In the nineteenth century, Istanbul's multireligious society witnessed a wide range of urban reforms. One of the earliest such projects—later implemented across the provinces—was the appointment of lay headmen, called muhtar (sing.), at the lowest level of urban administration: Muslim neighborhoods; Orthodox, Armenian, and Catholic parishes; and Jewish congregations. Prior to 1829, when the muhtar system was introduced in Istanbul, imams, priests, and rabbis were both the religious and administrative heads of their local communities. With the coming of the new system, muhtars officially joined these religious functionaries in their administrative duties. Such muhtars were chosen from among local residents and expected to shoulder some of responsibilities of community leadership, including recording demographic events, issuing resident identification certificates, and representing the community before state and judicial authorities. By introducing a similar method into the local administration of different religious groups, the Ottoman state deepened its involvement in these communities at the most fundamental level, encroaching on areas where, among Christians, Istanbul's patriarchates had previously held responsibility. Thus, this reform entailed the overlapping of responsibilities between the state and non-Muslim religious authorities, which later led to disagreements between the two. This article focuses on the negotiations between these authorities and looks at nineteenth-century changes in non-Muslim participation in imperial governance.
Recent work in Ottoman studies, particularly pertaining to Ottoman modernity, has shed light on the continuity of the internal transformations that occurred in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, instead of merely focusing on the rupture caused by European influence in the nineteenth century.Footnote 1 The muhtar system was also a product of an internal transformation ongoing since the eighteenth century: the state's long-term effort to better control human inflow into Istanbul and achieve peace and order in the imperial capital. As the regime increasingly blamed Istanbul's immigrants for social disorder and disturbance, political authorities gradually strengthened their intervention in and control over society.Footnote 2 This attitude culminated in the 1820s’ enhanced application of internal passports and the introduction of the muhtar system in 1829.Footnote 3 This article views the muhtar system in this light, not from the perspective of general reforms to local administration, emphasizing how the Ottoman government attached special importance to this system in Istanbul, as the state aimed to both reinforce its control over the population and maintain peace and order in the empire's political center.Footnote 4
In this regard, the treatment of non-Muslims—constituting one third of the empire's population and half that of the capital—was by no means marginal. Both the 1820s’ Greek War of Independence and Armenian political activities beginning in the 1880s contributed to heightened concerns over controlling human mobility.Footnote 5 However, non-Muslims have often been underrepresented in studies on the muhtar system.Footnote 6 This is often true for studies on the Ottoman institutional reforms of the nineteenth century, although most such reforms were undertaken to establish centralized rule over the empire's multireligious subjects and achieve political integration. Among others, Cem Behar, in his detailed investigation of a single Muslim neighborhood in Istanbul, commented that its muhtar “did take upon himself the responsibility of performing a large number of public duties that turned him into a community leader.” Behar also suggested that the muhtar reform caused little confusion among Istanbul's Muslims and the transfer of power from imams to muhtars was, in general, smooth.Footnote 7 How then, one might ask, did the Ottoman government introduce the muhtar system among non-Muslims, Christians in particular, who had different social structures due to their hierarchical churches? How did the introduction of the muhtar system influence the relationship between the state and non-Muslims, as well as the role of religious institutions? This article tackles these questions, thereby contributing to understandings of the imperial management of religiously diverse populations.
The responsibility the Ottoman state gave religious institutions in its relationship with non-Muslim subjects has long been controversial in Ottoman studies. In turning their attention away from the traditional framework, the millet system, more recent scholars take a renewed understanding of this subject, fostering discussion of the historical unfolding and development, from the early centuries of the Ottomans to their downfall, of the relationship between the state and non-Muslim religious authorities.Footnote 8 During the period of territorial expansion, according to these researchers, the Ottomans used the tax farming system to accommodate the Christian clerical structure's higher authorities into Ottoman governance, and the Christian clergy's connection with imperial authorities allowed them to exercise power over their communities. Scholars have also shown that, in the eighteenth century, Christian patriarchates in Istanbul could increase their status through collaboration with the state, and the state designated the advantages and exemptions granted to Istanbul's religious authorities as religious privileges in the mid-nineteenth century.
With regard to the nineteenth century, scholars have discussed the change in the centuries-old collaboration between the state and non-Muslim religious authorities, culminating in government attempts to curtail the privileges of such authorities and the subsequent rise in tensions during the reign of Abdülhamit II (r. 1876–1909), within the broader context of general non-Muslim alienation in the empire.Footnote 9 Furthermore, recent studies have directed attention to a different aspect of development by demonstrating how the state shifted away from a relationship with non-Muslims mediated by religious institutions towards one that incorporated non-Muslim lay elite into imperial governance in the mid-nineteenth century.Footnote 10 Thus, this study of the muhtar system deepens our understanding of this transition through showing the trend of incorporating laymen extended to the level of local administration and was not abandoned in the late nineteenth century. This article considers the muhtar system among non-Muslims in Istanbul and its relationship with their religious institutions within a larger trend of laicization, arguing that Ottoman officials were inclined to using multiple channels to communicate with non-Muslim subjects, with muhtars being alternative intermediaries to circumvent religious authorities in the late nineteenth century.
