1Franciscan friars from the Order of Friars Minors Capuchin diligently carried out their apostolic mission at one of the most ancient Latin Catholic churches in the religiously diverse district of Galata. They serviced the Church of St. George which was aptly named after the legendary Cappadocian-born megalomartyr and military saint who was widely venerated in the Muslim world by both Christians and Muslims (de Obaldía, 2020). Consequently, the friars would find themselves occupied with the spiritual needs of the Muslim community as well as those of the Latin Catholic faithful who would frequent the church for the benefits of healing. In 1623, for instance, the renowned French Capuchin friar François Leclerc du Tremblay (d. 1638), also known as Père Joseph, reported the testimonies of those who witnessed several healings of sick Muslims when a Franciscan priest placed the gospel of St. John on their heads (Provins, 1939: 28).
2The Capuchins administered to the sacramental needs of the community at masses attended on Sundays by diplomats of the Catholic powers and their families as well as by members of Ottoman Levantine and merchant communities from the immediate and outlying districts. On important feast days, St. George and Galata’s other churches would also be filled with crowds of curious Muslims who would leave alms upon departing (Mauri, 1925: 42). The friars also played an important pastoral role towards the Catholic public slaves at the notorious public prisons known as bagnes in the Ottoman capital giving them communion both in the rustic prison chapels as well as on board the galleys to which they had been condemned (de Obaldía, 2019: 593-610). Yet, in order to carry out the liturgy of the Eucharist, the friars were in need of wine which accompanied the sacramental bread, both of which constituted essential elements of the rite. Wine also constituted an important recreational beverage for the friars as well as for their Latin devotees.
- 1 In 2018, I undertook a project to expand the Ottoman archive of the Church of St. George in Galata (...)
3Nonetheless, the ecclesiastical archives of Galata’s churches remain surprisingly silent about the subject. Therein lies the importance of the four Ottoman documents on the subject of wine in relation to the Capuchin friars of the Church of St. George in Galata, the Ottoman archive of which was previously negligible.1 Albethey limited by their repetitive nature as Ottoman bureaucratic documents, by their relatively short time period of the mid-eighteenth to the early nineteenth centuries, and by their focus on a religious order at one particular Latin Catholic church, they nonetheless represent rare primary sources and provide valuable insights into the subject of wine within the context of four subthemes: the capitulations, import of grapes, wine production, and tax exemption.
4This paper will furthermore explore the permissions and restrictions, the bureaucratic process and the actors involved in the purchase and transportation of raw materials as well as the production and use of wine in the light of information contained in this sample of four Ottoman documents which each comprise of multiple parts from, for example, the initial petition (‘arž-ı-ḥâl) to the final order (ḥüküm). The study is contextualised within the wider socio-political framework of contemporary Ottoman policies and popular reactions to alcohol production and use in the district of Galata in which the church of the Capuchins was located as well as its use as a pretext for conflict with the Latins. Furthermore, important aspects of Ottoman palaeography and diplomatics are examined in the light of the Ottoman administrative and bureaucratic language that the documents contain.
- 2 BOA, C.HR.024/1180/01/01.
5The earliest of our documents dates from the mid-eighteenth century2. The document contains a petition, a report and two buyuruldus in addition to seven signatures of the Grand Vizier renewing the permission. The petition from the French ambassador Comte Roland Puchot des Alleurs, is addressed to the Ottoman sultan. In it, the ambassador requests an imperial edict (firmân) to be addressed to the head of the imperial guards and to the Galata chief of police for the French Capuchin friars to buy and transport to their properties in Galata 250 baskets of grapes for their own use without being prevented or charged taxes in accordance with the capitulation granted to the French consuls and all those affiliated to them. The report then requests the issuing of the imperial edict in view of the binding capitulation in which French consuls and those affiliated to them including friars, merchants and dragomans could bring grapes from the provinces and produce freshly crushed juice (vinum mustum) in their residences for their own use. In the buyuruldu dated 1162/1749, only 250 baskets of grapes could be transported without impediment during the harvesting season of the vineyards and in accordance with the above-mentioned capitulation. Finally, permission was renewed by the Grand Vizier during seven consecutive years from 29 şevvâl 1162/ 12 October 1749 until 14 zi’l-ḥicce 1170/ 30 August 1757.
- 3 BOA, C. HR.158/7880/01/01.
