605

THE BEGGARY IN OTTOMAN ISTANBUL: A TRANSFORMATION
FROM LEGITIMACY TO EXCLUSION (1834-1908)

Through providing information on Islam’s perspectives on begging and dervish
groups that beg for a religious purpose, the study tries to reevaluate these groups in
Istanbul beggar narratives and to analyze the relationship between the concepts of
the dervish and the beggar. In addition, it examines whom the beggars consist of in
Istanbul, their place in the eyes of the state and society, and the change in their positions
over time. Begging, which was accepted as a guild and considered legitimate
in the eyes of the state, became a problem that needed to be eliminated in the eyes
of the state and society in the nineteenth century. Explaining how and why this
change occurred is the main purpose of the study. In the era of modernization and
industrialization, the beggars began to be seen as a potential workforce. The change
in the general public understanding of morality and the concept of working changed
the perspective of the state and elites towards beggars, which became a determining
factor in state policies. Seeing beggars as an obstacle to the safety of the city and
progress brought the definitions of the beggar and the vagrant closer together. The
definition of the vagrant was added to the equation of the relationship between the
dervish and the beggar. Various implementations were made by the state for the
safety of the city and for helping the urban poor. In the period of Abdulhamid II,
regulations and institutions were formed that were directly aimed at beggars. These
practices took a new form with the synthesis of Islam and modernization.
iv

Anahtar Kelimeler: Dilenci, Dervis, Serseri, Istanbul
Çalısma, Islam’ın dilencilige bakıs açısı ve dini sebepler ile dilenen dervis grupları
hakkında bilgi vererek bu grupları Istanbul dilenci anlatıları içinde yeniden
degerlendirmeye, dervis ve dilenci kavramları arasındaki iliskiyi çözümlemeye çalısır.
Ayrıca, Istanbul’da dilencilerin kimlerden olustugunu, devlet ve toplum gözündeki
yerlerini ve konumlarındaki degisimi irdeler. Bir esnaf grubu olarak kabul edilen ve
devletin gözünde mesru olan dilencilik ugrası on dokuzuncu yüzyıla gelindiginde devletin
ve toplumun gözünde ortadan kaldırılması gereken bir problem halini almıstır.
Bu degisimin nasıl ve neden gerçeklestigini açıklamak çalısmanın temel amacını olusturur.
Modernlesme ve endüstrilesme ile birlikte dilencilerin potansiyel isgücü olarak
görülmeye baslandıgı, degisen ahlak ve çalısma anlayısı ile devletin ve elitlerin dilencilere
olan bakıs açısının degistigi görülmüs ve bu durum devlet politikalarında belirleyici
bir unsur olusturmustur. Dilencilerin sehrin güvenligi ve ilerlemesi karsısında
bir engel olarak görülmesi dilenci ile serseri tanımlarını birbirine yaklastırmıstır.
Dervis ve dilenci arasındaki iliski denklemine serseri tanımı da eklenmistir. Sehrin
güvenligi ve sehir yoksullarına yardım için devlet tarafından çesitli düzenlemeler
yapılmıstır. II. Abdülhamid dönemine gelindiginde ise dogrudan dilencilere yönelik
düzenlemeler ve kurumlar olusturulmustur. Bu uygulamalar Islam’ın ve modernlesmenin
sentezi ile yeni bir hal almıstır.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to acknowledge and give my sincere gratitude to my supervisor,
Selçuk Aksin Somel. His guidance and advice carried me through all the stages
of writing my thesis. I consider myself fortunate to have written my thesis under
his supervision. I would also like to thank my committee members Ayse Ozil and
Nadir Özbek for their valuable advice and suggestions; thanks to their comments, I
had a chance to develop my study. Also, I would like to thank the members of the
Sabancı University History program for all the information I learned in my classes,
and to give me an opportunity to complete my study.
Throughout my graduate study, I was supported by the TUBITAK-BIDEB 2210-A
program. I am grateful for this scholarship and hope that the program can support
many more young social scientists in the future as well.
Lastly, I would like to pay my special gratitude to my family and friends. They
supported me in every stage of this process. My mother and father have been by
my side in all my decisions and challenges, and without their support and presence,

vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1. THE ORIGINS OF BEGGARY BEFORE THE NINETEENTH
CENTURY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.1. The Relation Between Beggary and Islam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.2. Beggary as a Religious Practice: Religious Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.3. Beggary as a Part of the City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.3.1. Different Ways of Begging. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.3.2. The Beggars Guild . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1.4. The Emergence of Beggary as a Problem of the City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2. THE INCREASE OF BEGGARY IN ISTANBUL IN THE NINETEENTH
CENTURY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.1. Natural Disasters and Fires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.2. Epidemics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.3. Migration to Istanbul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.4. Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.5. Pious Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3. THE TRANSFORMATION IN THE PERCEPTION OF BEGGARY.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.1. Tracing the Tradition of Beggary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.2. Reestablishing of Public Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.3. The Formation of Police Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4. SOCIAL ASSISTANCE-CORRECTIONAL POLICIES IN THE
PERIOD OF ABDULHAMID II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.1. Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
4.1.1. Darülaceze . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
4.2. Regulations: 1890 and 1896. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
viii
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
ix
INTRODUCTION
Although beggars are a social group whose voices cannot be heard much in Ottoman
historiography, they were actually a segment of society that always existed in Ottoman
Istanbul and was noticed by both the state and society, leading to policies
being developed for them. The fact that begging requires deprivation directly associates
beggars with poverty. Within the scope of this study, the definition of Michel
Mollat, who studied poverty in the European Middle Ages, provides a foundation
for understanding poverty and beggars.
“A pauper was a person who permanently or temporarily found himself
in a situation of weakness, dependence, or humiliation, characterized
by privation of the means to power and social esteem (which means
varied with period and place): these included money, relations, influence,
power, knowledge, skill, nobility of birth, physical strength, intellectual
capacity, and personal freedom and dignity. Living from hand to mouth,
he had no chance of rising without assistance. Such a definition is broad
enough to encompass the frustrated, the misfit, the antisocial, and the
marginal. It is not limited to any one era, region, or social setting. Nor
does it exclude those who in obedience to ascetic or mystical ideals chose
voluntarily to live apart from the world or those who out of a spirit of
self-sacrifice chose to live as paupers among the poor.”1
This definition of poverty compromises the meaning of the word faqir in Arabic,
which is the most common word for "poor" and also means "indigent" or "destitute,"
but faqir is also used in Sufism to define the dependency on God’s mercy and their
denial of mundane properties.2
1Michel Mollat,The Poor in the Middle Ages: An Essay in Social History (New Haven and London: Yale
University Press, 1986), 5.
2Amy Singer, Charity in Islamic Societies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 157.
1
Therefore, although beggars were a part of the more inferior segment of society,
they were not composed of only those who begged directly because of poverty. The
relationship between begging and Islam and the fact that it causes begging practices
in different groups, as well as the continuity of these practices constitutes one of
the central issues discussed in the study. In this respect, although this study can
be evaluated within the scope of subaltern studies, it is not limited to this, as it
also aims to make sense of the relationships between Islam and begging and the
relationship between people who chose to live in poverty and beg to maintain their
livelihoods. Considering the influence of the dervishes in social events and their
effects on their followers, who are evaluated within the scope of the beggar, to what
extent these people can be considered a subaltern part of society is questioned and
still an area open of research.
On the other hand, one of the questions of the study is how the needy people, who
did not willingly choose a life of poverty and begging, were forced to do so. While
searching for the answer to this question, it is helpful to think about the poverty categories
as defined by Amy Singer, who studied Islamic societies. Singer categorizes
poverty into two: conjunctural poverty and structural poverty, which are caused
by different reasons. Conjunctural poverty or accidental poverty arises from unpredictable
events like illness, injury, war, natural disasters, epidemics, or migration.
On the other hand, structural poverty is a long-term phenomenon that can arise
from the lack of work and life-cycle stages (being elderly, youth, or childbearing).
This type of poverty also includes widows, orphans, elderly people, people with a
lack of marketable skills, or people who suffer from the effects of society’s biases
against race, age, or gender.3
In the scope of the study, the reasons that fall under the category of conjunctural
poverty are evaluated within the framework of nineteenth-century Istanbul with
the mention of the natural disasters, fires, epidemics, and migrations that occurred
throughout the century. Additionally, the possible effects of these events on the
increase in begging in the city are also examined. The implementations put in
place by the government in order to alleviate structural poverty in the nineteenth
century, the changes in these implementations, and the institutions established to
tackle structural poverty are also examined with their purposes and functions. On
the other hand, the people in the structural poverty category consisted of people
deemed appropriate to beg in the eyes of the state, which would change over time.
With the transformation in the perception of state and society, people who coped
with structural poverty would also start to become a problem in the eyes of the state,
3Singer, Charity in Islamic Societies, 151-152.
2
and policies towards beggars would be developed. In the study, while these policies
are examined through the modernization context, the centralization and institutionalization
of the state are also emphasized until the end of reign of Abdulhamid
II.
With their passive social stance, in the sense that they were not producing anything,
beggars had been seen as a subject of the exchange process and considered
a craftsman group. However, approaching the end of the nineteenth century, they
were seen as a mass that needed to be employed so that they could participate in the
production processes. As the groups that do not participate in the production processes
were seen as a moral problem, the reactions to them and the policies created
became stricter over time. Resad Ekrem Koçu defines beggars as creatures that can
do evil and even kill a man for money.4 Also, he criticizes their laziness.5 Even if in
Islamic societies, beggars were more tolerated before the nineteenth century because
of the charity culture in Islam and the fact that the begging of Sufis was seen as
legitimate,6 they started to be regarded as a serious problem in Ottoman Istanbul,
and various policies were developed to remove them from the streets.
The study tries to present an overview of Ottoman Istanbul’s beggars. In this light,
it tries to show the changes in the definition of the beggar and its relation with the
definition of the vagrant and the dervish; in the subtext of the study, it also tries
to make sense of whom the beggars consist of and how the state’s politics on the
beggars changed over time. Thus, it aims to show that while beggars were seen as a
legitimate group, over time they became a group that was intended to be excluded
from society due to many policies made for this purpose.
Literature Review
Apart from the archival documents related to beggary, the primary sources on
the subject are regulations made in the period of Abdulhamid II with the names
of Tese’ülün Men’ine Dair Nizamname (The Regulation of Preventing Beggary),
4Resad Ekrem Koçu, Istanbul Ansiklopedisi (Istanbul: Koçu Yayınları,1966), 8: 4573. “Dilenci her turlu
senaati irtikâp edebilecek mahlûktur. Istisnasız hepsinde, mazlûm görünüs bir zardtabuktur, içinde
bir canavar ruhu vardır Diline doladıgı tekerleme dısında konusmaz, göz tatlı bakısı kaybetmistir, cinsi
hırslarını kendi aralarında tatmin ederler, kadın erkek bütün iffet ve namus kaygulanndan sıyrılmıslardır.
En küçük merhamet duygusu yoktur; çocuk kıymetli bir âlettir, gözünün nurundan mahrum ederler, elini
kolunu, ayagunu, bacagını kırarlar. Dilenci, yerini ve fırsatını bulursa paraya tamah ederek adam öldürmekden
dahi çekinmez.”
5Koçu, Istanbul Ansiklopedisi, 8:4573.
6Singer, Charity in Islamic Societies, 170.
3
Darülaceze Nizamnamesi (The Hospice Regulation), Serseri Mazannai Su’ Olan
Eshas Hakkında Nizamname (The Regulation About Vagrants and Suspicious People),
7 and travel books from the respective periods. These travelogues sometimes
mention the dervishes and sometimes the city’s beggars and contain information
about their lifestyle. These narratives are fundamental in illuminating the period
before the eighteenth century, from which not much documentation about the beggars
remains.
When Clavijo8 visited Anatolia in the fifteenth century, he mentioned a village full
of dervishes living an ascetic life. His narration gives information about the lives of
dervishes determined to fall under the category of beggars in this study. Timur’s
visit to the dervishes in the narrative is essential to show the importance given to
these dervishes.9 Although the narrative does not contain any information about
the beggars of Istanbul, it is crucial in that it contains information about the ascetic
dervishes in Anatolia and reveals their prestige.
In the sixteenth century, while Busbecq10 was the ambassador of Austria, he wrote a
travel book consisting of letters that mention Istanbul. While his narration provides
various pieces of information on daily life in Istanbul, he also refers to the beggars
of the city. This narrative has an important place in terms of emphasizing the
relationship of beggars in Istanbul with religion. In the text, both dervishes who
beg for an ascetic lifestyle and utilitarian people who abuse religious feelings are
mentioned.
One of the most important sources about the beggars of Ottoman Istanbul is undoubtedly
Evliya Çelebi’s narrative.11 His treatment of beggars as a group of tradesmen
is of great importance in terms of the city’s beggar narratives. The existence
of beggars as a tradesman group creates an opportunity to get an idea about the
state’s perspective and policies towards beggars. Describing the beggars, Çelebi
gives extensive information about the beggars’ appearance and impressions. The
religious references in the narrative of the beggar and the similarity of it to the
dervish narrative appear as an indication that beggars and dervishes intertwined.