Laicization, a term forged in studies of French history, provides a nuanced explanation of the changing treatment of religion and clergymen in the modernizing world. Juxtaposed to secularization, which, in general, refers to the marginalization of religion in society and can be used and interpreted with various meanings, laicization specifically refers to an institutional change aimed at restricting and withdrawing religious and clerical control.Footnote 11 In this article, I avoid the term secularization, opting instead to use laicization, as it emphasizes the administrative changes implemented and discussed by Ottoman officials. As political movements developed among non-Muslims in the late nineteenth century, particularly among Armenians, Ottoman officials felt an increasing need to enhance state control over their mobility. Thus, officials turned to non-Muslim muhtars, separating this position from the control of religious authorities, as they saw clerical institutions as requiring more careful handling than laymen. This laicization of urban administration sought to strengthen state control over human mobility, even though practicalities necessitated continued collaboration between the state and non-Muslim clergymen.
Although the muhtar system was a reform of the state's relationship with its subjects, enhanced state control over society also intersected with developments within non-Muslim communities. In the 1860s, the leaders of three major non-Muslim communities pursued internal administrative reforms aimed at reinforcing their control within their respective communities.Footnote 12 These reforms culminated in the creation and incorporation of community administration regulations in the imperial code of law and the institutionalization of a central community administrative body, giving institutional framework to lay participation. However, while each non-Muslim group in this movement was mainly concerned with reforming community administration at the central level, Armenians took it a step further, stipulating the establishment of a parish-level board in their regulations. These stipulations entrusted the management of parish affairs to the board, which, in the system introduced by the government, would share responsibility with the muhtars.
As a consequence, and as reflected in their rare appearance in Armenian and Armeno-Turkish sources, the position of muhtar remained minor among the Armenians of nineteenth-century Istanbul. Nevertheless, in the late nineteenth century, Armenian and other non-Muslim muhtars’ roles and positions became points of contention between the state and non-Muslim religious authorities; traces of such disagreements can be found in Ottoman documents produced not only by state departments, who wanted to use muhtars to encroach on non-Muslim communities, but also non-Muslim religious authorities, who endeavored to block such encroachment. This article draws heavily on Ottoman documents to investigate the negotiation between these parties around the treatment of non-Muslim muhtars, as well as referring to Armenian and one major Greek primary source.
Here, terminology from the Ottoman documents must first be explained. In the early decades of the muhtar system, Istanbul's non-Muslim muhtars were also called muhbir or kahya.Footnote 13 While these terms were used interchangeably with muhtar, I use the latter as the representative term in order to facilitate readers’ understanding, unless greater specificity is needed. In Ottoman documents, a unit to which a muhtar was appointed in Istanbul is consistently referred to as mahalle, regardless of whether it was citing a Muslim neighborhood or Christian parish. A distinction between the words is made in translation when possible.
According to the empire's official chronicle, the government decided, in 1829, to appoint two muhtars tasked with keeping a record of the population and controlling their movements to each neighborhood or parish of every confessional group in greater Istanbul.Footnote 14 In the mid-nineteenth century, the government gradually expanded the muhtar system to the provinces. When it conducted an 1867 empire-wide reorganization of local administration through the promulgation of the Law for Provincial System, the state officially situated the muhtar at the lowest level of the administrative hierarchy: villages and neighborhoods or parishes. According to this law, muhtars bore responsibility for tax collection, security, the arbitration of disputes, and other local affairs, and were to be elected by local residents from among male Ottoman subjects above the age of 30 who paid over 100 kuruş in state taxes.Footnote 15
This article is divided into three sections. The first section deals with the early and mid-nineteenth century and demonstrates that, during this period, the Ottoman state situated Istanbul's non-Muslim muhtars under the authority of their respective religious institutions. Following on, the second and third sections consider the late nineteenth century, investigating state attempts to restructure the role of non-Muslim religious authorities in muhtar-related affairs in order to elicit a change in officials’ attitudes toward religious authority involvement in imperial governance.
Non-Muslim Muhtars under Religious Authorities
In nineteenth-century Istanbul, each religious group formed small local communities around their place of worship. As there was little segregation by religious affiliation, these small local communities—Muslim neighborhoods, Christian parishes, and Jewish congregations—overlapped geographically. Thus, while people from different religious groups lived on the same streets, sharing a sphere of everyday life, the units of their local communities were divided confessionally. Further, whereas Muslims had numerous mosques throughout the city, only a limited number of churches and synagogues existed due to restrictions on building new ones; restrictions only lifted by the 1856 Reform Edict.Footnote 16 This led to a conspicuous difference in the total number and size of local communities. While Istanbul's Muslim neighborhoods were smaller, both geographically and population-wise, often with only a single imam, Christian parishes covered much wider areas, had larger populations, and included several priests.Footnote 17 This is confirmed by 1844 census data: Greater Istanbul had 496 Muslim neighborhoods with 87,231 male residents, and another 8,466 Muslim males lived outside these neighborhoods; whereas there were 54, 34, and 18 Orthodox Christian, Armenian, and Jewish parishes/neighborhoods respectively, with male populations of 49,323, 48,866, and 12,032.Footnote 18
When, in the 1820s, the Ottoman government became more concerned with human mobility and social order in Istanbul, Christians were of particular concern. Indeed, the Greek War of Independence encouraged state officials to keep a vigilant eye on the inflow of Orthodox Christians into Istanbul.Footnote 19 Furthermore, the abolition of the Janissary corps in 1826 led to the collapse of Albanian and Kurdish labor migrant networks, subsequently replaced by Armenians from the eastern provinces, whose presence became quite conspicuous in Istanbul thereafter.Footnote 20 Moreover, the European Great Powers’ intervention influenced the credibility of Armenian Catholics, who were suspected to have ties with France. In 1828, the Ottoman government counted thousands of Armenian Catholics in Istanbul—two fifths of whom were immigrants from the provinces—through the ecclesiastical network of the Armenian Patriarchate and expelled them from the capital unless they returned to the Armenian Church.Footnote 21 It was in this decade that the Ottoman government enhanced the imposition of internal passports and introduced the muhtar system in Istanbul.