6The second document is dated from the late eighteenth century3. It follows a similar style as the one above and contains five parts: a petition, an order addressed to four Ottoman officials, a qualifier, a later order addressed to three Ottoman officials, and a final issuing of the order. The copy of the petition was addressed by the French Ambassador Charles Louis Huguet, marquis de Sémonville (in office 1792–1796) to the Ottoman sultan. He requests the issuing of an imperial order containing two privileges: firstly, that the Capuchin friars living in Galata not be prevented from transporting to their residences, along with other provisions, 250 baskets of grapes once a year; secondly, in accordance with the capitulation, that they not be harassed for any type of taxes (resm ve vergi ve ḫarc ve ʻavâʻid) by Ottoman officials. He qualifies it by stating that these privileges had previously been granted in the year 1207/1793.
- 4 It could be postulated that such a condition was attributed to Üsküdar’s location outside of the wa (...)
- 5 It is interesting to note that the contents of the copy of the petition included in this document d (...)
7The first report of this document dated 19 muḥarrem 1194/ 26 January 1780 is addressed to the head of the imperial palace guards, commander of the irregular corps, artillery commander and chief of police in Galata. It stated that the French ambassador had presented a sealed petition requesting permission for the transportation of 250 baskets of expressed juice to Galata and the exemption from taxes as long at the wine was not purchased from Üsküdar or its surroundings.4 The simultaneous purchase and transportation of grape baskets of neither a greater nor lesser (ziyâde ve noqṣân) quantity as in past years was approved with an imperial edict dated zi’l-ḥicce 1202 / Sept-Oct 1788 and that the imperial order was issued for three years on evâḫir zi’l-ḥicce 1030.5 The second report dated evâḫir zi’l-qʻade 1201/ 4-13 September 1787 is addressed to the commander of the janissaries and to the commander of the imperial palace guard repeats the above adding the permission to press the grapes in their home. The qualifying statement says that the registration of an imperial order (emr-i şerîf) for the previous years in 1204 and 1205 could not be found and was therefore not issued. Then the final order (ḥüküm) was issued on 21 muḥarrem 1206/ 20 September 1791 according to the previous terms.
- 6 BOA, İE.HR.0018/1623/01/01.
8The earliest of the two documents from the nineteenth century is dated 13 ramažân 1226 / 1 October 18116. It consists of a translation of a report of the French chargé d’affaires Just Pons Florimond de Fay de La Tour Maubourg (in office 1809-1811). As reflected in the previous two documents, this one contains an imperial order commanding that the French Capuchins living in Galata will not be prevented from transporting 250 baskets of wine to their properties (ḫâneler) in addition to their provisions. It affirms that these privileges are based on the terms of the capitulation in which the French ambassador, commissary and translator and others affiliated to the French are allowed to bring grapes to their residences and produce the vinum mustum and that these along with other provisions shall not be taxed.
- 7 BOA, C.HR.106/5259/01/01 – 2.
9The second document from the ninth century and the fourth in our collection is sealed by the Grand Vizier’s decision on 14 Safer 1242/17 September 18267. It is the most extensive of the documents, in which it combines the alcohol rights of the French consul living in Çanakkale with that of the Capuchins in Galata. While the former is not pertinent to our current study, it is worth noting that a diplomat and friars were encapsulated in one document because petitions had been made on a similar date and permissions derived from the same Ottoman administrative department. The document presents similarities to the previous ones insofar as the quantity of baskets of grapes remains unchanged as well as the order to Ottoman officials not to demand taxes during the transportation on the basis of the wider privilege contained within the capitulation with France. Yet, it also introduces restrictions on the location of the vineyards from which the grapes can be purchased, that is anywhere except Üsküdar and its outskirts (Üsküdâr ve ḥavâlesinden mâ ʻadâ).
10The abovementioned documents should be understood within the context of the capitulations (ʻahdnâmes) which were unilateral non-reciprocal treaties granting privileges and concessions to a foreign power on various conditions, primarily of maintaining peaceful relations with the Ottoman Empire. All four documents emphasise that the specific privileges being granted within the documents are based on alcohol-related articles within the capitulations previously given by the Ottoman state to the Kingdom of France.
- 8 It is worth noting the self-designatory nature of this role since it had neither been formerly reco (...)
11Diplomatic patronage over the Catholics in the Ottoman Empire in general and the Holy Sites in particular was dominated by the Venetians and Genoese since the fourteenth century but by the late sixteenth century, the Kingdom of France had superseded them as protector as laid down in the extensive concessions in the capitulation of 1673 and consequently used this role to justify their interventions in Ottoman lands (Heyberger, 1994: 243-266; Peri, 2001: 59-62).8 Even prior to this date, certain Latin Catholic churches in Galata had already begun to be designated as the official place of worship of the French ambassador by imperial decree at the beginning of seventeenth century, and thus were under French protection, although this did not exclude the ongoing support of other Catholic powers (de Obaldía, 2017).