7Düstur Birinci Tertib, vol. 6. (Ankara: Devlet Matbaası, 1939); Düstur Birinci Tertib, vol.7. (Ankara:
Devlet Matbaası, 1941)
8Ruy Gonzàles Clavijo, Anadolu Orta Asya ve Timur, trans. Ömer Rıza Dogrul (Istanbul: Ses Yayınları,
1993)
9Clavijo, Anadolu Orta Asya ve Timur, 88-89.
10Ogier de Busbecq, Turkish Letters, (London: Eland, 2005)
11Evliya Çelebi, Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi: Topkapı Sarayı Bagdat 304 Yazmasının Transkripsiyonu –
Dizini vol.1 ed. Orhan Saik Gökyay (Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 1995)
4
Also, while analyzing Evliya Çelebi’s narrative, John Freely’s book12 is a guidebook
in terms of interpreting the narrative and understanding the life of Istanbul at the
time.
While researching the tradition of begging among Islamic religious groups, the study
of Karamustafa13 provides guidance in understanding which groups had a tradition
of begging, how these groups emerged, and their developmental and survival processes.
As he mentioned in his book, the sharp distinction between the official
religion believed by the elite groups and the folk beliefs of the dervishes caused the
dervishes to be viewed as the executors of the beliefs of the ignorant people. It is
not easy to disagree with Karamustafa, who criticizes the fact that dervish beliefs
are considered within the scope of folk religion and that these beliefs have never
changed.14 This is because studies on dervishes, who also have begging traditions,
are very limited. These beliefs, which are seen as heterodox and not accepted, are
fundamental in understanding society and society’s belief systems.
Ahmet Yasar Ocak’s book,15 which is one of the sources used in the study of dervish
groups, it deals with this subject. This study is vital in understanding the views and
attitudes of the state towards different groups. Another book of Ocak16 contributes
to establishing the connection between the belief in Khidr and the reason of charity
given to beggars apart from sadaqa and zakat in Islam.
Resad Ekrem Koçu’s unique work17 is a very useful resource for understanding the
cultures of Istanbul beggars and their begging systems. There is a lot of information
about different groups of beggars, the places in which they begged, and their customs.
Thanks to the extensive information in another book by Resad Ekrem Koçu18
about the külhanbeys, it is discovered that this group, which existed until the middle
of the nineteenth century, falls somewhere between the dervish, the vagrant, and the
beggar. Also, the study by Barnes19 is very beneficial in understanding the state’s
12John Freely, Evliya Çelebi’nin Istanbulu, trans. Müfit Günay (Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2003)
13Ahmet T. Karamustafa, God’s Unruly Friends: Dervish Groups in the Islamic Later Middle Period 1200-
1550 (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1994)
14Karamustafa, God’s Unruly Friends, 5.
15Ahmet Yasar Ocak, Osmanlı Toplumunda Zındıklar ve Mülhidler: XV-XVII Yüzyıllar (Istanbul: Timas
Yayınları)
16Ahmet Yasar Ocak, Islâm-Türk Inançlarında Hızır Yahut Hızır-Ilyas Kültü (Ankara: Türk Kültürünü
Arastırma Enstitüsü, 1990)
17Resad Ekrem Koçu, Istanbul Ansiklopedisi (Istanbul: Koçu Yayınları, 1966)
18Resad Ekrem Koçu, Patrona Halil (Istanbul: Dogan Kitap, 2001)
19John Robert Barnes, An Introduction to Religious Foundations in the Ottoman Empire (Leiden, New York,
Kobenhavn, Köln: E.J. Brill, 1987)
5
attitude toward dervish groups in the nineteenth century.
Necdet Sakaoglu’s article,20 one of the first publications on the subject, draws attention
to the existence of beggars from the Greek and Armenian communities and
the state’s response to them. Zeki Tekin’s article21 and Mehmet Demirtas’s two
articles22 on the subject also provide information about the attitudes that the state
applied directly to beggars in the nineteenth century in Ottoman Istanbul, based on
some narratives on archive documents about beggars. Also, the narrative of Ahmet
Refik23 about Istanbul life gives information about beggars in the city.
The proceedings of the symposium organized in 2008 on beggars include articles24
about the Ottoman beggars and the practices of the state, as well as articles about
the Abbasid period and the Republic of Turkey. In addition, it includes studies
that can enter fields such as literature, law, and sociology. Many studies on beggars
in different periods, the literature on beggars, and the perception of begging as a
problem in society serve as a guidebook for anyone interested in the subject. In this
study, apart from the writers mentioned, the articles of Ibrahim Sirin, Said Öztürk,
and Ömer Düzbakar were also used.25
Nadir Özbek, who also contributed to the above-mentioned symposium book, has
done many studies on the nineteenth-century Istanbul beggars. Özbek’s articles
and his part of the book26 deal with the state policies on beggars and vagrants and
20Necdet Sakaoglu, “Dersaadet Dilencileri ve Bir Belge,” Tarih ve Toplum 7, no.38 (1987)
21Zeki Tekin, “Osmanlı Istanbul’unda Dilencilik,” Antik Çag’dan XXI.Yüzyıla Büyük Istanbul Tarihi c.4
(Istanbul: TDV Islam Arastırmaları Merkezi, 2015)
22Mehmet Demirtas, “Istanbul’da Dilenciligi Önlemeye Yönelik Ilk Uygulamalar ve XVIII. Yüzyılda Alınan
Tedbirler,” in Bir Kent Sorunu: Dilencilik “Sorunlar ve Çözüm Yolları”, ed. Suvat Parin (Istanbul: Istanbul
Büyüksehir Belediyesi Zabıta Daire Baskanlıgı, 2008); Mehmet Demirtas, “Osmanlı Baskenti’nde Dilenciler
ve Dilencilerin Toplum Hayatına Etkileri,” OTAM (Ankara Üniversitesi Osmanlı Tarihi Arastırma
ve Uygulama Merkezi Dergisi), no. 20 (2006)
23Ahmet Refik, Hicri Onuncu Asırda Istanbul Hayatı (Istanbul: Enderun Kitabevi, 1988)
24Bir Kent Sorunu: Dilencilik “Sorunlar ve Çözüm Yolları”, ed. Suvat Parin (Istanbul: Istanbul Büyüksehir
Belediyesi Zabıta Daire Baskanlıgı, 2008)
25Ibrahim Sirin, “Avrupa ve Osmanlı Seyyahlarının Izlenimiyle Osmanlı ve Avrupa’da Dilencilik,” in Bir
Kent Sorunu: Dilencilik “Sorunlar ve Çözüm Yolları”, ed. Suvat Parin (Istanbul: Istanbul Büyüksehir
Belediyesi Zabıta Daire Baskanlıgı, 2008); Said Öztürk, “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Dilenciligin Önlenmesi,” in
Bir Kent Sorunu: Dilencilik “Sorunlar ve Çözüm Yolları”, ed. Suvat Parin (Istanbul: Istanbul Büyüksehir
Belediyesi Zabıta Daire Baskanlıgı, 2008); Ömer Düzbakar, “Osmanlı Devleti’nin Dilencilere Bakısı,” in
Bir Kent Sorunu: Dilencilik “Sorunlar ve Çözüm Yolları”, ed. Suvat Parin (Istanbul: Istanbul Büyüksehir
Belediyesi Zabıta Daire Baskanlıgı, 2008)
26Nadir Özbek, “‘Beggars’ and ‘Vagrants’ in Ottoman State Policy and Public Discourse, 1876-1914,” Middle
Eastern Studies 45, no. 5 (September 2009); Nadir Özbek, “Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nda Dilencilere
Yönelik Devlet Politikaları ve Kamusal Söylemin Degisimi,” in Bir Kent Sorunu: Dilencilik “Sorunlar ve
Çözüm Yolları”, ed. Suvat Parin (Istanbul: Istanbul Büyüksehir Belediyesi Zabıta Daire Baskanlıgı, 2008);
Nadir Özbek, Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nda Sosyal Devlet: Siyaset, Iktidar, Mesruiyet 1876-1914 (Istanbul:
Iletisim Yayınları, 2020)
6
touches on the social state formation in the Ottoman state as well as the establishment
of Darülaceze (Hospice). His studies are also beneficial in terms of evaluating
the archival documents related to the subject. In addition, the newspaper news he
included in his work provides essential data in understanding the perspective of the
Ottoman elite towards beggars.
Outline of the Study
In the first chapter, after the Qur’an’s perspective on begging is explained, the
begging practices of dervish groups living ascetic lifestyles are examined and the
existence of these groups in Istanbul is questioned. In addition, other beggar groups
in Istanbul are attempted to be explained using different narratives. The beggary
culture in Istanbul was shown by mentioning different beggar groups in the city.
The inclusion of beggars in the system as a tradesmen group is attempted to be
understood and interpreted. Also, it aims to give a general perspective on the
beggars of Istanbul and the perspective of the state toward the beggars before the
nineteenth century.
The second chapter investigates the reasons that could have caused the increase in
begging by considering the population increase in the city during the nineteenth
century. At this point, the epidemics, natural disasters, fires, and migration to the
city that took place in the city during the nineteenth century are mentioned. It is
discussed how many people may have suffered from these events. Apart from this,
the possible effects of these changes on society are attempted to be examined within
the scope of begging by mentioning the change in the balances in the economy and
the deterioration and centralization in the foundation system.
In the third chapter, the change in the way beggars were viewed starting at the end
of the eighteenth century is discussed. The existence of groups begging for religious
reasons is questioned, and the dervish-beggar relationship is reconsidered in light
of changes in this period. Beggar groups can also be classified as dervish groups,
and dervishes who can be perceived as beggars are reevaluated. The centralization
efforts of the state also affected the beggars. Thus, the Beggars Directorate directly
affiliated to the state was established. In this process, when it became difficult to
distinguish beggars and vagrants from each other, policies to provide aid for beggars
in need and security policies designed for beggars who were considered vagrants
started to change. The new security and aid policies developed as a result of filling
the social order gap in the city after the abolition of the Janissaries, and pious
7
foundations which had already lost their power were centralized and reinterpreted
within the scope of beggars.
In the fourth chapter, focusing on the period of Abdulhamid II, the policies towards
beggars or orphaned children who could potentially become beggars are evaluated as
both aid and correctional policies. In the eyes of the state, it is seen that the definition
of the beggar is differentiated as working and non-workable, able to be educated
and correctable or not, and different solutions were produced for each type. Organizations
established for this purpose are evaluated. A separate section is devoted
to the Darülaceze (Hospice), which was established directly for beggars, including
an examination of the institution. In addition, Tese’ülün Men’ine Dair Nizamname
(The Regulation of Preventing Beggary), which was published in 1890 but not put
into effect, the regulation published in 1896 with the same name, Darülaceze Nizamnamesi
(The Hospice Regulation), and Serseri Mazannai Su’ Olan Eshas Hakkında
Nizamname (The Regulation About Vagrants and Suspicious People), which were
all published in this period, are considered as the laws created for beggars.
8
1. THE ORIGINS OF BEGGARY BEFORE THE NINETEENTH
CENTURY
1.1 The Relation Between Beggary and Islam
In various societies, giving alms to beggars has been a source of pride. For example,
in Buddhist societies, it has been the responsibility of non-clerics to bring food to
clergy members who stay in monasteries and are not interested in worldly affairs.
Also, beggar sects are found in both Christian and Muslim societies.27 In the case of
Islam, examples of begging can be found in different forms. For instance, dervishes
may beg as a part of their religious journey, and people also beg because of their
needs, which can be seen in almost every culture. However, before all of them, what
Islam says about beggary and beggars is essential to understand the way the public
views beggars in Islamic societies.
In the Qur’an, there are verses related to beggary. In two different parts, beggars
have a right to Muslims’ wealth, so it supports charity to the needy. One verse
reads, “consistently performing their prayers; and who give the rightful share of
their wealth to the beggar and the poor”28 Another reads, “they used to sleep only
little in the night, and pray for forgiveness before dawn. And in their wealth, there
was a rightful share ‘fulfilled’ for the beggar and the poor.”29 It also advises behaving
courteously to beggars by writing “So do not oppress the orphan, nor repulse the
beggar.”30
Additionally, the Qur’an determines who should be given charity. “Alms-tax is only
27Ismail Coskun and Alev Erkilet, Istanbul Halkının Dilencilik Olgusuna Bakıs Açısı (Istanbul: Istanbul
Ticaret Odası Yayınları, 2010), 15.
28The Clear Quran: A Thematic English Translation, trans. Mustafa Khattab (Canada: Siraj Publications,
US: Furqaan Foundation, Internationally: Darussalam, 2017), Al-Ma’ârij 23,24,25.
29The Clear Quran, Adh-Dhâriyât 17,18,19.