Only fragmented information remains on the muhtar and internal passport systems among non-Muslims in the early and mid-nineteenth century, but the information available suggests the government first introduced these systems among Christian subjects through their existing social structure. As such, when introducing the muhtar system, the Ottoman government did not divide Christian parishes into units as small as Muslim neighborhoods. Instead, as Istanbul's patriarchates were intermediaries between the state and its Christian subjects in the city, the government imposed the issuance of certificates on these intermediaries in 1824, forcing them to prove the identity of addressees when applying for internal passports.Footnote 22
One of the earliest documents on the administration of the muhtar system among non-Muslims was likely written in 1835 and evidences the government expectation that non-Muslim muhtars shoulder the same duties as their Muslim counterparts, foremost being the recording of demographic events and bringing human mobility under state control.Footnote 23 In Istanbul, the patriarchates and newly established chief rabbinate were expected to report all movements in and out of Istanbul, movements from one neighborhood or parish to another, and births and deaths in their communities to judicial authorities. However, such reporting was not exact because, under these religious authorities, non-Muslim muhtars—chosen from among the “disinterested and non-corrupt” by “the patriarchs, chief rabbi, persons in charge under them, and notables of communities”—did not conduct precise record keeping at the local level. The 1835 document insists that, although non-Muslim muhtars shouldered the same duties as their Muslim counterparts, their negligence was notable, as numerous people settled in neighborhoods and parishes, and others died or left, without being recorded or reported. Recognizing the problem, the government ordered non-Muslim religious authorities to force their muhtars to re-examine neighborhoods/parishes to correct population records.
Thus, the Ottoman government did not alter the existing forms of state-subject relationship through the introduction of the muhtar system, relying instead on networks centered on non-Muslim religious authorities and situating non-Muslim muhtars under the authority of their respective clerical institutions. The 1835 document also suggests the government recognized that both clergymen and lay notables participated in managing and decision making around communal affairs.Footnote 24 The muhtar system extended the lay participation observed in the top echelons of religious communities to parish and neighborhood population control.
Documents dated from 1858 suggest the promulgation of the Reform Edict, which promised equality between Muslims and non-Muslims and ordered the reform of non-Muslim community administration, did not change the government's reliance on non-Muslim religious authorities in affairs related to muhtars. The same set of documents also indicates that, among the government-expected roles, muhtars were also to act as guarantors for neighborhood and parish residents; a role played in Muslim neighborhoods by imams prior to the introduction of the muhtar system. According to these documents, when Muslims in Istanbul wanted to transfer property or apply for an internal passport from the municipality, they had to obtain one-time-use certificates from muhtars or guild wardens verifying their identity. Such an identity certificate equated to the issuer agreeing to act as a guarantor for the addressee, taking responsibility for them. However, while the government entrusted Muslim muhtars with the duty of verifying the reliability of property owners and migrants, aiming to maintain peace and order in the imperial capital, for non-Muslims, the government granted their religious authorities with the duty to issue such and other certificates.Footnote 25
In 1858, the government discovered that the Orthodox Christian Patriarchate had been inappropriately issuing identity certificates. In the ensuing investigation, it was determined that the patriarchate had farmed this duty out to subcontractors, who charged sky-high fees and issued documents for personal profit without conducting necessary background checks.Footnote 26 In a subsequent memorandum submitted to the government, the Orthodox Christian Patriarchate first denied the charge and explained why the duty had been retained by the patriarchate instead of given to the muhtar. The explanation neatly demonstrates the difficulty inherent in a multicultural and multilingual society.