12The Ottoman Empire first began to grant capitulations to Western Powers in the fourteenth century, but France did not receive independent privileges until 1569 and by 1740, they were granted in perpetuo. It covered the Catholic religious orders, secular clergy, and missionaries in general, as well as anyone among the Roman Catholic lay community who sought to affiliate themselves to the French nation. Among the many general privileges and concessions granted to the religious orders within the French capitulations, was alcohol. In these, both the alcohol-related rights would be specified as well as the functionaries who were affiliated to the diplomats such as dragomans, merchants and priests. For example, the capitulation of 1673 includes a general provision for the production, consumption and import of wine as follows, “French consuls and the friars and the merchant class who are affiliated to them as well as their dragomans, shall not be troubled when they press wine in their residences for their own/personal use nor when they bring it from the provinces in the customary designated quantity and make use of it.” This privilege is likewise renewed in Article 40 of the French capitulation of 1740 (Testa, 1864: 197).
13Complementary articles to the capitulations, were an imperial grant (nişan-ı hümâyûn) which was issued by the sultan upon a foreign power’s request for particular privileges. They were usually inserted into the renewal of the capitulations as appendages but they could also precede them as stand-alone documents. One example is the 1604 nişân in which Franciscan friars in the Holy Land under French protection were to be permitted to produce wine for their own personal use (Dipratu, 2022: 36). Such a privilege was eventually incorporated as an article into subsequent capitulations. Yet, our documents do not fall into the categories of nişâns; rather, they were decrees. Within the texts, the decrees are mentioned as one of the following three synonymous terms: firmân, ḥüküm and emr, the latter of which are complimented by honorific epithets such as the noble order (emr-i şerîf), the exulted order (emr-i ʻâlî), the glorious order (emr-i celîl). Many were the nations who sought to obtain alcohol privileges through imperial edicts (Kuran, 2010: 794). While the privileges of the capitulations were general in nature, those of the decrees were specific and renewed with the advent of a new sultan to the throne.
14The four subtopics of our document shall be addressed in the order they appear within the documents rather than by order of importance.
15A close analysis of our four documents is deserved for various reasons. The first, is that they contain important prosopographical data which reveals the ecclesiastical actors who sought particular dispensations from the Porte and who defended their ritual and recreational rights to purchase raw materials and to produce wine. The friars are referred to in the generic terms of “French friars called Capuchins residing in Galata” (Ğalata’da muqîm Kapuçîn nâm França râhibleri), “French friars known as Capuchin” (Kapuçīn taʻrîf olunan França râhibleri) “order of friars” (ruhbân ṭâʼifesi). While the absence of specific personal names is indicative of the strict rules of modest behaviour and religious status in not exercising diplomatic or other functions except in exceptional circumstances, it also emphasises their reliance on the second group of actors within the documents: the French diplomats.
16The Capuchins had been under French patronage since the beginning of their mission in Istanbul in 1587, having been invited to the capital by the French ambassador, Jacques Savary de Lanscome (in office 1585-1589), to initially serve as ambassadorial chaplains and later diversified and expanded their mission. As a result of these longstanding ties and in the knowledge that his name provided the necessary diplomatic weight for the obtainment of favourable results, the Capuchins of our documents directed their petitions to the Sublime Porte through the mediation of the French ambassador for the negotiation of their rights and privileges. Consequently, the names of two French ambassadors can be deciphered with some difficulty as the addressers of the petitions: Comte Roland Puchot des Alleurs (Qonte Desâlurus) (in office 1747–1755) and Armand Charles Guilleminot (General Gulliminot) (in office 1823–1832).
17The third lot of actors comprise of Ottoman officials who were addressees, addressors, decision makers. With the exception of three, only their titles are included: Sultan (sulṭân), Galata’s chief of police (voyvoda), commander of the Janissaries (yegîçerîleri ağası), head of the imperial palace guards (bostâncıbâşı ağası), commander of the irregular corps (sekbânbâşa ağası), artillery commander (ṭopcubâşa), the deputy of Çanakalle (Qalʻe-i sulṭâniye nâʼibi), the Çanakalle tax collector (Qalʻe-i sulṭâniyesi rusûm zecriye ʻâmili) and the rest of the officers (sâʼir žâbiṭân). In the latest dated document of 1242/1826, the names of three officials are mentioned as bostâncıbāşı Ibrahim, ṭopcubâşa Numan, and Galata voyvodası Süleyman. These officials were directly addressed due to their personal interest insofar as many of their salaries were derived from Istanbul’s taxes on wine as well as coffee. Moreover, they possessed policing powers in Galata and elsewhere in Istanbul and worked closely with one another. The chief of the janissaries and the chief of police had the authority to arrest non-Muslim tavern owners and wine-sellers, whereas the head of the imperial guards controlled the importation of wine into Istanbul.