30The Clear Quran, Ad-Duhâ 9,10.
9
for the poor and the needy, for those employed to administer it, for those whose
hearts are attracted to the faith, for freeing slaves, for those in debt, for Allah’s
cause, and for needy travellers. This is an obligation from Allah. And Allah is All-
Knowing, All-Wise.”31 The people who follow the path of Allah that are mentioned
in this verse are also defined in another verse: “Charity is for the needy who are too
engaged in the cause of Allah to move about in the land for work. Those unfamiliar
with their situation will think they are not in need of charity because they do not beg.
You can recognize them by their appearance. They do not beg people persistently.
Whatever you give in charity is certainly well known to Allah.”32
Apart from these verses that directly mention beggary, there are some rules and
beliefs about charity and its implementation. According to Islamic legal texts, it
is obligatory for a person to work in an occupation that allows him to provide for
himself and his family and enables him to pay his debts. It is a sin (haram) for a
person who can work to take a share from someone else’s labor and beg.33 This
dilemma creates a difficult situation for a Muslim who meets a beggar on the street,
making them question whether the beggar is a sinner or someone who has a right
to beg in line with Islam. This will be questioned not only by individuals but also
by the state, which has the right to distinguish the different types of beggars.
In Islam, there are also duties to be performed by believers, which include zakat,
fitr, and sadaqa.34 These duties also affect the view of Muslims towards beggars.35
To do charity work in the name of zak¯at is one of the five pillars of Islam; there is
also fitr and sadaqa, so giving alms is crucial in Islam. In Islamic societies, people
give charity to needy people as a requirement in their religion, but people who give
sadaqa or zak¯at as a part of their religious duty in fact satisfy the fundamental
needs of extremely poor people as well. This requirement, from another point of
view, may have also caused begging to become widespread by creating confidence
in people who know that their needs will be met.
Another determinant effect on the Muslim’s view of the beggar is the belief in Khidr,
which is based on the verses of Al-Kahf in the Qur’an, and is a common belief even
31The Clear Quran, At-Tawbah 60.
32The Clear Quran, Al-Baqarah 273.
33Cem Dogan, “Kırım Harbi’nden I.Dünya Savasına Istanbul’da Dilencilik Olgusuna Bir Bakıs (1853-1914),”
Avrasya Uluslararası Arastırmalar Dergisi 3, no. 6 (Ocak 2015): 152.
34Zak¯at is an obligation for Muslims, which means they have to donate one-fortieth of their property or
money every year to those in need. Fitr is a particular form of charity given during Ramadan. Sadaqa
means charity voluntarily.
35Dogan, “Kırım Harbi’nden,” 151.
10
today among Muslims.36 This belief involves a spiritual being named Khidr who
can examine people by disguising himself as a crude, mean, and poor person. Even
if a person later realizes that the person he did not help was Khidr, the damage is
done. This belief causes people not to turn away those in bad shape who are asking
for help.37
The view on the act of beggary and beggars in particular sections of the Qur’an
was briefly mentioned previously. The active use of charity in religion and the rules
mentioned in the Qur’an about who can beg have created different interpretations
among particular religious sects. Significantly, allowing begging for those in the
way of Allah creates open-ended interpretations by different sects and has led to
centuries-old traditions and different forms of worship.
1.2 Beggary as a Religious Practice: Religious Orders
Before discussing those who beg for religious reasons, it will help to examine how
these groups were formed and where their thought bases came from. Ahmet Karamustafa,
who has written various work about religious sects, says that different
interpretations between groups regarding whether this world or the afterlife is more
important to Islam underlies this distinction. A strong relationship can be established
between the increase of worldly tendencies in the Islamic world and the establishment
and strengthening of the Islamic empire. The increase in the economic
power of Muslims can also be considered a factor in this context. With the compilation
of Shari’ah and the institutionalization of religion, the zâhir (apparent)
has been made superior to the bâtın (sense), which was more evident in the ninth
century. This situation caused a major reaction and reignited the view that Islam
is more related to the afterlife than this world. It has also been influential in the
formation of new tendencies that reject the world and its importance.38 The groups
that beg for religious reasons appear at this point. They regarded this world as
insignificant and did not want to keep up with the order. They maintained their
lives by begging while rejecting mundane life.
Some groups searched for a way out at the intersection of these contrasting interpretations
of Islam. This intersection was Sufism (tasavvuf ), which supports the
36Ocak, Islâm-Türk Inançlarında, 43.
37Ocak, Islâm-Türk Inançlarında, 110.
38Karamustafa, God’s Unruly Friends, 25-28.
11
acceptance of the world as it exists and as God created. Thus, it esteems the world
because of God. Otherwise, it perceives society as a test of a person rather than
something to be avoided.39 From this point, there were religious sects begging for
religious reasons and living among people in social life, because they believed that
society is a test and they have to avoid it while they are in it. The institutionalization
of religious sects with dervish lodges and zawiyas has also effectively spread
spiritual life in harmony with mundane life. Dervishes preferred an active life in
society instead of a reclusive life and took it as a duty to direct people toward a
religious life (irsat).40
Islamic mysticism emerged as a passive reaction to the political and social changes
during the first centuries of Islam as an ascetic lifestyle. However, this reaction
started to become institutionalized in the twelfth century.41 It is a view that asserts
that human beings must pass certain levels to reach the divine truth, that is, the
level of the perfect human being. Those who differentiate between sects by means
of the scale of orthodoxy versus heterodoxy generally tend to consider such mystic
groups as heterodox. However, considering the evolution of sects over time, it is
not easy to distinguish which group is heterodox.42 Even the ulama’s opinion, who
regarded Sufism as a separatist religion within Islam and regarded Sufis as atheists
(zındık) and heretics (mülhid), changed over the centuries, and Sufism began to be
considered as a profound and more accepted dimension of Islam. 43
Sufi or dervish lifestyle presented a very different lifestyle in the case of social life.44
Dervishes identified themselves with the way of opposition to the social order. They
were not looking for an alternative order or offering a new one. They did not intend
to correct society, and they instead solely denied all rules and cultural structures.45
For example, the memoirs of Clavijo46 who visited Anatolia in the late fourteenth
century contain information about Deliler Kenti (Insane’s City, today’s Deli Baba)
in Erzurum. Ascetic (Zahid) dervishes who abandoned worldly life had settled in the
39Karamustafa, God’s Unruly Friends, 29.
40Resul Ay, Anadolu’da Dervis ve Toplum: 13-15. Yüzyıllar (Istanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2008), 123-125.
41Ocak, Osmanlı Toplumunda, 171.
42Mustafa Kara, Türk Tasavvuf Tarihi Arastırmaları: Tarikatlar, Tekkeler, Seyhler (Istanbul: Dergah Yayınları,
2005), 50.
43Ocak, Osmanlı Toplumunda, 172.
44Ay, Anadolu’da Dervis, 80.
45Karamustafa, God’s Unruly Friends, 13.
46The chamberlain of Castilla and Leon ruler Enrique 3rd. He died in 1413 in Madrid. Clavijo, Anadolu
Orta Asya ve Timur, 7.
12
whole village. It is mentioned that these dervishes were in ragged clothes and were
bald and without beards, and also that they sang hymns with their tambourines
and that the local peasants regarded them as saints.47
Ottoman mystic life in part constitutes a continuation of the Anatolian Seljuk and
principalities period. In contrast, new mystic currents and sects also invaded Anatolia
through Iran and Arab countries.48These included Yesevi, Haydari, and Qalandari
dervishes who came from Iran, Khorasan, and Azerbaijan in the thirteenth century
due to the Mongol attacks.49 The migrations that emerged between the years
1200-1500 were separate from the previous examples of Islamic mobility. With a
profound interpretation of the poverty doctrine, the new witnesses exalted the principles
of begging, traveling, and celibacy in an unprecedented way. While begging
and traveling remained the rule, the appeal of community life started to entice
dervishes to move away from the solitary lifestyle that wise men in previous generations
preferred. Thus, dervishes spent the rest of the year in the relative comfort
of settled life in their seasonal lodges, wandering and begging.50
The social visibility of the new wisdom of religiosity became apparent first in the
early thirteenth century. One of the two widespread movements was Qalandari,
which appeared in Syria and Egypt under the leadership of noble Iranian leaders,
most notably Jamal al-Din Savi. He started the tradition known as “four blows”
or “four cuts” (chahar zarb), which meant shaving one’s hair, beard, mustache, and
eyebrows.51 Additionally, they rejected any effort to acquire property and preferred
voluntary poverty.52 The other common movement was Haydarîye, which emerged
in Iran as a result of the activities of its founder, Qutb Al-Din Haydar, who gave
the movement its name. Iron necklaces, bracelets, sashes, anklets, rings worn on the
ear and genitals were the distinguishing features of this group.53Both movements
spread rapidly to India and Anatolia.54
Afterward, many other groups emerged in Anatolia, such as Rum Abdals, which
were distinguished by their unique traditions in the fifteenth century. Otman Baba,
47Clavijo, Anadolu Orta Asya ve Timur, 88.
48Ocak, Osmanlı Toplumunda, 172.
49“Bektâsî Fahri,” Keskül, no.31 (2014): 70.
50Karamustafa, God’s Unruly Friends, 2-3.
51Karamustafa, God’s Unruly Friends, 39-40.
52Sadullah Gülten, Heterodoks Dervisler ve Alevîler (Ankara: Gece Kitaplıgı, 2018), 39.
53Karamustafa, God’s Unruly Friends, 44.
54Karamustafa, God’s Unruly Friends, 3.
13
who lived in Anatolia, was one of the famous members of this group. The Bektashis,
who would later become very influential in Ottoman history, were influenced by the
Rum Abdals at many points, became one of the inheritors of the idea of the unity of
existence (vahdet-i vücud), and produced works in this direction.55 It is known that
the following dervish groups had existed in Anatolia since the end of the fifteenth
century: the Jamis, which was established by Ahmad Jâm known as Zhandah’ Pl
and was famous for their music, for growing their hair and mustaches and shaving
their beards56; Shams-ı Tabrîzîs, which was the followers of Shams of Tabrz,57 was
a spiritual mentor of Rum, the founder of Mevlevis58; and lastly the Bektashis.59
Although there is not much information about their existence in the fourteenth
century, Barak Baba, Kaygusuz Abdal, and Sultân Sücâ‘ were among the essential
representatives of these kinds of religious orders in Anatolia.60
The views of these groups differed from other interpretations of Islam. They belittled
and excluded social civilization.61 For example, they did not find it right to work in
profitable jobs but their need for food subjected them to be dependent on others’
generosity and led them to beg. It is known that the founders of these orders, such
as Jamal al-Din Savi, Qutb Al-Din Haydar, and Otman Baba refused even basic
properties of dervishes such as wearing clothes for a long time so, they preferred
to linger within entirely straitened circumstances. Especially Otman Baba strongly
rejected offers of property, money, and all other charities. However, this attitude
changed in later generations and as a consequence, beggary and seeking charity
on a regular basis became a rule. After the establishment of the Qalandari and
Abdal lodges, they acquired a budget while being subjected to political supervision.
However, even in these conditions, they never put away to believe the necessity and
virtue of beggary.62
Objects commonly found in dervish groups are clothing made of wool or felt, special
headgear, bags, spoons, wands, belts, bells, axes, lamps or candles, razors, needles,
55Ocak, Osmanlı Toplumunda, 181.
56Karamustafa, God’s Unruly Friends, 80-81.
57This group is not a group formed while Shams was alive. It is a movement formed later by those who
supported Shams, except those who followed his son Sultan Veled after Rumi’s death. The members of
this group were travelers and beggars that believed that everyone, men and women, was a mirror through
which they could see their true essence. Karamustafa, God’s Unruly Friends, 81-82.
58Karamustafa, God’s Unruly Friends, 81-82.
59Karamustafa, God’s Unruly Friends, 65.
60Karamustafa, God’s Unruly Friends, 62.
61Karamustafa, God’s Unruly Friends, 9-10.
62Karamustafa, God’s Unruly Friends, 14-15.
14
flints, musical instruments, and begging bowls (keskûl-i fukara).63 It is known that
the bowl made from the fruit of the sea coconut tree is a tradition that started in
Iran and then became widespread. This bowl used while begging (selmâna çıkmak)
has also become a symbol of begging purposes. The person shows his need for God
by using this bowl. He overcomes his pride, blunts his ego, and progresses towards
becoming a perfect human being.64
Dervishes were criticized by the ulama and generally literate Islamic segments, and
they were seen as the rabble of society.65 Even Yunus Emre, Kaygusuz Abdal,
Otman Baba, and Hacı Bektas, who were among the most famous representatives,
have been criticized in many ways.66 In the history of Nisancı Mehmed Pasha,
Qalandaris are described as on the wrong path. This group that does not pray, does
not fast, and does not obey Shari’ah is always full of malice in their daily work.