While the patriarchate had allowed muhtars to issue certificates for property transfers at first, this led to the acquisition of property by non-Ottoman Orthodox Christians; an illegal act until the law of 1867 and subsequent protocols formally deregulated restrictions on foreigners purchasing real estate.Footnote 27 Istanbul's Orthodox Christian inhabitants included numerous individuals with foreign citizenship, particularly the Kingdom of Greece.Footnote 28 Thus, due to the need to confirm applicants’ status as Ottoman subjects and consult population records held in the patriarchate for further family information, the duty of issuing certificates was devolved to the patriarchate. With regards to documents for internal passports, muhtars and priests’ inability to write Turkish in Arabic script caused difficulty, ultimately resulting in the preparation of documents in Greek and subsequent translation into Turkish. The patriarchate claimed that hiring a clerk who could write Turkish or enlisting local imams or Muslim muhtars had been deemed unrealistic due to cost, although the financial details were not specified. Moreover, such solutions would require excessive additional work: Orthodox Christian muhtars who could not read but understood spoken Turkish would need to confirm the content of a translated document through someone reading it aloud before the seal was affixed. Hence, the patriarchate had to shoulder responsibility for preparing documents in Turkish.Footnote 29
Regardless of the explanation, the government could not tolerate the circulation of illegal documents, and thus invoked the theory of equality between Muslims and non-Muslims, claiming that granting an exception for non-Muslim subjects, but not Muslim subjects, was inappropriate. Nevertheless, the government did not actually pursue equal treatment, continuing instead to rely on the patriarchate to manage certifications, instructing patriarchates and the chief rabbinate to adopt a compromise: identity certificates would be prepared by parish muhtars and priests, alongside guild wardens, and the patriarchate would be responsible for checking the information. The clerk at the patriarchate tasked with this would receive one kuruş as a fee.Footnote 30
Although, in general, the patriarchate accepted the government's instruction, it also requested minor modifications to the new method. Firstly, it argued that the one kuruş fee paid by addressees would not cover the expense of employing such clerks; a claim the government disputed. Secondly, the patriarchate demanded that parish priests not be involved in the issuance of identity certificates, as “priests are not able to engage in affairs other than church and religion,” thus their involvement in a “procedure of the government” (i.e., issuing documents for submission to state authorities) would be inappropriate. As such, the patriarchate drew a clear distinction between the higher religious authorities who appropriately interfered in state affairs, and the lower clerics, who were only to involve themselves in religious affairs. Although it is unclear whether state officials actually accepted this logic, they did grant the request, as they considered the involvement of parish priests to be redundant because certificates were to be confirmed and sealed by the patriarchate. The government also informed the Armenian and Catholic patriarchates of the modifications made regarding the noninvolvement of priests.Footnote 31
Nevertheless, an 1861 document suggests this new method did not function as expected due to Christian muhtars’ lack of Turkish writing skills; while the government still instructed muhtars to issue the certificates necessary for internal passport applications, with additional background checks done by the patriarchates, it allowed other certificates and documents to be issued by capable clerks appointed by the patriarchates.Footnote 32 Thus, the government had no choice but to increase its reliance on the administrative capabilities of non-Muslim religious authorities, as priority was given to preventing the circulation of illegal documents. Still, as in provincial reforms, state officials did not hesitate to adopt case-specific modifications, despite the self-proclaimed principles of standardization and uniformity.Footnote 33
Newspaper articles from 1861 confirm the government allowed Armenians in Istanbul to adopt a different method for issuing certificates for property transfers, and newly formed parish boards, not muhtars, shouldered this responsibility. From the late 1850s to early 1860s, Istanbul's Armenians conducted extensive reform of the administration of their community in the Patriarchate of Istanbul. In 1860, as part of these reforms, boards were formed to carry out the administrative duties of each parish; board members were elected by the residents of each parish.Footnote 34 In response to an article criticizing the Armenians of Beşiktaş, the Beşiktaş parish board published a report in the Armenian newspaper Masis (Ararat) about a recent case related to the issuance of certificates for property transfers.Footnote 35 In this case, two Armenians belonging to the Armenian Church applied to the Beşiktaş parish board to obtain a certificate to sell their house to a Protestant; however, as the circumstances required the extensive confirmation of information, the procedure became prolonged. While the procedure was ongoing, several other Armenians in Beşiktaş wrote to the parish board requesting that members scrutinize the request thoroughly, as the house sat opposite an Armenian school and people were concerned that Protestants would attempt to convert the children. This complaint led the board members to request instruction from the patriarchate, and thus the issuance of the document was even further delayed. This delay led to rumors spreading among Armenians in Istanbul that the Beşiktaş Armenians were blocking the issuance of the document because the buyer was a Protestant.Footnote 36
The Beşiktaş board's report indicated that the sellers were fully aware of their duty to apply to the parish board for the prerequisite certificate to conduct property transfers, and the board dealt with the application according to its obligations. The report referred to the local muhtar twice. First, when the parish board was required to confirm that the property's other shareholders had consented, they asked the muhtar, who replied with the information he had. Second, when the parish board discussed the letter of consent with the broker, they said the muhtar would visit a shareholder in the Beşiktaş parish to obtain it.Footnote 37 Thus, this report shows the muhtar playing the role of an assistant or clerk for the parish board. As discussed later in detail, the Armenian patriarchate indicated to the government that muhtars working among Istanbul's Armenians were essentially assistants to the parish boards.
In the early and mid-nineteenth century, the Ottoman government situated non-Muslim muhtars under the authority of their respective religious authorities, expecting this to be a more effective method of population control. Such religious authorities, who were pursuing reform of the administration of their own communities, were thus able to adapt the muhtar system to their own aims and in a manner they considered suitable.
Restructuring
As previously discussed, although issuing verified-identity certificates for neighborhood residents and acting as their guarantor were the government's primary expectations of Istanbul's muhtars, it also depended on religious authorities among non-Muslims in this regard. However, in the late 1870s, when the government grew increasingly cautious of the treatment of non-Muslims, it changed its attitude towards this reliance on religious authorities. The turmoil in the Balkans, the defeat in the war against Russia, and the Treaty of Berlin prompted the growth of non-Muslim political activity, including among the clergy, which instigated the rise of the Macedonian and Armenian Questions. As a consequence, the government's concern about the number and mobility of non-Muslim subjects grew, leading to the enactment of three new laws: the 1881 Population Registration Law, accompanied by an empire-wide census; the 1884 Passport Law; and the 1887 Internal Passport Law.Footnote 38 In these circumstances, however, who should be the guarantor of identity and registrar of demographic changes became a delicate question. Among Muslims, all these roles were assigned to muhtars and imams.