18The documents are important sources for Ottoman palaeography and diplomatics because they reveal the administrative style of different department of the Ottoman administration in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries as well as the bureaucratic language used when addressing issues related to non-Muslims. Through such documents can be derived an understanding of the bureaucratic processes through which the friars had to navigate, from the seat of government, the Sublime Porte, passing through a variety of departments and officials who assumed registry, supervisory and policing responsibilities. They moreover, encapsulate more than one document, for example a petition (ʻarž-ı-ḥâl), report (taqrîr), and a final decision (qarâr), or they represent the renewal of permissions over various years. Marking two of the documents, are numerous signatures and ṣaḥḥs of the Grand Vizier, indicating that he was the issuer of the renewal even though the addressee of the French ambassador’s petition may well have been the sultan.
- 9 The official parochial boundaries were established in 1725.
- 10 CADG, No. 33. 3. 2.
19For the production of wine, whether for the Eucharistic ritual or for recreational use, it was necessary to firstly obtain the raw materials. While there were no vineyards in Galata itself, the parish of SS. Peter and Paul, which also comprised of the Church of St. George, owned vineyards on one of the Princes’ Islands of Prinkipo (Büyükada).9 The vineyard along with a house was eventually contractually sold to a local Levantine called Mr. Francesco Bragiotti on 25 January 184210. During the Tanẓîmât period, with the relaxation of the laws for new church constructions, Latin Catholic religious orders obtained properties in Istanbul’s suburbs such as Büyükdere, Ayastefanos (Yeşilköy), Makriköy (Bakırköy) and Bebek with greater land resources where they could plant vineyards. Even today, the Conventual Franciscans of Büyükdere continue to produce wine and share it with the city’s other religious orders.
20It is stated in the documents that the baskets of grapes were transported from the provinces (taşra), with the exception of Üsküdar and its outskirts which could mean further afield the Istanbul’s surroundings and islands, such as the Aegean. While it is stated that purchases were also made from private vineyards by the French diplomats, it is unlikely that the Capuchins would have obtained their grapes from private vineyards unless a crop failure had occurred among theirs, especially as they had easy access to fruitful vineyards at their other properties in Smyrna where the Franciscans had maintained a presence since the mid-fourteenth century (Matteucci, 1971: 457-462).
21There was some confusion in our documents about the exact nature of the raw materials, with one stating that it was vinum mustum (ʻuşârehler) rather than whole grapes. In spite of the transportation of baskets of grapes on a yearly basis (behrsene) the quantity of 250 remained unchanged during the period of three quarters of a century. They were only allowed to transport it once per year and in one go (defaʿ-i vâḥidede) rather than gradually, possibly for greater ease in monitoring their activities. The conclusivity of the place from which they were being moved remains unanswered yet an interesting point to note is the inclusion of the grapes within the provisions (zaḫîralar) of the Capuchins. Such fruits were not only necessary in the sacramental rite of the Eucharist, but, as indicated by the quantity being produced, they were also essential for the production of wine for recreational use by the friars themselves and the parishioners whom they served.
22Once imported into the district of Galata, a process for the production of the wine would begin consisting of the crushing of the grapes into vinum mustum, then pressing to separate the grape juice from the stems, seeds, and skins, and finally the stage of fermentation. Such would require not only storage space for the 250 baskets (the dimensions of which are not stated) but also a sufficiently ample space for the wine press and containers. By the mid-eighteenth century, the Capuchins properties in Galata consisted of a complex which included the church, friary, hospital, school as well as a large khan located to the right of the church which had been built by the Genoese in 1314. By 1783, the property began to serve as the seat of the Apostolic Vicariate, the Church’s territorial jurisdiction under a titular bishop in Constantinople, which had been established in 1742 although the Capuchins continued servicing the church (de Obaldía, 2020: 57). It can be assumed that any production would have taken place at the khan by the friars themselves rather than within the grounds of the French embassy in Pera where the Capuchins also had a school and administered in the chapel. The same parish also had a financial interest in alcohol, possessing properties such as a wine shop located on the Rue “Koulé Dibi” near the famed Galata tower as well as a wine depot on Bankalar Street both of which they rented out11.