They spend time in liquor assemblies, cheating, and being addicted to substances
like opium.67
These dervishes generally presented a narrative that highlights the sense of religion
and has a coherent doctrine that includes old beliefs. It is predictable that probably,
for this reason, they got along better with nomadic or semi-nomadic groups, and
they chose these groups for their duty to spread religion.68 For example, Turkmens
who protected their old culture and had common points with these dervish groups,
which arose from following a nomadic lifestyle and their relations with Qalandari
caused dervishes to gain an essential role; they were on the front line in social
movements such as the Babai Revolt, Torlak Kemal’s rebellion—known as Sheikh
Bedreddin’s right-hand man—and even in the Jelali Rebellions.69 Qalandaris have
always been a matter of concern for the Seljuk and Ottoman administrations since
they displayed anti-authoritarian attitudes and challenged the norms accepted by
society.
After the Sheikh Bedreddin rebellion in 1416, the Ottoman Empire’s perspective
towards these religious orders started to change, and they were attempted to be
63Karamustafa, God’s Unruly Friends, 14.
64“Keskül.” Keskül, no.31 (2014): 72-73, 73.
65Karamustafa, God’s Unruly Friends, 5.
66Ay, Anadolu’da Dervis, 127.
67Nisancı Mehmed Pasa, Hadisât: Osmanlı Tarihi, ed. Enver Yasarbas (Istanbul: Kamer Nesriyat ve
Dagıtım, 1983), 189-190.
68Ay, Anadolu’da Dervis, 127-131.
69Sirin, “Avrupa ve Osmanlı,” 68.
15
kept under control. In the sixteenth century, with the Safavid propaganda’s fear,
the state put the Bayrâmiyye Melâmis, some branches of the Halvetis, and the
Qalandaris under pressure.70 As a result of this pressure, the Qalandari dervishes
gradually had to join the Bektashis and the Mevlevis, which were legitimate in the
eyes of the state.71
Before this process began, it was possible to encounter in the cadastral record
books of Istanbul in 1546 registrations of lodges of Qalandaris in some pious foundations
such as Vakf-ı Begis Bacı, Vakf-ı Mevlânâ Mehmed B. Hamzat’ül-Imâm,
Vakf-ı Mehmed Sübası B. Mûsâ, and Vakf-ı Kara Ali B. Abdullah Agay-ı Gılmân-ı
Yeniçeriyân-ı ‘Acemî.72 Thus, it is possible to come across the existence of Qalandaris
in Istanbul, not only individually but also institutionally.
While the people of Istanbul learned formal Islamic rules from the madrasah scholars
in the mosque, they spent their daily lives, human relations, professional life,
and personal lives influenced by religious orders. Despite the didactic aspect of
madrasahs, dervish lodges offered people different daily lifestyles and different options.
They were located opposite or next to the governing mechanism formed by
the mosque and the palace but in a socially integrated position.73
This diversity of orders came under the influence of governing mechanisms in time.
The supporters of specific orders by the sultans gave power to the distribution of
orders such as Hurufi and Qalandari, whose affiliation was regarded as heterodox.
Such movements infiltrated the religious orders such as Mevlevi and Bektashi, which
were under the state’s control, and their belief systems preserved their existence
within these social organizations.74 After the conquest of Istanbul, the more common
religious orders in Istanbul were the Mevlevis and the Bektashis.
The Bektashis emerged as a different urban Bektashism from the more rural and
peripheral position of rural Alevism thanks to the Babagân branch of Balım Sultan,
besides affecting daily life and the Janissaries.75 First, the Bektashi culture was
brought to the region during the conquest of Üsküdar and its surroundings by Rum
70Ocak, Osmanlı Toplumunda, 179.
71Gülten, Heterodoks Dervisler, 41.
72Ömer Lütfi Barkan and Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi, Istanbul Vakıfları Tahrir Defteri 953 (1546) Tarihli (Istanbul:
Baha Matbaası, 1970), 155,156,166; Sadullah Gülten, Heterodoks Dervisler, 41.
73Ekrem Isın, Everyday Life in Istanbul: Social Historical Essays on People, Culture and Spatial Relations
(Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2001), 29.
74Isın, Everyday Life in Istanbul, 34.
75Isın, Everyday Life in Istanbul, 30-31.
16
Abdals and dervishes. After the conquest of Istanbul, Bektashi activities increased.
The settlement of Bektashism in the city took place during the Bayezid II period,
as seen in other sects. The official and definite establishment of the link between
the Janissaries and Bektashism in the sixteenth century brought the quarry-sect
integration in Istanbul until 1826.76 Bektashism was banned after the abolition of
the Janissaries in 1826. The Bektashis clandestinely tried to continue their activities
under the label of Naqshbandi order. The ban and pressure of the state started to
decrease after 1832.77
The Mevlevis especially influenced the upper layer of society and non-Muslim communities.
78 The opinions of Mevlevi dervishes—who are not considered among
groups to be begging for religious reasons—about beggary is explained in harmony
with the verses of the Qur’an. While Sunni sheikhs and dervishes tended to escape
from all jobs that brought money, people who worked for their livelihoods were often
praised and recommended to work.79 Ankaravî80 praises work and reviles begging
and says that the teachings of Rumi are also in this manner. On the other hand,
those following the way of Allah and those who engage in worship should be helped
by other Muslims, and their expenses should be covered. This should be done without
causing them to beg. It also condemns those who beg in Mevlevi clothing. If
the needy cannot express his need, he is praised; if he says it, it is a shame.81
1.3 Beggary as a Part of the City
In Istanbul, there were not only dervishes begging for religious reasons, but also
there were people begging because they could not earn money due to physical or
mental disabilities, because they did not have a job, or simply because they did not
want to work and preferred begging. However, it was not legal for all of them to
76Fahri Maden, “Bektâsîlik ve Bektâsîler,” Keskül, no.36 (2015): 75.
77Maden, “Bektâsîlik ve Bektâsîler,” 76.
78Ay, Anadolu’da Dervis, 131; Isın, Everyday Life in Istanbul, 29.
79Ay, Anadolu’da Dervis, 81.
80Ankaravî (?/1631), whose father was a member of the Bayramî sect and who grew up with the education
of this sect, became a Mevlevi. Upon the order he received from Konya, he continued his postnisîn duty
(the seyh of a lodge) he took over from Avni Dede in Galata Mevlevi Lodge in Istanbul for 21 years. Ismail
Ankaravî, Minhâcu’l-Fukara: Fakirlerin Yolu, ed. Saadettin Ekici (Istanbul: Insan Yayınları, 1996), 11;
Erhan Yetik, “Ankaravî, Ismâil Rusûhî” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Islâm Ansiklopedisi, vol 3 (Istanbul:
TDV Islâm Arastırmaları Merkezi, 1991), 211-212.
81Ankaravî, Minhâcu’l-Fukara, 197-198.
17
beg. Begging, which has not been prevented in Istanbul for a long time, was at least
desired to be taken under control before the Tanzimat period. Istanbul beggars were
accepted as a tradesmen group, and a guild and a stewardship was established with
the name of Beggar Stewardship (Dilenci Kethüdalıgı or Seele Kethüdalıgı). Their
center was in Eyüp Mosque.82 A steward was representing the beggars at Sublime
Porte, but later it became a Beggar’s Representative (Dilenci Kethüdası).83 The
daily responsibility of running the guild lay with the kethüda. A guild master
attained this office by a complex process, the first step of which in many cases
involved ensuring at least the passive consent of his fellow guildsmen. Recording
the candidacy in the qadi’s office was the next step; the judge, or his deputy (naib),
would then inform the central government of the application.84
People who had no one to be looked after, who were too old to work at a job, who
were disabled to work, and whose legs, arms, and feet were cut off in an accident
were allowed to beg. Although there were significant disruptions in practice, beggars
had to operate in a certain order in the Ottoman capital. The order in question did
not allow them to beg indiscriminately, nor was it possible for everybody to beg.
People who had a right to beg in the eyes of the state were taking licenses (cer kagıdı
or dilenci tezkeresi) from the head of beggars who was appointed by the Janissary
that was responsible for Istanbul security. It was strictly forbidden for those who
did not have licenses to beg. Beggars were considered tradesmen and were affiliated
with a guild. Those who begged even though they were not affiliated with the guild
would have acted against the order.85
People who were deemed appropriate to beg and to have a right to take a begging
license by the state were recorded in the dilenci defteri. The original notebooks
were found in qadis of Istanbul, Eyüp, Galata, and Üsküdar. Other copies of these
notebooks were found in the hands of the subası (the head of local police).86 For
example, a notebook from 1736 recorded non-Muslim beggars including some priests
and monks in Istanbul. In the notebook, information was given about the people’s
hometown, where they lived, their social status (some were stated to be slaves), and
their health status. The fact that beggars were listed separately according to where
they come from is an indication that importance was given to whether they were
82Resad Ekrem Koçu, Istanbul Ansiklopedisi vol.8 (Istanbul: Koçu Yayınları, 1966), 4578.
83Demirtas, “Osmanlı Baskenti’nde,” 88.
84Suraiya N. Faroqhi, ed. The Cambridge History of Turkey Volume 3 The Later Ottoman Empire, 1603-1839
(NewYork: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 350.
85Koçu, Istanbul Ansiklopedisi, 8:4574; Demirtas, “Osmanlı Baskenti’nde,” 84.
86Koçu, Istanbul Ansiklopedisi, 8:4577.
18
from Istanbul or not. At the end of the document it was stated that these beggars,
who were non-Muslims, can only beg in front of their churches without disturbing
the public.87
1.3.1 Different Ways of Begging
Istanbul beggars differed from each other in terms of their begging methods, styles
of manner, dress codes, and the places they were begging. One of the groups of
beggars called the Iskatçılar or Mortçular was known for begging in the graveyard
during the burial part of funerals. They liked the periods when there were lots of
funerals because their earnings increased, and they called these periods “leaf fall,
stone heat, law months” (yaprak dökümü, tas kızgınlıgı, kanun ayları). Beggars
from Söküklü, Çıtçıt, Kaledibi, and Silivrikapı quarters used to wear armbands of
different designs on their arms to the funerals of rich people. They would enter the
crowd and take money from the funeral owners by extending their arms. Since they
had arms covered in different colors and patterns each time, funeral owners would
often give alms, mistaking them for different people.88
Sebilciler used to beg in front of public fountains. Kasideciler used to sing hymns and
odes close to the evening prayer and wander between the neighborhoods in crowded
places such as the Grand Bazaar and Mahmutpasa and beg.89 They were also
reading eulogiums at the mosques and asking for money from the people who came
to the mosque for worship. Those who begged in front of mosques were a separate
group from the kasideciler. Therefore, these kasideciler had different characteristics
and styles. While their dressing, manners, and behavior were not similar to average
beggars, their reading of odes for begging in a religious guise compelled people to
give them alms.90
When these beggary groups and their begging practices were analyzed, the inseparable
relationship between beggars and religion was revealed once again. The prevalence
of begging in front of sanctuaries is a clear indicator of this relationship.
Begging during a funeral is actually the use of people’s belief that the good works,
87BOA C.BLD 7597/152, 24 S 1149 (July 4, 1736) , cited also in Demirtas, “Istanbul’da Dilenciligi Önlemeye,”
177; Tekin, “Osmanlı Istanbul’unda Dilencilik,” 455; Özbek, “Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nda Dilencilere
Yönelik,” 20.
88Ugur Göktas, “Dilenciler,” Dünden Bugüne Istanbul Ansiklopedisi (Istanbul: Kültür Bakanlıgı and Tarih
Vakfı, 1994), 3:53-54.
89Göktas, “Dilenciler,” 3:53-54.
90Demirtas, “Osmanlı Baskenti’nde,” 89-91.
19
that the prayers made after death reach the deceased in the afterlife. So, people
were giving alms on behalf of their deceased relatives. While begging along with the
hymns sung by the kasideciler shows the relation of religion, it brings to mind the
practice of the dervishes begging.
Similarly, a dervish group with the name of goygoycu was famous for their tunes
coming from their reed flutes while they walked around graveyards. It is said that
even birds become silent when they started to perform. The graveyards were frequented
by beggars, making it difficult to separate these groups from one another.
The graveyards were also places where bullies quarreled and hobos drank.91 The
difficulty in making the distinction between vagrants and beggars, which will be
discussed more in the later parts of the thesis, may be due to their location in the
same places.
Busbecq came to Istanbul in the sixteenth century, and he mentioned beggars of
Istanbul in his book. It draws attention to the connection between beggars and
religion. He also mentions beggars carrying flags in their hands, similar to the one
in Çelebi’s narrative which will be mentioned in a further part of this chapter.