A document written in 1888 briefly mentions that, nine or ten years prior, the government had attempted to transfer the duty of issuing identity certificates from religious authorities to the municipality, but, due to the fierce opposition of Christian patriarchates, the restructuring was never finalized. The patriarchates demanded financial compensation from a government already suffering serious financial difficulties, arguing they would lose the revenue gained from the certificate fee and the reforms would negatively affect Christians’ communal tax payments.Footnote 39 The government, after this failed attempt, had no choice but to entrust “patriarchates, chief rabbinate, and parish boards” with the responsibility of issuing identity papers for passport and internal passport applications when it enacted laws concerning these documents several years later.Footnote 40
Indeed, non-Muslim religious authorities also took a further step to retain their certificate issuer role and prevent the loss of their influence among the flocks. In 1880, the Synod and Mixed Council of the Orthodox Christian Patriarchate published the “Regulations for Parish Muhtars in Constantinople” in Greek, which stipulated the selection process for and duties of Orthodox Christian muhtars, asserting the patriarchate's authority to define the position and roles of Istanbul's Orthodox Christian muhtars.Footnote 41 Interestingly, the preamble to these regulations emphasizes the patriarchate's qualification in issuing certificates for submision to state authorities, using the Turkish term, ilmühaber, in Greek script:
Although the Law for Provincial System stipulates the selection and duties of muhtar in its fourth section, [these stipulations] are not applicable to parish muhtars in Constantinople. While, according to the aforementioned law, muhtars in [provincial] dioceses were entrusted governmental and public duties and stipulated to chair the council of elders (ihtiyar meclisi), parish muhtars in Constantinople engage themselves in completely different duties. They stamp parish seals entrusted to them on documents necessary for property transfers and on communal and other documents proving birth, baptism, marriage, identification, nationality, living, and death. As its own duty, the Ecumenical Patriarchate issues ilmühaber, official documents necessary in front of diverse state authorities, by referring to the documents [that muhtars prepared]. Muhtars have responsibility toward the patriarchate and must be trustworthy persons.Footnote 42
The preamble outlines the difference between the duties of muhtars in the provinces and those in Istanbul. In Istanbul, Orthodox Christian muhtars were assigned to prepare documents used within their community for various purposes, including obtaining identity certificates from the patriarchate. Likewise, the body of the regulations also gave limited duties to Istanbul's Orthodox Christian muhtars, namely stamping and issuing various types of documents and keeping records. Other stipulations of the regulations also subordinated Orthodox Christian muhtars to the patriarchate, the one allowed direct contact with state authorities.Footnote 43
In the same year, Armenian leaders more clearly proclaimed that the authority to issue official certificates belonged solely to the patriarchate, using the same Turkish term ilmühaber in Armenian script. The Lay Council of the Armenian Community, which functioned as a main organ of the Armenian community's administration, issued an instruction in Armenian. We learn of it when it was repeated eight years later:
The Civil [Lay] Council of the [Armenian] National Administration was informed that some of the parish boards in the capital, acting against the previous instruction of the [Armenian national] administration announced through a circular dated 28 August 1880 and numbered 269, were issuing official ilmühabers in Turkish [t‘urk‘erēn bashdōnagan ilmukhabērner] using the seal of their parish muhtar [irents‘ t‘aghi mukht‘arats‘ gnk‘ov]. Considering that the National Patriarchate was the sole authority qualified to issue official ilmühabers, it [the council] decided to remind [them] of the aforementioned circular and urge parish boards to act accordingly in a similar circumstance.Footnote 44
The 1888 repetition of this instruction might be related to a Ministry of Domestic Affairs proposal to the Grand Vizirate a week earlier regarding the amendment of the Internal Passport Law of 1887. According to this law, muhtars and imams were tasked with issuing certificates for internal passport applications for Muslims, while this duty was entrusted to the patriarchates, chief rabbinate, or parish boards for non-Muslims.Footnote 45 Nevertheless, the Ottoman Census Office found that certificates for Jews were not being issued in accordance with this new law, as the preparation of this type of document was entrusted to the heads of congregations (cemaatbaşı) within the Jewish community; the chief rabbinate only had to ratify the document (or the acting chief rabbinate in this case).Footnote 46
This legal concern, however, brought a different side of the matter to the Ministry of Domestic Affairs’ attention. The Ministry of Justice and Religious Affairs, which had jurisdiction over non-Muslim religious affairs, commented that heads of Jewish congregations were equivalent to Muslim muhtars. Thus, the Jews took an approach drawing similarity with Muslims, based upon which the Ministry of Domestic Affairs found it inappropriate to disregard documents issued by Jewish congregation heads. Moreover, the ministry also found it inappropriate to impose extra procedures on non-Muslims only. In the name of equality (müsavat), the ministry proposed the Grand Vizierate modify the stipulations of the Internal Passport Law to ascribe the duty of issuing certificates to the muhtars of the Orthodox and Armenian Christians instead of their patriarchates.Footnote 47 No response to this proposal has been found.
