslymadethejourneytoConstantinople,aboutwhichnodetailsseemtoexist.52

Thecorrespondencerelatescolorfulanddeeplypersonalfirstimpressionsofthejourney,

frequentlyfilledwithapalpablesenseofwonder,especiallyinthebustlingOttomancities.

Incidentalanecdotesaboutfood,wine,lodging,andotherpracticalpreoccupationsoflifeon

theroadenliventhechronologicalstructure,breakinguptherhythmofthestage-to-stage

reports.Obliquely,BonsignoriandBernardorefertothefearsofdiseaseandcaptureandeven

deaththattheycarried–perhapsinvisibly,butnotweightlessly–alongwiththeirphysical

51 Eve Borsook, “The Travels of Bernardo Michelozzi and Bonsignore Bonsignori in the Levant,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 36 (1973), 145-197. The letters are held at the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze: MSS Ginori-Conti 29, 99 (Bonsignori) and MSS Ginori-Conti 29, 55 (Bernardo). Bonsignori’s memoir “Viaggio in Gierusalenme per via di Constantinopoli” (1497) is also at the BNCF: MSS Magl. XIII, 93. I will use Bernardo's first name to avoid confusion with the other Michelozzis. 52 Borsook, “Travels,” 145.

166

baggage.Thelettersandthememoiralsorevealtheextentoftheirrelianceongo-betweens

fromtheFlorentinemercantile-cum-diplomaticnetworkarrayedacrossOttomanterritory.

UnliketheFlorentinefiguresdescribedinthischapter,BernardoMichelozziand

BonsignoreBonsignoriwereneithermerchantsnordiplomaticagentssenttodealwith(or

profitfrom)apoliticalcrisis.TheywerenotsentonamissionbyLorenzode’Mediciorany

otherpatron.Bernardoapparentlyconceivedofthetripandlargelypaidthebills.53His

rationaleforincludingBonsignoriisunclearbut,basedonthelatter’slivelywritingstyle,he

seemstohavebeenaninspiredtravelcompanion.Lascaris’recentandsuccessfulbook-buying

excursionsmayhavebeenastrongimpetusfortheadventure,aswouldthememoryofother

Italianhumanisttravelersintheeast,suchasCristoforoBuondelmontiandCiriacod’Ancona.54

Inhisownwords,Bonsignoriclarifiesthatbook-buyingwastobetheprimeobjective,whilethe

pilgrimagetoJerusalemandvisitstothesightsofantiquityweretobeattemptedonlyiftime

allowed:

...potetehaccausaiternostrumadinfedelespretexere,cheinTurchiaandiamopercercarlibriGrecietmaximeecclesiastici.Necmendaciumsicdices,dipoiubitempusappetitHierosolymainvisendi[causacrossedout]illucnosconferemuslocaeavisendigratiaquaeDominiNostrisvestigiocalcatasint...55

53 “...la spesa scrivete a mio conto et di tutto vi satisffarò” BNCF, MSS Ginori-Conti 29, 99, c. 45. Borsook, “Travels,” 148. 54 On Buondelmonti, see Roberto Weiss, The Renaissance Discovery of Classical Antiquity, esp. 135-138 (For Ciriaco see pages 138-140). See also Roberto Weiss “Un umanista antiquario––Cristoforo Buondelmonti” Lettere Italiane, XVI (1964); Bernard Ashmole, “Cyriac of Ancona,” Proceedings of the British Academy, XLV (1959); and Ciriaco d’Ancona Later Travels, trans. and ed. Edward Bodnar & Clive Foss (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003). 55 BNCF, MSS Ginori-Conti 29, 99, cc. 6-7. Borsook “Travels,” 148 and Appendix, doc. 5.

167

InthenowfamiliarFlorentinefashion,BernardoandBonsignoricrossedtheApennines

totheAdriaticcoast,headingforPesaro,wheretheyweretotakeashipacrosstheAdriaticto

Dalmatia.Bonsignori’sletterstoNiccolòMichelozzigiveadetailedsenseofthedifficultiesfaced

bythemanytravelerswhomadetheirwaybetweentheArnoandtheAdriaticinthistime

period.Thechallengesofaremotealpineenvironmentandasuspiciouslocalpopulationwere

notonlyfoundintheDinaricAlpsoftheBalkanPeninsula,butinfactbeganonlyafewdays

outsidetheirnativecity.TheApennineswereremoteandwildenoughthatthepartyhad

troublefindingadequatefodderfortheirhorses.Bonsignoriandayoungattendantnamed

“Ghazetto”managedtoseparatethemselvesfromthemainparty,gettingtemporarilylostin

thewoods.56Perhapsworstofall,accordingtheepicureanBonsignori,two“fiaschidivino”

beingcarriedintheirbaggageweresmashedwhenoneofthepackhorsestrippedandfell.

Bonsignorimaybejokingwhenhedescribesthislosswasgreaterthanthelossofblooditself,

“tantoeraprezioso.”Butthenagain,thesementooktheirfoodanddrinkquiteseriously.57One

eveningitwassodifficulttofindlodgingthatthegroupspentthenightinachurch,pack

animalsandall.58BonsignoriwritesthatheisconfidentthatGodwouldforgivetheiroffence,

whicharoseonlyoutofnecessity.59

56 BNCF MSS Ginori-Conti 29, 99, c. 2. Borsook “Travels,” appendix, doc 1. 57 BNCF MSS Ginori-Conti 29, 99, c. 2. Borsook “Travels,” appendix, doc 1. 58 Borsook, “Travels,” 152. 59 “Non ho dubbio Iddio alla necessità nostra harà perdonato.” BNCF MSS Ginori-Conti 29, 99, c. 2. Borsook, “Travels,” appendix, doc 1.

168

AstheyclearedtheApenninesandreachedthecitiesofthenorthernmarches,anew,

moreseriousproblemwasencountered:plague.Citywallswerebeingkepttightlyclosedto

strangersoutoffearofcontagion.UponreachedthecoastatPesaro,theirintended

destination,theiramplefundsandeliteconnectionsinFlorencewereinsufficienttogainthem

accesstothecity.Infact,theywerenotevenpermittedtostaydirectlyoutsidethecitywalls.

ThepartyeventuallyretreatedtoRiminiwheretheyspentaweektryingtorectifythesituation.

Thearrival,atthismoment,ofacertainGiovanniMaringhifromPeramusthaveseemedlikea

godsend.Maringhi,nephewofBernardoandNiccolòMichelozzi,wasbasedintheOttoman

capital,whereheworkedforseveralFlorentinefamilyfirmsincludingtheMichelozziandthe

Medici.60LikePaolodaColle,Maringhiwasamasterfulgo-betweenwhopossessedasetof

linguisticandpragmatictoolsthatmadehimavaluablememberoftheparty,whichhe

eventuallyaccompaniedtoIstanbulandbeyond.Bonsignori’slettersrepeatedlymention

Maringhibyname,highlightinghiseffortsandeffectiveness,informationthatwouldhavebeen

appreciatedbytherecipient,NiccolòMichelozzibackinFlorence.

MaringhiwentaheadtoPesarotosmooththewayforthetravelers,justashewoulddo

lateratRagusa,Edirne,PeraandBursa.“BeforeboardingtheirRagusancaravelleatduskonthe

firstofSeptember,Bernardowrotecheerfullyoftheperfectstateofwind,seaandstars;allwas

readyandhehopedtoreach'Silvanium'safely.”61RoughlyamonthafterleavingFlorence,

60 On Giovanni Maringhi, see Astorri “Il ‘Libro delle Senserie’ di Girolamo di Agostino Maringhi,” Archivio Storico Italiano 146/3) (1988), 389-408; Gertrude Richards, Florentine Merchants in the Age of the Medici (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1932). 61 Borsook, “Travels,” 154.

169

BernardoandBonsignoriwerefinallyreadytomaketheirdeparturetotheLevant.Thesea,

however,liveduptoitswell-foundedreputationforunpredictability.Ratherthantheexpected

four-daycrossing,theirshipwasgroundedinthemiddleoftheAdriaticbysixdaysofdead

calm,followedbyastormwithhowlingwindsthatblewthemoffcourse.62Intheend,ittook

elevendaystoreachRagusa,wheretheyweremetbyagrandentrancecompletewithcannon

salute.ThewarmwelcomewasatleastpartlytheresultofMaringhi’sefforts,helpedbya

contactfromBernardoandBonsignori’scircleofhumanistecclesiasticsbackhome.63

InRagusatheFlorentinetravelpartywasabletoprepareallthenecessitiesfortheir

overlandjourney.Inaweektheyputtogetherateamthatincluded114packanimals.

Meanwhile,thankstoRagusa’sexcellentcommunicationsnetwork,importantdocuments

arrivedfromNiccolòinFlorence,havingbeensentviaRimini.64Thusprepared,theFlorentines

setoffonanothermountainouscrossing,whichBonsignoridescribesinsomedetailinaletter

senttoNiccolòfrom‘Dirimiglia’(KosovskaMitrovica,inKosovo,betweenNoviPazar,Serbiaand

Pristina,Kosovo).Detailingsixdaysspentinthemountains,theletterreportsBonsignori’s

62 Bonsignori to Niccolò, 16 September 1497. MSS Ginori-Conti 29, 99 c. 4. Borsook, “Travels,” appendix, doc. 2. 63 Maringhi, as usual, went ahead into the city. He was met there by Giorgio Benigno, a Bosnian cleric who had taught theology at the Florentine studio. Giorgio had retired to Ragusa not long before the arrival of Bonsignori and Bernardo who had sent him letters prior to their Adriatic crossing. Bonsignori describes the actions leading to their entrance thus: “Andò Giovanni [Maringhi] sopra una barcha a Raugia et con difficultà entrò, pure per la forza havea facta messer Giorgio Benigno che fu regente di Santa Croce, al quale messer Bernardo da Pesero havea scripto, et per vigore d’una fede levamo da Pesero del nostro essere stati là uno mese, gli fu concesso l’entrata per lui et per noi.” Bonsignori to Niccolò, 16 September 1497. MSS Ginori-Conti 29, 99 c. 4. Borsook, “Travels,” appendix, doc. 2. 64 Borsook, “Travels,” 156.

170

delightwiththeavailabilityofmeat,concernabouttheinconsistentsupplyofwine,and

contemptforthecharacterofthelocalinhabitantswhomhedescribesas“bruteswithout

religion.”65

TheFlorentinesmakefewmentionsofOttomantravelarchitectureandinfrastructure,

perhapsunderstandablygiventhisearlystageintheroute’sdevelopment.Onlyintheeastern

halfoftheBalkanPeninsula,inthecitiesofPlovdiv(OttomanFilibe),Edirneand,aboveall,

Istanbul,wouldtheyencounteranddescribemarvelouslead-coveredmosquesandother

monumentalbuildings,comparingthemalwaystofamiliarlandmarksbackhome.Travelinthe

mountainouswesternBalkanspriortotheOttomanbuildingboomofthesixteenthcenturywas

ruggedandinfrastructurewasrudimentary.Inthelettersfromthissectionthereareno

mentionsofgreatcaravanserais,mosquesorbridges.Infact,itappearstheprivilegedmembers

ofthepartyreliedprimarilyonatentthattheycarriedwiththeirbaggageforshelter.Ina

Chaplin-esquemoment,BonsignoriandBernardotookrefugefromastorminthe“tenda,”

whileMaringhiandGhazzetowereforcedtosleepoutsideundertherain.Theperksofthego-

betweenonlywentsofar.TheauthortookcaretoassureNiccolòthathisbrotherwaswelland

notbotheredbysleepingontheground.Infact,hewrites,Bernardowas“fatterthanever.”66

65 “Nelle montagne siamo stati giorni sei, che dua habiamo beuto aqua per non havere trovato onde havere vino, et messer Bernardo dua sere se ne andò a llecto sanza cena per non bere aqua. Carne assai habiamo trovata: uno castrone per cinque aspri, pippioni [pigeons] per 2 aspri, 15 uova per uno aspro, e manchatoci el pane che togliemo a Raugia, habiamo mangiato stiacciate non lièvite, cotto sotto la brace, che così usano questi huomini, se si possono chiamare huomini, chè a me pare più sia conveniente chiamargli bruti, sanza religione alchuna nè sanno se si sono di Dio o del diavolo.” Bonsignori to Niccolò, 1 October, 1497. MSS Ginori-Conti 29, 99 c.5. Borsook, “Travels,” appendix doc. 3. 66 “Messer Bernardo stette bene et al presente sta benissimo et è piu graso che mai” Bonsignori to Niccolò, 1 October, 1497. MSS Ginori-Conti 29, 99 c.5. Borsook, “Travels,” appendix, doc. 3.

171

HavingleftDalmatiaandcrossedintotheBalkanhinterland,thetravelerswereentering

newculturalterritoryandleavinganumberofthingsbehind,includingtheubiquityofthe

CatholicChurch.Bonsignori’sletterfromKosovorevealsacertaindiscomfortwiththelackof

familiarritual.TheywerenotabletohearMassbecauseitwasnotsaid;theydidnotgoto

churchbecausetherewerenochurchbellstocallthem.67Niccolòisaskedtoprayontheir

behalf,andBonsignorirequeststhatareligiouscalendar(“tavolade’sancti,”aRomancalendar

orsynopsisofthegospels)tobesenttothem.Apparentlythecanonorchaplainfromtheir

homechurchhadbeeninstructedtoprovideone,andBonsignoriwaseagertogethishandson

it,forfearoflosingtrackofSundays.Thefactthattheyhadthoughtitprudenttoexchange

theirnormalclericalgarbforalocalstylesofdressmightwellhaveenhancedthesenseof

dislocationanduneasethattheRomancalendarwasintendedtoremedy.68

ThefollowingletterfromBonsignoritoNiccolò,datedNovember9,1479,wassentfrom

“Adrianopoli,”thesecondOttomancapitalofEdirne.Bonsignori’sdescriptionsofPlovdiv

(Philipopoli)andEdirnedelightindescriptionsofbothantiquefindsandgrandOttoman

constructions.InPlovdiv,whichhedescribesas“terraantichissima,”henotesawoodenbridge

approximatelyonethirdofamilelong,aswellasseveral“beautifulmosques,coveredinlead,”

manyantiquemarbles,andeventhevestigesoftheantiquecitywalls.69Atlastthehumanist

67 Borsook, “Travels,” appendix, doc. 3. 68 In other instances, Catholic travelers included portable folding altars in their baggage, bringing a tangible connection to the church with them as they moved across the predominantly Muslim and Orthodox terrain of the Balkan interior. One example is found in the collection of the Treasury of the Church of St. Blaise, Dubrovnik. 69 BNCF MSS Ginori-Conti 29, 99, c. 20. Borsook, “Travels,” appendix doc. 4.

172

travelerscouldexamineandadmireruinsfromantiquityinanexoticeasternsetting.Butthe

largestpartoftheletterisdedicatedtoadescriptionofthebustlingcontemporarycityof

Edirne.

Edirne,predictably,iscontrastedwithFlorence.Thecitiesaredescribedasbeingabout

thesamesizebutEdirnefeaturestworivers,bothofwhicharelargerthanthesingularArno.

Themarketsbustlewithagreatmanyshops(“Moltissimebotteghe”),manyrelatedtotextile

manufacturingandtrade.Bonsignoriestimatesthatthecitycontains50mosques(allwithlead

roofs,henotes),andheincludesadetailedaccountofthetwomostprominent.Themosque

describedashavingfour“Campanili”ofveryornatemarbleisnodoubttheÜçŞerefeliMosque,

builtbySultanMuradIIbetween841-851/1438-1447,wellknownforitsdistinctiveminarets

withmultipleencirclingbalconies.TheFlorentineisimpressedwiththeorderlinessofthe

lodgingsforMuslimclerics,foundinthesecondmosque,whoseidentityislessobvious.70He

comparestheirlivingsituationfavorablytotheirownecclesiasticalresidencesbackinFlorence;

the“talismani”ofEdirnedonotsufferfromthefearofcontinuousruinfeltbytheFlorentinesin

ownquartersinthecanonryoftheDuomo.71

WhileinEdirne–acityfavoredbythosesultanswhowerehuntingenthusiasts–the

Florentinesweregiventheopportunitytoenterthegardensofthe“chasadelsignore”inorder

70 As Borsook points out, the Bayezid II complex (which includes a medrese) seems possible. But while the mosque was built in 1484-88/888-893 the larger complex may have been completed after the Bonsignori/Bernardo voyage. 71 Bonsignori and Bernardo held lodgings in the Canonry of Florence Cathedral. Apparently, they were not well-maintained. MSS Ginori-Conti 29, 99, c. 20. Borsook, “Travels,” appendix doc. 4.

173

toindulgeinapastimebelovedofItaliantravelers:huntingbirds.Remarkingonthetameness

oftheanimals,theybagover100inasingleday.72Thetravelersdidnot,however,neglecttheir

primaryquarryofrarebooks.ThepairmanagetolocateaGreekinhabitantwithacollectionof

“verymanygoodandbeautifulbooks,”whichtheownerwasunfortunatelynotinterestedin

selling.73InfacttheGreekneededtobecoercedtoevenshowthemhislibrary.Unsuccessfulin

theirfirstattemptsatbook-buying,anddespitetherigorsoftravel,Bernardo’sgoutyfoot,and

therecentlyabatingthreatofplagueinEdirneandConstantinople,Bonsignorisignsoffhiswith

ajovialflourish:“weareallwellandingoodspirits,andBernardoismorecommittedthan

ever.”74

Bonsignori’ssubsequentletterwaspostedfromPera,wherethepairwaswelcomedby

thecity’sFlorentinemerchants,theirwayhavingbeensmoothedinadvancebythe

indispensableMaringhi.Thisdocumentprovidesawealthofdetailofthecityinthelate

fifteenthcentury,outsidethescopeofthepresentargument(asaretheirsubsequent

adventuresinwesternAnatolia,Rhodes,Cyprus,andtheHolyLand).

Bonsignori’slettersfromtheBalkansectionoftheirjourneyilluminatemanyaspects

thatwouldconcerntravelersintheregionforcenturiestocome.TheFlorentineswere

extremelyreliantonanextendedFlorentinecommercialanddiplomaticnetwork,especiallythe

expertiseoffixersandgo-betweenslikeGiovanniMaringhi.Aspersonal,unofficialdocuments,

72 MSS Ginori-Conti 29, 99, c. 20. Borsook, “Travels,” appendix doc. 4. 73 “...moltissimi libri buoni et begli” MSS Ginori-Conti 29, 99, c. 20. Borsook, “Travels,” appendix doc. 4. 74 “noi siamo tutti sani et alegri, et messer Bernardo è di miglio voglia di mai.” MSS Ginori-Conti 29, 99, c. 20. Borsook, “Travels,” appendix doc. 4.

174

Bonsignori’slettersarefreetorecordobservationsthatarefreshandimmediate.Heis

evidentlynotstickingtoaformula,butsimplyenlivensaspineofbasicinformationwitharange

ofanecdotesfrompersonalexperience,andsomeinformationgatheredfromlocalinformants.

Theletters’lackofformalconsistencycanfrustrateasentiresectionsofthejourneyaresimply

skippedoverordescribedimpressionistically.Thedetailstheydorelateareoftentingedwith

self-deprecatinghumor,andtheyrevealabroadrangeofresponsestothemultitudeofforeign

communitiestheyencounter.Inthistravelogue,whatthetravelersateanddrankisoftengiven

moreconsistentattentionthanwhotheytraveledwithandhowthelocalpopulationlived.At

timesBonsignoriwilllistthereligiouscommunitiesofagivenplace(ofEdirne,hewrites,“the

inhabitantsarealmostallTurksandsomeGreeks,andMarranos”)buthegivesnoindicationof

interactionswiththem.75

Despitetheinformaltoneofhiswriting,itisclearthattheseupdatesfromtheroad

werenotintendedforNiccolò’searsalone.AsEveBorsookhaswritten,“Oftenpostscripts

informusthatMichelozziwasurgedtoreadthemaloudtoFicinoandotherFlorentine

humanists.”76Travelletters,withtheirblendofmodes–bothneutralandengaged–wereonly

ashortstepawayfromitinerarithatwouldarriveinEuropewithincreasingvelocityinthe

followingcentury.ThemodestcorrespondenceofBonsignoriandBernardowaspartofa

collectivebodyoftravelwritingsthatwere“amongthefirstmanualsfortheappropriationof

75 “Gli habitatori sono quasi tutti turchi et alchuni greci, et marrani.”MSS Ginori-Conti 29, 99, c. 20. Borsook, “Travels,” appendix doc. 4. 76 Borsook, “Travels,” 146.

175

theworld,”evenasOttomanterritorialdominancewasunchallenged.77Overlandtraveloffered

well-educatedandpoliticallyconnectedindividualslikeBonsignoriandBernardoachanceto

observeandreportonthecultural,geographical,andpoliticalterrainoftheMediterranean’s

mostdynamicandexpansiveempire.

Eveninitsearlystages,Bonsignori’slettersshowtheRagusaRoadtohavebeenasafe

andeffectivewaytoreachIstanbulfromtheAdriaticSea.Withthehelpoftheirintrepidtrans-

nationalagentGiovanniMaringhi,anextensivenetworkofFlorentinemerchants,andthe

unmentionedcaravanleaders,companionsandguardsfoundinRagusa,theFlorentines(who

managedtogetlostintheApenninemountainsonlyafewdaysfromtheirTuscanhome)

crossedtheBalkanlandmassinabouttwomonths,includingtheirthreeweeklayoverinEdirne.