- 12 Murad I (1360 - 1389) was the first Ottoman sultan to grant privileges to monks, these were the Ort (...)
23The last issue to be addressed, although by no means the most insignificant was the issue of protection against taxation on wine related goods addressed in all four documents. Since the first contact of men of the cloth with the Ottoman sultan in the fourteenth century, monastic orders benefited from tax exemptions which they had enjoyed during Byzantine rule (Zachariadou, 1969: 1-12).12 As Ottoman territories expanded with the passage of the centuries and incorporated non-Muslim communities from different geographical areas, the application of tax exemptions widened to include revenues produced by ecclesiastical properties (land & buildings), income collected from the faithful, communities, trading hubs and individual commercial goods, such as butchery tax, and imported goods. With the increase in influence of foreign powers, tax exemptions extended to their subjects and diplomatic personnel, religious institutions, and pilgrims to the Holy Land (Veinstein, 2003: 25-41).
24The clerical and monastic classes also enjoyed full exemption or a reduction in the payment of these taxes, as shown in all four of our documents. As for taxes on alcohol, since they were prohibited by the şerîʻat, there were no official taxes during the early period with the exception of the must tax imposed on the growers of grapes after they were ripened and pressed into vinum mustum. In the seventeenth century, an official alcohol tax was imposed on non-Muslims although certain exemptions existed within the capitulations and thereby, dragomans could produce wine from grapes grown in their gardens without expecting a visit from the superintendent of wines for example (Boogert, 2005: 66). By the eighteenth century, this tax was replaced by non-canonical (ʻörfî) levies on transported grapes and wine as well as tax on prohibited goods (resm-i zecriye) such as on alcohol sold at market which continued during the Tanzimat period (Shaw, 1975: 441-442). This was also the case in treaties of other nations, such as the English capitulation of 1661 in which They mention different types of taxes imposed on alcohol in terms of its import, production and sale: tax on prohibited goods, tribute (vergi), poll tax (ḫarç), extraordinary levies (ʻavâʻid). Upon importing their baskets of grapes from the provinces, they would have been charged a tax with it coming by land through one of the city’s three main entrances, or by boat.
25The Ottoman conquests and subsequent islamisation did not end or rupture the widespread viticulture; rather, it continued encouraged by political, religious and economic factors (Georgeon, 2021: 36-43). This is not to suggest that it was not fastidiously regulated by Ottoman law (şeriʻat and qânûn). The production, sale, consumption and possession of alcohol by Muslims could incur penalties ranging from the severest mandatory preventative punishment (ḥadd) and discretionary punishment (taʻzîr) to the more lenient renewal of faith (tecdîd-i îmân) and asking God’s forgiveness (istiğfâr). Prohibitions were also imposed on non-Muslims who were forbidden to sell intoxicating beverages to Muslims and restricted to having their taverns (meyḫânes) in specific areas resulting in the discouragement of mixed neighbourhoods. These jurisprudential rulings on alcohol in relation to non-Muslims were complimented by fetva literature which not only dealt with issues such as the payment of taxes (öşür) and interest (fâ’iḍ), but also offenses such as intentionally spilling alcohol on a Muslim or the expulsion of non-Muslim tenants from a private dwelling or shops located in a Muslim neighbourhood for consuming alcohol (Düzenli, 2015: 340-344).
26Nonetheless, such measures were imposed in the interests of the Muslim community and in order to prevent real or perceived public disorder and by consequence did not infringe on non-Muslims’ rights to produce, trade in and consume alcohol among themselves. Even with the restrictions, conflicts, complaints, and accusations abounded influencing the closure of taverns in Muslim and non-Muslim neighbourhoods alike and the banning of the distilling of certain beverages from time to time during the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries although such bans would often be lifted in consideration of their impact on the treasury and local economy, or otherwise simply ignored and avoided (Boyar & Fleet, 2010: 195-200; Zarinebaf, 2010: 103-105). This was particularly true of the ancient Genoese district of Galata which had been eulogised shortly after the conquest of Constantinople by Sultan Mehmed II (r. 1444 -1446, 1451-1481) at the beginning of an ode written under his pen name Avni, “Nobody would bind his soul to heaven after seeing Galata” (Edhem, 2006: 29). Yet, with the Islamisation policies of his father Bayezid II (r. 1481-1512) and the increase in Sunni Orthodox sentiment during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the district began to acquire a reputation among Ottoman Muslims as a notorious place of ill repute and debauchery due to its abundance of taverns (meyḫânes) and brothels (kerḫânes). Drunken misbehaviour would often be portrayed in stereotypical or grossly exaggerated terms such as an account in an Ottoman travelogue (seyâḥatnâme) by Evliya Çelebī (d. 1682) who, upon passing through the “wicked locale”, related seeing “hundreds of downtrodden tavern-slaves lying in the highway, bareheaded and barefooted” (Evliya, Seyaḥatnâme, 1: 431-432).