A similar proposal had been made by Mustafa Ziver, the head of the Directorate of Religious Affairs, seven months prior.Footnote 48 In his five-page report, “A Report Concerning the Situations and Acts of Clergymen, their Harmful Influence on Christians, and the Necessity to Take Certain Measures Regarding this Issue,” he proposed transferring the role of issuing certificates to non-Muslim muhtars.Footnote 49 Based on his exceptional experience as the head of the department dealing with the government's relationships with non-Muslim religious authorities since 1870, Mustafa Ziver insisted on the need to curtail the influence of non-Muslim clergymen over their flocks.Footnote 50 The growing political activities of Bulgarians and Greeks in Macedonia, Armenians in the eastern Ottoman provinces, and the involvement of clergy members in such must have been on Ziver's mind when writing this report.Footnote 51 He emphasized the frequency of Christian clergymen's inappropriate actions, which, according to the report, included trying to free Christians arrested for crimes and involving themselves in land disputes, tax issues, and the government's settling of Muslim refugees and immigrants. Ziver acknowledged that recent judicial reforms had reduced clergymen's involvement in these issues, but worried that non-Muslim clergymen had yet to abandon their “malicious desires.” In his opinion, “Today, the first preoccupation of the clergymen is political affairs,” accusing them of inciting “national feelings” (kavmiyet ve cinsiyet hissiyatı) among people and conducting secret negotiations with foreign ambassadors and consuls.Footnote 52
In response, Ziver called on the Ottoman government to curtail the “secular” influence the Christian clergy had on their flocks, but also acknowledged there were challenges to achieving this goal. Such clerics acted secretly, left no evidence, and any attempt to punish them could invite complaints of infringing on religious privilege. Expressing doubts about their loyalty did not conform to the “delicacy of situation and time,” and carelessness in this context would provoke such clerics to seek support from European states.Footnote 53 Ziver's writing summarizes Ottoman officials’ view of non-Muslim clergymen: even if not at the center of non-Muslim political activities, they were considered harder to handle than laymen due to their special status and influence.
Although lay non-Muslims were not necessarily more trustworthy than clergymen, Ziver sought to utilize them to curtail the “secular” influence of religious functionaries. He proposed transferring the role of certificate issuance from clergymen to muhtars; in fact, he devoted nearly half the report to this question. Ziver argued that, over the past several decades, this role had strongly supported clergymen's expanding secular influence. It was a duty entrusted to them before the state established the municipality and census system, and thus had to address its lack of information on Christian populations by asking for that held by churches and patriarchates. Because the laws enforced thereafter required subjects to obtain certificates for certain administrative procedures, Christian subjects had to apply to their respective religious authorities for these documents. Applying the binary of spiritual and material, as well as religious and secular, Ziver explained the convenience of this situation for Christian religious authorities, “because, at the present time, mere spiritual influence is not sufficient to incite [Christians] due to the weakening of Christian religious doctrines,” so religious authorities needed to “find means to have material influence [on their flocks] and gain capacity as an authority involving secular procedures.”Footnote 54 Accordingly, Christians who were not obedient to their religious authorities struggled to complete administrative procedures. An incident in 1890 fully supported Ziver's argument. That year, the Orthodox Christian Patriarchate conducted a strike protesting the government's infringement on religious privileges. In this protest, the patriarchate went beyond closing religious institutions, also asserting its secular influence by ceasing the issuance of certificates, leaving their flocks unable to transfer property.Footnote 55
Ziver proposed the government transfer the role of certificate issuance to parish muhtars and “completely sever muhtar ties with the churches” by paying them sufficiently through the municipality. This method would not burden the municipality because the revenue from certificate fees would cover muhtar salary costs. According to Ziver, this approach had already been introduced in an anti-Hasunian group of Armenian Catholics in Istanbul and anti-patriarch Chaldean Catholics in Mosul, suggesting that intra-communal disputes had previously affected administrative procedures applying to non-Muslims.Footnote 56 Ziver anticipated that a generalization of this method would halve the “harmful influence” religious authorities held over their flocks.Footnote 57
Severing the Ties between Religious Authorities and Muhtars
Later developments suggest that Ottoman officials could not completely remove the role of issuing certificates from clergymen. Meanwhile, documents written in the late nineteenth century suggest that Ziver's other proposal—that is, severing muhtars’ ties with churches—had already been the practice among Ottoman state officials since the early 1880s. In the late nineteenth century, many officials found it necessary to restrict the influence of non-Muslim religious authorities, and their concerns led the state to attempt to curtail such authorities’ privileges. On the one hand, these attempts caused a dispute in 1883 between the Ottoman government and Christian patriarchates of Istanbul (known in previous studies as the privileges question), which resurfaced in the early 1890s and 1909–11.Footnote 58 On the other hand, these attempts also resulted in unnoticed modifications to the relationship between non-Muslim religious authorities and muhtars.
In April 1883, the Municipality of Istanbul reported to the Ministry of Justice and Religious Affairs on an Armenian Patriarchate request to dismiss Mgrdich Ağa from his role as muhtar of the Karagümrük-Salmatomruk parish.Footnote 59 In response, the municipality conducted an investigation but found no reason to support his dismissal, as even the parishioners had submitted a petition expressing their satisfaction with the muhtar's work.Footnote 60 Although available documents give no details, we can infer that the patriarchate had a disagreement with the muhtar and/or the parishioners, who may have wanted to temper the patriarchate's control over their affairs. In this case, unlike Ottoman authorities of the early and mid-nineteenth century, the municipality considered Armenian Patriarchate interference in matters related to muhtars to be inappropriate. The municipality, seeking to cease the patriarchate's involvement, claimed that while these matters were under municipal jurisdiction, Istanbul's Armenians were instead selecting their muhtars through parish boards, which were subordinate to the patriarchate.Footnote 61 This claim led to a jurisdictional dispute between the municipality and the Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul.