Oneofthemoststrikingfeaturesoftheiraccountisanabsence:therearenomentionsof

confrontations,bandits,orhostileencounterswithlocalinhabitants.

Overthecourseofthesixteenthcentury,afloodofincreasinglydetailedandelaborate

travelliteraturewouldofferEuropeanreadersamorecomprehensiveunderstandingofthestill

remotegeographyoftheOttomanBalkans.TheletterssentfromlocationsalongtheRagusa

RoadtoFlorencebyBonsignoreBonsignoriareaninstructivestartingplacefromwhichto

locatethemoreelaborateandpolisheditineraritocome.Theincreasinglysophisticatedtravel

accountscorrespondwithanincreasinglydevelopedoverlandtravelinfrastructureinRumelia.

TheItaliantravelerswhofollowedtheFlorentinesof1497wouldbenefitgreatlyfromthe

massiveinvestmentinroadarchitecturemadebyOttomanpatronsacrossthesixteenth

century.Florence’sstrongentryintooverlandtravelintheOttomanBalkanswouldfizzleout

77 Yerasimos, “Voyageurs,” 2.

176

andbereplacedbyasurprisingnewplayer.Ragusa,meanwhile,wouldcontinuetoadapttothe

shiftingcircumstanceswithshrewdnessandprofit.

177

ChapterFour:VenetiansOverland

Thoughts of conquest may have been entertained, but for the future: theVenetians had no illusions as to the difficulty of embarking on a venture thatrequiredconcertedactiononthepartoftheChristianprinces.Inthemeantime,oneneededtoknowtheenemy,totakestockofthesituation,tofindthestresspointsandfaultlineswheretheOttomansystemmightweakenofitsownaccountorwhereVenice—withorwithouttheotherChristianpowers—mightintervene.No theory here, perhaps, but no illusions either: the Venetians knew how tocount.1

ItcomesasnosurprisethatmostastuteandprolificEuropeanobserversoftheOttoman

EmpireweresubjectsoftheRepublicofVenice.Economicallydependentontradeinthe

EasternMediterraneanandinpossessionofamaritimeempirelocatedontheboundariesof

theexpandingOttomanstate,Venice’slivelihoodrequiredvigilantanddetailedinformation

aboutitspowerfulneighborstotheeast.Thevastoutputofofficialreports(relazioni)and

updates(dispacci)senttotheSerenissimahasbeenwellstudied.2

Thesedocumentsareprimarilyconcernedwithhigh-levelnegotiationswithOttoman

officialsinIstanbulandthusmakeoutstandingsourcesforthestudyofdiplomatichistoryinthe

powercentersoftheMediterranean.Thelandsandpeopleinbetweentheseimperialpoles,

1 Lucette Valensi, Birth of the Despot (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993), 15. 2 Eugenio Alberi, Relazioni degli ambasciatori veneti al Senato, 15 volumes (Florence: Società Editrice Fiorentina, 1839-63). Venice’s information-gathering on the Ottoman Empire has its own historiography. See especially Paolo Preto, I Servizi Segredi di Venezia (Milano: Il Saggiatore, 1994). Also W.H. McNeill, Venice: The Hinge of Europe (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974) and Hans J. Kissling, “Venezia come centro di informazioni sui Turchi” in Hans-Georg Beck, Manoussos Manoussacas, Agostino Pertusi, eds., Venezia Cenro di Mediazione tra Oriente e Occidente (Florence: Olschki, 1977), 79-110.

178

however,arelargelyelided.Overthecourseofthesixteenthcentury,however,Venetian

diplomatictravelersbegantoexploreoverlandacrosstheBalkanPeninsula,exploring

alternativestothemaritimeroutetoIstanbul.BytheendofthecenturyVeniceandthe

OttomanswouldworktogethertocreateanewaxisthatwouldsupersedetheRagusaRoadas

theprimaryoverlandroutefromeasternAdriaticSeatoIstanbul.Inthedecadesleadingtothis

development,Veniceneededto“takestockof”theforeignlandsjustinlandfromtheborders

ofitsStatodaMar.

ThemerchantsandsailorsoftheSerenissimaknewthecoastlineoftheAdriatic,Ionian,

andAegeanSeasbyheart,butthemountainousinterioroftheBalkanPeninsulawaslargely

tabularasa.AsVenetiansmaketheirfirstsubstantialforaysintooverlandtravelinthesixteenth

century,Venetianstatesmen(andthesecretarieswhorecordedthevoyages)tookthe

opportunitytoobserveandreportonaregionthatwasequallystrategicandexotic,despiteits

relativegeographicalproximity.Beginninginthe1530’s,increasinglysophisticatedaccounts

werewrittenbyVenetiandiplomatictravelers,whichcombinedthefirst-personimmediacyof

thetravelnarrativewithobservantanalysesofthestrengthsandweaknessesoftheOttoman

westernprovinces.

ThecontentofVenetianitinerariwasfarfromconfinedtothepurepragmatism

articulatedbyValensiabove.Strategicelementslikemilitaryandsocietalvulnerabilitieswere

frequentlymentioned(theabsenceofcitywallsincitiesandtownswasparticularlystriking),

buttheomnivorousgenremaderoomforagreatdealmorethansimplylocating“stresspoints

179

andfaultlines.”3AswiththelettersofBonsignorediscussedinthepreviouschapter,mundane

concernsaboutprovisionsforhumansandtheiranimalswerenotneglected.Authorsalso

commentedontheregion’sphysicalgeography,itsmonumentsandmarkets,andtheartisanal

andagriculturalproductionofcities,villagesandruralareas.Thedressandbehaviorofwomen

didnotescapenotice.AsRubiéshaswritten,travelwritingisamongrelformthat“operated

alongsiderelatedgenres:chroniclesandhistories,geographicalandcosmologicaltreatises,and

politicalreports.”4Tobesure,VenetianitinerarioftheOttomanBalkansdrawfromallofthese

forms.Traveloguescanalsoreveal–sometimesinadvertently–thepsychologicalstates

experiencedbythetraveler,rangingfromfeartowondertofrustrationtoecstaticexpressions

ofreliefuponsafearrivalorreturn.Theserichtextsweredenselypackedwithlayersof

observationandaccumulatedknowledge.Someelementswereconsistentandobjective,such

astraveltimesanddistances,whileothersthatweresubjectiveandanalytical,subjecttothe

specificexperiences,encounters,andattitudesofthegivenauthor.

Themenwhowrotetravelogueswerenotwithoutprejudicesandtendenciestoward

dismissivegeneralizations.5Likerelazioni,travelaccountsarefilledwithambiguitiesand

3 Benedetto Ramberti, Delle Cose de Turchi, Libri Tre, (Venice: Aldine Press, 1541). Book 1: The city of Sofia: “È tutta in pianura, cinta da monti non aspri, ne sopra terra vi resta segno di muraglia alcuna.” Fol. 7v. Rather than weakness, however, such observations actually speak to the strength and gargantuan scale of the Ottoman state, whose realms were so broad and well-protected that settlements on the interior had no need for defensive ramparts. 4 Joan-Pau Rubiés, “Travel Writing as a Genre,” Journeys: The International Journal of Travel and Travel Writing, 1/1 (2000), 10. 5 I have yet to find a travel account by a female author in this region during this era. The later writings of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu from the 18th century, and those of Rebecca West, Gertrude Bell and Freya Stark in the early 20th century would have a tremendous impact on Western perceptions of Turkey, the Balkans, and the Middle East.

180

contradictions.Ingeneral,however,the“Turks”havenotyetbeenreducedintotheorientalist

tropesofcruelty,corruptionandeffeminateamoralitythatrunrampantinlaterEuropean

writingandculturalproductionabouttheOrient.Italianitinerari,relazioni,anddispaccireflect

thestrangemixtureofloathingandadmirationfortheOttomansseeninotherformsof

contemporaryEuropeanliteraryproduction.DepictionsofindividualOttomans,whoclearly

playtheroleof“other,”areneverthelessfarfromaseriesofstockcharacterizationsand

negativestereotypes.

IthasbeenpointedoutthatforsomeearlymodernhistorianslikeJeanBodinand

Machiavelli,theOttomanTurkscameclosesttooccupyingtheplaceorRomeastheultimate

monarchyandempire.6Reportsfromenvoyslikewiseemphasizedpositiveaspectsofthe

Ottomanpoliticalsystemandsociety,includingtheabundanceoftaxrevenue,thesurplusof

incomedespitethevastnessofexpenses,theintelligenceofthetimarsystemandthe

abundanceofmaterialculture.7Itisalsotruethatcasuallyessentializingdescriptionswere

common,includingthoseabouttheavariceofRagusansandthecrueltyof“Turks.”8Yetthese

negativegeneralizationsweretemperedbyexamples–ofteninthesametext–ofmeaningful

6 Valensi, Despot, 61. It was not difficult for Italians to see in the Ottomans a high level of virtù, described by Valensi as a union of energy and talent. Machiavelli, in his Discourses on Livy, compares Mehmed II, who defeated his neighbors and established a secure kingdom, as King David. The current Sultan Selim I (Yavuz/the Grim) is “about to surpass the glory of his grandfather [Mehmed II]” Book 1 Section 19. 7 Valensi Despot, 26-7. Valensi even claims that the Venetian ideal of unanimitas or acting of a single will for the public good is seen and reported on in Venetian reports: p. 28. 8 “Gli Rhagusei universalmente sono ricchi e avari, come il piu delli mercatanti.” Ramberti, Delle cose, 4v.

181

interactionswithindividualmembersoflocalpopulationsandabypalpablesenseofawe,not

onlyatthemilitaryprowessbutalsotowardstheadministrativeandarchitectural

accomplishmentsoftheOttomanstate.Thefunctionsofsocialinstitutions,too,were

frequentlyappreciated.Europeanobserversnearlyalwayscommentedonthestriking

generosityoftheimaretsattachedtocaravanseraiswheretravelersofallfaithswerefedforup

tothreedaysatnocharge.9

ThissectionfocusesontheworksofthreeVenetiantravelers:twotraveledtheRagusa

Road,andonereachedIstanbulbytheclassicalbutneglectedViaEgnatia,whichtraversed

AlbaniaandnorthernGreece.Allthreemenwereconnectedtothehighestlevelsofstate,and

allweresenttoConstantinople(astheyconsistentlyreferredtothecity)onofficialdiplomatic

business.BenedettoRambertimadehiswaytotheOttomancapitalviaDubrovnikinthe

companyofVenetianambassadorDanielede’Ludovisiin1534.PaoloContarinitooktheRagusa

Roadonhiswaytoassumehistermasbailoin1580.LorenzoBernardo’sunusualmissionto

Constantinoplein1591providesaVenetianechototheFlorentineandOttomanpoliticalcrises

ofthelatefifteenthcentury.10

9 “...danno due volte al giorno pane, risi e carne alli alloggiati” Description of the caravanserai/complex at “Cafsa” (Havsa, Turkey). M. Paolo Contarini, Diario del Viaggio a Costantinopoli (Venice: Teresa Gattri, 1856), 36. Known as the complex of Sokollu Kasım Bey or Kasım Paşa, it was built by Sokollu Mehmed Paşa who dedicated to his son. See chapter two of this dissertation. 10 On the office of bailo, Venetian resident consul in Constantinople, see Eric Dursteler, “The Bailo in Constantinople: Crisis and Career in Venice's Early Modern Diplomatic Corps,” Mediterranean Historical Review 16 (2001), 1-30; Maria Pia Pedani Fabris, In Nome del Gran Signore (Venice: Deputazione Editrice, 1994); Carla Coco and Flora Manzonetto, Baili veneziani alla Sublime Porta (Venice, Stamperia di Venezia, 1985).

182

BycomparingthereportsoftwoVenetianstravelingthesameRagusaRoad46years

apart,wegetasenseofthewaysthatthearchitecturalboomofthesixteenthcentury

impactedtheexperienceoflong-distancetravel.IncomparingthetwoVenetianaccountsofthe

RagusaRoadwiththatofLorenzoBernardoontheless-developedViaEgnatia,weseethe

manyelementsthatgoun-remarkedbythetravelerswhojoinedDubrovnik'scaravans.The

detailsofBernardo'snegotiationsgiveinsightintothemanyactivitiestakingplacebehindthe

scenesinotherreports.Hisexperiencesalsohelpexplainwhysomanyinternationaltravelers

preferredtotofollowtheRagusaRoad,despiteitsdistanceandphysicaldifficulty.

Allthreeaccounts,writtenwithakeeneyefordetail,capitalizedoncenturiesof

accumulatedVenetianexperienceintheeasternMediterranean.Yettheyalsorevealastriking

newreality.Whilefifteenth-centuryFlorentineagentswereattractedtotheRagusaRoadin

partduetoitsminimalexposuretoVenetian-controlledterritory,thesixteenthcentury

witnessedthewidespreadadoptionoftheoverlandroutebytheVenetiansthemselves.This

changehappenedinconjunctionwiththearchitectural-infrastructuraldevelopmentofthe

RagusaRoadaswellastheexpansionofOttomannavalpower,leadingtocontroloftheentire

easternMediterraneanbasinbythemiddleofthesixteenth-century.Itrepresentsa

tremendousshiftinpatternsofmobility.Venicehadspentcenturiesbuildingupitsstrategic

holdingsalongtheislandsandcoastsoftheEasternMediterranean;nootherpowercouldrival

itsmaritimetransportsystemfromtheAdriatictotheMarmara.EvenaftertheOttoman

conquestofConstantinople,itwasstillpossibletosailfromVeniceasfarastheDardanelles

183

withoutstoppinginanOttomanport.11Yetimportantmissionsincreasinglyelectedtotravel

overlandviaRagusa.Tobesure,travelbyseawasnotabandoned,butsomecombinationofthe

RagusaRoad’sefficiency,theever-increasingthreatofpiracyinthesixteenthcentury,andthe

eternalunpredictabilityofthesealedevenVenetiantravelerstoembraceaterrestrialroute

networkthathadoriginallybeendesignedtosubverttheirownmaritimedominance.12

BenedettoRamberti

FollowinghisreturntoVenice,BenedettoRambertieditedhisobservationsintoa

tripartiteitinerario,history,andpoliticaloverviewoftheOttomanempire,published

anonymouslybytheAldinePressin1539asathreevolumesetwithwiththetitleDellecosedei

Turchi.13WrittenatamomentofascendantOttomanpower,Ramberti’sbookissimultaneously

11 Stefanos Yerasimos, Les Voyageurs dans l’Empire Ottoman, XIVe-XVIe siècles (Ankara, Société Turque d’Histoire, 1991), 25. 12 On piracy in the 16th century, see Alberto Tenenti, Piracy and the Decline of Venice (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967); Wendy Bracewell, The Uskoks of Senj (Ithaca: Cornell Univeristy Press, 1992); Idris Bostan, Adriyatik'te Korsanlık (Istanbul: Timaş, 2009). Yerasimos notes the correlation between Hayreddin Barbaros (Barbarossa) being appointed Ottoman Grand Admiral in 1534 and the first recorded Venetian ambassadorial mission sent overland—that of Daniele de’ Ludovisi and Benedetto Ramberti in the same year. See Les Voyageurs, 31. It should be noted that Venetian parties traveling overland made the journey in all seasons. Road travel was not confined to the winter when storms made the sea particularly volatile. 13 Delle cose dei Turchi was attributed to Benedetto Ramberti by Giovanni degli Agostini in Notizie istorico-critiche intorno alla vita e le opere degli scrittori veneziani (1752-1754) Vol. II: 556-573. Ramberti’s work had a powerful historiographical afterlife, serving as the basis for many subsequent accounts of Ottoman lands and politics. It was translated by Albert Lybyer and included in the appendix of his The Government of the Ottoman Empire (Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press, 1913).

184

aguidebookfortravelers,aworkofhistory,andapoliticalreferencemanualforItalian

statesmenwhofoundthemselvessqueezedbetweentwoapparentlyever-expandingglobal

empires:theOttomansunderSüleymantheMagnificentandtheHabsburgsunderCharlesV.

Thefirstofthethreebooksisadetailedaccountoftheirvoyage:firstbyseadownthe

DalmatianCoastandthenoverlandbytheRagusaRoad.WearefortunatetohaveinDellecose

deiTurchiapreciserecordofwhatisoneoftheearliestofficialVenetiandiplomaticmissionsto

traveloverlandacrosstheBalkans.14

BenedettoRambertiandhispatron,theVenetianambassadorDanielede’Ludovisi,

weresenttotheSublimePorteinJanuaryof1534(inthedeadofwinter)onanurgentmission

topreventtheoutbreakofanewwarbetweentheOttomansandVenetiansfollowinganaval

skirmishthepreviousNovember.15Unlikethebaili,whowerepermanentlystationedin

Constantinoplefortwotothreeyearterms,Venetianambassadorswereonlydispatchedtothe

SublimePorteforsignificantpoliticaland/orceremonialoccasionsoflimitedduration.Despite

thediplomaticimportanceoftheirendeavorandtherigorsofoverlandtravel,Rambertitook

thetimetoproduceanaccountthatwouldsetthestandardfordescriptionsoftheRagusaRoad

andtheprovincesofOttomanRumeliafordecades.

14 “Malgré ces lacunes importantes, il semble que jusqu’en 1534, date de la mission de Daniele de Ludovisi, l’itinéraire des ambassades est, sauf exceptions, maritime.” Yerasimos, Les Voyageurs, 31. 15 Ludovisi was an experienced diplomat given “prestigious or difficult assignments” Vittorio Mandelli, “Daniello (Daniele) Ludovisi,” Dizionario biografico degli italiani (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 1960-), here vol. 66 (2007).

185

RambertiandhispartysailedfromVenicethefourthofJanuary,1534,startingwiththe

familiartrajectorydowntheeastcoastofthe‘GolfdiVenetia’orAdriaticSea.“Coasting”from

porttoportalongthecurveofVenetian-controlledcoastalterritoriesinIstriaandDalmatiawas

relativelystraightforward.16AfterprovisioningatRagusa,theysetoutoverlandontheninthof

February,crossingtheBalkanPeninsulain33daystoarriveatConstantinopleonthe

fourteenthofMarch.

ThefirstbookofDellecosedeiTurchicontainsarepositoryofinformationessentialto

theoverlandtraveler.Itconsistentlynotestraveltimes,distances,andnotablegeographicand

architecturalfeatures.Rambertialsotouchesonsuchvariedtopicsaswomen,clothing,antique

sites,culturalhabits,food,morality,politicalsystems,history,language,religion,commodities,

trade,banditry,andindustrialproduction(textiles).Asbefittinganaccountthatwasoriginally

publishedanonymously,thereislittlepersonalinformationabouttheauthor,hispartyortheir

fellowtravelersalongtheroad.UnlikeBonsignore’sletters,whoserecipientapparentlywanted

detailsofallelementsofthejourney,Rambertiseemstobewritingforamorepragmatic

reader,onewhoisinterestedinprecisedistancesbuthasnoneedofdescriptionsofthe

caravanserais,tents,orchurchessleptin.Onlyinafewsectionsdoesthephysicalimmediacyof

travelbreakintothenarrative.Unsurprisingly,thesemomentstendtooccurduringtraversesof

snow-coveredBalkanmountainranges.Herethenarrowtrackswereabuttedbysheerdrop-

16 “Navigation in those days was a matter of following the shore line, moving crab-wise from rock to rock, ‘from promontories to islands and from islands to promontories.’ This was costeggiare, avoiding the open sea…” Fernand Braudel, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean world in the age of Philip II, trans. Siân Reynolds (New York: Harper & Row, 1972), 103 .

186

offsandtheauthor’scourageandstamina–especiallyonefromacitybuiltonmudflatsina

lagoon–wasstrenuouslychallenged.