27In addition to taverns, Galata was also the location of the Ottoman capital’s most prominent Latin Catholic churches. Therefore, negative associations with wine not only caused Christian laymen to be subjected to disrepute; rather, they extended to Galata’s Latin Catholic churches and men of the habit to whom wine was inextricably linked for both ritual and recreational use with occasionally devastating consequence. During certain periods, alcohol would be used as a pretext to attack the Latin Church through allegations of the illegal production of wine. A strong case in point is that of Galata’s most prominent church, the thirteenth-century Conventual Franciscan Complex of St. Francis, which was seized by the Ottoman state in 1697 and converted into a mosque causing the destitution of the friars. The expropriation was attributed by the French botanist and traveller Joseph Pitton de Tournefort (d. 1708) to the Franciscan friars having turned the site into “a place of scandal and abomination” by selling wine (Tournefort, 1717: 506). This aspersion was subsequently embellished upon by the French diplomat Aubry de La Mottraye (d. 1743) who alleged that they had not only been selling wine but also brandy, his devotion to Protestantism possibly bearing on the ipartiality of his account (La Mottraye, 1723: 166).
28In different parts of the Ottoman Empire, Latin Catholic friars participated in the local economy on more than one level (Tramontana, 2020: 129-132) and traded in the alcohol they produced (Windler, 2018: 557), it is therefore not improbable that the Conventual Franciscans of St. Francis in Galata did likewise as an additional source of income for their subsistence. Regardless, in this case, alcohol was used as a pretext for expropriation during a period of diplomatic tensions between the Ottoman state and Catholic powers due to the Austro-Ottoman War of 1683–97 and the Venetian capture of Chios and was accompanied by Islamisation in the capital due to a rise in Sunni Orthodox Islamic sentiment (de Obaldía, 2018: 142-147). Furthermore, the expropriation of a complex and centre of the oriental vicariate affiliated to the Franciscans in the Holy Land, was a direct blow to their income during a time of denominational conflicts between the Latins and Greek Orthodox in the Province of Syria in relation to the Holy Sepulchre and in the Ottoman capital in relation to the Latins’ proselytisation activities among the Apostolic Armenians and Greek Orthodox at the turn of the seventeenth century and during the first decade of the eighteenth century (Santus, 2019: 309-336). The four Ottoman documents of our study provided the Capuchin friars and their alcohol-related activities with protection against conflicts arising from scenarios like those mentioned above as well as against impediments and abuses by state officials to whom some of the documents were directly addressed.
29Adept and persistent negotiations resulted in the inclusion of articles in the capitulations containing alcohol-related privileges and concessions which were confirmed and elaborated upon in edicts granted to individual churches, in the case of our documents, to the Capuchin friars of the Church of St. George in Galata, which could be renewed annually. The four documents examined herein demonstrate the ability of the Capuchin friars to successfully negotiate with the different levels of the Ottoman administration through their protector state to extend and adapt these privileges to their individual needs. Consequently, they were able to secure permission for the import of sufficient grapes to fulfil their sacramental and recreational needs and the exemption from all taxes charged by Ottoman officials possessing military, policing, and supervisory authority. While the friars successfully used the diplomatic leverage that they had at their disposal, there was undoubtedly an element of mutual benefit as the Ottoman actors also had a vested interest in alcohol-related trade.
30In spite of concessions, it has been demonstrated how alcohol represented a potential source of conflict. While raw materials would be imported and alcohol produced to fulfil an essential element in their daily rituals as well as traded for recreational use and thereby providing an additional source of income to the friars, such activities were used as a pretext to inflict a blow against the Latin Catholic Church in the face of local and regional conflicts and diplomatic pressures. Yet the four documents in question safeguarded the Capuchins against such potential conflicts, as well as protecting them against excessive taxation and abuses by Ottoman officials. Undoubtedly, the legal, diplomatic, and bureaucratic success of the Franciscans in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries has facilitated the continuation of their presence and thus, their production of wine in the former capital of the Ottoman Empire until today.