“Now that I have mentioned Turkish beggars, it will not be out of place
to give some account of them. They are far rarer than amongst us and
are usually claimants to various kinds of sanctity, who wander from place
to place, begging under the cloak of religion. Many of them pretend to
be weak-minded as an excuse for their begging; for persons of this kind
always find favour with the Turks, who think that those who are halfwitted
and crazy, being certainly predestined to go to heaven, are to
be regarded as saints during their life on earth. Another class consists
of Arabs, who carry about standards, under which they declare that
their ancestors fought in order to extend the Moslem religion. They do
not beg everywhere or from everybody, but force upon passers-by in the
evening a tallow candle or a lemon or a pomegranate, demanding twice
or three times the proper price, apparently preferring to sell something
rather than to incur the disgrace of begging. But those who amongst us
are beggars, with them are slaves, and if a slave becomes incapacitated
his master still feeds him. . . ”92
91Ergin Taner, Osmanlı Esnafı Ticari ve Sosyal Hayat: Belge ve Fotograflarla, (Ankara: Halkbank, Türkiye
Esnaf ve Sanaatkarlar Kredi ve Kefalet Kooperatifleri Birlikleri Merkez Birligi, 2009), 232.
92Busbecq, Turkish Letters, 69.
20
In this part where Busbecq describes the beggars of Istanbul, the inseparable relationship
between beggars and religion is revealed. Also, an example is given about
those who beg by misusing their religious beliefs. Finally, it has been said that
non-Muslim beggars were slaves in the eyes of the Muslim public. Based on this
discourse, it can be interpreted that there is a superior-subordinate relationship
between beggars depending on religion.
1.3.2 The Beggars Guild
Before mentioning more about the beggary, it would be useful to explain the guild
system in the Ottoman Empire. The foundations of the Ottoman guild system
possessed close links to the dervish orders, to the urban brotherhoods known in the
fourteenth-century Anatolia as the Ahis93 and the idea of fütüvvet, which is based on
the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the prophet. The meaning of the word is generosity
and hospitality, but it had religious meaning in time.94 It is also essential at this
point that Ahi Evran, the founder of the Ahi organization, is portrayed as a sufistic
person and likened to a dervish by Gülsehri.95 The main aim of the Ahi organization
was to balance the relations between the rich and the poor, the producer and the
consumer, labor and capital, and the public and the state.96 The formation of
beggars as a guild becomes less surprising when examining Islam’s influence on the
guild system. For example, according to Kuseyri, fütüvvet means not running away
when seeing the beggar or help seekers coming.97 Thus, the aim of guilds includes
helping people in society who need and get economic balance.
The Ottoman-Ahi relationship started when Sheikh Edebali, one of the Ahi sheikhs,
married his daughter to Osman Gazi. In the period of Mehmed II, it became an
organization that regulated the administrative affairs of the tradesmen unions, which
ceased to be a political power. However, on the other hand, it has been observed
that the effects of understanding continued for a long time.98
93Faroqhi, ed. The Cambridge History of Turkey, 354.
94Resul Köse, Nuran Koltuk and Erdinç Sahin, Dünden Bugüne Tarihi Istanbul Çarsıları (Istanbul: Türkiye
Turing ve Otomobil Kurumu, 2018), 33.
95Ilhan Sahin, “Ahî Evran.” TDV Islâm Ansiklopedisi. (Istanbul: TDV Islâm Arastırmaları Merkezi, 1988),
530.
96Resul Köse, Nuran Koltuk and Erdinç Sahin, Dünden Bugüne, 34-35.
97Abdulkerim Kuseyrî, Kuseyrî Risâlesi, (Istanbul: Dergah Yayınları, 1981), 375.
98Köse, Koltuk and Sahin, Dünden Bugüne, 37.
21
The aim of the guilds in the Ottoman Empire was to solve the problems of daily
activities of economic life with as little disruption as possible.99 It was necessary
to pass the stages of apprenticeship and journeymanship in order to reach the mastership
degree that expresses competence in a branch. By becoming a master, they
would gain the right to open an independent shop and to do business. Professional
competence was not enough to become a master; they also had to gain moral competence.
Everybody who completed these processes had a belt tied around their
waist by the kethüda in a ceremony where the city’s dignitaries also participated,
which was called sed baglama.100
Although each tradesmen association had its own rules, there were also common
rules. One of these rules was that every tradesman had to market the goods they
produced or traded in certain places or to sell them through operators. The reason
for this was not to cause unfair competition between associations.101
Although there is no information about the fact that the beggars guild held sed
baglama ceremonies, there was also a superior-subordinate relationship between beggars
similar to the master-apprentice relationship. Besides, they also beg without
causing unfair competition. Since beggars could not determine their own places to
beg, they had to beg in the spaces given to them, though it is clear that not every
place is equally profitable in terms of begging. Also, it was necessary to have
a superior-subordinate relationship when distributing places more suitable to beg
among beggars. Non-Muslim beggars should beg in front of their churches102 and
Muslim beggars were placed in determined locations in the city, and they also were
begging in front of mosques.
Evliya Çelebi’s narrative about rite of passage, which tells about beggary guilds
and can be used as evidence for the relationship between religion and begging, is
very relevant to the subject. He based his story on the observations of Murad
IV’s regiment in 1638 in preparation for the Baghdad Campaign.103 He includes
beggars in the al-Faslü’s-salis part, which is one of the subsections of the narrative.
This section differs from other subsections as the section includes 35 guilds such as
sheikhs, imams, dervishes, Sufis, qadıs, mullahs, and the managers and attendants
99Köse, Koltuk and Sahin, Dünden Bugüne, 40.
100M. Asım Yediyıldız, “Osmanlı Esnaf Teskilatı,” in Osmanlı Cografyasında Çarsı Kültürü ve Çarsılar,
coordinator of project Aziz Elbas and Ahmet Erdönmez, ed. Sezai Sevim (Bursa: Bursa Büyüksehir
Belediyesi, 2011), 19.
101Yediyıldız, “Osmanlı Esnaf Teskilatı,” 19.
102Demirtas, “Istanbul’da Dilenciligi Önlemeye,” 179.
103Freely, Evliya Çelebi’nin Istanbulu, 79.
22
of the mosques.104 The mention of beggars in this section by Evliya Çelebi may be
a clue to the relationship between beggars and religious sects. For example, John
Freely approaches beggars while he mentions Çelebi’s narrative as a sheikh group.105
Evliya describes beggars by writing that:
“Each of them wears sweaters which are made of wool and hold colorful
flags in their hands, and imams made of straw and persimmon fiber on
their heads, with the name of Ya Fettah, the blind people cling to each
other’s shoulders, some of them are naked, some of them are lame, some
are hunchbacks, some are paralyzed. It is like a tumult, and when the
sheikh of the beggars among the many thousand flags, even the sheikh
prayed and said Allah Allah and Amin to seven thousand people in
unison, their sounds reached the sky. Upon this arrangement, the sheikh
of the beggars stands in front of the Alay Mansion and prays to the
sultan.” 106
This description can be perceived as a sign that the begging culture encountered
in different manifestations of Islam continued in an institutionalized guild system.
The first part of Evliya Çelebi’s narrative, after describing the beggars who beg
due to their physical disabilities and pointing out features such as the presence of
sheikhs, saying Allah Allah, and that they wore woolen headwear actually raises the
question of whether the system considered people who begged for economic reasons
and people begging for religious reasons within the same tradesmen group.
Although begging for religious reasons is not included among the criteria of the
people that the state deemed appropriate to beg, this narrative contributes to the
prediction that begging for religious reasons and begging for economic reasons may
be evaluated under the same roof. As mentioned in the first chapter, the existence
of Kalenderhanes, which are in the foundation registers, is proof that the existence
104Freely, Evliya Çelebi’nin Istanbulu, 83; Evliya Çelebi, Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, 224-227.
105Freely, Evliya Çelebi’nin Istanbulu, 83.
106“Andan esn¯af-ı seyü’l-süy¯u-ı seyel¯an ya‘ni seyü’l-dilenciy¯an: Nefer bir. ¯a’ife-i fuar¯a-i dilenciy¯an: Nefer
7000, ¯ayet (Tevbe 60) na-ı ¯aı‘ına mah¯ar olmıs bir alay-ı ‘aim cerr¯ar [ü] kerr¯an ˙gar¯ıblerdir. Her biri birer
ıra-i pesm¯ıneler ve ellerinde g¯un¯a-g¯un ‘alemleri ve baslarında bury¯ad¯an ve l¯ıfhorm¯ad¯an dest¯arları ile Y¯a
Fetta esm¯asıyla cümle a‘m¯aları birbiriniñ omuzlarına yapısup kimi leng ve kimi a‘rec ve kimi aineses kimi
mefl¯uc ve kimi mıra‘ ve kimi b¯ı-des ve kimi b¯ı-p¯a ve kimi ‘ury¯an ü büry¯an ve kimi üm¯ar-ı süv¯ar bir heng¯ame
du‘¯a ile niçe biñ bayraklarıñ m¯abeynine Cerr¯arlar seyini ortaya alup seyleri du‘¯a itdü – kçe yedi biñ fuar¯a
bir ed¯ad¯an All¯ah All¯ah ile ¯am¯ın didiklerinde ad¯aları evce peyveste olur. Bu tertib üzre anlarıñ dilenciler
seyi alay içinde Alay Köski dibinden ‘ubur maallinde durup padisaha ayır du‘¯a idüp is¯an [ü] en‘¯amlar
alup ‘ubu¯r iderler. Pirleri es-Sey Hafi’dir, Selma¯n belin baglamısdır. G˙ aza¯dan gelen g˙uza¯t-ı müslim¯ınden
(Ad-Duhâ 10) naı üzre “Seyu’ll¯ah” diyüp adaa alırdı, abri Med¯ıne-i Münevvere’de Kıbleteyn medf¯undur.”
Evliya Çelebi, Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, 226-227. In the translation of the passage, it also benefited
from John Freely’s translation to Turkish. Freely, Evliya Çelebi’nin Istanbulu, 83.
23
of groups such as Qalandaris in Istanbul was not seen as a problem for the state. In
the light of this information, it can be estimated that the state may have tolerated
dervishes begging for religious reasons. Based on the idea that these two groups
coexist in the narrative of Evliya Çelebi, making a sharp distinction between those
who beg for economic reasons and those who beg for religious reasons may not be a
possible and appropriate distinction.
While considering the inseparable relationship of beggars and religion, it can be said
that beggars were actually constituting a kind of prayer guild.107 What separated
them from other artisan groups in terms of produce and items to be sold was prayers.
If it is interpreted that way, it can be understood more easily how they were treated
as a group of tradesmen. It is also understandable that there is no sharp distinction
between the beggar and dervish groups that have been mentioned because both of
them have a connection to religion, and grant prayers in return for money.
There were also those who misused the system acknowledging beggars as a group
of tradesmen, that they were subject to specific rules, and that only those allowed
could beg. For example, some people issued false certificates to people whose begging
was deemed inappropriate by the state. They were known as dilenci iradcısı.
They received half of the daily earnings of the beggars in exchange for the false documents
they prepared. This was a serious crime but continued even after begging
was banned.108 Some beggars, even though they did not have any disabilities, had
begging licenses, which meant a begging permit, and state officials sentenced those
illegal beggars who used fraudulent documents with various penalties.109 Such administrative
measures lost their meaning over time because beggar’s licenses became
available to buy and sell for commercial purposes.110
Guards, municipal sergeants, and trustees wanted to remove beggars who begged
in places such as public fountains, bridges, and squares where many people passed
by, even if the beggars had a certificate. In such cases, the beggar would give the
officer a daily rent called dilenci serefiyesi. Sometimes these profitable places were
discovered by the dilenci iradcısı, and the dilenci iradcısı paid the wages of these
places to the officials.111 Besides, it is also known that some people bought disabled
107Düzbakar, “Osmanlı Devleti’nin Dilencilere Bakısı,” 90.
108Koçu, Istanbul Ansiklopedisi, 8:4578.
109Turgay Anar and Fatih Özbay, “Edebiyat Sosyolojisi Baglamında Osmanlı’dan Günümüze Türk Siirinde
Dilenme ve Dilencilige Genel Bir Bakıs,” FSM Ilmi Arastırmalar Insan ve Toplum Bilimleri Dergisi, no.2
(2013): 9.
110Coskun and Erkilet, Istanbul Halkının, 15.
111Koçu, Istanbul Ansiklopedisi, 8:4578.
24
slaves from auctions and had them beg them for their own profit.112 The beggars
of Ottoman Istanbul also developed various begging methods in order to get money
from the public: some of them would beg by taking a sick man with them, others
would put a chain around the necks of the people they took with them and say that
they were in debt and therefore needed help, and they tried to get money from the
public.113
1.4 The Emergence of Beggary as a Problem of the City
On the other hand, some people, though lacking any kind of disability, preferred
to act as beggars simply because it was easier to beg. This is a situation that the
state had been trying to take precautions against from the early times. Begging had
been a problem for Istanbul since Mehmed II’s policies to increase the population
of the city (senlendirme) began to yield results. There is a provision in the law of
Selim I that beggars were not allowed to beg in the courtyards of the mosques.114
With a decision taken during Suleyman I, settling in Istanbul from Anatolia and
Rumelia was prohibited. Concretely, it was decreed that people should return to
their hometowns if they came within the last five years, and the authorities were
told to fight against beggars and thieves.115
People who migrated to Istanbul from other regions, could not find jobs, and started
to beg without licenses were considered to be a problem and a sign of disruption
in the social order by the state. Therefore, the state tried to resolve this problem
with not only prohibitions but also punishments such as hard labor and confinement
to fortresses.116 Two documents with the dates of 1568117and 1577118 about these
punishments show that they were designed for people who abused beggars and who
were not deemed appropriate by the state to beg. Also, all beggars were ordered to be
112Demirtas, “Istanbul’da Dilenciligi Önlemeye,” 175.