ForBenedettoRamberti,aswithallothertravelauthorsfromtheperiodwhoseworksI

havestudied,nationalityorethnicitywasaflexibleconstruct.ThemonksofSt.Sava,nearNovi

Pazar,“live‘allaGreca’butspeaktheSlaviclanguage.”17GreekOrthodoxpracticeswouldhave

beenfamiliartotheauthorfromtheextensiveVenetianholdingsinGreek-speakingterritories

ofthenortheasternMediterraneanaswellasfromtheGreekOrthodoxcommunityinthecity

itself.Termslike‘Turk,’identifiersthatarenowexplicitlyethnic,weremoremalleableand

polyvalenttoearlymoderntravelers.ItwasnotacontradictiontobeGreekandSlav

simultaneously,butsimplyareflectionofthemultifacetedculturalpracticesoftheregion.Such

complexitywasnotconfinedtothedescriptionsofidentities,butwasalsorevealedin

descriptionsofhabitsandpracticesofdailylife.AttheMileševamonastery(todayinsouthwest

Serbia)RambertinotesthattheprimarygiversofalmsattheshrineofStSava–thepatron

saintofOrthodoxSlavs–werenotChristians,but“TurksandJews.”18

Ramberti,whowouldeventuallysucceedPietroBemboasthecustodianofthe

MarcianaLibraryinVenice,washighlyeducatedinthehumanisttradition.UnlikeBonsignore

andMichelozzi,however,antiquemanuscriptsdidnotattracthisinterest.Buthiserudition

neverthelessinformedhisreadingoflandscape,suchashisdescriptionofthemountainspast

NoviPazarasbeing“knowntotheancientsasHebrus,”ortheRhodopemountainshe

17 Ramberti, Delle cose, 6v. 18 Ramberti, Delle cose, 6v.

187

associatedwithOvid.19Theauthor’slocationoftheRhodopesisnotveryaccurate,whichcan

beforgivenastheKapoanikMountainsheactuallycrossedareextremelyruggedandhigh(with

peaksover2,000meters)andwerecoveredindeepsnowwhenhispartynegotiatedthemon

horsebackinmid-winter.Later,inPlovdiv,whichRambertidescribesasPhilippopoli,hewas

delightedtoseethetracesoftheancientworldinthecity’scenturies-oldwalls,“inpartintact

andbeautiful.”20

TheitinerariosectionofDellecosewaswrittenforaparticulartypeofreader.Notunlike

theCIAWorldFactbook,which“providesinformationonthehistory,people,government,

economy,geography,communications,transportation,militaryandtransnationalissuesfor267

worldentities,”Ramberti’saccounttargetsawell-educatedstatesmanwhoseconcernwith

otherpolitiesstemsprimarilyfromacommitmenttodefendhisownhomeland.21Thisoutlook

mayhavebeeninformedbyRamberti’sserviceunderDanielede’Ludovisi,whohadpreviously

negotiatedwiththeOttomansoveradisputeoverthebordersofOttomanBosnia(March

1531).LudovisihadalsonegotiatedappropriaterestitutionforanOttomanmerchantwhose

goodshadbeenimpoundedbyaVenetianship(December1531).22

Ramberti’saccounttellsuslittleaboutthehumanexperienceoflifeontheroad.There

islittletonoinformationaboutstoppingplaces,thecompositionoftheircaravan,the

19 Ramberti, Delle cose, 7r. 20 Ramberti, Delle cose, 8r. 21 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/ accessed Dec 9, 2013. 22 Vittorio Mandelli, “Daniello (Daniele) Ludovisi,” Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani Vol. 66 (2007)

188

availabilityandqualityoffoodandwine,orencounterswithlocalinhabitants.Theauthor

consistentlyincludessuchstrategicallysignificantthingsasdemographics,theproductivityof

theland,militaryarchitectureandnaturaldefensivefeatures.Inthenarrowvalleyin

Herzegovinawhichhecalls“Vrataz”henotesthatthepartyhadtoproceedsingle-fileandhe

speculatesthatawell-positionedforceofonly20mencouldholdoffanarmy.23

Inanothersection,DellecosedeiTurchidiscussestheveryrealdangerofbanditryinthe

mountains.RambertirevealsthefactthatVenetianmerchantshadalreadybeenusingthe

overlandroutewellbeforeofficialdiplomaticmissionsweresanctionedtodoso.Near‘Plevie’

(Pljevlja,Montenegro)thepartypassesasitewhere,fiveyearspreviously,acaravanof

Venetianmerchantshadbeenrobbed,withmanyinjuriesanddeaths,includingtwoVenetian

nobles,identifiedas“ilNanieilCapellonobiliVenetiani”24Thisepisodeallowstheauthorto

introduceanovelandapparentlyeffectiveOttomanpracticeusedtopatrolsuchremoteand

vulnerablelocations.Guardsstationednearbyweresentaheadofthecaravanwithdrums

whichtheyplayedastheypatrolledtheroadahead.Aslongastravelerscouldhearthebeating

ofthedrumtheyknewitwassafetoproceed.25

23 Ramberti, Delle cose, 5v. This area, now protected as Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Sutjeska National Park, features a tremendous monument to Marshal Josip Broz Tito and the Yugoslav Partisan Force. Helped by the topography described by Ramberti, Tito and the partisans did, in fact hold off an army, taking terrible losses but preventing a major Axis invasion force from achieving its strategic goals, a significant turning point in the war (May-June 1943). 24 Ramberti, Delle cose, 6r. 25PierreLescalopier,travelingthesamestretchofroadin1574,alsodescribedaguardwhocommunicatedwiththecaravanbymeansof"ungpetittabourindecuivre"QuotedinEdmondCleray,“LeVoyagedePierreLescalopier,Parisien:deVeniseàConstantinople,l’an1574,”Revued’HistoireDiplomatique35(1921):21-55.

189

ThetoneofRamberti’snarrativechangesdistinctlywhenhiscaravanfinallyexitsthe

mountainousterritoryofthewesternBalkansandarrivesatthewell-wateredplainsbetween

KosovoandsouthernSerbia,morefullyintegratedintotheOttomandomainsthanthewestern

frontier.Thedreadandfearpermeatinghisearlierdescriptionsisreplacedbyanimpressionof

bucolicabundance:“Topliza,”hewrites,“isnotonlypleasantandbeautiful,butalsofertileand

abundantwithallthingsnecessarytolife,andherewebegantobreatheagainafterthelong

laboranddangeroftheroadleftbehind.”26WhileinBulgaria,thecustomsandappearanceof

localwomenwasstrikingenoughtomeritasubstantialdigression–afeaturesharedwithmany

othertravelnarratives.Rambertielaboratelydescribesthelongbraidsofunmarriedgirls,their

spectacularcapscoveredwithcoinsofalltypes,andtheirviolentritualsofmourninginwhich

womenscratchtheircheekswiththeirownfingernailsuntilbloodbegantoflowdowntheir

faces.27

TheVenetianauthor’sspiritsseemtoimproveindirectproportiontothepopulationof

thecitiesheencounters.Plovdiv,SofiaandEdirneareallgivencarefulattentioninthetext,

whichrecordsroughdemographicinformation,listsoftypesofcommerceandartisanal

production.Ottomanarchitectureisalsonotedandappreciated.Rambertiwasclearlymuch

moreathomeinanurban,non-alpineenvironment,nomatterwhoseempireitwaspartof.On

reachingConstantinople,thatvastandcosmopolitancityonthewater,hespeaksforthe

26 “È il paese di Topliza non solamente piacevole e bello, ma ubertoso e abundante di tutte le cose necessarie al viver, e ove si incomincia à respirare dal longo travaglio e pericolo havuto nel lasciato camino.” Ramberti, Delle cose, 7r. 27 Ramberti, Delle cose, 7v.

190

collectivecaravaninexpressingthereliefhefeelsonleavingtheterrorsofoverlandtravel

behind:

Whenwearrivedherewefeltasifwehadbeenreleasedfromtheinferno,becauseallthecountrywerodethrough–fromRagusauntilajustafewdaysfromConstantinople–is,forthemostpart,uncultivated,andnightmarish–notbecauseofitsnaturalstatebutduetothenegligenceoftheinhabitants.Itisfullofawfulforestsandsheerstonecliffs,itoffersextremelypoorsecurityagainstbandits,anditslodgingsareexceedinglydismalandmiserable:itwasagoodthingtohavebeentherebutactuallygoingtherewasstrangeanddifficult.28

PaoloContarini

Typicallypublishedunderthenameoftheparty’sleadingfigure,itinerariwereoften

writtenbysecretariesorotherlower-rankingmembersofthegroup.TheDiariodelViaggio

(1580)ofPaoloContarini,whichrecordshisvoyagefromVenicetoConstantinoplewherehe

wouldholdthepostofbailoforthreeyears,wasprobablynotwrittenbyContarinihimself.29In

anyevent,thisaccount,whichdocumentsaroutenearlyidenticaltotheonetakenbyRamberti

andLudovisi46yearsearlier,isanimpressiveachievementandausefulmarkerofthe

28 “Gionti che fussemo qui, ne parve esser usciti dell’inferno, perciò che tutto il paese, che si cavalca da Ragusi fino à poche giornate di Costantinopoli, è per la maggior parte incolto, horrido, non di natura, ma per negligenza delli habitatori; pieno di boschi horrendi, pieno di sassi pericolosissimi, malissimo sicuro da malandrini, tristissimo e miserrimo da alloggiare, di modo, che è bella cosa l’esservi stato, ma ben strana et difficile l’andarvi.” Ramberti, Delle cose, 11r. 29 The diary “n’a pas été sans doute écrit par lui même mai par quelqu’un de sa suite.” Yerasimos, Les Voyageurs. On Paolo Contarini, member of an illustrious Venetian family of which four members held the post of bailo at different times, see Gaetano Cozzi, “Contarini, Paolo (Polo)” in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani vol. 28 (1983) and Erik Dursteler, “The Bailo in Constantinople,” pp. 7, 9, 11.

191

developmentoftheRagusaRoadovertime.Theauthor(whomIwillrefertoasContarini,for

simplicity)combinestheimmediacyandeyefordetailofBonsignoreBonsignoriwiththe

pragmaticandsystematicvisionofRamberti,suitableforanexperienced,highlevelVenetian

administrator.Contarini’saccountalsovividlynarratesseveralinstancesofconflictand

potentialviolencebetweenmembersofthecaravanandlocalinhabitants,offeringarare

glimpseintotheworldoflow-levelfrictionandconflictresolutionontheroad.Suchanecdotes,

toomundanetogeneratedocumentaryevidenceatthelevelofacourtrecord,offeran

invaluable–iffragmentary–glimpseintothekindsoftensionsthatbubbledunderthesurface

ofwhatappearstobeasmoothlyfunctioningsystemofmobility.

PaoloContariniandhistravelpartyembarkedfromVeniceonthesecondofMay,1580.

TheycrossedtothetipoftheIstrianPeninsulathensouthwardsalongthenecklaceofportsand

islandsoftheDalmatianStatodaMar.Ateveryopportunity,theincomingbailosoughtout

informationfromlocaladministratorsregardingthecurrentconditionsoftheOttoman

interior.30Unfortunately,theDiariogivesnoindicationastowhytheoverlandroutefrom

Ragusawaspreferredtothemaritimevoyageortootherpossiblelandroutesthatcrossed

fromVenetian-controlledterritory.

ArrivalatRagusasignifiedadefinitivedeparturefromVenetiandomains.Two

“magnificentambassadorsfromthemagnificentnobilityofRagusa”offeredthetravelersa

heroicwelcomeandanelaboratefeast,whoseindividualdisheswereallrecordedindetail.31At

30 Contarini, Diario, 9. 31 “Vennero alle 23 ore due magnifici ambasciatori della magnifica signoria di Ragusi, e fatti li debiti ufizi di complimento dall’una parta e dall’altra ci presentarono sei capretti, tre paja di

192

Dubrovnik,whilethecaravanessentialswerebeingorganized,severalnewmembersjoinedthe

group,including“Pasqualethedragoman,whocamewithtwojanissaries,onecalledCussein

BranoandtheotherMusli.”32Thesemenwereentrustedwiththetaskofprocuringtheriding

horsesforthejourney.Later,theauthorwouldcomplainbitterlyandrepeatedlyaboutthe

incompetenceorsimpleapathyofhisdragoman,whoplayedacriticalroleasmediatingfigure

betweentheVenetiansandtheOttomanofficialsandlocalstheyencountered.Pasqualewas

clearlynoGiovanniMaringhi,discussedinthepreviouschapteronFlorentinetravelersandgo-

betweens.Thetravelpartyalsoincludedthebailo’sfamily(namesandnumbersnotprovided),

sixVenetiangentlemen,presumablystaffforthebailo'sofficeinIstanbul(withtheirhorsesand

servants),andfourFrenchgentlemen,aboutwhomnothingfurtherissaid.33

LikemuchoftheDalmatianCoast,thenarrowcoastalplainaroundDubrovnikis

delimitedbyamassivelimestoneoutcropping,thefirstofmanytopographicalobstacles

confrontedbywayfarersontheRagusaRoad.Thecoastalrangeisnotagentleintroductionto

overlandtravel.Contarinicomplainsaboutitssteepness,rockiness,andtheexcessivelyhot

temperatures,goingsofarastocomparethe(ratherlowelevation)mountainstotheAlpsand

Apennines.34ArrivingatthecityofTrebinje,thefirstsignificanttowninlandfromDubrovnik,

theauthoroffersthekindofinformedandmulti-layeredobservationsaboutOttoman

capponi, sei scatole di confetti, sei candele di cera, una cesta di carciofi, una di fava ed una d’insalata, a nome della loro signoria” Contarini, Diario, 10. 32 Contarini, Diario, 11. 33 Contarini, Diario, 11. 34 Contarini, Diario, 13.

193

monumentsthatcharacterizetheDiario:“wecameviaalongplainalongtheabovementioned

rivertotheBridgeofTrebinje,of[Sokollu]MehmedPasha,whomadethebridgeandavery

beautifulcaravanserai,coveredwithaleadroof,tolodgewayfarersfortheloveofhisdeceased

sonwhohadbeensangiacco[sancakbeyi]ofHerzegovina.”35

Contarini’saccountfeaturesmanysuchrichdescriptionsofOttomanstructures.He

oftenincludesthenameandbackgroundofagivenmonument’spatron,alongwithsome

versionofthestructure’sdedicationandintendedpurpose.Thesedescriptionsaresometimes

fanciful,buttheyindicatethebasiclegibilityofOttomanmonumentstoforeigntravelers

(mediated,ofcourse,bythedragomans,whofunctionedbothastrans-imperialagentsandas

localinformants).Theroofingmaterialisnotarandomorformulaicdetail,butanimportant

observationthatshowsanimplicitunderstandingofthevalueandstatusofthecaravanserai.

Theseventeenth-centuryOttomantravelerEvliyaÇelebipayssimilarattentionbuilding

materialsasmarkersofstatusinhisSeyahatnâme.LiketheÇobanMustafacomplexof

Svilengraddiscussedinchaptertwo,theOttomantownofTrebinjewassimilarlylocatedone

stageawayfromakeycity(Dubrovnik)andalsoincludesabridgeandacaravanserai,the

quintessentialinfrastructuralpairingusedtoenhanceandcontrolmobility.36

LargescalearchitecturalworksattributedtograndvizierSokolluMehmedPasha–the

dominantfigureoflate-sixteenthcenturyOttomanpoliticsandarchitecturalpatronage–are

35 “…venimmo per una pianura lungo il detto fiume fino al ponte di Trebina, di Mehemet Bassà, il quale fece detto ponte ed un bellissimo caravanserà coperto di piombo per allogiare viandanti per l’amore d’un suo figliuolo ch’era morto sangiacco di questa provincia di Cherzegò.” Contarini, Diario, 13. 36 See Chapter 2 for the case of the Çoban Mustafa Paşa bridge.

194

repeatedlyencounteredandutilizedinContarini’sDiario.FromTrebinje,ontheextreme

westernfrontierofOttomanterritory,andextendingeastwardpracticallytothegatesof

Istanbul,Contarini’spartyconsistentlynotedandbenefittedfromSokollu’sfoundations.

Ramberti,whomadethejourney46yearsearlier,wastooearlytowitnessthetremendous

architecturalinterventionsofOttomanstatesmenbroughtaboutbySokolluandothers,suchas

hisgreatpredecessor,theenthusiasticpatronofarchitectureandinfrastructure,grandvizier

RüstemPasha(d.1561).37

Fromthefirststagesofthevoyage,Contarini’sDiariopayscloseattentiontothe

geographicalfeaturesandthearchitecturallandmarksoftheRagusaRoad.Thetextisalso

lovinglydescriptiveoffood,and,toalesserdegree,shelter.Theauthorlistsconsumedfood

items,frequentlyincludingpricesforstapleslikeboiledeggs.AsinBonsignore’sletters,the

availabilityandqualityofwinefluctuatedradicallyalongthejourney,avariablethatwas

carefullynoted.Itiscurioustoseethatdespitethemany“caravanserà”notedinthewestern

Balkans,thepartyrarelyspentthenightinthem.Intheeast,however,andespeciallyalongthe

imperialhighwayfromNištoIstanbul,lodginginmoreopulentcaravanseraisbecamethenorm.

Alongthewesternreachesoftheroad,thetravelersfrequentlystopformealsincaravanserais

butcontinueontospendthenightinsomeremotelocation,usuallyonewithanaturalwater

37 Sokollu Mehmed Pasha (grand vizier 1565-79) was of Bosnian origins. On his legacy as patron and shaper of empire, see Gülru Necipoğu, The Age of Sinan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005): 345-368. “Sokollu’s pious foundations marked the territories of the empire with an enduring record of memories associated with his life and career. They promoted Islamic socio-religious institutions, urban and agrarian development, commerce, and travel. Like the bridges he constructed in Thrace and Bosnia, his monuments marking focal points of passage reflected his visionary preoccupation with communications and connections throughout the empire.” p. 347. These processes are discussed in Chapter two.

195

sourceandopenfieldsforthehorsesandpackanimals.Ratherthanusingthebuilt

accommodationsavailablealongtheroute,Contarini’scaravanfrequentlypreferredtosetup

overnightcamps“inthecountry”underalargetent(padiglione),astheydidonthethirdnight

outfromRagusa,despitehavingpassedthreecaravanseraisthatveryday.38TheVenetians’

caravanmayhavesimplybeentoolargetofitinthemoremodestcaravanseraisofthewestern

Balkans.Inaddition,theavailabilityofabundantandfreefodderinopenfieldswouldhave

beenappealingtocaravanleadersresponsibleforfeedingdozensorevenhundredsofanimals.

Thepracticeofsleepingintheopenspeakstothetravelers’confidenceintheirsafety,although

smallergroupswouldhavemoreexposedtothedangerofbanditry.Naturally,sleepingoutside

meantthetravelerswerealsovulnerabletoextremeweather,asonthefourthnightoutwhen

themaintentcollapsedunderduringaheavyrainstorm,breakingthetentpoleintheprocess

(itwasrepaired,andthetravelerssleptuntil12thefollowingday).39

Besidescaravanserais(manydescribedas“bellissimo”)andtheirtents,severalother

optionsforlodgingwereusedbyContariniandhisparty.InthevillageofTernovaluca,incentral

Herzegovina,theystayedin“sixwoodenhouses,surroundedbyextremelyhighmountainsand

woods”40wheretheysawpinetreesgrowingoutofexposedrock,animagetheauthor

recordedforitsstrikingbeauty.41TheywouldalsospendthenightattheSerbianOrthodox

38 “alloggiammo in campagna” Contarini, Diario, 15. 39 Contarini, Diario, 15. 40 “...alloggiammo tutti in sei case fatte di lename, circondate da altissimi monti e boschi, vicino ad una fiumaja detta di Ternovaluca.” Contarini, Diario, 16. 41 “...uno spettacolo bellissimo da vedere” Contarini, Diario, 16.

196

MonasteryofMileševa(eastofPrijepolje,Serbia)andinthehomeofaRagusangentlemenin

Sofia.TheRagusan’shomewasalast-minutereplacementafterPasqualetheDragomanfailed

toarrangeroomsintheattractiveandwell-furnishedcaravanseraiinthecity,despitehaving

beensentaheadspecificallytomanagethetask.42Theitinerariofrom1591ofLorenzo

Bernardo(analyzedindetailinthenextsection),whichdescribesalessdevelopedalternative

totheRagusaRoad,showsevenmorevariationinlodgings,includingstaysinthehomesof

Ottomanofficialsandeventherelativesofcaravanpersonnel.

Contarini’saccountisperhapsmostrevelatorytotheculturalhistorianinthefew

sectionsthatdetailtense,potentiallyviolentencountersbetweencaravanmembersandthe

localpopulation.UnlikeRamberti,theauthorofthisDiariowasnotafraidofheightsandhe

doesnotdwellontheterrorofcrossingthenarrow,exposedmountainroadsofthewestern

Balkans.Groupsofvillagersandtownsmenencounteredontheroad,however,couldbequite

menacing.TwodaysbeforereachingNiš,oneoftheVenetiannobles(“ilmagnificoMolin”),

exhibitingtheItalianloveforhuntingbirds,managedtoshootastorkwithhismusket.43This

provokedasubtleyetpalpablythreateningreaction(“mormorazione”)fromthelocal“turchi”

who,incommonwiththearea’s“christiani,”heldthebirdtobeasacredanimal.TheVenetians’

awkwardattemptataresolutiononlyillustratestheirdiscomfortandfearofangeringthelocals

further.Theytakethedeadstorkwiththemintotheirtent,wheretheyburyit,hiddenfromthe

42 Contarini, Diario, 27. 43 Contarini, Diario, 22.

197

eyesoftheOttomanpopulation.44Afterwards,Contarininotesthesightingofmanymore

storksintheregion,butheandhiscompanionssensiblyrefrainedfromshootingatthem.

BeforereachingSofia,asuddenimbrogliobrokeoutbetweenunnamedmembersofthe

caravanandlocals.Itisunclearwhoorwhatinitiatedtheencounter,butitissignificantthat

Contarini’sjanissaryguards(possiblythesame“CusseinBrano”and“Musli”whojoinedthemin

Ragusa)areableresolvethesituation.Thelocalmeninvolvedprovidedtwogeldings(“castrati”)

asrestitutionforanoffensewhosenatureisnotclarified.45Later,inthecountrysideoutsideof

Çorlu(nearEdirne,Turkey),another,moreextensiveconflicterupted.Thetextsuggeststhe

caravangroupwassimplylookingtorestinashadyspotundersometreesnearastreamwhen

somelocal“Turks”tookexception.Here,again,thenatureoftheconflictisunclearbutthe

dragomanandthejanissarieswereagainattheforefrontofthesituationanditsresolution.

Oneofthelocalsraisedastickasiftoattackbutwashimselfbeatenbythetwojanissaries.

Havingdrivenawaythelocals,thetravelersenjoyedapeacefullunchintheshade.Butthe

matterwasnotyetfinished.Asthecaravanresumeditsjourney,achaoticsequenceensued

involvinganattemptbythelocalstolockuponeofthe(straying?)Venetiansinanearby

courtyard.Oneofthejanissaries,attemptingtorescuehim,washitonthehandwithastone

thrownbyoneofthe‘Turchi’andbadlyinjured,whilehispartnerresortedtofiringawarning

shotintotheair.Thisgatheredthediffusedcaravanmembersbutalsoattractedevenmore

44 Contarini, Diario, 22-23. 45 Interestingly, Contarini doesn’t refer the locals with any ethnic terms. He calls them “those of the [this] country” and “those villains” Contarini, Diario, 25.