In the correspondence between the municipality, the State Council, the Ministry of Domestic Affairs, the Ministry of Justice and Religious Affairs, and the patriarchate, the Ottoman authorities justified their claim through invoking the Law for the Provincial System. According to this law, they insisted, locals had the right to elect their muhtar by majority vote, no matter which religious community they belonged to; the elected muhtar would then be appointed by the municipality, providing him with an official seal. This was the general method applied at the time, and the addition of any other procedure would infringe on the municipality's jurisdiction. The Ottoman authorities confirmed that “the right to vote belongs to residents, and the duty of appointment to the exalted [Ottoman] government.”Footnote 62
This argument suggests that the Ottoman authorities aimed to bypass the patriarchates by removing muhtars from patriarchal jurisdiction, making them alternative channels for direct communication with non-Muslims at the local level. From the authorities’ perspective, muhtars were an “intermediary” (vasıta) with residents, acting directly under government authority. Nevertheless, Armenians were electing muhtars through parish boards, although patriarchal interference had sometimes been prohibited. Parish board members were laymen, but still the state authorities considered their subordination to the patriarchate problematic. Thus, the municipality unfavorably characterized elections held through parish boards as revealing the “involvement of the clergy office” (idare-i ruhaniyenin teşriki). In several documents, state authorities negatively characterized such involvement as patriarchate “interference” (müdahale), choosing instead to laicize local administration. The State Council also claimed that it was impossible to confirm whether parish board members were chosen in a reliable manner.Footnote 63
From the Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul's perspective, it was the government interfering in community affairs; thus, the governmental call to stop the “patriarchate's interference” was unacceptable. Responding to the demand, the patriarchate submitted memoranda explaining its position. In these, the patriarchate claimed that election through parish boards was a long-established way Istanbul's Armenians chose their muhtars; a way long tolerated by Ottoman authorities. The patriarchate then demanded exceptional treatment, as granted in the past, by emphasizing the difference between the role Istanbul's Armenian muhtars played and the role of provincial muhtars. In the provinces, muhtars’ main duties were to keep records of demographic events, issue certificates for property transfers, and help in the collection of taxes. For Armenian muhtars in Istanbul, however, these duties belonged to others: other state officials were responsible for tax collection, without the participation of Armenian muhtars; the patriarchate was responsible for issuing certificates for property transfers; and parish boards were tasked with record keeping, alongside other parish affairs, in accordance with the Armenian National Constitution. From the patriarchate's perspective, Istanbul's Armenian muhtars were merely assistants serving parish boards. Accordingly, the difference in duties between muhtars in Istanbul and those in the provinces sufficiently justified the difference in their election methods.Footnote 64
The patriarchate also emphasized the subordination of muhtars to parish boards, claiming that Armenian muhtars could essentially be seen as elected by locals:
Entrusting the affairs and duties pertaining to muhtarship to parish boards is a more reliable method for the state and the [Armenian] community than to centralize them in the hands of a person, and our humble community has adopted that method for a long time. Armenian muhtars have been under the supervision and direction of these boards and in the position of their footman. Their selection has been conducted by the members of parish boards who were elected by residents by majority vote in accordance with our humble National Constitution and are in the position of their representatives. . . . they [muhtars] are naturally regarded as the electee of the residents.Footnote 65
The patriarchate argued that muhtar election through parish boards was nothing but an indirect reflection of the parishioners’ will, adding that this was superior to direct election because municipal officials could neither predict whether those directly elected by parishioners had the necessary capacity and integrity nor could they respond to any potential antagonism among residents due to such an election. Moreover, muhtar independence from parish boards was considered inappropriate because, without such oversight, they might practice corruption. Therefore, muhtars should remain under the supervision and instruction of the boards.Footnote 66 The patriarchate then emphasized the practical aspects of the status quo. However, while this justification might have been accepted by Ottoman authorities in the mid-nineteenth century, when non-Muslim religious authorities were easily incorporated into state population control efforts, neither the Istanbul municipality nor the State Council accepted this argument in the 1880s. Thus, the patriarchate was ultimately forced to accept the municipality's requirements.
In January 1891, the Armenian Patriarchate petitioned the municipality to reconsider the method of selecting Armenian muhtars.Footnote 67 Perhaps the patriarchate was encouraged by the Ottoman government's appeasing stance regarding the privileges question, which resurfaced in 1890 and developed into a much larger dispute than in 1883. After protracted negotiations, public protest, and a strike, the Ottoman government compromised with the Orthodox Christian and Armenian patriarchates in the autumn of 1890, worried that further delays would invite foreign intervention.Footnote 68 In the petition, the Armenian Patriarchate first reflected on the former state of Armenian parishes in Istanbul, writing that the system had worked well until the recent modifications to election methods. The patriarchate emphasized the close connection the muhtar position had with the church and parish board, mentioning that muhtars had previously been paid from church coffers, their seals held by parish boards, and the documents requiring their seal were issued and sealed by the boards. This reminder was meant to prompt the municipality to tolerate Armenians in Istanbul using muhtars for parish administration.Footnote 69
The patriarchate then claimed that the modification of election methods had caused new difficulties. A few years prior, following the Law for Provincial System, the municipality had instructed Istanbul's Armenians to elect muhtars by majority vote. The municipality then began to inscribe muhtars' names on theirs seals; seals that previously only noted their titles. The patriarchate requested that exceptional treatment be instituted, again emphasizing the difference between Armenian muhtars in Istanbul and those in the provinces. The patriarchate also pointed out that the government had not assigned a salary for Istanbul's Armenian muhtars after this modification, which made finding competent candidates—candidates capable of reading and writing in Turkish, with awareness of the law, and contented with small earnings—difficult. Furthermore, the patriarchate countered the municipality's legal logic by ingeniously turning it on its head, claiming that duties undertaken by muhtars were actually supposed to fall to parish boards according to the Armenian National Constitution, which was approved as state law. Thus, the call to observe the Law for Provincial System not only caused trouble among Armenians, but also sacrificed one state law for another.Footnote 70
The patriarchate's request was submitted to the cabinet, who decided in the municipality's favor, arguing that Armenian parishes should follow the same method as Muslim neighborhoods, i.e., muhtars should be elected by locals and appointed by the municipality. The cabinet further contended that the appointment of muhtars was not a religious matter, therefore it had nothing to do with the patriarchate.Footnote 71
Several documents indicate that, in the late nineteenth century, state officials consistently favored separating Istanbul's non-Muslim muhtars from the jurisdiction of religious authorities. Indeed, Istanbul Armenians from several parishes expected parish boards to be able to temporarily cover when the muhtar was absent, but they could not obtain permission from the government.Footnote 72 The case of the Jews in 1900 deserves particular attention, as it demonstrates officials’ preference for laicizing urban administration. In the neighborhoods of Piripaşa and Turşuçu in the Hasköy quarter, Istanbul, a single Jewish congregation head undertook muhtar duties. Thus, without informing the acting chief rabbi, the Jews of Piripaşa petitioned the government to appoint an independent head of congregation, claiming their population was too large for a single person to oversee. Moreover, they elected candidates for each area by majority vote and the municipality approved the candidates’ appointment and ordered their seals prepared.Footnote 73 This case strongly suggests that the introduction of the muhtar system encouraged popular activism among Istanbul's Jews in a manner unfavorable to their religious authority.