Fig. 1. Permission by the Grand vizier dated 9 şevvâl 1162 / 22 September 1749 - 14 zi’l-ḥicce 1170/ 30 August 1757)
BOA, C.HR.024/01180/01/01 Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivleri (Prime Ministry’s Ottoman Archives, Istanbul)
31[Top of page -right]
32ʻahdnâme-i hümâyûnda der-kenâr oluna buyuruldu
3314 zi’l-ḥicce 1170
34[Dates on the left]
352 rebîʻu’l-âḫir 1169
36ğurre-i zi’l-qaʻde 1163
378 şevvâl 1163.
38[Right signatures]
3929 şevvâl 1162
4010 şevvâl 1164
4115 zi’l-qaʻde 1167
4214 zi’l-qaʻde 1166
43Fî 3 zi’l-ḥicce 1168
44[Middle]
45[1] Bâğ bozûmunda ʻahdnâme-i hümâyûn mücebince, yâlniz iki yüz elli küfe [2] üzümüñ ḫânesine naqline mumânʻât olunmâmaq buyuruldu [3] 9 şevvâl 1162
46[Top right]
47[1] Franca qonsolusları ve onlara tâbiʻ olan ruhbân ve tuccâr ṭâʼifesi ve tercümânleri kendu nefsleri için muʻtâd-i muʻayene [2] qadar evlerinde şîra ṣikûb ve taşradan ḫamr getirim istiʻmâl eylediklerinde rencide olumayalar deyu Francaluya [3] iʻṭaʼ buyurlan ʻahdnâme-i hümânyûnda masṭûr ve muqayyeddir. Firmân devletlu sulṭânım ḥažretlerinindir.
48[Bottom left]:
49[1] Devletlu saʻdetlu sulṭânî ḥažretleriniñ ḥužûr-u ʻalîlerine ʻarž-u ḥâl oldurki [2] Frânça konsolûsleri ve anlara tâbiʻ ruhbân ṭâʼifesi ve tercümânları kendü nefsleri için muʻtâd-i muʻayene qadar evlerinde şîre siqub ve ṭaşradan ḫamr [3] gertirup istiʻmâl eylediklerinde rencide olunmayalar deyu ʻahdnâme-i hümâyûnda münderic olduğuna binâʼen Kapuçîn taʻrîf olunan Franca râhibleriniñ [?] [4] kefâf nefsleri için aqçeleryle iştirâʻ eyledikleri iki yüz elli küfe üzümü Ğalaṭa’da ḫânelerine naqline mumânʻât olunmâyıp ḫarç [5] ve ʻavaʼid nâmıyla kimesne mâniʻ olumâmaq bâbında ʻizzetlü Bostâncıbashı Ağâ’ya ve Ğalata voyvodasına ḫiṭâban firmân-i şerîf ricâʼ ve niyâz olunur [6] bâqî firmân devletlu saʻdetlu sulṭânım ḥažretleriniñdir [7] Qonte Desâlurus [8] Elçî-yi Frānca
Fig. 2. Permission dated 21 muḥarrem 1206/ 20 September 1791
BOA, C.HR.158/7880/001/001
50[Top left]
51Sâbiqi mücebince şurûṭule ḥüküm buyuruldu. 21 muḥarrem 1206.
52[Top right]
53sâbiqi mücebince
54[Top right]
55[1] dergâh-i muʻalâm yeñīçerîleri ağasına ve ḫaṣṣa bostâncıbâşısına ḥüküm ki [2] Frânca elçīsi mühürlu ʻarž-ı ḥâl gönderüp qonsulos ve tercümân ve sâʼir Frâncaluya tâbiʻ olanlar kendi istiʻmâllar için [3] sâkin oldukları evlerine üzüm götürüp şîra ṣıqtıqlarında ve aḫar ṭaraftan zaḫîraları olmak üzere [4] kendilere gelen ḫamrın naql ve idḫâlinde yeñîçerî ağasına ve bostâncıbâşa ve voyvodagân ve sâʼir žâbiṭân [5] ṭaraflarından bir durlu vergü ve resm taleb olunmayıp bu ḫuṣûṣta selâtîn-i mâḍiyeden verilen ve ilā alān [6] verile gelen evâmiriñ mefhûmati üzere ʻamel oluna deyu Frâncaluya iʻṭâ olunân ʻahdnâme-i hümâyûnda [7] muqeyyed olduğuna binâʼen Ğalaṭa’da muqîm Qapûçîn nâm râhibleriniñ sâkin oldukları evlerine zaḫîraları [8] olmaq üzere senede bir defʻa ikiyüz elli küfe üzümün naqline mumânʻât olunmayup ʻahdnâme-i hümâyûn [9] mücebince žâbiṭân ṭaraflarından bir durlu resm ve vergi ve harc ve ʻavâʼid ṭaleb ve rencide olunmâmaq [10] üzere evâmir-i aliyye verilegelmeqle işbu bin ikiyüz bir senesine maḥsûben sâbiki üzere ikiyüz elli [11] küfe üzümün naqline mumânʻât olunmâmaq bâbında emr-i şerîfim ṣudûrunu istidâʼ ve divân-i hümâyûnunda [12] maḥfûẓ quyûd-u aḥqâme muraceʻât olundukta bin ikiyüz senesine maḥsûban ol miqtâr küfe üzümün defaʻa-i [13] vâḥidede naqline mumânʻât olunmâmaq için emr-i şerîfim verildiği mestûr ve mukayyid bulunmağın sâbiqi [14] üzere bin ikiyüz bir senesine maḥsûben ikiyüz elli küfe üzümün defaʻa-i vâḥidede naqline mumâneʻât [15] olunmâmaq bâbında evâḫir zi’l-qʻade 1201 târîḫinde emr-i şerîf verildiği muqayyedir firmân devletlu sulṭânım [16] hažretleriniñdir.