198

localstothescene.46Eventuallythehubbubebbedandthepartywasabletoridetoitsnext

destination.

Althoughrare,suchanecdotespointtosignificantunderlyingtensionsbetweenlong

distancetravelersandtheOttomansubjectswhoselandstheycrossed.Inbothcases,itis

noteworthythattheseconfrontationsplayedoutbetweenthejanissariesguardingthecaravans

andmembersofthelocalpopulation.Althoughthesamplesizeissmall,theseandothersimilar

anecdotessuggestthatepisodesofviolenceandthreateningbehaviorontheroadwerejustas

likelytooccurbetweenthelocalOttomanpopulationandtheOttomanmembersofthe

caravans(e.g.thejanissaryguards)astheyweretoinvolveOttomansandforeigners.Indeed,

thejanissarieswereinaparticularlycomplexpositionregardingtheiridentityandtheir

loyalties.Intheory,thesemenwerebornasChristiansandconvertedtoIslamatayoungage,

butnotsoyoungthattheywouldhavenomemoryoftheirmaternallanguageandreligion.47As

caravanguards,theywereembeddedwithintheinternationalgroupswhosesafetytheywere

46 “E volendo andar a fermarci per desinar sotto alcuni alberi ove corre un’acqua, li turchi incominciarono ad opporsi al dragomano ed a’ gianizzeri, ed uno alzò un legno per dar al gianizzero; però avventatisi tutti e dui li gianizzeri contra d’esso gli dettero di buone bastonate col busdegano, si che acquietati andammo a riposare e a desinare a quelle ombre. Desinato, partimmo subito, e nel partire essendo rimasto uno della compagnia, cioè Alvise Marchesini, s’accorssero i gianizzeri che li turchi venivano per serrarli la porta d’un cortile e serrarvelo dentro, e si fecero fuori alla porta. Sdegnato un turco tirò un sasso sulla mano al gianizzero, e l’offese gravamente e scampò subito via; per il che l’altro gianizzero gli tirò una frecciata. Il rumore si fece grande, e però saltai fuori della lettiga, e montai subito a cavallo e coremmo tutti al rumore, facendoci alla porta, non lasciandovi entrare li turchi che da diverse parti accorrevano; ed acquetato il rumore rimontammo tutti a cavallo, e muovemmo verso Zurlic [Çorlu].” Contarini, Diario, 37-38. 47 For a first-hand account of janissary life for a boy born a Christian in the Balkans, see Konstanty Mihailovic, Memoirs of a Janissary, trans, ed., Svatopluk Soucek (Ann Arbor: Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures, University of Michigan, 1975).

199

responsiblefor.Bondsweresurelyformedoverthecourseofjourneysthatcouldtakemonths

tocomplete.InfactthereareexamplesofJanissaryguardsinvitingItaliantravelersintothe

homesoftheirrelativesformealsandshelter.48Intheeventofaconfrontationbetween

caravanmembersandOttomansubjects,theywereinapeculiarposition,withgreatpotential

forconflictingloyalties.ThefewepisodesofviolencedirectlyencounteredinContarini’s

accountfeaturedOttomanjanissariesfightingwithOttomansubjects,scenariosthatcomplicate

asimplenarrativeofVenetianvs.OttomanorChristianvs.Muslim.

Travelliteratureisoneoftheonlylocationswheresuchlow-level,quicklyresolved

incidentsbetweenindividualswithmultipleidentitiesislikelytobefound.Asthecasesnever

reachedthelevelofeventhelocalauthoritiessuchasthekadiorsancakbeyi,noother

documentaryrecordwouldhavebeencreated.Wemustattempttoteaseoutalargerpicture

fromthesefragmentary,subjectiveaccountsinordertohavesomesemblanceofan

understandingoftherangeofencountersoccurringbetweencaravangroups(withtheir

EuropeanandOttomanmembers)andtheOttomansubjectstheyencountered.

TheconfrontationsdescribedbyContariniwereextremelyrare.Italiansandother

Europeanstravelingoverlandalsohadcountlessopportunitiesforpositiveinteractionswith

membersofabroadrangeofethnic,linguistic,religious,andsocialgroups.Roadtravelerswere

immersedintheworldoftheOttomanprovincesinawaythatmaritimetravelers–typically

coastingfromoneVenetian-controlledporttoanother–wereunlikelytoexperience.49Of

48 Lorenzo Bernardo, Viaggio a Costantinopoli di sier Lorenzo Bernardo per l’arresto del bailo sier Girolamo Lippomano Cav. (Venice: R. Deputazione Veneta sopra gli Studi di Storia Patria, 1886), 30. 49 Yerasimos, Voyageurs, 25.

200

coursethedegreeofinteractionultimatelydependedonthepersonalityofthetraveler,and

thequalityofhisinterpretersandmediators.Contarini’sDiarioexhibitsexceptionalreceptivity

towardsarangeofOttomancharacters.InthemountainouscountrybetweenFoča

(Herzegovina)andPljevlja(Montenegro),thecompanystoppedatacaravanseraiwherea

“vaivoda”wasalreadylodgingwithhisretinue.50Showingexceptionalhospitality,theofficial

movedhispeopletothepartofthecaravanseraithatwasemptyduetoadamagedroof,

freeingupthebetterroomsfortheVenetians.Contariniwrites:“wethenbecamegoodfriends,

andIpresentedhimwiththreeloavesofsugar.”51Thislaconicdescriptionnaturallyraisesmany

morequestionsthanitanswers.Whowasthe“vaivoda,”andwhatwerehisintentionsinso

gallantlyfavoringtheforeigntravelers?Wasthedragomantranslatingtheirinteractionsas

they“becamefriends?”Didthetwomeneverencounteroneanotheragain?Itisimpossibleto

answeranyofthese,buttheepisodearticulatesthewidespreadbutrarelydocumented

practiceofcross-culturalcommunicationatitsmostbasiclevel.

Theverynextday,Contarini’spartyreachedPljevlja,animportantregionalcenter

wheretheauthornotedthe“largeandspaciouslead-coveredcaravanserai”andthe“superb

50 “...ulus units were governed by voyvodas, and cemaats by kethüdas. Nomads registered into the army were supervised by seraskers. Like other administrative units in the empire, each confederation of tribes was also assigned a kadi, who served as the direct representative of the central government and adjudicated in intra- and intertribal matters. As a further indication of the government’s willingness to accommodate these communities, the kadis accompanied the tribes through their seasonal cycles of migration.” Reşat Kasaba, A Moveable Empire: Ottoman Nomads, Migrants and Refugees (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2009), 24. Voivode is a Slavic term meaning ‘Duke’ or ‘warlord’ adopted by the Ottomans as ‘voyvoda’ Redhouse Yeni Türkçe-İngilizce Sözlük, 8th Edition (Istanbul: Redhouse Yayinevi, 1968), 1230. 51 “facemmo poi buona amicizia ed io lo presentai di tre pani di zucchero.” Contarini, Diario, 17.

201

mosque.”52TheapparentlycuriousandgregariousContarinifindsan“oldman”whois

responsibleforthemosqueandthetwoofthemenjoyalongconversation.UnlikeRamberti,

whoseemseagertomakehispragmaticnotesandmoveonasquicklyaspossible,Contarini

exhibitstheworldviewofaborntraveler,onewhotooktimetoseekoutinterestingand

unusualindividualswithwhomtoconverse,andwhosethoughtshetookseriously.Naturally,

theactualcontentoftheirdiscussionisn’tmentioned,buttheVenetianusesthreeverypositive

termstodescribehisTurkishinterlocutor:“heseemedtoverysensible,veryobservant,andhe

showedhimselftobeamanofkindness[orgenerosity].53

Whatwastheroleofwomeninitinerarioliterature?Generallyspeaking,theyare

conspicuousbytheirabsence.ContarinifollowsRamberti’sleadinprovidinggooddetailabout

thestunninglyoutfittedwomenofBulgaria,buttheseareobservationsmadefromafar,literally

superficialremarksdealingwiththevisiblefeaturesofthesubjects:theirhair,clothing,and

jewelry.Contarini,whowasheadedtoConstantinopleforatermofatleasttwoyears,traveled

inthecompanyofhisfamily.Hiswife,childrenandanyfemaleattendantsarenotmentioned

onceintheaccount.Caravangroupsweregenerallymale,mobilecommunities,andtheyspent

weeksorevenmonthstogether.Theintimatelivesoftravelersremainobscureandindications

oftheirsexualpracticesarealmostentirelyabsentfromthegenre.

OnefinalexampledrawnfromContarinigivesaglimpseintowhatwassurelyarichand

complexworldofentertainmentand,possibly,sexuality.Mondaythe30thofMaybegan

52 Contarini, Diario, 17. 53 “e trovai un vecchione che la ufiziava, con cui ebbi lunghi ragionamenti, e parvemi sensatissimo e molto accorto, e dimostrava esser uomo di molto bontà.” Contarini, Diario, 17.

202

reverentlyenoughwithmassintheRagusanchurchofSofia.Thateveningwassomewhat

livelier:“SomeTurkscametoshowusalioness,andtodolotsofthingsintheirway,andsome

playedcastanets,andagirldancedwithcertaininstruments,andeveryonegavethematip.”54

Asalways,theDiariomerelyprovidesabaresketchofaveryprovocativesituation.Fromthe

standpointofthepresentstudyisimpossiblenottowonderaboutwhatfurtherdevelopments

mayhaveensued,andwhatotherpossibilitiesexistedforliaisonsbetweentravelersandthe

localpopulation.OfthedozensoftravelaccountsIhavestudied,Contarini’saccountcomesthe

closesttorevealingthisnearlyinvisibledimensionoftravelhistory.

TravelersontheRagusaRoad–evenobservant,detail-orientedoneslikeBenedetto

RambertiandPaoloContarini–rarelytroubledtomentionthemechanicsofcaravantravel.At

times,wearegivenaroughnumberofhorsesandsomepreciousindicationsaboutjanissary

guards,buttheessentialdetailsofassemblingthecaravan’sanimalsandstaff,selectingthe

route,andnegotiatingwithlocalofficialsareseldomincluded.Perhapsthesebanalitemswere

consideredunnecessaryoruninterestingfortheprojectedreadership,ormaybethetravelers

weresimplynotawareoftheplanningandorganizationthatwentonbehindthescenes.There

were,afterall,professionalswhospecializedinthesafeandefficienttransportoftravelersand

theirgoods:thekramars,kiridžijas,andcaravanbassi/kervan-başıwhoworkedinRagusaand

acrosstheBalkanhinterland.55Itistempting,readingaccountsoftravelalongthesixteenth-

54“Vennero alcuni turchi a farci vedere una leonessa, a far molte cose a modo loro, ed alcuni a suonare di nacchere, ed una ragazza a ballare con certi stromenti, ai quali tutti fu data la mancia.” Contarini, Diario, 26. 55See chapter 1, and BogumilHrabak,“KramariukaravanskomsaobraćajuprekoSanđaka(KramarsintheCaravanCrossingsthroughSanžak):1470-1700,”Simpozijum:SeoskidaniSretenaVukosavljevićaX

203

centuryRagusaRoad,toimagineafrictionlesspoint-to-pointpathwayacrosstheBalkanswith

seamlesstransitionsacrosstheareasofauthorityofmultiplelocalpowers.Itisonlywhen

Italiantravelersdeviatedfromthebeatenpath,puttingtogetheracaravanfromscratchand

takingasignificantlyless-traveledalternative,thatthecomplexityoforganizationcomestothe

fore.

LorenzoBernardo

InAprilof1591,LorenzoBernardo,formerlybailoofConstantinople,hadonlyrecently

returnedtoVenicefromatriptoCorfuandCephaloniawhenhewasapproachedbyVenice’s

Consigliode’X(CouncilofTen)withanurgent,secretmission.56Venetianauthoritieshad

acquiredinformationthatimplicatedthecurrentbailoofConstantinople,GirolamoLippomano

Kavalier,inmultiplecrimes,includingthesellingofstatesecretstoSpain.57Aplanwashatched

tosendasmallmissionledbyBernardotoIstanbulwhereBailoLippomanowouldbeextracted

andreturnedtoVenicetofacetheallegations.Bernardowouldstaybehindastemporarybailo

(1983),191-223; Sergije Dimitrijević, Dubrovački Karavani u južnoj Srbiji u XVII veku (Les Caravanes de Dubrovnik dans la Serbie du Sud au XVIIe siécle) (Belgrade: Naučno Delo,1958). 56 On Lorenzo Bernardo, see Giovanni Pillini, “Lorenzo Bernardo,” Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani vol. 9 (1967); Dursteler, “The Bailo in Constantinople,” 10. 57 On Girolamo Lippomano, see “Il Bailaggio a Costantinopoli di Girolamo Lippomano e la sua Tragica Fine” Nuovo Archivio Veneto (Venezia: F Visentin, 1903) and Preto, Servizi Segreti. For a challenge to the official Venetian narrative of Lippomano’s suicide, see the chapter “Girolamo Lippomano: suicido o delitto di stato” in Carla Coco and Flora Manzonetto, Baili Veneziani, 51-55.

204

untilapermanentreplacementcouldbefoundandsent.TheCouncilofTenandtheSenate,

concernedbythepotentialramificationsthatcouldariseifLippomanobecameawareofthe

charges,deemedsecrecytobeoftheutmostimportance.Lippomanowasnottoknowhewas

undersuspicionuntilBernardo’sarrivalattheOttomancapital(andeventhen,thecharges

weretoremainasvagueandnon-threateningaspossible).Thedifficultywas,howtoorganize

andcarryoutsuchajourneywhilepreservingitssecrecy?Ultimately,aftermuchconsultation

withlocalauthorities,aplanwashatchedthatreworkedthefamiliarsea-landroute,but

avoidedtheRagusaRoadentirely.AwareofDubrovnik’sexcellentinformation-gatheringand

communicationssystems,Bernardo’spartywouldtakethemostunexpectedandlowest-profile

routepossible,thatoftheoftheancientViaEgnatiaacrossAlbaniaandnorthernGreece.Inthe

process,Bernardo(orratherhissecretary,GabrieleCavazza)wouldrecordwhatappearstobe

theonlytraveloguefromthesixteenthcenturytosurvivefromwhathadbeenamajorimperial

roadintheRomantransportationsystem.58

HavingsetsailfromVeniceonthe26thofApril,Bernardo’spartyarrivedinRagusajust

beforemidnightonthesixthofMay.AlthoughitwasprimeseasonforMediterraneansailing,it

appearsthattheirdeterminationtocontinuebylandratherthanbyseawasneverindoubt.

Theonlyquestionwas,whatroutetotake?TheRagusaRoadwasout,duetothe“curiosityof

theRagusans”who“informedtheTurkishPorteofeveryevent.”59Butitwouldbechallenging

fortheVenetianpartytoassembleacaravanontheirownwithoutrecoursetotheresources

58 Yerasimos, Voyageurs, 32. See also Elizavet Zachariadou, The Via Egnatia under Ottoman Rule (1380-1669) (Rethymnon: Crete University Press, 1996). 59 Bernardo, Viaggio, 22.

205

foundinDubrovnik.TheVenetiandragomanMarchiòSpinelliwasdispatchedtoinquire

discretelyaboutobtaining“36horses,twoorthree‘chiaussi’(çavuş,anOttomanmessenger,

sergeant,orguard),orjanissaries,orsipahis,withoutgivingawayforwhomortowherethey

wouldbeheading.”60Meanwhile,therestofthepartycontinuedsouthwardsbyseatothe

Venetian-heldportsofKotorandDolcigno.HowSpinelliwastoaccomplishhistaskwithout

arousingthenotoriouscuriosityoftheRagusansisnotmentionedinthetext.

AsthemaingroupcontinuessouthpastDubrovnik,thenarrativefillswiththeactivities

ofgo-betweens.Thesemenweretaskedwithfindingcaravanleaders,horsesandguards,and

withcontactingOttomanauthoritiesintheinterior.Inaddition,theywereinstructedtogather

up-to-dateinformationaboutsecurityandtraveltimesalongseveralpotentialaxes.Noless

thansixagentsinvolvedintheprocessarementionedbyname.Some,likeSpinelli,were

specialistswhotraveledfromVenicewiththeparty.Others,suchasZuaneBolizzaandVincenzo

Pitcovich,wereborrowedfromlocalVenetianauthoritiesinDalmatia,usedfortheirSlavic

languageskillsandtheirknowledgeofthesurroundinggeographicandhumanterrain.There

wereevenoccasionswhengo-betweensweresenttotrackdowngo-betweens,asinthecase

ofthe12thofMay,whenZuaneBolizzawassenttofindVincenzoDecca,whohadnotyet

returnedfromhismissiontonegotiatesafepassagefromOttomanofficialsinAlessio(Lezhë,

Albania).

Evenatthislatestage,thepartywasstillconsideringtheiroverlandalternatives.Onthe

13thofMay,BernardowentaboardthegalleyoftheProvveditoredell’Armata(Commissionerof

60 Bernardo, Viaggio, 22.

206

theFleet)toinquireabouttheeaseandsafetyofthevariousroadstoConstantinople.Thanks

tothe“Turkishministers”oftheProvveditoreandknowledgeoftheRectorsofCorfu,Bernardo

wasfinallyabletomakeafinaldecision.61TheywouldmaketheirentranceintoOttoman

territoryatAlessio(Lezhë,Albania),fromwhichtheywouldheadsouthtoElbasan.Fromthis

provincialadministrativecenter,theywouldcontinueeastalongtheViaEgnatiatoThessaloniki

and,eventually,Istanbul.Thisroutewasjudgedtoberelativelysafeandfourdaysshorterthan

analternativethroughSkopje.What’smore,theElbasanRoad(thetermViaEgnatianever

appearsinthisaccount)wasrarelytraveled,whichlessenedthelikelihoodofinterestedparties

inConstantinoplebecomingawareoftheirmission.62

Bythistime,thego-betweenswerefinallymakingprogressinputtingthecaravan

together.SpinelliandBolizzanegotiatedwiththeJanissaryAğainDolcigno(Ulcinj,Albania)for

thestandardtwojanissaryguardsforthevoyage.Thefourloavesofsugar,fourboxesof

sugaredalmondsandfourlargecandlestheypresentedtotheAğaseemstohaveexpedited

theirrequest.63VincenzoPitcovich,meanwhile,hadreacheddealwith“twoTurks”inAlessio

for40horses,althoughthesewereonlytogoasfarasElbasan,afewstagesaway,wherethey

wouldneedtobeexchanged.Onthe15thofMay,LorenzoBernardoandhispartywasfinallyon

61 Paolo Preto has noted the practice by which Venetian officials across the Stato da Mar recruited Turkish informants (some of whom are noted as ‘bandito’) to observe Ottoman activities, especially in the period after the Battle of Mohács (1526) Servizi Segreti, 249. 62 “...deliberò di tener la via di Elbassano, perchè anche, essendo insolita a personaggi, fuggisse l’occasione che a Costantinopoli pervenisse l’avviso della sua andata prima del suo arrivo.” Bernardo, Viaggio, 25. 63 Bernardo, Viaggio, 25.

207

horseback,havingspentthepreviousnightinOttomanAlessiointhevoyage’sfirst

caravanserai,onehedescribesasratherbadanduncomfortable.64Itisstrikinghowquickly

Bernardo’spartywasabletoorganizesuchacomplexlogisticaloperation,andequallystriking

howmanyexperiencedindividualswerenecessarytobringalltheessentialpiecestogether.