The acting chief rabbi halted this process, arguing that the municipality should not give official seals to Jewish congregation heads or treat them like neighborhood muhtars, as such were supposed to report to the chief rabbinate. However, based on the understanding that Jewish congregation heads should be treated the same as muhtars, state officials did not accept this claim. Moreover, officials criticized the interference itself, calling it an “involvement of clergy members” (cemaat-ı ruhaniyenin teşriki) in muhtar affairs. In response, the acting chief rabbi went on a strike, insisting that he would not approve the municipality's seals; necessary approval if congregation heads wished to be involved in religious affairs and have their seals accepted by official departments. This move caused administrative affairs among Jews to stagnate. The rabbi also attacked one of the candidate's suitability, which suggests he may have had personal reasons for his resolute opposition.Footnote 74
The government did not accept the acting chief rabbi's opposition, as state documents clearly demonstrate that officials considered equal treatment of the empire's various non-Muslim groups to be a necessity. Officials’ primary concern appears to have been that tolerating such interference might lead other non-Muslim communities to act similarly, understanding how the treatment of one non-Muslim group could affect others. To justify their rejection, state officials invoked the State Council comment in the 1883 dispute about election method of Armenian muhtars: “the right to vote belongs to residents, and the duty of appointment to the exalted government.” Henceforth, it was deemed appropriate to address Jewish congregations heads as muhtar “in a manner similar to the muhtars of other non-Muslim communities” (sair cemaat-ı gayrimüslime muhtaranı misillü).Footnote 75
Conclusion
This article investigated problems related to non-Muslim muhtars to discern state officials’ attitude toward the participation of non-Muslim religious authorities in imperial governance. As the Ottoman government introduced the muhtar system in Istanbul in the early nineteenth century to reinforce state control over the population, the government appears to have seen no harm in allowing non-Muslim religious authorities to be involved. At first, the state situated non-Muslim muhtars under their respective religious authorities, and relying on these networks also remained necessary during the Tanzimat period. The state's priority was not to apply the system uniformly, but to strengthen state control over society. Thus, each non-Muslim group could adapt the muhtar system to its own community, incorporating this new position into existing community administration structures.
In the late nineteenth century, state officials adopted a different attitude toward non-Muslim clergymen. Previously, imperial authority had valued these clergymen for their influence over their flocks, imparting special status upon them to mobilize that influence. In the late nineteenth century, however, this strength became an obstacle for the government, and this new view underscored the review of non-Muslim clergy's exceptional treatment and the reconsideration of the position and role of Istanbul's non-Muslim muhtars. Nevertheless, non-Muslim religious authorities were not easily handled, as their special privileges allowed them to negotiate with the imperial authority and resist its interference. The opposition of such religious authorities forced government concessions in the political disputes known as the privileges question and, moreover, hindered government efforts to revoke the duty of issuing identity certificates.
Meanwhile, the government insisted on separating Istanbul's non-Muslim muhtars from the jurisdiction of their respective religious authorities. While the government could not completely exclude such religious authorities from imperial governance, and thus continued collaborating with them to a certain degree, it turned non-Muslim muhtars into alternative means—means that circumvented their religious institutions—of controlling non-Muslims. Furthermore, as the Armenian and Jewish cases outlined above suggest, non-Muslim muhtars served as alternative bases of power at the local level; bases that could temper the influence of religious authorities. This shift reflected the government's changing approach to non-Muslims as, in the late nineteenth century, the Ottoman government still sought to incorporate non-Muslims as individuals, not through their religious institutions.
Acknowledgments
I wish to thank Naoki Iida, Takashi Tsukada, Madoka Morita, and the participants in the Osaka Rekkakyo Workshop in April 2021 for their suggestive comments. I am indebted to Tomoo Uegaki for his translation of a Greek source and cooperation in reading it. I also thank the anonymous reviewers of IJMES for their helpful critiques and suggestions. This article was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers 19K01021, 20H00030, and 20KK0266.
Open access