113Dogan, “Kırım Harbi’nden,” 156.
114I.Selim K¯an¯unn¯amesi (Tirana ve Leningrad nüshaları) (1512-1520), ed. Yasar Yücel and Selami Pulaha
(Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 1995), vr. 44-a, 201.
115Demirtas, “Istanbul’da Dilenciligi Önlemeye,” 174.
116Özbek, “Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nda Dilencilere Yönelik,” 17-18.
117For the translation of the document: Ahmet Refik, Hicri Onuncu Asırda, 139.
118Resad Ekrem Koçu referred the document dated in 1574 but Nadir Özbek determined the date of document
as 1577. Koçu, Istanbul Ansiklopedisi, 8:4574-4575; Özbek, “Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nda Dilencilere
Yönelik,” 18.
25
inspected. Furthermore, it was ordered that the documents of those who used false
documents or those who received documents with bribes should be taken away from
them. Despite this, it has been said that those who beg will be punished with hard
labor.119 Also, in the document in 1568, it has been said that madrasah students
have been begging as per tradition, but they should not beg during holidays.120 It
is important in terms of revealing the tradition of begging when restrictions and
punishments against beggars were started.
The classification applied by the state concerning beggars in Istanbul was whether
they had a license or not. Whether they were from Istanbul or had another hometown
did not affect their right to a license, as can be understood from the beggar
notebook example mentioned in the first parts of this chapter. The state was not
interested in the begging of people in need who could not work and did not see that
as a problem.
However, the state’s policies started to change in time. According to the document
in 1792121, it was ordered that non-Muslim beggars who are unable to work will be
placed in their communities’ hospitals and treated, but those beggars having the
ability to work will be sent to their hometowns. Also, the examples of cash aid
practices started to be observed to prevent people from begging, although they were
not applied systematically in general.122 There were also the cash aids to individuals
and the implementations of feeding the poor by pious foundations.123 There are also
many examples of documents regarding the sending of beggars to their hometowns
and the state’s coverage of travel expenses in documents. With the increase in the
number of beggars and problems which they created, beggars who were not from
Istanbul were sent to their hometowns in an effort to reduce the number of beggars
and the problems they created in the city. In 1819, it is seen that the old dilenciler
kethüdası Yusuf and his accompanying beggars were exiled to Bursa due to their
unappropriated acts.124
The policies developed by the state against beggars continued to change as the
number of beggars and the problems they created increased. After the distinction
119Koçu, Istanbul Ansiklopedisi, 8:4574-4575; Özbek, “Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nda Dilencilere Yönelik,” 18.
120Ahmet Refik, Hicri Onuncu Asırda, 139.
121For the translation of the document: Sakaoglu, “Dersaadet Dilencileri ve Bir Belge,” 87-88.
122Özbek, “Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nda Dilencilere Yönelik,” 19.
123Nazif Öztürk, Türk Yenilesme Tarihi Çerçevesinde Vakıf Müessesesi (Ankara: Türk Diyanet Vakfı Yayınları,
1995), 44.
124“hil¯af-ı rız¯a harek¯ata ictis¯arlarına bin¯aen” BOA C.BLD. 1881/38, 23 Ra 1234 (January 20, 1819) cited also
in Özbek, “Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nda Dilencilere Yönelik,” 20.
26
between whether beggars were licensed or not, the distinction between being Istanbulites
or not would not be sufficient. How the new distinctions were shaped and
how these distinctions were applied will be the subject of the third chapter. Before
that, in order to analyze this change better, questioning the reasons for the increase
in the number of beggars in Istanbul is the subject of the next chapter.
27
2. THE INCREASE OF BEGGARY IN ISTANBUL IN THE
NINETEENTH CENTURY
We observe a transformation in the general perception of beggars already prior to the
nineteenth century which has continued throughout this century. The consequences
of this transformation for the beggars has been rather decisive. They started to be
seen as a social problem, and they came to be considered as a group that had to be
dispersed. The background and the causes of this transformation in people’s minds
will be questioned in the next chapter.
On the other hand, considering the population growth in the city over the century, an
increase in the number of people begging could be predicted. Although Istanbul had
become a more developed and diverse city than it had ever been in the nineteenth
century, it had become a more cosmopolitan place due to factors such as intense
migration to the city, rapidly changing dynamics in social and economic life in the
city, industrialization, and modernization. Therefore, the distinction between the
rich and the poor started to open. In this context, based on the assumption that
the number of urban poor had increased, it can be estimated that the number of
beggars in the city had increased. Based on this assumption, the possible reasons
behind this form the subject of this chapter.
This chapter, in its five subchapters, suggests that a variety of natural disasters
and fires, epidemics, migration to Istanbul from outside and within the Ottoman
Empire, the changings in the economy, and the deterioration of the foundation
system, respectively, provide some explanations for the increase in the number of
beggars.
28
2.1 Natural Disasters and Fires
It can be assumed that there is a positive relationship between disasters and the
increase in the number of beggars, because disasters cause an increase in the number
of poor people in an urban setting who can potentially become beggars to maintain
their livelihoods. Many people were affected by disasters, whether they were natural
or due to human negligence. Many points must be considered here: What did the
families of those people who died in disasters do after the disasters? How did people
who were physically or mentally harmed in disasters and unable to work make a
living for themselves and their families? What were the people who completely lost
their homes or properties doing during these disasters? What was the effect of these
disasters on the families’ budgets? Such situations, which still have many victims
today, may have played a role in causing the increase in the number of beggars in
nineteenth century Istanbul.
Since it is situated on earthquake fault lines, Istanbul has experienced earthquakes
numerous times throughout time. Many earthquakes occurred in Istanbul during
the period covered in this study. For example, the earthquake that occured on May
22, 1766 was powerful enough to cause damage not only to Istanbul but also to
the surrounding areas. As a result of a second tremor experienced on August 5
in Istanbul the same year, the devastation in Istanbul increased and damages occurred
even in large stone buildings such as Fatih Mosque and Eyüp Mosque.125
After the earthquake that took place on October 27, 1802, the arches in the Grand
Bazaar were damaged, and some old and decrepit houses were destroyed.126 Another
earthquake took place on March 1, 1855127, which was written about in detail
by Ahmet Cevdet’s Tezâkir, including information about the damage done by the
earthquake. He reports that two domes of the Davudpasa Mosque were destroyed,
many masonry buildings were damaged, some rooms and parts of the inns collapsed,
and some parts of the fortress walls were destroyed.128 Eight years later, Istanbul
encountered another earthquake on November 6, 1863. The last earthquake during
125Y. Mimar Deniz Mazlum. “Osmanlı Arsiv Belgeleri Isıgında 22 Mayıs 1766 Istanbul Depremi ve Ardından
Gerçeklestirilen Yapı Onarımları.” (PhD diss., Istanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, 2001), 17,33.
126Mustafa Cezar, Osmanlı Devrinde Istanbul Yapılarında Tahribat Yapan Yangınlar ve Tabii Afetler (Istanbul:
Güzel Sanatlar Akademisi Türk San’atı Tarihi Enstitüsü Yayınları, 1963), 67.
127Cezar, Osmanlı Devrinde, 67.
128Ahmed Cevdet Pasa, 19. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Devlet Yönetimi: Tezâkir, ed. Seyit Ali Kahraman. vol.1
(Istanbul: Yeditepe Yayınevi, 2019), 1:66.
29
this period was on July 10, 1894.129 In this earthquake, 474 people died, and 482
people were injured.130In addition, it is known that many buildings in Istanbul were
damaged by a flood that occurred after torrential rains in February 1790, and the
city was again damaged after the storm and hurricane that took place on May 8,
1808.131
The common outcome of these natural disasters is that they leave behind needy
people. Ahmet Cevdet mentions that the state was rather slow in helping people in
the earthquake in Bursa in 1855. In fact, the state could not even send an officer
to investigate and assess the damage caused by the earthquake. The people of
Bursa were able to inform the central government of the earthquake event only after
nine days.132 Although the state was never informed late about the disasters that
took place in Istanbul, it raises a question about how effective it was in providing
assistance to the victims. The vehement petitions requesting solely bread serves as
an example of how desperate people became as a result of such disasters.133 Apart
from eating, drinking, and housing problems, people who survived the disaster also
struggled to maintain their lives. One of the most pressing issues in this situation
was that the shops of the tradesmen and craftsmen who could provide assistance
in these disasters were also damaged. Thus, these artisans themselves were in need
of help because they lost their workplaces and therefore they could not help the
victims of the disaster.
Apart from the natural disasters that took place in Istanbul, other disasters took
place in areas close to Istanbul that also caused the increase in the urban poor
in Istanbul. This took place because people who had no chance to get money in
these disaster-stricken areas started to migrate to Istanbul with the hope to find
a job in the city. Natural disasters such as famine and drought in rural areas
caused migrations to Istanbul. The droughts, the effects of which were felt the
most throughout the nineteenth century, took place in 1845 and 1874. The drought
that took place in 1845 and the famine that occurred as a result of the decrease
in agricultural production affected regions such as Istanbul, Ankara, Kastamonu,
Diyarbekir, Sivas, and Adana. As a result of this drought in 1846, some of the
129Feriha Öztin, 10 Temmuz 1894 Istanbul Depremi Raporu (Ankara: T.C. Bayındırlık ve Iskan Bakanlıgı
Afet Isleri Genel Müdürlügü Deprem Arastırma Dairesi, 1994), 6.
130Öztin, 10 Temmuz, 20.
131Cezar, Osmanlı Devrinde, 67.
132Ahmed Cevdet Pasa, 19.Yüzyılda, 68.
133Neslihan Özaydın, “Arsiv Belgeleri Isıgında 1855 Depremi ve Bursa Yapılarına Etkisi,” (PhD diss., Uludag
Üniversitesi, 2017): 37-38.
30
people of Izmit migrated to Istanbul.134 Undoubtedly, it can be assumed that there
were people who migrated from different regions for the same reasons. It would be
an optimistic estimation to think that all of these masses, who came to the city
with the hopes of finding a job, found jobs and made a living easily. Although
job opportunities improved a lot in nineteenth-century Istanbul, people who were
victims of various disasters and migrated to the city or were already living in Istanbul
can be identified as a factor in the increase of begging in the city. In 1874, the state
helped people who migrated to Istanbul as a result of the drought wave that occurred
in regions such as Ankara and Konya. However, the migrants still had difficulties in
finding places to stay, resulting in them sleeping in the courtyards of mosques and
in the streets. A spinning mill was temporarily allocated for immigrants, and some
of them attempted to be employed there.135
Natural disasters were not the biggest problem for the people of Istanbul. Fires were
an even more significant problem for them. The fact that all buildings except the
palace, official buildings, and the mansions of very respected pashas were made of
wood made it impossible for Istanbul to cope with any fire. Many sources about
nineteenth century Istanbul mention that the city had not passed even one day
without a fire. In order to understand the multiplicity of fires in Istanbul and the
magnitude of the damage done, the statistics provided by Osman Nuri Ergin should
be noted. Ergin records a total of 229 fires from 1854 to 1908. According to Ergin’s
statistics, more than 24,000136 buildings burned in these 229 fires in Istanbul.137
Istanbul was devastated by social unrest and accidental fires from 1807 to 1817.
In 1845, the state officially encouraged the construction of houses with bricks.138
However, it can be understood that this incentive was not enough to stop people
from building houses with wood, even after nineteen years, from the regulations
made on this subject. In 1864, the government stipulated that all buildings in the
capital were to be constructed of stone and brick as a means to prevent disastrous
fires; however, those who could not afford to build masonry houses were allowed to
134Mehmet Yavuz Erler, Osmanlı Devleti’nde Kuraklık ve Kıtlık (1800-1880) (Istanbul: Libra Kitap, 2010),
138-145.
135Erler, Osmanlı Devleti’nde Kuraklık, 206.
136Osman Nuri Ergin, Mecelle-i Umûr-ı Belediyye (Istanbul: Istanbul Büyüksehir Belediyesi Kültür Isleri
Daire Baskanlıgı Yayınları, 1995), 3:1228-1235. It was calculated 24.629 burned building with including all
fires which Ergin’s mentioned in this issue of the book. Also, Resat Ekrem Koçu refered this source and
received datum from Osman Nuri Ergin in his book with the name of Istanbul Tulumbacıları (Istanbul:
Dogan Kitap, 2005), 486. He says there have been 229 fires that could be detected from 1854 to 1908,
and 24 340 buildings burned in these fires. He states that he has calculated fires in which more than 50
buildings burned. In addition, since minor discrepancies were noticed between the two publications, the
number was stated as fractions.