TheattentiongiventothelogisticaldetailsseeninLorenzoBernardo’s1591account

bearscomparisontotheexperiencesofBernardoMichelozziandBonsignoreBonsignori,

writtenalmost100yearsearlier.LiketheFlorentinehumanists,Bernardo’smissiondepended

onskillfulnegotiationbygo-betweens,translators,andcountrymenstationedabroad.Aswith

Bonsignore’sletters,theseindispensableagentsarelistedbynameinBernardo’slater

narrative.TheItaliantravelerswhofollowedBonsignorealongtheRagusaRoadinthesixteenth

centuryencounteredagreatlyexpandedandimprovedtransportationsystemservedby

experiencedbrokers,caravanleaders,drovers,andguards.Lateraccountssimplytakethe

organizationofcaravansasagiven,notworthyofcommentorelaboration.Ramberti(1539)

onlyspentfivedaysinRagusa,atwhichpointhesimplystates:“wemountedourhorsesandset

outfromRagusa.”65Contarini’sDiariofrom1580offersmoredetail,butitisclearthattheir

operationsarebeinghandledlocallybytrustedprofessionals.Thereisnosendingoffixersto

andfro.AfterfourdaysinRagusa,Contarini’ssizeablepartysetoutinthecompanyofa

dragomannamedPasqualeandtwoJanissaries,“Cussein”and“Musli.”Basedonthewritingsof

thesetwoVenetiantravelers,theirtimewasspentobservingRagusancustoms,costumes,and

64 Bernardo, Viaggio, 26. 65 Ramberti, Delle cose, 5r.

208

women,nottryingtoorganizeacaravan.ForRambertiandContarini,theprofessionalsthey

hiredinDubrovnikensuredasmoothtransitionfromtheseavoyagetotheoverlandphaseof

thejourney,butnoonecouldreducetheinherentphysicaldifficultyofcrossingthe

mountainousDalmatianterrain.Contarini’saccountgratefullynoteshowhiscaravanleader

“MarcoVanissirichi”arrangedforroastedkidgoatsfortheirfirstdinnerontheroad,after

whichtheysleptsoundlyaftertherigorsoffirstdayofoverlandtravelthroughtherocky

Dalmatianmountains.66

ItisworthtakingStephanosYerasimos’conceptionofabifurcatedandunequal

Ottomantransportationsystemseriously.Inreferencetothe‘LeftArm’orViaEgnatia,he

writesthatthesectiontothewestofSalonika,was“uncomfortable,poorlyequipped,andlittle

frequented.”Theeasternhalf,bycontrast,wasmuchmore“animatedandmaintained,”from

SalonikatotheOttomancapital.67Similarly,thewesternsectionoftheRagusaRoad,though

muchmoredevelopedthantheViaEgnatiaintheOttomanera,stillpalesincomparisontothe

magnificentcomplexesthatmarktheeasternstagesoftheimperialroad.WestofNišandSofia,

wheretheRagusaRoaddivertedfromthe‘MiddleArm’orViaMilitaris,thereweremanylead-

coveredcaravanseraisandimpressivestonebridges,butfewmatchedthegrandeuroftheawe-

inspiringmonumentsseenontheapproachestoEdirneandIstanbulacrossThrace.Yerasimos’

furtherargumentofaconsciousOttomanpolicyofneglectregardingtheroadsofthefrontier,

whetherinHerzegovinaorinotherborderareas(suchasnorth-westHungaryandinKurdistan)

66 Contarini, Diario, 12-13. 67 Yerasimos, Les Voyageurs, 36.

209

isintriguing,butultimatelyunconvincing.68WhiletheOttomanarchitectureofthewestern

borderregionscan’tcomparetothescale,magnificence,andsheerabundanceoftheempire’s

coreareas,thepresenceofnumerousscatteredmasterworksnearthewesternborder

contradictstheideaofanintentionalpolicyofunderdevelopment.69

WhiletheViaEgnatiawasanunusualchoiceforinternationaltravelersinthesixteenth

century,itwasneverthelessawell-usedcommercialroadnetwork.Bernardodescribesseeinga

greatnumberofhorsesloadedwithgrainheadingfromtheproductivehinterlandtothe

redistributioncentersonthecoast.Onthe16thofMay,astheVenetiansmadetheirwayto

Elbasan,Bernardoestimatesthenumberofcaravanhorsesencounteredatover500,eachone

carryingaloadofgraintoAlessio.70Theagricultural/industrialcharacterofthewesternhalfof

theEgnatiaroutemayexplainthepoorqualityofthelodgingsandscareresourcesthetravelers

encounteredinAlbaniaandMacedonia.Bernardoexplicitlywarnsfuturetravelersthat“from

Alessiotothisplace(nearKruje,Albania),itisnotpossibletobuybreadnorwinenorisany

lodgingtobefound...webroughtwithusourownprovisions.”71OnMay20,Bernardoreports

68 “. . . c’est le cas pour les autres limes de l’empire Ottoman, la haute Herzegovine, le nord-ouest de la Hongrie ou le Kurdistan.” Yerasimos, Les Voyageurs, 38. 69 Ottoman bridges in Višegrad, Goražde, Foča, Mostar, and especially Trebinje (only one stage inland from Dubrovnik) don't fit into Yerasimos' scheme of maintaining an intentionally bad road system on the borders as an obstacle to invasion. It is likely that the concentration of monumental patronage in the Eastern Balkan Peninsula (closer to the capitals and chief provincial cities) had more to do with prestige and the allocation of resources than with a consistent policy. 70 Bernardo, Viaggio, 28. 71 “È da avvertire, che da Alessio fin questo luogo non si trova da comprar pane nè vino nè si vede alcun alloggiamento; di che informati, ne portassimo con noi la provisione.” Bernardo, Viaggio, 27.

210

morebadroads,plusrain,and“extremelybadlodginginsomefarmhousesofpoorpeasants”

with“neitherbreadnorwine.”72EveninadevelopedtownlikeMonastir(Bitola,Macedonia),

whichfeaturedabedesten(coveredmarket)andimpressiveOttomanmosques,the

caravanseraiisdescribedas“goodforthehorsesbutuncomfortableforpeople.”73

OntheothersideofThessalonikitheparty’slodgingoptionsweregreatlyimproved.

OnedaypastKavala,inGenizzè(Genisea,Greece),Bernardo’scaravanstayedatan“imaret”

(hospice)describedas“prettycomfortable”wherebreadandmeatandwinewerebroughtin

fromanothervillageamileaway.74Afewstageslater,at“Ipsalia”(Ipsala,Turkey),having

crossedtheMaritsaRiveronferries,theyenjoyedthe“verycomfortable”caravanseraibuilt,we

learn,byIbrahimBey,thekethüda(steward)ofSokolluMehmetPasha.75ThefacilitiesatIpsala

weresocongenialthatthepartystayedafewextradaystorestandrecoverfromtheprevious

stagesoftravelinexcessiveheat.Thecomplex’stwofountainswith“excellentfreshwater”

musthavebeengreatlyappreciatedbythehotandtiredtravelers.AtRodosto(Tekirdağ),the

caravanseraibuiltbyRüstemPashaofferedwayfarersthreefreemealsofbreadandsoupper

day,allforthebenefitofthesoulofthepatron.76Finally,ontheeasternsideofthebridgeat

Küçükçekmece,Bernardo’saccountgivestheitinerario’ssinglemostelaboratedescriptioninhis

72 “Avessimo anco cattivissimo alloggiamento in alcune cascine di poveri contadini; nè vi si trovò ne pane nè vino.” Bernardo, Viaggio, 29. 73 Bernardo, Viaggio, 30. 74 Bernardo, Viaggio, 36. 75 Bernardo, Viaggio, 37. 76 Bernardo, Viaggio, 38.

211

treatmentofthe“ImaretdiAudiscelam”(MedreseofDefterdarAbdüsselamBey).77The

Venetiansgladlystayedinthecomplex’sapartments,justacrossa“beautifulcourtyard”from

themosqueandtheroomsofthemedresestudents.

ThedivisionoftheBalkanroadsintotheirmore-andless-developedsectionsisuseful

asaschematicpictureofinfrastructuraldevelopment,butultimatelymerelyconfirmsthe

obvious:proximitytomajorcenterslikeIstanbulandEdirneledtomoreextensiveand

prestigioussitesofpatronage.LocationsonthemarginsoftheOttomanprovincestypicallyhad

moremodestOttomanmonumentsandinfrastructure.Fromtheperspectiveofcross-cultural

history,themostrevealingdetailsofBernardo’saccountstemfromthenumeroustimeswhen

thetravelersfoundprivatealternativestotheunappealingcaravanseraisofthewesternVia

Egnatia.TheveryfirstdayoutfromAlessio,Bernardoandhisgroupstoppedinatthehouseof

“Malcoz[Malkoç]Agha,relativeofMustafa,thekethüdaofKrujë.”78Aweeklater,nearLake

Ohridinalocationwithoutacaravanserai,theystayedinthehouseofajanissary.Itwasnot

verycomfortable,theauthorwrites,buttheyfoundgoodwinethere.79Theseextraordinary

recurringencountersraisecountlessquestionswhichthetextrefusestoanswer.Wasitoneof

theirownjanissaryguardswhoopeneduphishome?Thetextusestheindefinitearticle(“un

gianizzero”)andgivesnoadditionalinformationaboutthisindividual.Didtheyknowhim?Was

ithis(Christian)family’swinethattheyenjoyed?DidtheMuslimmembersofthecaravan

77 Bernardo, Viaggio, 39. 78 Bernardo, Viaggio, 30. 79 “...ma alloggiassimo in casa di un giannizzero assai incomodamente. Ma vi trovassimo buon vino.” Bernardo, Viaggio, 30.

212

partakeindrinkingit?Didthetravelerspaythefamilyfortheirmeals,lodgingsandanimal

fodder?Whatdidahigh-rankingVenetianofficialandanOttomansoldierfromMacedoniatalk

aboutoverdinner?

Besidesawell-organizedcaravanindustry,travelerswhofollowedasecondaryroutelike

theViaEgnatiamissedoutonanotherimportantresource:theextensivenetworkofRagusan

merchants.RambertirepeatedlynotesthepresenceofRagusanmerchantcommunitiesinthe

mainsettlementsalongtheway,includingFoča,NoviPazar,andSofia.80Contarini’saccount

mentionsa“fondacodeiragusei”inNoviPazar,whileinSofia,Contarini’sgroupattendedmass

intheRagusanchurchandwerelodgedinthehomeofaRagusangentlemanaftertheir

dragomanfailedtomakeproperarrangementsatthecity’scaravanserai.81VeniceandRagusa

werepoliticalrivals,tobesure,butVenetianoverlandtravelersontheRagusaRoadreliedona

thedispersedpopulationofDubrovnik’smerchantsasaknowledgeablenetworkofco-

religionistsandItalianspeakerswhocouldofferbothspiritualandpracticalsupport.

Bernardoandhisfollowers,ofcourse,didalltheycouldtoavoidDubrovnik’smerchants,

whowerewellknownfortheirinformation-gatheringandsharingwithOttomanauthorities.In

theabsenceofRagusans,anotherwell-connectedminoritydispersedthroughtheOttoman

provincesseemstohaveservedasimilarfunction.InMonastir(Bitola)thepartybenefitted

fromtheassistanceofRabbiSamuelNamiasastheychangedhorsesforthenextportionofthe

journey.82Thefollowingday,BernardosentsomeofhismenaheadtoSalonikatopreparefor

80 Ramberti, Delle cose, 5v, 6v, 7v. 81 Contarini, Diario, 26-27. 82 Bernardo, Viaggio, 30.

213

theirnexttransferpoint,hopingforaquickatransitionaspossible.AnotherlocalRabbi,

AbrahamNamias(brotheroftheaforementionedSamuel)helpedwiththepreparations.83Once

themaingroupreachedSalonika,Abrahamshowedthemthesightsofthecity.84

AfterThessaloniki,Bernardo’saccountdescribestheseriesofwell-furnished

caravanseraisandgivenofurthermentionoflocalJewishsupport.Alongthissectionofroad

whereOttomaninfrastructurewasdevelopedtoahighlevelitseemsthattherewaslittleneed

forsuchpracticalassistancefromlocalnetworks.Thetwo-tieredroadsystemsuggestedby

Yerasimos,withawell-appointedeasternhalfandamorerudimentarywesternhalf,meant

thattravelerswereoftenforcedtorelyon‘non-official’lodgingandlocalassistancewiththeir

transportationneeds.RagusansandJewsweretwocommunitiesfoundacrosstheOttoman

BalkansandacrosstheMediterraneanworld,familiarandapparentlysupportivetotravelers

fromtheItalianstates.Thewell-distributedmerchantnetworksofthesecommunitiesoffered

akindofsupportsystemthathelpedmakeupforthedeficienciesoftheempire’stravel

infrastructureinthewesternreachesofOttomanterritory.

HordenandPurcell’sTheCorruptingSeafocusesprimarilyonmaritimetravelasthe

definingforceof‘connectivity’inMediterraneanhistory.Yet,likeBraudel,theauthorsalso

makeimportantpointsaboutoverlandmobility.“Themainhindrancetothemovementsof

peopleandgoodsbyland,”theywrite,“hasusuallybeensocialratherthanphysical”85What

83 Bernardo, Viaggio, 31. 84 Bernardo, Viaggio, 33. 85 Horden and Purcell, The Corrupting Sea: A Study of Mediterranean History (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2000), 132.

214

arethese‘socialhindrances,’andhowweretheyovercome?TheCorruptingSeapointsto

securityasanessentialfactor,onethatwasprobablymoresignificantthantechnical

innovationsorgeographicalbarriers.

Establishingthestatusofthetrader,ensuringthesafemovementofanenvoy,guaranteeingtheembassyfromharassmentaremoreimportantthantechnicalimprovementsinbearings,harnessorroad-surfaces.86

Thestate,inthisview,hasthepotentialtoreducethefrictionofoverlandtravelbyensuring

thesecurityofthetravelerandhisgoods.AccountsleftbyItaliantravelersintheOttoman

Balkanssupportthisunderstanding,andalsocomplicateit.Thetop-downmandatesand

investmentsmadebytheOttomanstateanditselitememberswereanessentialbasisforthe

successlongdistanceoverlandtravel.Thefreedom,security,andconsistencywithwhich

Italiansmovedacrosslongdistancewiththeirvaluablecargoesisstriking.Hostileencounters

withlocalinhabitantsorOttomanofficialsareveryrare.Thelegalguaranteesofferedto

privilegedforeignersinofficialdocuments(capitulationsor‛aḥid-nāmes)seemlargelytohave

heldupinactualpractice,evenonthebordersofempire.TheOttomanlegalsystem,relianton

thekadisfoundinallsignificantsettlements,earnedtherespectofVenetiantravelerslike

LorenzoBernardo,whodescribeswhatheinterpretedasaschoolforjudges(“cadilaggio”)in

Monastir(Bitola).Theschool,hewrites,“succeededinproducingmenanddocumentswith

86 Horden and Purcell, Corrupting Sea, 377.

215

whichjusticewasadministered,andforthisreason[thegraduates]weresentaskadisinto

variouspartsoftheOttomanEmpire.”87

Theprecedingaccountsalsomakeitabundantlyclearthatsuchofficialstructureswere

onlyonedimensionofacomplexsetofpracticesthatsupportedoverlandtravel.Local

communities,whethertheurbannetworksofJewishandRagusantradersortherural

populationswhoprovidedpackanimals,drovers,andsustenance,wereessentialresources

withoutwhomconsistentmovement,particularlyacrossthemountainousanddistantwestern

regions,wouldhavebeendifficultifnotimpossible.Travelaccountsconfirmthatreducingthe

‘socialhindrances’ofoverlandtravelwasamulti-layeredandmulti-facetedoperationthat

flourishedalongcertainprivilegedaxesofmobility,despiteminimalinvestmentbythestatein

silverormanpower.

AndwhatbecameofLorenzoBernardo’ssecretmissiontoConstantinople?Theparty

arrivedintheOttomancapitalonthe15thofJuneaftera50-dayjourneyacrossseaandland.

Thediplomats’firstorderofbusinesswastoseekout‘PasqualDragomano’inthecity,tofind

outwhatthecurrentbailoandtheOttomansknewabouttheiractivities.88Itturnsoutthatall

thesecrecyandtroubleoftakingthe‘LeftArm’hadlargelybeeninvain.Thedragoman

revealedthat“theyhadalreadyknownfor10or12days”aboutBernardo’simminentarrival,

87 “Quivi sono buoni turchi per esser il luogo come di studio, dal quale riescono huomini sufficienti ed atti ad amministrar giustizia, che perciò si mandano per cadì in diverse parti dell’imperio turchesco.” Bernardo, Viaggio, 30. 88 Could this be the same Pasquale who annoyed Contarini with his incompetence during their journey in 1580?

216

andfrommorethanonesource.89Pasqualcouldn’tsaywithcertaintywhichofthemany

channelsofinformationhadbetrayedthem,buthiscasuallistofthepossibilitiesrevealsthe

richflowofinformationfromtheperipherytothecenteroftheOttomanworld.Several

possibleinformersarementionedbythedragoman,includinganonymoussourcesinRagusa

andKotor,theirowncaravanleaders,OttomanofficialsinElbasan(whomighthavesentword

bymessengertothegrandvizier),andtheLevantinemerchantsencounteredinElbasanwho

hadtakenthequickersearoutefromSalonikatoIstanbul.90Thegoodnews,fromVenice’s

perspective,wasthatnoneoftheabovepartieswasprivytoBernardo’smotivationforcoming.

Nevertheless,theaccusedbailoLippomanohadalsobeenalerted,dueanerrorcommittedby

theVenetian“inquisitori”(membersoftheCouncilofTen)themselves,whoseletterswith

instructionsintendedforBernardowereinadvertentlydeliveredtoLippomanofivedaysprior

tohisreplacement’sarrival.91Thesittingbailowasunderstandablyextremelyperturbedto

learnthatBernardo’sultimateaimwastoensureLippomano’sextraditiontoVenicetoface

interrogationbytheCouncilofTen.Despitehavingseenthissecretcorrespondence,itseems

thatthefullextentofthechargeshewasfacingwasnotrevealed.

TheLippomanoaffairsharesmanysimilaritieswiththeresolutionofthePazzi

Conspiracy,overacenturyearlier.Bernardo’smissionechoesthatofAntoniode’Medici,oneof

theearliestdocumentedItaliantravelersontheRagusaRoad.Bothwereexperienced

89 Bernardo, Viaggio, 40. 90 Bernardo, Viaggio, 40. 91 Bernardo, Viaggio, 40.

217

diplomatssenttoresolveamajorpoliticalcrisisthatlinkedIstanbulwithanItalianstate.In

bothcasesthecarefullyselectedagenttookthecombinationsea/landroutetocrossthe

AdriaticandtheBalkans;bothreturnedwiththeaccusedentirelybythemaritimeroute.Like

thefugitiveconspiratorBernardoBandinideiBaroncelli,GirolamoLippomano’slifeendedon

returntohisnativecity.Lippomano,however,managedtoavoidbeingtortured,interrogated,

anddisgracedatthehandsoftheVenetianauthorities.GabrieleCavazza,thesecretarywho

likelywroteBernardo’saccount,returnedtoVenicebyseawithLippomano,andwaspresent

forthedramaticdenouementofhislife’snarrative.AstheirshipenteredthelagoonofVenice,

passingthe“twocastles”thatmarkedthefinalapproachtothecityitself,Lippomano,whoat

somepointonhisreturntoVenicehadreceiveddetailsfromhisbrotherabouttheseverityof

thechargeshewasfacing,suddenlythrewoffhisclothingandjumpedoverboard.Hisbodywas

recovered,“moredeadthanalive,”butBailoLippomanoexpiredshortlyafterinthenearby

ChurchofSanNicolòdelLido,whosenamesakewasandremainsthepatronsaintofthosewho

traveledbysea.92

92 Bernardo, Viaggio, 46.

Conclusion Geographershavecoinedtheevocativephrase'desirepath'todescribethehumanand

animalhabitoftakingshortcutsandveeringfromofficialroutes.Thephenomenon,inwhicha

travelerinstinctivelyselectstheshortestandmostefficientroute,isknownbymanyother

names:gametrail,socialtrail,herdpath,goattrail,deertrail,andbootlegtrailbeingonlya

few.Thedesirepathisthebaneoflandscapersandurbanplanners,whoareforcedintoa

choice:dotheyfightthesewildcattrailswithfencingandstrategicallyplacedshrubs?Orshould

theysimplyembracethespontaneouslygeneratedpath,adaptingtothedesiresofthecrowd

ratherthanimposinganunwantedstructure?TheRagusaRoad'shistoryshowsthatthe

simplestpathwayisnotalwaysthemostpopular.MobilityintheOttomanBalkanswas

governedbymanyotherfactorsbeyondefficiency.

Humanhistoryis,inmanyways,ahistoryofmovement.Itisnoaccidentthatjourneys

aresoprominentinsacredtextsandoriginstories(theExodusfromEgypt,Aeneas'flightfrom

TroytofoundRome,theHegiraofMohammedandhisfollowersfromMeccatoMedina,etc.).

Pilgrimages,likewise,areundertakenbybelieversofallfaithsaroundtheworld.Despitethe

centralityofmobility,historianshavebeenreluctanttoexploreitsprinciplesinmuchdetail.

Nomadsmovedwiththeirflocks,tradersexploitedtheirnetworks,soldiersfollowedthe

dictatesofpoliticsandpower.Mobility,underlyingalloftheseprocesses,istakenforgranted.

Likegravityitissimplyaforcethatexists,requiringnoexplanation.Itisonlywhenconfronted

withstrangecontradictions(asultanleadinghisarmyacrossariveronhorsebackwithinviewof

amagnificentstonebridge,forexample)thatsuchassumptionsbegintofallapart.

219

Thisdissertationhasattemptedtocapturetheforcesthatgovernedmobilityby

investigatingthemultipleconditions,policies,technologies,andindividualactionsthat

impactedpatternsofmovementalongaspecificaxisovertime.ThecitizensofDubrovnikwere

walledinbybothnature(thekarstmountainchainsoftheDinaricAlps)andpolitics(territorially

encircledbytheOttomanempire).Asaresult,theywouldappeardestinedforalifeof

seafaring.Tobesure,Ragusa'smarineendeavorsthrived.ItsdeepengagementwiththeBalkan

hinterlandbeyonditsborders,however,makeslessintuitivesense.Theresourcefulnessand

energythatDubrovnik'sleaderspouredintothemaintenanceoftheirpoliticalandeconomic

agreementswiththeOttomanscanbeenunderstoodasareflectionoftheinherentinsecurity

ofthecity'sposition.Ragusansunderstoodthattheircitythrivedasacentralpointbetween

landandseanetworks.Onceitsplaceasanoutletforroadnetworksdegraded,Dubrovnik

becamejustanotherportcityontheAdriatic.Yet,byunderstandingitsposition,caravantravel

fromtheCityofSt.Blaiseremainedviableforcenturies,thrivingduringtheso-calledClassical

AgeoftheOttomanEmpire.

