Περιθωριακές ομάδες και συμπεριφορές στην οθωμανική Κωνσταντινούπολη, 16ος-18ος αιώνας

Abstract

The so-called "post-classic" period of the Ottoman history, from the late 16th to the early 18th century, is characterized by its intense political and social dynamics, enabling various groups to have some degree of control over the political scene of the Empire. The social forces standing in the core of those socio-economical changes have attracted the interest of scholars; however, groups in the margin of the official ideology remain so far unstudied. The concept of "marginality" itself remains ambiguous and vague. It requires a definition of "normal" behavior (or system of values) according to the ruling ideology, as well as an identification of the processes that stigmatize whoever deviates from this behavior. One must note, however, that a given society does not necessarily have a unified ruling mentality and/or ideology, which means that a "marginal" behavior might well be considered "normal" for large parts of the population. What makes the marginalization of a group a palpable process is the intervention of state power; the history of marginalization can only be studied in correlation with the history of the state and of its structures, including political ideology and favored mental patterns. On the other hand, penal law and penal justice have made criminality out of marginality, in some ways, so that those two notions intersect without being identical; their intersection is the underworld, that is, people that live systematically out of illegal or quasi-illegal activities. In the Ottoman case, the relevant literature is quite scarce, at least concerning the pre-Tanzimat period. Recent studies have examined criminal activities in peripheral towns of the Empire, such as Damascus (by A. Rafeq), Ankara (by S. Faroqhi), or Thessaloniki (by E. Ginio), as well as particular marginal or semi-marginal groups such as Gypsies (by E. Ginio) or heterodox brotherhoods (by A. Y. Ocak). The imperial capital, Istanbul, has so far remained unstudied from this respect. Istanbul lends itself to a detailed study, however, as it was not only the largest city of the Empire, preserving a huge corpus of judicial registers or seriyye sicilleri, but also the center of cultural and political activity, which means that a large amount of narrative sources is also available. Among those, one must note voluminous histioriographical texts such as these by Selaniki, Katib Celebi, Na'ima, Defterdar Mehmed Pasa or Silahdar Mehmed Aga; political essays and descriptions of everyday behaviors, such as works by Mustafa 'Ali or Koc? Bey, all centered around life in the capital; poetical descriptions of the city and biographies of poets, abounding in relevant information; the monumental work of Evliya Celebi, a veritable mine of descriptions and stories; last but not least, popular texts such as scenarios of story-tellers (meddah). Istanbul life is also reflected in Greek- or Armenian-speaking texts, for instance works by Phanariots or by Eremya Celebi Komurcuyan.