56[Middle left]
57[1] Devletlu saʻâdetlu sulṭânım ḥažretleri ṣâğ olsun [2] Ğalaṭa’da muqîm Qapûçîn nâm râhibleriniñ sâkin oldukları evlerine zaḫîraları olmaq üzere senede bir defaʻ ikiyüz [3] elli küfe üzümüñ naqline mumânʻât olunmâyup ʻahdnâme-i hümâyûn mücebince žâbiṭân ṭaraflarından bir dûrlu resm [4] ve vergi ve ḫarc ve ʻavâʻid taleb ve rencide olunmâmaq üzere evâmir-i ʻaliyye verile gelmekle işbu bin ikiyüz yedi senesine [5] maḥsûben sâbiqi üzere ikiyüz elli küfe üzümüñ naqline mumânʻât olunmâmaq bâbında emr-i ʻaliyyleri ricâʼ ve nîyâz olunûr [6] bâqî emr-u-firmân devletlu saʻâdetlu sulṭânım ḥažretleriniñdir. [7] Ed-dāʻī [8] Qont [?] [9] Elçî-i Frânca
58[Middle right]
59[1] Dört ve beş ve sene-i sâbiqada verilmemişdir [2] dört ve beş senelerine maḥsûban emr-i şerîf [3] verildiğiniñ qaydi bulunmâmıştır.
60Bottom right:
61[1] ḥaṣṣa bostâncıbâşaya ve sekbânbâşa ağaya ve ṭopcubâşaya ve Ğalaṭa voyvodasına ḥükümki [2] Âstâne’ye saʻâdetimde muqîm Frânca rekâb-i hümâyûna muhrlu ʻarž-ı ḥâl [3] gönderüp kendisi ve tercümânları ve adâmları için ʻuṣârehlerin ikiyüz [4] elli küfe üzümüñ işbu bin ikiyüz üç senesine maḥsûban Üsküdar [5] ve ḥavâlesinden mâ ʻadâ maḥallerden iştirâʼ ve sefîne ile münâsib maḥalden [6] Ğalaṭa’da vâkiʻ ḫânesine naqline mumânʻât ve ḫarc ve ʻavâʼid [7] ve sâʼir bahâne ile nesne muṭâlebesiyle teʻaddî ve rencide olunmâmaq bâbında [8] emr-i şerîfim ṣudûrunu istidʻâʼ eylediği cihetten Üsküdār ve ḥavâlisinden alınmâmaq üzere sînîn-i sâbiqada ne miqdâr üzüm alâ [9] gelmişler ise yine ziyâde ve noqṣân olmayarak ol miqdâr üzüm iştirâʼ ve defʻa-yı vâḥidede naqline mumânʻât olunmâmaq bâbında [10] bin ikiyüz iki senesi zi’l-ḥiccesi tarîḫiyle müverraḥ verilen emr-i ʻâlî elçî-yi mūmâ-ileyh ṭarafından rekâb-i müsteṭâbda [11] ibrâz olunmağla işbu üç senesine maḥsûben vech-i meshrûḥ üzere ʻaml olunmaq için evâḫir-i zi’l-ḥicce sene 1030 târîḫinde emr-i şerîf [12] yazılmıştır firmân sulṭânımındır. [13] fî 19 muḥarrem sene 1194.