Tosomereaders,thekindofforward-thinkingbyOttomanofficialsthatIhaveargued

formayseemfar-fetched.Intheabsenceofexplicitarchivalevidence,wecannotknowforsure

whattheintentionsofSultanMuradIIwereinofferingDubrovniksuchafavoredpositioninthe

imperialorder.Perhapstheuniqueprivilegesgiventotherepublicwereonlymeantasa

temporarymeasure,astopgapastheempirecametotermswiththevastterritoriesand

populationsithadconqueredinitsfirstcenturies.TheabundantroadarchitectureofRumeliais

aconvincingindicationthatOttomanleadersdid,infact,haveacoherentunderstandingofthe

valueoftheempire'sRagusapolicy.ThecapitulationsthathelpedensureDubrovnik's

220

prosperitywerealsobeneficialtotheOttomanprovincesandtheimperialcenter.Thebridges,

caravanserais,publicbaths,andcoveredmarketsbuiltbyOttomanpatronsgavethemerchants

ofDubrovnikandtheentireAdriaticregionfurtherimpetustofollowtheRagusaRoad,

enliveningthemarketsofremoteBalkanmountaintownswiththeproductsofaglobally

connectedworld.

ItisstrikingtocomparethereportsofItaliantravelersinOttomanRumeliawiththe

observationsofEuropeansencounteringtheNewWorld.AlthoughdescriptionsoftheBalkans

aresprinkledwithreferencestoPliny,Ovid,andPhilipofMacedon,itisclearthattheirauthors,

likethoseintheAmericas,wereencounteringadeeplyforeignplace.Toseethewaysthese

travelersmadesenseoftheinhabitantsofRumeliaistorealizehowlittleevenwell-educated

Europeansknewabouttheworldaroundthem.Moreover,theirreportsgiveclearindicationsof

howbadlytheideologicaldemandsofnationalismhaveshapedourexpectationsofthepast.In

traveler'seyes,theregion'sethnicandreligiouscategoriesarefluidorbreakdownentirely.

Caravangroupswerepopulatedbyindividualswhoseidentitieswerenotdefinedbythe

categoriestoooftendescribedas'timeless'inBalkans.Go-betweens,translators,caravan-

leaders,andjanissaryguardswereinconstantdialogueacrossculturalandimperialborders.By

lookingcloselyatmobilityanditsculturalconsequences,theseandotherproblemsinOttoman

andMediterraneanstudiescomeintofocusinnew,andIhopeproductiveways.

"Meander,"anovelistwrote,"ifyouwanttogettotown."1

1 Michael Ondaatje, In the Skin of a Lion (New York: Knopf, 1987).

221

Bibliography

PrimarySourcesandTravelAccounts

Albèri,Eugenio,ed.RelazionidegliambasciatorivenetialSenato;raccolte,annotate,edediteda

EugenioAlbèri,aspesediunasocietà.Firenze:Societàeditricefiorentina,1839.Angiolello,GiovanMaria.ViaggioDiNegroponte,vol.1,editedbyCristinaBazzolo.Vicenza:N.

Pozza,1982.Aşıkpaşazade.Tevarih-IAl-IOsman'danÂşikpaşazadeTarihi,editedbyAliBey.Istanbul:Matbaa-i

Âmire,1914.———.DieAltomanischeChronikDesʻAsikpasazādeAufGrundMehrererNeuentdeckter

Handschriften.EditedandtranslatedbyFriedrichGiese.Leipzig:Harrassowitz,1929.———.Tevârıh-IÂl-IOsman.Istanbul:TürkiyeYayınevi,1949.ÂşıkMehmed.Menâzırü’l-avâlim.TürkTarihKurumuyayınları.III.dizi;sa.27.Ankara:AtatürkKültür,

DilveTarihYüksekKurumu,TürkTarihKurumuYayınları,2007.Bernardo,Lorenzo,andCavazza,Gabriele.ViaggioaCostantinopoliDiSierLorenzoBernardo:Per

L’arrestoDelBailoSierGirolamoLippomanoCav.,1591Aprile,editedbyFedericoStefani.DeputazioneVenetasopragliStudidiStoriaPatria,1886

Breydenbach,Bernhardvon.LesSaintesPérégrinationsdeBernarddeBreydenbach,1483.Caire:

Imprimerienationale,1904.Busbecq,OgierGhislainde.TheTurkishLettersofOgierGhiselindeBusbecq,ImperialAmbassadorat

Constantinople,1554-1562.Oxford:TheClarendonPress,1927.Canaye,Philippe.LevoyageduLevantdePhilippeduFresne-Canaye(1573).FrankfurtamMain:

InstitutefortheHistoryofArabic-IslamicScience,1995.Ciriacod’Ancona.LaterTravels,editedandtranslatedbyEdwardW.BodnarwithCliveFoss ITattiRenaissanceLibrary;10.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,2003.Contarini,Paolo.DiariodelviaggiodaVeneziaaCostantinopolidiPaoloContarinicheandavobailo

perlaRepubblicaVenetaallaPortaOttonanel1580.Oraperlaprimavoltapubblicato.Venice,1856.

222

Dei,Benedetto.LaCronicaDall’anno1400All’anno1500,vol.1,editedbyRobertoBarducci.Firenze:F.Papafava,1985.

Doukas.DeclineandFallofByzantiumtotheOttomanTurks,editedbyHarryJ.Magoulias.Detroit:

WayneStateUniversityPress,1975.EvliyaÇelebi,EvliyaÇelebiinAlbaniaandAdjacentRegions:Kossovo,Montenegro,Ohrid,translated

andeditedbyRobertDankoffandRobertElsie.Leiden:Boston:Brill,2000.———.EvliyaÇelebiSeyahatnâmesi:TopkapıSarayıBağdat304Yazmasınıntranskripsiyonu,dizini,

10vols.,editedbyOrhanŞaikGökyayetal.Istanbul:YapıKrediYayınları,1996-2007.Firpo,Luigi,andLuigiFirpo.RelazioniDiAmbasciatoriVenetiAlSenato;TratteDalleMiglioriEdizioni

DisponibiliEOrdinateCronologicamente.Vol.Ser.2,nn.8–9,11,13–19,21,23.MonumentaPoliticaetPhilosophicaRariora.Torino:Bottegad’Erasmo,1965.

Fortis,Alberto.ViaggioinDalmazia.Venezia:AlviseMilocco,1774.Gassot,Jacques.LediscoursduvoyagedeVeniseàConstantinople:contenantlaquereledugrand

SeigneurcontreleSophi,avecélégantedescriptiondeplusieurslieux,villesetcitezdelaGrèceparmaistreJacquesGassot.Paris:A.LeClerc,1550.

Harff,Arnold,Rittervon,ThePilgrimageofArnoldvonHarff,Knight,fromColognethroughItaly,

Syria,Egypt,Arabia,Ethiopia,Nubia,Palestine,Turkey,France,andSpain,WhichHeAccomplishedintheYears1496to1499,translatedandeditedbyMalcolmHenryIkinLetts.London:Hakluytsociety,1946.

Kemalpaşazade.Tevârih-IÂl-IOsman,editedbyŞerafettinTuran.I.Defter.Ankara:TürkTarih

KurumuBasımevi,1991.Khalīfah,Ḥājī(KâtipÇelebi)RumeliundBosna,geographischbeschrieben,TranslatedbyJ.van

Hammer.Vienna,1812.Kritovoulos.HistoryofMehmedtheConqueror.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1954.Kuripešić,Benedikt,Itinerarium,Oder:WegrayssKüniglichMayestätPotschafftGenConstantinopel

ZudemTürckischenKeiserSoleyman,Anno1530,editedbyGerhardNeweklowsky.Vol.Bd.2.Österreichisch-BosnischeBeziehungen;Bd.2.Klagenfurt:WieserVerlag,1997.

LaBrocquière,Bertrandonde,and.VoyageD’outremerdeBertrandondeLaBroquière,editedby

CharlesHenriAugusteSchefer.Paris:Leroux,1892.Mundy,Peter.TheTravelsofPeterMundyinEuropeandAsia,1608-1667.London:HakluytSociety,

1907.

223

Nicolay,Nicolasde,Marie-ChristineGomez-Géraud,andStefanosYerasimos.DansL’empirede

SolimanLeMagnifique.Paris:Singulierpluriel/PressesduCNRS,1989.Pouqueville,FrançoisCharlesHuguesLaurent.ViaggioinMorea:aCostantinopoliedinAlbanianon

cheinmoltealtrepartidell’ImperoOttomanoneglianni1798,1799,1800,1801...RaccoltadiviaggidopoquellidiCookeseguititantopermarequantoperterraenonpubblicatifinorainlinguaitaliana;tomoXVII-XX.Milano:Sonzogno,1816.

Ramberti,Benedetto.DelleCosedeTvrchi.LibriTre.DelliQvaliSiDescriveNelPrimoIlViaggioda

VenetiaÀCostantinopoli,ConGliNomideLuoghiAntichietModerni.NelSecondoLaPorta,CioeLacortedeSoltanSoleymano,SignordeTurchi.NelTerzo&VltimoIlModoDelReggereIlStatoetImprioSuo.Venice,1541.

Razzi,Serafino.LastoriadiRagusa;scrittanuovamenteintrelibri.Ragusa,Editricetipserbo-ragusea,

1903.Rycaut,Paul.ThePresentStateoftheOttomanEmpire;ContainingtheMaximsoftheTurkishPolitie,

theMostMaterialPointsoftheMahometanReligion...TheirMilitaryDiscipline,withanExactComputationofTheirForcesBothbyLandandSea.IllustratedwithDiversPiecesofSculpture,RepresentingtheVarietyofHabitsamongsttheTurks,.3rded.London,:J.StarkeyandH.Browne,1670.

SecondarySourcesAbulafia,David.CommerceandConquestintheMediterranean,1100-1500.Aldershot,Hampshire;

Brookfield,VT:Variorum,1993.———.TheGreatSea:AHumanHistoryoftheMediterranean.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,

2011.Abu-Lughod,JanetL.BeforeEuropeanHegemony:TheWorldSystemA.D.1250-1350.NewYork:

OxfordUniversityPress,1989.Adams,ColinandRayLaurence.TravelandGeographyintheRomanEmpire.London;NewYork:

Routledge,2001.Agoston,Gabor.“DefendingandAdministeringtheOttomanFrontier:TheCaseofOttoman

Hungary.”InTheOttomanWorld,editedbyChristineWoodhead.Routledge,2012.Aksan,VirginiaH.,andDanielGoffman.TheEarlyModernOttomans:RemappingtheEmpire.

CambridgeUniversityPress,2007.

224

Âli,MustafabinAhmet.Künhü’l-aḫbār :c.II,FātiḥSulṭānMeḥmeddevri,1451-1481.Ankara:Türk

TarihKurumu,2003.Andrejević,Andrej.AladžaDžamijaUFoči.Vol.2.Monografije ;Beograd:Filozofskifakultetu

Beogradu,Institutzaistorijuumetnosti,1972.———.IslamskamonumentalnaumetnostXVIvekauJugoslaviji:kupolnedžamije.Studije

(UniverzitetuBeogradu.Institutzaistorijuumetnosti);6.Beograd:FilozofskifakultetuBeogradu,Institutzaistorijuumetnosti,1984.

Andrić,Ivo,ŽelimirB.Juričić,andJohnF.Loud.TheDevelopmentofSpiritualLifeinBosniaunderthe

InfluenceofTurkishRule.Durham:DukeUniversityPress,1990.Anselmi,Sergio.“VeneziaeiBalcani:La‘Scala’diSpalatotraCinqueeSeicento.”StudiStorici13,no.

2(1972):408–412.Arbel,Benjamin.TradingNations:JewsandVenetiansintheEarly-ModernEasternMediterranean.

Brill’sSeriesinJewishStudies,Vol.14.Leiden;NewYork:Brill,1995.Ashmole,Bernard.“CyriacofAncona.”ProceedingsoftheBritishAcademy45(1959).Astorri,Antonella.Il‘LibroDelleSenserie’DiGirolamodiAgostinoMaringhi(1483-1485).Florence,

Olschki,1988.Aymard,Maurice.Venise,RaguseetlecommercedublépendantlesecondemoitiéduXVIesiècle.

Ports,routestrafics.Paris:SEVPEN,1966.Ayverdi,EkremHakkı.AvrupaʾdaOsmanlımimârîeserleri.İstanbulFetihCemiyetiʼninkitabı;80,etc.

Istanbul:İstanbulFetihCemiyeti,1977.Babinger,Franz.DieFrühasmanischeJahrbücherDesUrudsch.Hannover:H.Lafaire,1925.———,ed.HansDernschwamTagebuchEinerReiseNachKonstantinopelUnd.Berlin:Duncker&

Humblot,n.d.———.Lorenzode’MediciELaCorteOttomana.Florence:Olschki,1963.———.MehmedtheConquerorandHisTime.BollingenSeries ;96.Princeton,N.J.:Princeton

UniversityPress,1978.Barkan,ÖmerLütfi.“OsmanlıİmparatorluğundaBirIskânveKolonizasyonMetoduOlarakVakıflarve

TemliklerI:İstilâDevirlerininKolonizatörTürkDervişleriveZâviyeler.”VakıflarDergisi2(1942).

225

Barow,Horst,andFriedrichRagette.RoadsandBridgesoftheRomanEmpire.Stuttgart:EditionAxelMenges,2013.

Beck,HansGeorg,ManoussosManoussacas,AgostinoPertusi,eds.Venezia,CentroDiMediazione

TraOrienteEOccidente,SecoliXV-XVI:AspettiEProblemi.Vol.32.CiviltàVeneziana.Firenze:Olschki,1977.

Bejtić,Alija.“BosnianGovernorMehmedPashaKukavicaandHisFoundationinBosnia(1752-1756

and1757-1760).”Prilozi6–7(1956):77–114.———.StaraSarajevskaČaršijaJučer,DanasISutra:OsnoveISmjerniceZaRegeneraciju.Sarajevo,

1969.———.“StariTrgovačkiPuteviUDonjemPolimlju.”PriloziZaOrijentalnuFilologiju,no.22–23

(1972):163–89.Belamarić,Josško.“ClothandGeography:TownPlanningandArchitecturalAspectsoftheFirst

IndustryinDubrovnikinthe15thCentury.”InConnectivity,Mobility,andMediterranean“PortableArchaeology”:PashasfromtheDalmatianHinterlandasCulturalMediators,editedbyAlinaPayne.Leiden:Brill,2014.

Beldiceanu,Nicoara.“SurlesValaquesdesBalkansslavesàl’époqueottomane(1450-1550).”Revue

desÉtudesIslamiques34(1966):83–132.Biegman,NicolaasH.“RagusanSypingfortheOttomanEmpire.”Belleten27(1963):237–56.———.TheTurco-RagusanRelationship.AccordingtotheFirmānsofMurādIII(1575-1595)Extantin

theStateArchivesofDubrovnik.TheHague,Paris:Mouton,1967.Bisaha,Nancy.CreatingEastandWest:RenaissanceHumanistsandtheOttomanTurks.Philadelphia:

UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,2004.Blažina-Tomić,Zlata,andVesnaBlažina.ExpellingthePlague:TheHealthOfficeandthe

ImplementationofQuarantineinDubrovnik,1377-1533.Montreal:McGill-Queen’sUniversityPress,2015.

Bojovic,BoškoI.“Raguse(Dubrovnik)etL’empireOttomanÀL’époquedeSüleymânLeLegislateur.”

Turcica35(2003):257–290.Bojović,BoškoI.Raguse(Dubrovnik)etl’Empireottoman,1430-1520:lesactesimpériauxottomans

envieux-serbedeMuradIIàSélimIer.Textes,documents,étudessurlemondebyzantin,néohellénique,etbalkanique;3.Paris:AssociationPierreBelon:Diffusion,DeBoccard,1998.

226

Borsook,Eve.“TheTravelsofBernardoMichelozziandBonsignoreBonsignoriintheLevant(1497-98).”JournaloftheWarburgandCourtauldInstitutes36(January1,1973):145–97.

Bostan,İdris.Adriyatik’tekorsanlık:Osmanlılar,Uskoklar,Venedikliler,1575-1620.1.baskı.Osmanlı

tarihidizisi;37.İstanbul:Timaş,2009.Bostan,Idris.“AhidnâmelereveUygulamalaraGöreOsmanlıDubrovnikTicarîMünasebetleri(XV-XVI

Yüzyillar).”InProf.Dr.MübahatS.Kütükoğlu’naArmağan,editedbyZeynepTarımErtuğ.Istanbul,2006.

Bostan,İdris,andMuzejHercegovineMostar.“Starimost”uosmanskimdokumentima/TheOld

BridgeinOttomandocuments/editor,İdrisBostan=OsmanlibelgelerindeMostarköprüsü/hazirlayan,İdrisBostan.Mostar:MuzejHercegovineMostar,2010.

Boykov,Grigor.“TheT-ShapedZaviye/İmaretsofEdirne:AKeyMechanismforOttomanUrban

MorphologicalTransformation.”JournaloftheOttomanandTurkishStudiesAssociation3,no.1(2016):29–48.

Božić,Ivan.DubrovnikiTurskauxivixvveku.Posebnaizdanja(Srpskaakademijanaukaiumetnosti);

knj.200.Beograd:Naučnaknjiga,1952.Bracewell,Wendy.TheUskoksofSenj:Piracy,Banditry,andHolyWarintheSixteenth-Century

Adriatic.Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,1992.Braude,Benjamin.“Christians,Jews,andtheMythofTurkishCommercialIncompetence.”In

RelazioniEconomicheTraEuropaEMondoIslamico/Europe’sEconomicRelationswiththeIslamicWorld,editedbySimonettaCavaciocchi,219–40.LeMonnier,2006.

———.“VentureandFaithintheCommercialLifeoftheOttomanBalkans,1500–1650.”The

InternationalHistoryReview7,no.4(1985):519–542.Braudel,Fernand.CivilizationandCapitalism,15th-18thCentury.1stU.S.ed.NewYork:Harper&

Row,1982.———.TheMediterraneanandtheMediterraneanWorldintheAgeofPhilipII.Translatedby,Sian

Reynolds.NewYork:Harper&Row,1972.Brotton,Jerry.TradingTerritories:MappingtheEarlyModernWorld.London:ReaktionBooks,1997.Brummett,PalmiraJohnson.OttomanSeapowerandLevantineDiplomacyintheAgeofDiscovery.

SUNYSeriesintheSocialandEconomicHistoryoftheMiddleEast.Albany,NY:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1994.

227

Brummett,PalmiraJohnson,1950-.The“Book”ofTravels:Genre,Ethnology,andPilgrimage,1250-1700.Vol.v.140.StudiesinMedievalandReformationTraditions.Leiden;Boston:Brill,2009.

Buondelmonti,Cristoforo.DescriptionDesÎlesdel’Archipel.Vol.t.14.Publicationsdel’EcoleDes

LanguesOrientales.4eSérie;Paris:E.Leroux,1897.Buondelmonti,Cristoforo,IrmgardSiebert,MaxPlassmann,ArneEffenberger,andFabianRijkers.

Manuscript.Ms.G13.CristoforoBuondelmonti:LiberInsularumArchipelagi ;Universitäts-UndLandesbibliothekDüsseldorfMs.G13,Faksimile.Vol.Bd.38.SchriftenDerUniversitäts-UndLandesbibliothekDüsseldorf ;Wiesbaden:Reichert,2005.

Burke,Peter.“EarlyModernVeniceasaCenterofInformationandCommunication.”InVenice

Reconsidered,389–419.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,2000.Buzov,Snjezana.“VlachVillages,PasturesandChiftliks:TheLandscapeoftheOttomanBorderlands

intheSixteenthandSeventeenthCentury.”InMedievalandEarlyModernPerformanceintheEasternMediterranean,editedbyEvelynBirgeVitzandArzuOzturkmen.Turnhout:Brepols,2013.

Campbell,Caroline,AlanChong,IsabellaStewartGardnerMuseum,andNationalGallery.Belliniand

theEast.London:Boston:[NewHaven,Conn.]:NationalGalleryCo;IsabellaStewartGardnerMuseum;DistributedbyYaleUniversityPress,2005.

Campbell,Tony.“CensusofPre-Sixteenth-CenturyPortolanCharts.”ImagoMundi38(1986):67–94.———.“PortolanChartsfromtheLateThirteenthCenturyto1500.”InTheHistoryofCartography,

editedbyJ.B.Harley&DavidWoodward,1:371–463.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1987.

Carboni,Stefano,Institutdumondearabe,andMetropolitanMuseumofArt.VeniceandtheIslamic

World,828-1797.Englished.NewYork,N.Y.:NewHaven,[Conn.]:MetropolitanMuseumofArt;YaleUniversityPress,2007.

Carter,FrancisW.Dubrovnik(Ragusa):AClassicCity-State.London,NewYork:SeminarPress,1972.———.“TheCommerceoftheDubrovnikRepublic,1500-1700.”TheEconomicHistoryReview,New

Series24,no.3(1971).Casale,Giancarlo.TheOttomanAgeofExploration.Oxford;NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2012.Casale,GiancarloL.“TheOttomanAgeofExploration:Spices,MapsandConquestintheSixteenth-

CenturyIndianOcean.”PhDdiss.,HarvardUniversity,2004.Casson,Lionel.TravelintheAncientWorld.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1994.

228

Čelić,Džemal.StarimostoviuBosniiHercegovini.BibliotekaKulturnonasljede.Sarajevo,“VeselinMasleša,”1969.