137Ergin, Mecelle-i Umûr-ı, 1228-1235.
138Kemal Karpat, Osmanlı Nüfusu 1830-1914 (Istanbul: Timas Yayınları, 2010), 178.
31
build wooden houses.139 Though the state tried to promulgate some regulations, the
economic conditions prevented their implementation. People did not have enough
money to build masonry houses due to poverty, but fire also brought poverty, which
became a vicious cycle in Istanbul. Only after the great fire of Pera happened in
1870, constructing buildings with stone became an obligation.140
The establishment of firefighting organizations and the use of tulumba (water pump)
in the Ottoman Empire took place due to the efforts of grand vizier Nevsehirli
Damat Ibrahim Pasha during the reign of Ahmed III (1703-1730); the water pump
was founded in 1720 by Gerçek Davud (David), an engineer of French origin. It
was initially a military unit affiliated with the Janissary Corps. With the increasing
need, a tulumbacı team was formed in all state institutions towards the end of the
eighteenth century.141
With the abolition of the Janissaries in 1826, the tulumbacı ocagı (fire brigade) was
established. After the Hocapasa Fire (August 2, 1826), which took place 48 days
after the abolition of the Janissaries, it was decided that the fire brigade would
be attached to the Asakir-i Mansure Army.142 When it was understood that the
number of tulumbacıs should be increased after the Hocapasa fire, a new union of
volunteers was established.143 A pump was put in each district and neighborhood
by the people of Istanbul, and the young people of the neighborhood voluntarily
became tulumbacıs.144
As can be seen, the number of disasters that people living in Istanbul experienced was
not few. Pious foundations were the main institutions expected to help victims of
disasters, but since the issue of foundations will be covered later, first the institution
of insurance, which was another possibility to save people from being victims of
disasters, will be discussed.
Although insurance as an institution had been observed in Europe since the thirteenth
century, it only became legalized in the Ottoman Empire in the Ticaret-i
Bahriye Kanunu (The Law of Marine Commerce) dated 1864, and it was confined
139Zeynep Çelik, The Remaking of Istanbul: Portrait of an Ottoman City in the Nineteenth Century, (Berkeley,
Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1986), 52.
140Çelik, The Remaking, 46.
141Ates Pervaneleri: Tulumbacılar (Istanbul: Rezan Has Müzesi, 2011), 10-11.
142Ates Pervaneleri, 13; Resad Ekrem Koçu, Istanbul Tulumbacıları (Istanbul: Dogan Kitap, 2005), 39.
143Karpat, Osmanlı Nüfusu, 182.
144Koçu, Istanbul Tulumbacıları, 13.
32
to marine insurance, meaning it was not for the residents in the cities.145 Cem Dogan
who studied modernization in fire protection districts determined that the year the
first insurance company was established in the Ottoman Empire was 1867 through
a report published with S.G. signature in the French newspaper named L’argus.146
Insurance, which did not have a local alternative, did not become widespread in Ottoman
Istanbul. Insurance activities were carried out by foreign companies whose
headquarters were in European cities.147Foreign insurance companies were working
in accordance with the laws of their own countries and using documents in their own
language. People were afraid to sign documents that they did not understand. Also,
there were rumors in society about the possibility of being cheated by these companies.
148The first domestic insurance company in the Ottoman State was established
only during the reign of Abdulhamid II.149 Even though the language barrier or the
problem of distrusting foreigners disappeared after the establishment of Osmanlı
Sigorta Sirket-i Umûmiyyesi (Ottoman General Insurance Company), the way it
operated was the same as the foreign companies that considered its own interests
rather than those of the people, which as a result caused widespread public distrust.
In addition, there was a widespread belief that insurance was not compatible with
Islam and that it was is a kind of gambling; many felt that they would oppose their
fate and act of God if they insured their property.150
As discussed above, the people of Istanbul have faced many natural disasters, and
the number of people who suffered from these disasters is not an insignificant number,
as can be seen from the examples given. The mobilization of the people to
extinguish fires and form teams among themselves is an indicator of how serious the
situation was. Also, the limited degree of insurance opportunities made this solution
impracticable. People who lost their property or suffered somehow after the disaster
may have contributed to the increase in the number of beggars.
145Cem Dogan, Itfâiyye-I Hümâyûn: Osmanlı Istanbulu’nda Yangın, Modernlesme ve Kent Toplumu (1871-
1921) (Istanbul: Libra Kitapçılık ve Yayıncılık, 2019), 201.
146Dogan, Itfâiyye-I Hümâyûn, 202, quoted in S.G., “Turquie”, L’argus, no.304, (Subat 1887): 104-105.
147Dogan, Itfâiyye-I Hümâyûn, 205.
148Ergin, Mecelle-i Umûr-ı, 1150-1551.
149Dogan, Itfâiyye-I Hümâyûn, 205.
150Ergin, Mecelle-i Umûr-ı, 1150-1551.
33
2.2 Epidemics
The epidemics that most affected nineteenth century Istanbul were the plague and
a cholera outbreak. Apart from that, it was not uncommon for malaria, typhus,
dysentery, and smallpox to take the form of epidemics.151 This subchapter will discuss
how the people of Istanbul were affected by epidemic diseases, especially cholera
and plague, and how these effects might have increased the number of beggars.
The plague was synonymous with death until the nineteenth century.152 Plague
epidemics, which occurred in Istanbul in the date range within the study’s scope,
consisted of outbreaks between 1784-86, 1791-92, 1813-19, and 1835-38.153 The
plague started to regress after 1824, and after 1844 there were no new cases in the
Ottoman Empire.154As a result of the research carried out by Daniel Panzac, the
number of people who died from the plague is estimated to be around 100,000 deaths
in 1778, 100,000 deaths in 1812, and 25,000-30,000 deaths in 1836. He estimated that
the population of Istanbul was 500,000 for these three years.155 This stabilization
in the population number raises questions about its accuracy, but it still gives an
idea of how colossal an impact the plague had.
Cholera was a persistent problem for those living in Istanbul in the nineteenth
century. The first cholera invasion in Istanbul started in June 1831.156 In 1848, there
was a second cholera epidemic in Istanbul. In this epidemic, the total number of
people who died in Istanbul was listed as 3,091.157 In the same study, the population
of Istanbul of the period was noted as 721,700 people.158 Cholera was common in
France when the Crimean War began. It is thought that cholera spread to the
Ottoman Empire through the French soldiers who fought against Russia with the
151Mesut Ayar. “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Kolera Salgını: Istanbul Örnegi (1892-1895)” (PhD diss., Marmara
Üniversitesi, 2005), 2.
152Ayar, “Osmanlı Devleti’nde,” 2.
153Daniel Panzac, Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nda Veba (1700-1850) (Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 1997),
261-262.
154Panzac, Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nda, 245.
155Panzac, Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nda, 183.
156Mesut Ayar. “XIX. Asırda Osmanlı Devleti’nde Kolera Salgınları,” in Osmanlı’da Salgın Hastalıklarla
Mücadele, ed. Ibrahim Basagaoglu, Ahmet Uçar and Osman Dogan, (Istanbul: Çamlıca Basım Yayın,
2015), 83.
157Marie-Pierre Verrollot, Istanbul’da Kolera: 1848 Salgını Üzerine Bir Inceleme, ed. Özgür Yılmaz (Istanbul:
Libra Kitap, 2019), 119.
158Verrollot, Istanbul’da Kolera, 100.
34
Ottomans and Great Britain in the Crimean War.159 This spread also reached
Istanbul; as a result of the epidemic that lasted for ten months, 3,500 people died.
A very influential cholera epidemic that started in July 1865 continued for four
months and ended in October.160 There are very different statements about the
number of people who died because of this epidemic. In 1870 and 1876 and later in
1881, Istanbul remained under the influence of cholera.161 Cholera, which has been
seen in Europe, Russia, and the Mediterranean regions since 1892, spread to the
Ottoman Empire’s Rumelia and Anatolian provinces, especially in 1893-1895, and
also affected Istanbul.162The 1893-94 Istanbul cholera epidemic started on August
24, 1893. During this time, 2,683 people caught cholera, 1,537 of whom died. 163
During periods of outbreak, the government tried to develop practices to treat patients
and prevent the spread of the disease. For example, quarantine buildings were
established in Istanbul during the period of Mahmud II.164 In the cholera epidemic
between 1892-94, which was mentioned above, Abdulhamid II established special
hospitals for cholera patients in municipal offices.165 However, these practices were
not enough to eliminate the effects of epidemics.
There are two consequences of epidemics that need to be addressed within the scope
of the study. Firstly, people who lost the family members that they depended on to
provide for their needs due to epidemics or people who could not work because they
were sick were victims of the epidemics, and their livelihoods were destroyed. Thus,
they may have been instrumental in the increasing number of beggars. Secondly,
plague and cholera were the diseases that were more common among poor people.
One of the leading causes of plague occurrence is malnutrition. Hunger, shortage
of food, and the high cost of food are influential factors in the plague’s emergence
and spread.166 The conditions in which poor people live have always provided an
environment suitable for the occurrence and spread of diseases. Cholera was mostly a
poor person’s disease due to its mode of spread, which generally spreads with unclean
159Ayar, “Osmanlı Devleti’nde,” 10.
160Ayar, “XIX. Asırda,” 85-86.
161Ayar, “XIX. Asırda,” 87-88.
162Fatih Artvinli, Delilik, Siyaset ve Toplum: Toptası Bimarhanesi (1873-1927) (Istanbul: Bogaziçi Üniversitesi
Yayınevi, 2017), 105.
163Ayar, Mesut. “Osmanlı Devleti’nde,” 143.
164Karpat, Osmanlı Nüfusu, 183.
165Ayar, “Osmanlı Devleti’nde,” 146.
166Panzac, Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nda, 13-14.
35
water and food, causing it to prevail mostly among the people of the lower class.167
Hence, those who are victims of epidemics are often poor people. These people who
were already poor were more likely to become beggars if they lost their working
family members or became unable to work due to catching the disease. Besides,
the permanent consequences of all these disasters greatly weakened society’s human
and economic power. In such challenging times, reduced economic production could
result in the weakening of purchasing power and also lead to material shortages.168
These conditions also may have been effective in increasing the number of beggars.
The last topic to be covered under this subtitle is the state’s attitude towards immigrants
during cholera outbreaks. In Istanbul, there were areas of makeshift buildings
known as tin neighborhoods where immigrants lived.169 From the first days of the
epidemic in 1892, efforts were made to send unemployed laborers, bachelors, and
immigrants from the city to reduce the city’s crowd.170
Jews who immigrated to Istanbul from Russia in 1892 were not admitted to the
city on suspicion that they might have cholera. Those who were accepted before
lived in poorly-conditioned barracks in Balat and Ortaköy; these people were taken
and transferred to more suitable neighborhoods with the government’s rent support.
Other migrants who had previously come to Istanbul and lived in barracks were also
transferred to other neighborhoods. Those whose financial situation was suitable to
pay rent were forced to rent a house. Immigrants living in 55 barracks, who were
poor, were transferred to the provinces and settled by the Immigration Commission
without a job or occupation.171
2.3 Migration to Istanbul
In the sixteenth century, it was difficult for foundations to cover the costs of
madrasah students. By the 1550s, people who studied at a madrasah or graduated
from one but could not find a job rose up in groups. At first, these students
who begged for a way of collecting money in return for leading prayers in salat or
giving religious advice to the congregation did not agree with this. In time, they
167Ayar, “XIX. Asırda,” 94.
168Ayar, “Osmanlı Devleti’nde,” 2.
169Ayar, “Osmanlı Devleti’nde,” 259.
170Ayar, “Osmanlı Devleti’nde,” 263.
171Ayar, “Osmanlı Devleti’nde,” 257-258.
36
rebelled and ignited the Jelali rebellions.172 While the Jelali Rebellions took place
between 1550-1603 and afterwards, immigration from the villages to the big cities
caused a large increase in begging cases. Especially when a double-breaker (çift
bozan taifesi) could not find a job in the big city, they started to beg. Measures
to prevent begging were implemented in the seventeenth century like restricting the
entrance to big cities though mandating that permission must be sought to move
freely from one city to another. Selim III is known to have tried to send back those
who came to beg in Istanbul, but he was not able to be successful in preventing the
influx of beggars.173
It can be stated that the periods in which the number of beggars started to increase
mostly coincided with trouble caused by external factors such as wars and internal
disorders in Anatolia and in Istanbul. Remarkably, the migration of Anatolians
to Istanbul, who could not bear the economic burden of long-lasting wars and the
voluntary or compulsory immigration received from abroad, had a significant effect
on the increase of begging in nineteenth century Istanbul. Examples of these
are the impacts of the 1853 Crimean War and the 1877-78 Ottoman-Russian War
on the Ottoman economy and immigration mobility. In the period following the
Crimean War, along with the developments in the world economy and the increase
in the demand for agricultural products in the Ottoman Empire, the attachment
of agricultural producers to the land increased, and although the migration from
rural areas to Istanbul decreased in terms of farmers,174 the population of Istanbul
continued to increase in line with external and internal migration. During all
these periods, there were massive immigration movements to the Ottoman country,
whether from within the Empire or abroad; as the capital city, the city that got the
most share of these was Istanbul.175
The Ottoman Empire encountered the immigration wave after the unsuccessful 1683
Siege of Vienna that took place during the Ottoman-Austrian wars between 1683-
1699, resulting in the immigration of bordering Muslim populations to the Empire.