Chevallier,Raymond.LesVoiesRomaines.Paris:Picard,1997.Cleray,Edmond.“LeVoyagedePierreLescalopier,Parisien:DeVeniseÀConstantinople.”Revue

d’HistoireDiplomatique35(1921).Clifford,James.Routes:TravelandTranslationintheLateTwentiethCentury.Cambridge,Mass:

HarvardUniversityPress,1997.Coco,Carla,andFloraManzonetto.BailiVenezianiAllaSublimePorta:StoriaECaratteristiche

dell’AmbasciataVenetaaCostantinopoli.Venezia:StamperiadiVenezia,1985.Cozzi,Gaetano.IlDogeNicolòContarini;RichercheSulPatriziatoVenezianoAgliIniziDelSeicento.

Vol.4.CiviltàVeneziana.Studi;4.Venezia:Istitutoperlacollaborazioneculturale,1958.Crane,H.“NotesonSaldjūqArchitecturalPatronageinThirteenthCenturyAnatolia.”Journalofthe

EconomicandSocialHistoryoftheOrient36,no.1(January1,1993):1–57.doi:10.2307/3632470.

Crane,Howard,EsraAkın,GülruNecipoğlu,andMimarOrSinan.Sinan’sAutobiographies:FiveSixteenth-CenturyTexts/IntroductoryNotes,CriticalEditions,andTranslationsbyHowardCraneandEsraAkin ;EditedwithPrefacebyGülruNecipoğlu.Leiden,Boston:Brill,2006.

Çulpan,Cevdet.Türktaşköprüleri:OrtaçaǧdanOsmanliDevrisonunakadar.Ankara:TürkTarih

Kurumu,1975.Ćurčić,Slobodan.ArchitectureintheBalkansfromDiocletiantoSüleymantheMagnificent.New

Haven:YaleUniversityPress,2010.———.ArtandArchitectureintheBalkans:AnAnnotatedBibliography.ReferencePublicationinArt

History.Boston,Mass:GKHall,1984.Curtin,PhilipD.Cross-CulturalTradeinWorldHistory.StudiesinComparativeWorldHistory.

Cambridge[Cambridgeshire];NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1984.Cvijić,Jovan.LaPéninsuleBalkanique,GéographieHumaine,Avec31CartesetCroquisDansLeTexte

et9CartesHorsTexte.Paris:A.Colin,1918.Dalakoglou,Dimitris.“TheRoad:AnEthnographyoftheAlbanian–GreekCross-BorderMotorway.”

AmericanEthnologist37,no.1(February1,2010):132–49.DelPiazzo,Marcello.ProtocolliDelCarteggioDiLorenzoIlMagnificoperGliAnni1473-74,1477-92.

Vol.v.2.DocumentiDiStoriaItaliana.SerieII;v.2.Firenze:L.S.Olschki,1956.

229

Dimitrijević,Sergije,andIlijaSindik.DubrovačkiKaravaniUJužnojSrbijiUXVIIVeku.PosebnaIzdanja

-SrpskaAkademijaNauka ;Knj.304.Beograd:Naučnodelo,1958.Dinić,Mikhailo.“Dubrovačkasrednjevekovnakaravanskatrgovina.”Jugoslovenskiistoriskičasopis3

(1937):119–46.Dursteler,Eric.“FatimaHatunNéeBeatriceMichiel.”TheMedievalHistoryJournal12(2009):355–

82.———.“IdentityandCoexistenceintheEasternMediterranean,Ca.1600.”NewPerspectiveson

Turkey18(1988):113–30.———.VenetiansinConstantinople:Nation,Identity,andCoexistenceintheEarlyModern

Mediterranean.Baltimore,MD:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,2006.———.“TheBailoinConstantinople:CrisisandCareerinVenice’sEarlyModernDiplomaticCorps.”

MediterraneanHistoricalReview16,no.2(2001):1–30.Earle,Peter.“TheCommercialDevelopmentofAncona,1479-1551.”EconomicHistoryReview22,

no.1(1969):28–44.Eldem,Edhem.“ForeignersattheThresholdofFelicity:TheReceptionofForeignersinOttoman

Istanbul.”InCulturalExchangeinEarlyModernEurope,vol.2,editedbyDonalellaCalabiandStephenTurkChristensen.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2006.

Elezović,Gliša,1879-1960,ed.andtr.TurskiSpomenice.Vol.knj.1.ZbornikZaIstočnjačkuIstorisku

IknjiževnuGrađu;Knj.1.Beograd,1940.Ertaylan,İsmailHikmet.SultanCem.Istanbul:MillîĚgitimBasimevi,1951.Evans,Arthur.AncientIllyria :AnArchaeologicalExploration.London:Tauris,2006.Eyice,Semavi.“Svilengrad’daMustafaPaşaKöprüsü(Cisr-IMustafaPaşa.”Belleten28(1964).Faroqhi,Suraiya.“Camels,WagonsandtheOttomanStateintheSixteenthandSeventeenth

Centuries.”InternationalJournalofMiddleEastStudies14,no.4(1982).———.“HorsesOwnedbyOttomanOfficialsandNotables:MeansofTransportationbutAlso

SourcesofPrideandJoy.”InAnimalsandPeopleintheOttomanEmpire,293–311.Istanbul:Eren,2010.

———.“TheVenetianPresenceintheOttomanEmpire,1600-30.”InTheOttomanWorldandthe

World-Economy,editedbyHuriIslamoğlu-Inan.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1978.

230

———.TravelandArtisansintheOttomanEmpire:EmploymentandMobilityintheEarlyModern

Era.London;NewYork:Tauris,2014.Faroqhi,Suraiya,andChristophK.Neumann.OttomanCostumes:FromTextiletoIdentity.İstanbul:

Eren,2004.Filipović,Nedim.“VakufnamaKaraMustafa-PašaSokolovicaIz1555.GodineOOsnivanjeGrado

Rudo.”InRudoSpomenicaProvodom30-GodišnjicePrveProleterskeBrigade(RudoMemorialonthe30thAnniversaryoftheFirstProletarianBrigade).Pljevlja,1971.

Fine,JohnV.A.TheBosnianChurch:ANewInterpretation:AStudyoftheBosnianChurchandItsPlaceinStateandSocietyfromthe13thtothe15thCenturies.Vol.no.10.EastEuropeanMonographs;No.10.Boulder:NewYork:EastEuropeanquarterly;distributedbyColumbiaUniversityPress,1975.

———.TheLateMedievalBalkans:ACriticalSurveyfromtheLateTwelfthCenturytotheOttoman

Conquest.AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress,1987.Finlay,Robert,anded.ManfredoTafuri.“AlServizioDelSultano:Venezia,ITurchieIlMondo

Cristiano,1523–1538.”InRenovatioUrbis:VeneziaNell’etàdiAndreaGritti.Rome,1984.Fiskovic,Cvito.“DubrovaciIPrimorskiGraditeljiXIII-XVIStoljea”(ConstructeursdeDubrovnikEdDu

Littoral).”Peristil5(1962):36–42.Fleet,Kate.EuropeanandIslamicTradeintheEarlyOttomanState:TheMerchantsofGenoaand

Turkey.CambridgeStudiesinIslamicCivilization.Cambridge;NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1999.

———.“ItalianPerceptionsoftheTurksintheFourteenthandFifteenthCenturies.”Journalof

MediterraneanStudies5,no.2(1995):159–72.Freely,John.JemSultan:TheAdventuresofaCaptiveTurkishPrinceinRenaissanceEurope.London:

HarperCollins,2004.Gaunt,Simon.MarcoPolo’sLeDevisementDuMonde:NarrativeVoice,LanguageandDiversity.

Cambridge:D.S.Brewer,2013.Ghisalberti,AlbertoMaria,MassimilianoPavan,VincenzoCappelletti,FiorellaBartoccini,Mario

Caravale,RaffaeleRomanelli,andIstitutodellaEnciclopediaitaliana.DizionarioBiograficoDegliItaliani.Roma:IstitutodellaEnciclopediaitaliana,1960.

Goffman,Daniel.“NegotiatingwiththeRenaissanceState:TheOttomanEmpireandtheNew

Diplomacy.”InTheEarlyModernOttomans,61–74.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2007.

231

Gökbilgin,M.Tayyib.XV.-XVI.asırlardaEdirnevePaşalivâsı:vakıflar,mülkler,mukataalar.İstanbul

ÜniversitesiEdebiyatFakültesiyayınları;no.508.İstanbul:ÜçlerBasımevi,1952.Goldthwaite,RichardA.TheEconomyofRenaissanceFlorence.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversity

Press,2009.Grafton,Anthony.NewWorlds,AncientTexts:ThePowerofTraditionandtheShockofDiscovery.

Cambridge,Mass.:BelknapPressofHarvardUniversityPress,1992.Greene,Molly,1959-.ASharedWorld:ChristiansandMuslimsintheEarlyModernMediterranean.

Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress,2000.———.CatholicPiratesandGreekMerchants:AMaritimeHistoryoftheMediterranean.Princeton

ModernGreekStudies.Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress,2010.Guldi,Jo.RoadstoPower:BritainInventstheInfrastructureState.Cambridge,Mass:Harvard

UniversityPress,2012.Gürkan,EmrahSafa.“Espionageinthe16thCenturyMediterranean:SecretDiplomacy,

MediterraneanGo-BetweensandtheOttomanHabsburgRivalry.”PhDDiss,GeorgetownUniversity,2012.

Hadžiselimović,Omer.AttheGatesoftheEast:BritishTravelWritersonBosniaandHerzegovina

fromtheSixteenthtotheTwentiethCenturies.NewYork:EastEuropeanMonographs;DistributedbyColumbiaUniversityPress,2001.

Haellquist,KarlReinhold,ed.AsianTradeRoutes.Repr.StudiesonAsianTopics13.London:

Routledge,2006.Hankins,James.“RenaissanceCrusaders:HumanistCrusadeLiteratureintheAgeofMehmedII.”

DumbartonOaksPapers49(January1,1995):111–207.Harris,Jonathan.GreekEmigresintheWest1400-1520.Camberley:Porphyrogenitus,1995.Harris,Robin.Dubrovnik:AHistory.London:SaqiBooks,2006.Hartmuth,Maximilian.“De/Constructinga‘LegacyinStone’:OfInterpretativeandHistoriographical

ProblemsConcerningtheOttomanCulturalHeritageintheBalkans.”MiddleEasternStudies44,no.5(2008).

Harvey,Penny,andHannahKnox.“TheEnchantmentsofInfrastructure.”Mobilities7,no.4(2012).Hasandedić,Hivzija.MostarskiVakifiINjihoviVakufi.Mostar:MedžlisIslamskeZajednice,2000.

232

———.MuslimanskaBaštinaUIstočnojHercegovini.BibliotekaKulturnaBaština.Sarajevo:El-Kalem,1990.

Heyd,WilhelmVon.HistoireducommerceduLevantaumoyen-âge.Harrassowitz,1885.Heywood,Colin,andColinHeywood.WritingOttomanHistory:DocumentsandInterpretations.

Aldershot,Hampshire;Burlington,VT:Ashgate,2002.Hindle,BrianPaul.Roads,TracksandTheirInterpretation.London:Batsford,1993.Horden,Peregrine,andNicholasPurcell.TheCorruptingSea:AStudyofMediterraneanHistory.

Oxford;Malden,Mass.:BlackwellPublishers,2000.Howard,Deborah.Venice&theEast:TheImpactoftheIslamicWorldonVenetianArchitecture

1100-1500.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,2000.Hrabak,Bogumil.“KramariUKaravanskomSaobraćajuPrekoSanđaka(1470-1720).”Simpozijum:

SeoskiDaniSretenaVukosavljevićaX(1983).İ.HUzunçarşılı.“CemSultanaDairBeşOrijinalVesika.”BelletenXXIV(1960):457–75.Inalcik,Halil.Fatihdevriüzerindetetkiklervevesikalar.TürkTarihKurumuyayınları.XI.seri;sayı6.

Ankara,TürkTarihKurumuBasımevi-,1954.———.“BursaandtheCommerceoftheLevant.”JournaloftheEconomicandSocialHistoryofthe

Orient3,no.2(1960):131–47.———.“AnOutlineofOttoman-VenetianRelations.”InVeneziaCentroDiMediazioneTraOrienteE

Occidente,editedbyBecketal.,83–90.Florence:Olschki,1977.———.“ArabCamelDriversinWesternAnatoliaintheFifteenthCentury.”Revued’Histoire

Maghrebine10(1983):256–70.———.“Istanbul:AnIslamicCity.”JournalofIslamicStudies1(1990):1-23.———.TheOttomanEmpire:TheClassicalAge,1300-1600.London:Phoenix,1994.İnalcık,Halil,andCemalKafadar.SüleymântheSecondandHisTime.İstanbul:IsisPress,1993.İnalcık,Halil,andDonaldQuataert.AnEconomicandSocialHistoryoftheOttomanEmpire,1300-

1914.Cambridge;NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1994.

233

İslamoğlu-İnan,Huri.TheOttomanEmpireandtheWorld-Economy.StudiesinModernCapitalism.Cambridge;NewYork:Paris:CambridgeUniversityPress;ÉditionsdelaMaisondessciencesdel’homme,1987.

Ispahani,MahnazZ.RoadsandRivals:ThePoliticalUsesofAccessintheBorderlandsofAsia.Ithaca,

N.Y.:CornellUniversityPress,1989.Jardine,Lisa.WorldlyGoods.London:Macmillan,1996.Jireček,Konstantin.DieBedeutungvonRagusainderHandels-geschichtedesMittelalters;Vortrag

gehalteninderfeierlichenSitzungderKaiserlichenAkademiederWissenschaften,am31.Mai1899.Wien:VortragAkademiederWissenschaften,1899.

———.DieHandelsstrassenundBergwerkevonSerbienundBosnienwährenddesMittelalters :Historisch-geographischeStudien.AbhandlungenderK.Böhm.GesellschaftderWissenschaften;6.Folge,10.Bd.Prag:GesellschaftderWissenschaften,1879.

———.DieHeerstrassevonBelgradnachConstantinopelunddieBalkanpässe :Einehistorisch-

geographischeStudie.Amsterdam:VerlagHamer,1967.Kafadar,Cemal.“WhenCoinsTurnedintoDropsofDewandBankersBecameRobbersofShadows

theBoundariesofOttomanEconomicImaginationattheEndoftheSixteenthCentury.”PhDdiss.,McGillUniversity,1986.

———.“ADeathinVenice(1575):AnatolianMuslimMerchantsTradingintheSerenissima.”Journal

ofTurkishStudies10(1986):191-217———.BetweenTwoWorlds:TheConstructionoftheOttomanState.Berkeley:Universityof

CaliforniaPress,1995.———.“EvliyaÇelebiinDalmatia:AnOttomanTraveler’sEncounterswiththeArtsoftheFranks.”In

Connectivity,Mobility,andMediterranean“PortableArchaeology”:PashasfromtheDalmatianHinterlandasCulturalMediators,editedbyAlinaPayne.Leiden:Brill,2014.

Kafescioğlu,Çiğdem.Constantinopolis/Istanbul:CulturalEncounter,ImperialVision,andthe

ConstructionoftheOttomanCapital.UniversityPark,Pa.:PennsylvaniaStateUniversityPress,2009.

Káldy-Nagy,Gyula.“MachtUndImmobiliarvermögenEinesTürkischenBeglerbegsIm16.

Jahrhundert.”ActaOrientaliaAcademiaeScientarumHungaricae25(1972):441–51.Karamustafa,Ahmed.“IntroductiontoOttomanCartography.”InTheHistoryofCartographyVolume

Two,BookOne:CartographyintheTraditionalIslamicandSouthAsianSocieties,editedbyJ.B.Harley&DavidWoodward.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1992.

234

Kasaba,Reşat.AMoveableEmpire:OttomanNomads,Migrants,andRefugees.Seattle:UniversityofWashingtonPress,2009.

Kiel,Machiel.OttomanArchitectureinAlbania,1385-1912.Istanbul:ResearchCentreforIslamic

History,ArtandCulture,1990.———.StudiesontheOttomanArchitectureoftheBalkans.Aldershot,Hampshire,Great

Britain: Brookfield,Vt.,USA:Variorum,1990.———.“TheCampanile-MinaretsoftheSouthernHerzegovina:ABlendofIslamicandChristian

ElementsintheArchitectureofanOutlyingBorderAreaoftheBalkans,ItsSpreadinthePastandSurvivaluntilOurTime.”InCentresandPeripheriesinOttomanArchitecture:RediscoveringaBalkanHeritage,editedbyMaximilianHartmuth.Sarajevo,2011.

———.“TheIncorporationoftheBalkansintotheOttomanEmpire,1353-1454.”InTheCambridgeHistoryofTurkey,vol.1,editedbyKateFleet.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2006.

———.“TheVakfnameofRakkasSinanBeginKarnobat(Karîn-Âbâd)andtheOttomanColonization

ofBulgarianThrace(14th-15thCentury).”OsmanliArastirmalari/JournalofOttomanStudies1(1980):15–32.

Kissling,Hans.“VeneziaComeCentroDiInformazioniSuiTurchi.”InVeneziaCentroDiMediazione

TraOrienteEOccidente,editedbyBecketal.,Florence:Olschki,1977.Klusáková,Luďa.TheRoadtoConstantinople:Sixteenth-CenturyOttomanTownsthroughChristian

Eyes.Prague:ISVPublishers,2002.Knös,Börje.UnAmbassadeurdeL’hellénisme,JanusLascaris,etLaTraditionGréco-ByzantineDans

L’humanismeFrançais.CollectionD’histoiredeL’humanisme.Uppsala:Almqvist&Wiksells,1945.

Koller,Markus,KemalH.Karpat,UniversityofWisconsin--Madison.CenterofTurkishStudies,and

UniversityofWisconsin.CenterofTurkishStudies.OttomanBosnia :AHistoryinPeril.Madison:UniversityofWisconsinPress,2004.

Köse,MetinZiya.DoğuAkdeniz’deCasuslarveTacirler :OsmanlıDevletiveDubrovnikIlişkileri1500-

1600.Gayrettepe,İstanbul:GizaYayınları,2009.———.OsmanlıDevletiveVenedikAkdeniz’deRekabetveTicaret,1600-1630.İstanbul:Giza

Yayınları,2010.Kraelitz-Greifenhorst,Friedrich.OsmanischeUrkundeninTürkischerSpracheAusDerZweitenHälfte

Des15.Jahrhunderts:EinBeitragZurOsmanischenDiplomatik.Wien:AlfredHölder,1921.Krekić,Bariša.Dubrovnik(Raguse)etleLevantauMoyenÂge.Paris:Mouton,1961.

235

———.Dubrovnikinthe14thand15thCenturies :ACitybetweenEastandWest.Norman:

UniversityofOklahomaPress,1971,1971.———.Dubrovnik,ItalyandtheBalkansintheLateMiddleAges.London:VariorumReprints,1980.———.Dubrovnik:AMediterraneanUrbanSociety,1300-1600.Aldershot,GreatBritain;Brookfield,

VT:Variorum,1997.———.UnequalRivals:EssaysonRelationsbetweenDubrovnikandVeniceintheThirteenthand

FourteenthCenturies.StudiesintheHistoryofDubrovnik;Bk.3.Zagreb:Hrvatskaakademijaznanostiiumjetnosti;Dubrovnik,2007.

Kreševljaković,Hamdija.HanoviikaravansarajiuBosniiHercegovini.NaucnodrustvoNRBosnei

Hercegovine,Sarajevo.Djela,Knjiga8.Odjeljenjeistorisko-filoloskihnauka.Knjiga7.Sarajevo,1957.

Krkić,Safet.UlogaVakufaURazvojuGradovaBiH=TheRoleofWaqfsintheDevelopmentofCitiesin

BosniaandHercegovina.Vol.br.44.BibliotekaPosebnaIzdanja;Sarajevo:VijećeKongresabošnjačkihintelektualaca,1999.

Kumbaradži-Bogoeviḱ,Lidija.OsmanliskispomenicivoSkopje.Skopje:IslamskazaednicavoRM-

Skopje,SektorzaNaukaiIslamskaKultura,1998.Kunčević,Lovro,andGáborKármán.TheEuropeanTributaryStatesoftheOttomanEmpireinthe

SixteenthandSeventeenthCenturies.Leiden:Brill,2013.Kunt,MetinIbrahim.“Ethnic-Regional(Cins)SolidarityintheSeventeenth-CenturyOttoman

Establishment.”InternationalJournalofMiddleEastStudies5,no.3(1974):233–239.Kursar,Vjeran.“BeinganOttomanVlach:OnVlachIdentity(ies),RoleandStatusinWesternPartsof

theOttomanBalkans(15th-18thCenturies).”OTAM34(2013).Larkin,Brian.“ThePoliticsandPoeticsofInfrastructure.”AnnualReviewofAnthropology,2013,

327–43.Lewis,Bernard.TheMuslimDiscoveryofEurope.1sted.NewYork:Norton,1982.Lewis,BernardandP.M.Holt.HistoriansoftheMiddleEast.HistoricalWritingsofthePeoplesof

Asia.London:OxfordUniversityPress,1962.Lewis,Bernard,andBenjaminBraude.ChristiansandJewsintheOttomanEmpire:TheFunctioning

ofaPluralSociety.NewYork:Holmes&MeierPublishers,1982.

236

Lowry,HeathW.TheShapingoftheOttomanBalkans,1350-1550:TheConquest,Settlement&InfrastructuralDevelopmentofNorthernGreece.1sted.Istanbul:BahçeşehirUniversityPublications,2008.

Lowry,HeathW.,andM.AlperÖztürk.HersekzâdeAhmedPaşa:AnOttomanStatesman’sCareer&

PiousEndowments=HersekzâdeAhmedPaşa:BirOsmanlıDevletAdamınınMeslekHayatıveKurduğuVakıflar.Vol.#4.OccasionalPapersinHistory;Beşiktaş,İstanbul:BahçeşehirUniversityPress,2011.

Lybyer,AlbertHowe.TheGovernmentoftheOttomanEmpireintheTimeofSuleimantheMagnificent.Cambridge:HarvardUniversitypress,1913.

———.“TheOttomanTurksandtheRoutesofOrientalTrade.”EnglishHistoricalReview120(1915).Mack,RosamondE.BazaartoPiazza:IslamicTradeandItalianArt,1300-1600.Berkeley:University

ofCaliforniaPress,2001.Mackie,Louise.“OttomanKaftanswithanItalianIdentity.”InOttomanCostumes:FromTextileto

Identity,editedbySuraiyaFaroqhiandCristopheNeumann.Istanbul:Eren,2004.MacLean,GeraldM.LookingEast:EnglishWritingandtheOttomanEmpirebefore1800.Basingstoke

[England]; NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan,2007.Malcolm,Noel.Bosnia:AShortHistory.NewYork:NewYorkUniversityPress,1994.Mandaville,JonE.“UsuriousPiety:TheCashWaqfControversyintheOttomanEmpire.”

InternationalJournalofMiddleEastStudies10,no.3(1979):289–308.Mann,Michael.“TheAutonomousPoweroftheState.”ArchivesEuropénnesdeSociologie25,no.2

(1984).Margary,IvanDonald.RomanRoadsinBritain.London:Baker,1967.McCormick,Michael.“ByzantiumontheMove:ImaginingaCommunicationsHistory.”InTravelin

theByzantineWorld,editedbyRuthMacrides.Hants,EnglandandBurlingtonVT:Ashgate,2002.

———.OriginsoftheEuropeanEconomy:CommunicationsandCommerceA.D.300-900.Cambridge,

U.K.;NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,2001.McNeill,JohnRobert.TheMountainsoftheMediterraneanWorld:AnEnvironmentalHistory.Studies

inEnvironmentandHistory.Cambridge;NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1992.McNeill,WilliamHardy,1917-.Venice:TheHingeofEurope,1081-1797.Chicago:Universityof

ChicagoPress,1974.

237

Ménage,V.L.“TheMissionofanOttomanSecretAgentinFrancein1486.”JournaloftheRoyal

AsiaticSocietyofGreatBritainandIreland3/4(1965):112–32.Meserve,Margaret.EmpiresofIslaminRenaissanceHistoricalThought.Cambridge,Mass.:Harvard

UniversityPress,2008.Michałowicz,Konstanty,andSvatoplukSoucek.MemoirsofaJanissary.Publishedunderthe

auspicesoftheJointCommitteeonEasternEurope,AmericanCouncilofLearnedSocieties,bytheDept.ofSlavicLanguagesandLiteratures,UniversityofMichigan,1975.

Michell,George,andErnstJ.Grube.ArchitectureoftheIslamicWorld:ItsHistoryandSocial

Meaning,withaCompleteSurveyofKeyMonuments.London:ThamesandHudson,1978.Miović,Vesna.DubrovačkaDiplomacijaUIstambulu.Vol.knj.24.PosebnaIzdanja.Monografije/

HrvatskaAkademijaZnanostiIUmjetnosti.ZavodZaPovijesneZnanostiUDubrovniku;Zagreb; Dubrovnik:Hrvatskaakademijaznanostiiumjetnosti,ZavodzapovijesneznanostiuDubrovniku,2003.

———.“DragomansoftheDubrovnikRepublic:TheirTrainingandCareer.”DubrovnikAnnals5

(2002):81–94.———.“Emin(CustomsOfficer)asRepresentativeoftheOttomanEmpireintheRepublicof

Dubrovnik.”DubrovnikAnnals7(2003):81–88.———.DubrovačkaRepublikaUSpisimaOsmanskihSultana:SAnalitičkimInventaromSultanskih

SpisaSerijeActaTurcarumDržavnogArhivaUDubrovniku.Dubrovnik:DržavniarhivuDubrovniku,2005.

———.“BeylerbeyofBosniaandSancakbeyofHerzegovinaintheDiplomacyoftheDubrovnik

Republic.”DubrovnikAnnals9(2005).———.“DiplomaticRelationsbetweentheOttomanEmpireandtheRepublicofDubrovnik.”InThe

EuropeanTributaryStatesoftheOttomanEmpireintheSixteenthandSeventeenthCenturies,editedbyGaborKarmanandLovroKunčević,187–208.Leiden:Brill,2013.

Mirkovich,Nicholas.“RagusaandthePortugueseSpiceTrade.”SlavonicandEastEuropeanReview.

AmericanSeries2,no.1(1943):174–87.Molà,Luca.TheSilkIndustryofRenaissanceVenice.Baltimore,JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,2003.Molho,Anthony.SocialandEconomicFoundationsoftheItalianRenaissance.NewYork:Wiley,

1969.

238

———.TheJewishCommunityofSalonika:TheEndofaLongHistory.Middletown,CT:Middletown,CT,1991.

Molnár,Antal.LeSaint-Siège,RaguseetLesMissionsCatholiquesdeLaHongrieOttomane:1572-

1647.Rome:Accademiad’Ungheria,2007.Moran,Joe.OnRoads:AHiddenHistory.London:ProfileBooks,2009.Muchembled,RobertandE.WilliamMonter,gen.eds.CulturalExchangeinEarlyModernEurope.

Cambridge; NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,2006.Müderrisoğlu,Fatih.“16.YüzyıldaOsmanlıİmparatorluğu’ndaİnşaEdilenMenzilKülliyeleri.”

HacettepeUniversitesi.———.“BâniÇobanMustafaPaşaveBirOsmanlıŞehriGebze.”VakiflarDergisi25(1995).Muftić,Faruk.Foča:1470-1996.Sarajevo:TKP“Šahinpašić,”1997.Mujezinović,Mehmed.IslamskaepigrafikauBosniiHercegovini.BibliotekaKulturnonasljeđe.

Sarajevo:VeselinMasleša,1974.Müller,Joseph.DocumentiSulleRelazioniDelleCittàToscanecoll’OrienteCristianoECoiTurchiFino

All’annoMDXXXI.DocumentiDegliArchiviToscani.Firenze:M.Cellinie,1879.Necipoğlu,Gülru.TheAgeofSinan:ArchitecturalCultureintheOttomanEmpire.Princeton:

PrincetonUniversityPress,2005———.“Connectivity,Mobility,andMediterranean‘PortableArchaeology’:Pashasfromthe

DalmatianHinterlandasCulturalMediators.”InDalmatiaandtheMediterranean:PortableArcheologyandthePoeticsofInfluence,editedbyAlinaPayne.Leiden:Brill,2014.

———.“VisualCosmopolitanismandCreativeTranslation:ArtisticConversationswithRenaissance

ItalyinMehmedII’sConstantinople.”Muqarnas29(2012):1–82.Nemlioğlu,Candan.Bosna-HersekFoça’dayokedilenTürk-İslamkültüreserleri.İSARVakfıyayınları;

no.3.İstanbul:İslâmTarih,SanatveKültürünüAraştırmaVakfıİSAR,1996.O’Connor,Colin.RomanBridges.Cambridge[England]; NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1993.Ondaatje,Michael.IntheSkinofaLion:ANovel.Toronto:McClellandandStewart,1987.Orhonlu,Cengiz.Osmanliİmparatorluǧundaderbendteskilâti.IstanbulÜniversitesiEdebiyat

Fakültesiyayinlari,1209.Istanbul,1967.

239

———.Osmanlıİmparatorluğundaşehircilikveulaşımüzerinearaştırmalar:şehirmimarları,kaldırımcılık,köprücülük,su-yolculuk,kayıkçılık,gemicilik,nehirnakliyatı,kervan,kervanyolları.EgeÜniversitesiEdebiyatFakültesiyayınları;no.31.İzmir:EgeÜniversitesi,EdebiyatFakültesi,1984.

Orvieto,Paolo.“Unespertoorientalistadel’400:BenedettoDei.”Rinascimento9(January1,1969).Özkan,Fulya.“TheRoadinRebellion,aHistoryontheMove:TheSocialHistoryoftheTrabzon-

BayezidRoadandtheFormationoftheModernStateintheLateOttomanWorld.”PhD,StateUniversityofNewYork,Binghamton,2012.

Paci,Renzo.LascaladiSpalatoeilcommerciovenezianoneiBalcanifraCinqueeSeicento.

Miscellaneadistudiememorie;v.14.Venezia:DeputazionedistoriapatriaperleVenezie,1971.

Pamuk,Şevket.AMonetaryHistoryoftheOttomanEmpire.CambridgeStudiesinIslamicCivilization.

Cambridge,UK;NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,2000.Panaite,Viorel.TheOttomanLawofWarandPeace:TheOttomanEmpireandTributePayers.East

EuropeanMonographs;No.563.Boulder:NewYork:EastEuropeanMonographs;DistributedbyColumbiaUniversityPress,2000.

Pašić,Amir.TheOldBridge(StariMost)inMostar.Istanbul:ResearchCentreforIslamicHistory,Art

andCulture,1995.Payne,AlinaAlexandra,ed.DalmatiaandtheMediterranean:PortableArcheologyandthePoeticsof

Influence.Leiden;Boston:Brill,2014.PedaniFabris,MariaPia.InNomeDelGranSignore:InviatiOttomaniaVeneziaDallaCadutaDi

CostantinopoliAllaGuerraDiCandia.Venezia:Deputazioneeditrice,1994.Pedani,MariaPia.“OttomanMerchantsintheAdriatic.TradeandSmuggling.”ActaHistriae16

(2008):155–72.Poliziano,Angelo.DellacongiuradeiPazzi:(Coniurationiscommentarium).Miscellaneaerudita;3.

Padova:Antenore,1958.Popović,Toma.TurskaiDubrovnikuXVIveku.Beograd:Srpskaknjiževnazadruga,1973.Preto,Paolo.IServiziSegretidiVenezia.Vol.499.LaCultura;Milano:IlSaggiatore,1994.———.VeneziaEITurchi.Vol.20.PubblicazioniDellaFacoltàDiMagisterodell’UniversitàDiPadova;

Firenze:G.C.Sansoni,1975.

240

Quataert,Donald.ConsumptionStudiesandtheHistoryoftheOttomanEmpire,1550-1922:AnIntroduction.SUNYSeriesintheSocialandEconomicHistoryoftheMiddleEast.Albany,N.Y.:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,2000.

Raby,Julian.“ElGranTurco:MehmettheConquerorasaPatronoftheArtsofChristendom.”PhD

diss.,OxfordUniversity,1980.———.MehmedtheConqueror’sGreekScriptorium.DumbartonOaksPapers;No.37,1984.Richards,GertrudeR.B.FlorentineMerchantsintheAgeoftheMedici;LettersandDocumentsfrom

theSelfridgeCollectionofMediciManuscripts.Cambridge,Mass.,:HarvardUniversityPress,1932.

Riedlmayer,András.“FromtheAshes:ThePastandFutureofBosnia’sCulturalHeritage.”InIslam

andBosnia:ConflictResolutionandForeignPolicyinMulti-EthnicStates,editedbyMayaShatzmiller,98–135.Montreal:McGill-Queen’sUniversityPress,2002.

Rizvi,Janet.Trans-HimalayanCaravans:MerchantPrincesandPeasantTradersinLadakh.New

Delhi;OxfordUniversityPress,1999.Rothman,E.Natalie.BrokeringEmpire:Trans-ImperialSubjectsbetweenVeniceandIstanbul.Ithaca:

CornellUniversityPress,2012.Rubiés,Joan-Pau.“TravelWritingasaGenre.”Journeys1,no.1(2000).Rubiés,Joan-Pau,andFrancisBacon.“TravelWritingasaGenre:Facts,FictionsandtheInventionof

aScientificDiscourseinEarlyModernEurope.”TheInternationalJournalofTravelandTravelWriting5,no.33(2000):5–33.

Šabanović,Hazim,andOrijentalniinstitutuSarajevu.KrajišteIsa-BegaIshakovića:zbirnikatastarski

popisiz1455.godine.MonumentaTurcicahistoriamSlavorumMeridionaliumillustrantia;t.2.Sarajevo:OrijentalniinstitutuSarajevu,1964.

Sahlins,Peter.Boundaries:TheMakingofFranceandSpaininthePyrenees.Berkeley:Universityof

CaliforniaPress,1989.———.“TheNationintheVillage:State-BuildingandCommunalStrugglesintheCatalanBorderland

duringtheEighteenthandNineteenthCenturies.”TheJournalofModernHistory60,no.2(June1,1988):234–63.

SâîMustafaÇelebi,-.BookofBuildings:Tezkiretüʼl-BünyanandTezkiretüʼl-Ebniye:MemoirsofSinan

theArchitect.İstanbul:Koçbank,2002.Samardžić,Radovan.MehmedSokolovitch:ledestind’ungrandvizir.Lausanne:Aged’homme,1994.

241

Setton,KennethM.ThePapacyandtheLevant,1204-1571.MemoirsoftheAmericanPhilosophical

Society ;v.114,127,161-162.Philadelphia:AmericanPhilosophicalSociety,1976.Sezgin,Fuat,CarlEhrig-Eggert,andE.Neubauer.KâtibÇelebî(ḤâǧǧîḪalîfa)(D.1067/1657)andthe

Ǧihân-Nümâ:TextsandStudies.FrankfurtamMain:InstitutefortheHistoryofArabic-IslamicScienceattheJohannWolfgangGoetheUniversity,2008.

Shaw,StanfordJ.,BenjaminBraude,andBernardLewis.“ChristiansandJewsintheOttoman

Empire:TheFunctioningofaPluralSociety.”TheAmericanHistoricalReview94,no.4(1989).Sijarić,Ćamil,ĆamilSijarić,andPrvaYugoslavia.Jugoslovenskanarodnaarmija.Proleterskabrigada.

Rudo.Spomenicaprovodom30-godišnjicePrveproleterskebrigade.Pljevlja:Međurepubličkazajednicazakulturnoprosvjetnudjelatnost,1971.

Silverstein,AdamJ.PostalSystemsinthePre-ModernIslamicWorld.Cambridge;Cambridge

UniversityPress,2007.Singer,Amy.ConstructingOttomanBeneficence:AnImperialSoupKitcheninJerusalem.SUNYSeries

inNearEasternStudies.Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,2002.———.CharityinIslamicSocieties.Cambridge;CambridgeUniversityPress,2008.Soucek,Svatopluk.PiriReis&TurkishMapmakingafterColumbus:TheKhaliliPortolanAtlas.Nour

FoundationinassociationwithAzimuthEditionsandOxfordUniversityPress,1996.Steensgard,Niels.“Carracks,CaravansandCompanies.TheStructuralCrisisintheEuropean-Asian

TradeinEarly17thCentury.”Studia38(1974):715.Stoianovich,Traian.“TheConqueringBalkanOrthodoxMerchant.”JournalofEconomicHistory20,

no.1(1960):234.Stuard,SusanMosher.AStateofDeference:Ragusa/DubrovnikintheMedievalCenturies.Middle

AgesSeries.Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,1992.Subrahmanyam,Sanjay.ExplorationsinConnectedHistory.MughalsandFranks.Delhi;Oxford:

OxfordUniversityPress,2005.Subtelny,MariaEva.“SocioeconomicBasesofCulturalPatronageundertheLaterTimurids.”

InternationalJournalofMiddleEastStudies20,no.4(November1,1988):479–505.Sugar,PeterF.SoutheasternEuropeunderOttomanRule,1354-1804.Vol.v.5.HistoryofEast

CentralEurope;Seattle:UniversityofWashingtonPress,1977.

242

Tenenti,Alberto.“IcorsariinMediterraneoall’iniziodelCinquecento.”RivistaStoricaItaliana72,no.2(1960):234.

———.PiracyandtheDeclineofVenice,1580-1615.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1967.Theunissen,Hans.“Ottoman-VenetianDiplomatics:The‘Ahd-Names.TheHistoricalBackgroundand

theDevelopmentofaCategoryofPolitical-CommercialInstrumentsTogetherwithanAnnotatedEditionofaCorpusofRelevantDocuments.”EJOS1,no.2(1998):1–698.

Thuasne,Louis.Djem-sultan,filsdeMohammedII,frèredeBayezidII,(1459-1495):d’aprèsles

documentsoriginauxengrandepartieinédits ;etudesurlaquestiond’orientàlafinduXVesiècle.Westernbooks,TheMiddleEastfromtheriseofIslam ;fiches6,846-6,851.Paris:Leroux,1892.

Tilburg,C.R.van.TrafficandCongestionintheRomanEmpire.London;NewYork:Routledge,2007.Tormene,Antonio.IlbailaggioaCostantinopolidiGirolamoLippomanoelasuatragicafine.

Visentini,1903.Tracy,James.“TheGrandVezirandtheSmallRepublic:DubrovnikandRüstemPaşa,1544-1561.”

TurkishHistoricalReview1(2010).Trako,Salih.“ZnačajnijiVakufiNaPodručjuJugoistočneBosne"[TheMostNoteworthyWaqfsinthe

RegionofSouth-EasternBosnia].”AnaliGaziHusrev-BegoveBiblioteke9–10(1983):75–85.Trivellato,Francesca.TheFamiliarityofStrangers:TheSephardicDiaspora,Livorno,andCross-

CulturalTradeintheEarlyModernPeriod.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,2009.———.“RenaissanceItalyandtheMuslimMediterraneaninRecentHistoricalWork.”TheJournalof

ModernHistory82,no.1(2010):127–155Tsing,AnnaLowenhaupt.Friction:AnEthnographyofGlobalConnection.Princeton,N.J. :Princeton

UniversityPress,2005.Tucaković,Šemso.AladžaDžamija:FočanskiBiser.Sarajevo:MešihatIslamskezajedniceBiH,

izdavačkadjelatnost“El-Kalem,”1991.———.AladžaDžamija-UbijeniMonument.Sarajevo:In-tzaistraživanjezločinaprotivčovječnostii

međunarodnogprava,1998.TursunBeg.TheHistoryofMehmedtheConqueror,translatedandeditedbyHalilİnalcıkandRhoads

Murphey.MonographSeries-AmericanResearchInstituteinTurkey ;No.1.Minneapolis:BibliothecaIslamica,1978.

243

Uzunçarşılı,İsmailHakkı.Osmanlıtarihi.2.baski.TürkTarihKurumuyayınları.XIII.dizi;sa.16a.Ankara:TürkTarihKurumu,1961.

Valensi,Lucette.TheBirthoftheDespot:VeniceandtheSublimePorte.Ithaca:CornellUniversity

Press,1993.Vatin,Nicholas.“Itinérairesd’agentsdelaPorteenItalie1433-1495.”Turcica19(1987):29–49.———.SultanDjem:UnPrinceOttomanDansl’EuropeDuXVeSiècleD’aprèsDeuxSources

Contemporaines:Vâḳiʻât-ISulṭânCem.Ankara:ImprimeriedelaSociététurqued’histoire,1997.Vucinich,WayneS.AStudyinSocialSurvival:TheKatuninBilećaRudine.Denver:Universityof

Denver,GraduateSchoolofInternationalStudies,1975.Wace,A.J.B.(AlanJohnBayard),andMauriceScottThompson.TheNomadsoftheBalkans,an

AccountofLifeandCustomsamongtheVlachsofNorthernPindus.London:Methuen,1914.Watenpaugh,HeghnarZeitlian.TheImageofanOttomanCity:ImperialArchitectureandUrban

ExperienceinAleppointhe16thand17thCenturies.OttomanEmpireandItsHeritage ;v.33.Leiden;Boston:Brill,2004.

Weiss,Roberto.TheRenaissanceDiscoveryofClassicalAntiquity.Oxford:Blackwell,1969.———.“UnUmanistaantiquario––CristoforoBuondelmonti.”LettereItaliane16(1964).West,Rebecca.BlackLambandGreyFalcon:AJourneythroughYugoslavia.NewYork:TheViking

Press,1941.Wolff,Larry.VeniceandtheSlavs:TheDiscoveryofDalmatiaintheAgeofEnlightenment.Stanford,

Calif.:StanfordUniversityPress,2001.Wolper,EthelSara.CitiesandSaints:SufismandtheTransformationofUrbanSpaceinMedieval

Anatolia.UniversityPark,Pa:ThePennsylvaniaStateUniversityPress,2003.Woodhead,Christine.TheOttomanWorld.RoutledgeWorlds.Florence:TaylorandFrancis,2011.Yerasimos,Stefanos,1942-2005.LesVoyageursDansl’EmpireOttoman,XIVe-XVIeSiècles:

Bibliographie,ItinérairesetInventairedesLieuxHabités.Vol.no.117.PublicationsdeLaSociétéTurqueD’histoire.Ankara:Sociététurqued’histoire,1991.

Yerasimos,Stephane.“SinanandHisPatrons:ProgrammeandLocation”MimarSinantheUrban

Vision.”EnvironmentalDesign:JournaloftheIslamicEnvironmentalDesignResearchCentre,5/6(n.d.).

244

ElisavetA.Zachariadou,ed.TheViaEgnatiaunderOttomanRule(1380-1699):HalcyonDaysinCreteII:ASymposiumHeldinRethymnon9-11January1994.Rethymnon:CreteUniversityPress,1996.

Zlatar,Zdenko.Dubrovnik’sMerchantsandCapitalintheOttomanEmpire(1520-1620):A

QuantitativeStudy.Istanbul:IsisPress,2011.Zukić,Kemal.IslamicArchitectureintheBalkansandBosnia&Herzegovina.ISESCO2000.