176 Also, the Ottoman Empire’s failure in the second siege of Vienna led to the
start of inward migrations. The biggest causal factor for immigration was the Rus-
172Sirin, “Avrupa ve Osmanlı,” 68.
173Sirin, “Avrupa ve Osmanlı,” 68-69.
174Nadir Özbek, “Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nda Dilencilere Yönelik Devlet Politikaları ve Kamusal Söylemin
Degisimi,” in Bir Kent Sorunu: Dilencilik “Sorunlar ve Çözüm Yolları”, ed. Suvat Parin (Istanbul: Istanbul
Büyüksehir Belediyesi Zabıta Daire Baskanlıgı, 2008), 22.
175Cem Dogan, “Kırım Harbi’nden I.Dünya Savasına Istanbul’da Dilencilik Olgusuna Bir Bakıs (1853-1914),”
Avrasya Uluslararası Arastırmalar Dergisi 3, no. 6 (Ocak 2015): 154.
176H. Yıldırım Aganoglu, Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyet’e Balkanlar’ın Makûs Talihi (Istanbul: Kum Saati, 2001),
31.
37
sian expansionism that occurred in the eighteenth century. Incoming immigrants
were not allowed to enter Anatolia, and efforts were made to locate them close to
the border regions.177
The first mass immigration that happened as a result of the separation of Muslimmajority
lands from the Empire took place with the immigration of around 500,000
Crimean Tatars to other Ottoman lands after Crimea entered the Russian sphere of
influence with the 1774 Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca. Later, again after the Ottoman-
Russian Wars, two separate migrations took place in 1828-29 and 1860-64, and with
these migrations, about two million people migrated from the Caucasus.178
After the 1877-78 Ottoman-Russian War, immigration from Rumelia to Istanbul
began. Between July 1877 and September 1879, nearly four hundred thousand
immigrants arrived in Istanbul.179 Most of the Balkan lands became independent
or autonomous through the Treaty of Berlin in 1878. These developments triggered
an intense wave of immigration to the city.180A significant number of Caucasian
Muslims came to the Ottoman state between 1862-1908 and settled in Istanbul with
their families, society leaders, and their ulema. Besides, during the Russian-Ottoman
War in 1877-78 and afterwards, many refugees settled in Istanbul when the Muslim
peoples of the Northeast Balkans, Macedonia, and Dobruja were driven from their
homes.181 In the beginning, state aid was given to immigrants from abroad, and
later, as the number of immigrants increased, state support decreased, and more
and more immigrants had to take care of themselves.182
Again, while the first immigrant groups were settled in various villages and only
immigrants from civil servants and ilmiye classes were taken to the cities, after the
war of 1877-78, immigrants amassed around the big cities. After the 1897 Greco-
Turkish War, many immigrants from Crete and other islands had to migrate to
Anatolia.183
177Abdulkadir Gül and Salim Gökçen, Son Dönem Osmanlı Nüfusu ve Ecnebîler Meselesi (Ankara: Cedit
Nesriyat, 2010), 27.
178Fikret Babus, Osmanlı’dan Günümüze etnik-sosyal politikalar çerçevesinde Göç ve Iskan siyaseti ve uygulamaları
(Istanbul: Ozan Yayıncılık, 2006), 47.
179Imdat Özen, “II. Mesrutiyet’e Kadar Islahhaneler ve Darülaceze” (Master’s thesis, Ankara Üniversitesi,
2001), 16.
180Ebru Boyar and Kate Fleet, A Social History of Ottoman Istanbul, (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2010), 4.
181Karpat, Osmanlı Nüfusu, 216.
182Babus, Osmanlı’dan Günümüze, 47.
183Babus, Osmanlı’dan Günümüze, 48.
38
Apart from the immigration to the country from the lost lands of the Empire,
additional people migrated to Istanbul from within the state’s borders. The social,
ethnic, and cultural changes in Istanbul in the second half of the nineteenth century
were a direct result of trade growth and the spread of economic opportunities after
the CrimeanWar and the 1877-78 Ottoman-RussianWar. Together with immigrants
from the Caucasus and the Balkans, the flow of capital and skills turned the city
into a center of culture and enterprise. New jobs created by Muslim and non-Muslim
entrepreneurs attracted poor people and peasants from the interior, and these people
formed a kind of working class in the city.184
Job opportunities were not the only factor that attracted people from rural areas to
Istanbul. The long-lasting and costly wars resulting in the defeat of the Ottomans
caused an increase in taxes for the peasants. Besides, as the central authority
gradually lost its power, public security in rural areas became weak, and bandit
gangs started to attack the villagers. The migration of villagers to big cities due to
the lack of security of life and property caused the increase in Istanbul’s population.
However, as job opportunities started to decrease, there was an increase in begging
activities.185
Before concluding this subchapter on migrants, two datasets concerning the nineteenth
century population of Istanbul will be provided to demonstrate the major
influx of people to the capital city. Firstly, in light of the information obtained
from Shaw, Cem Behar calculated that according to the census figures in 1885, the
population of Istanbul was 875,575, but since there were 744,322 people whose birth
places are registered, the Istanbulites living in Istanbul were calculated. According
to Behar’s calculation, only 31.1% of men in Istanbul and 62.8% of women were
born in Istanbul in 1885.186
Secondly, around 1840, the population of Istanbul was thought to be 400,000. Half
a century later, the population doubled in size. According to the census in 1886, it
was 873,000. It consisted of 44% Muslims, 17.5% Greeks, 17.1% Armenians, 5.1%
Jews, and 15.3% foreigners. In other words, the proportions of Muslims and non-
Muslims were almost equal. At the end of the nineteenth century, the population
of the city would be 900,000. This population increase can be explained by Turkish
and Muslim immigrants from the Balkans, Eastern Anatolia, the Caucasus, and
184Karpat, Osmanlı Nüfusu, 166.
185Anar and Özbay, “Edebiyat Sosyolojisi,” 13.
186Cem Behar, Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nun ve Türkiye’nin Nüfusu 1500-1927 (Ankara: T.C. Basbakanlık
Devlet Istatistik Enstitüsü, 1996), 76.
39
Crete, especially from 1876-78.187
As a result, Istanbul was under the influence of intense immigration from both sides
of the Empire’s borders and from the lost lands. The number of young people
without families was inflated due to migration. These young people often worked
low-paying jobs.188 However, not all of them could be employed. Although the state
tried to regulate the entrances to Istanbul from time to time, it did not manage to
reduce the number of people in Istanbul. The fact that the city had more people
than the number of jobs it could offer may have been influential in increasing the
number of beggars.
2.4 Economy
The Ottoman economy lacked the necessary modern infrastructure for industrial
production as it was forced into competition by the West’s free-market economy.
Nevertheless, as its budget was in good standing, there was no deficit or surplus
in the 1776 budget and it did not try to comply with the market requirements. It
continued to feel no pressure to do so until the 1820s.189
By the end of the eighteenth century, an industry in the Ottoman Empire could
export goods to foreign countries beyond the needs of the domestic market. However,
it was not in its former strength; it started to lose some of its foreign markets and
started to import goods.190
After the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca, the ship traffic in Istanbul slowed down. Ships
originating from Russia started to transit to Istanbul without stopping. With the
Treaty of Edirne of 1829, when Wallachia and Moldavia’s obligation to sell a certain
amount of food to Istanbul was abolished, the long-lasting system of food purchasing
and distribution at a specific price, which had been in effect since the fifteenth
century, came to an end. This situation deeply affected the economic structure and
even the social organization of Istanbul.191The economic and commercial philosophy
187Robert Mantran, Istanbul Tarihi (Istanbul: Iletisim Yayınları, 2002), 286.
188Donald Quataert, “The Age of Reforms 1812-1914,” in An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman
Empire, 1300-1914, ed. Halil Inalcık and Donald Quataert (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1994), 786-787.
189Karpat, Osmanlı Nüfusu,172.
190Rıfat Önsoy, Osmanlı Sanayii ve Sanayilesme Politikası (Ankara: Türkiye Is Bankası Yayınları, 1988), 10.
191Karpat, Osmanlı Nüfusu, 172.
40
in the Ottoman Empire was based on the moral economical understanding that all
commercial activity, especially the number of food and household items, was carried
out without profit and served the society’s welfare, which is named provisionism.192
The inability of the old economic system to meet the needs of Istanbul made the
Ottoman economy foreign-dependent over time. The need to purchase raw materials
from European countries caused the prices of these materials to rise in the Ottoman
Empire; thus, local producers who could not compete with the entry of Westernproduced
goods into the markets lost power.193
Donald Quataert marks the beginning of the change in economic policies as the
abolition of the Janissaries in contrast to the 1838 British-Ottoman trade agreement
or the Tanzimat Edict. With the disappearance of the armed power that protected
guild privileges, the free economy model could be passed. He also evaluates the
1838 treaty which removed many restrictions on trade with Britain194 and the 1839
Tanzimat Edict within this framework.195 Therefore, the state was trying to adapt
to the new order. However, over time, inconsistencies in implementation reduced
the power of the guilds. In the years 1861-62, the customs taxes were increased
by applying a reverse application. Besides, the state which denied the privileges
of the guild under the new system, continued to require a certificate to open a
shop. The continuation of the old guild system made them indurable to Western
competition.196 In addition, while the foreign market was an option in the past,
the possibility of the Ottoman manufacturing sector being able to export goods
disappeared and thus they started to produce only for the domestic market.197
Being under the burden of population pressure due to internal and external migration,
Istanbul became unable to offer the necessary job options to the public, with
the employment areas shifting towards workshop-type small-scale production in the
provincial centers. Adulteration operations in which Ottoman coins were subjected
to several times until 1840 lowered the purchasing power of money considerably;
thus, the poverty line increased. It should not be difficult to predict the misery of
the unemployed and how hard of a time they had making ends meet; even those
192Karpat, Osmanlı Nüfusu, 174.
193Kemal H Karpat, “The Social and Economic Transformation of Istanbul in the Nineteenth Century,” in
Studies on Ottoman Social and Political History: Selected Articles and Essays (Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill,
2002), 247.
194Önsoy, Osmanlı Sanayii, 25.
195Donald Quataert, Ottoman manufacturing in the age of the Industrial Revolution (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press,1993), 6-7.
196Quataert, Ottoman manufacturing, 7-8.
197Quataert, Ottoman manufacturing, 92.
41
employed in seasonal jobs in Istanbul were in a similar position. Nevertheless, it
should be considered as inevitable that those who cannot find a job or are denied
work turn to an enterprise that does not require any capital or excessive body power,
such as begging.198 Besides, the relative instability of the world economy and the
Great Depression of 1873–96 negatively affected Ottoman finances.199 As a result
of the crisis that started in 1873, the Ottoman government after 1876 was unable to
pay its debts. After the 1877-78 Ottoman-Russian War, the loss of fertile lands and
the wave of immigration also affected the Ottoman economy in a negative way.200
With the impact of the capitalist world economy, the balance between rich and poor
started to be destroyed in Ottoman society, provided by the provisionist economic
model. There was a massive wave of immigration from the lands lost in the wars
to the lands of the Empire, as well as a migration from rural areas to Istanbul due
to many reasons which were mentioned above. The guild-scale industrial sector
began to lose its power in external competition and caused the impoverished and
unemployed crowds to grow. For example, until the 1830s, only between 5-6000
weaving looms were working in Istanbul in the weaving industry and provided jobs
for only between 15-20,000 of the population. However, 90% of these looms had
ceased to operate in the 1860s.201 All of these factors influence the increase in the
number of beggars in Istanbul.
With the start of cash salary payments to senior civil servants, the spending of the
taxes collected from the states in cash in Istanbul allowed for the development of
the clothing, catering, and housing sectors in Istanbul. As a result, property values
increased and the service sector developed. With the development of the service sector,
the city became even more attractive. The flourishing trade opportunities and
service sector in the city attracted people from different provinces, and they came to
Istanbul, hoping to get rich. Although these developments increased employment in
the city, they did not contribute much to the state’s development in the long run.202
Although it has been observed that there was an increase in Ottoman foreign trade
and agricultural production since the mid-1890s, beggary still remained a visible
198Dogan, “Kırım Harbi’nden,” 159-160.
199Özbek, “‘Beggars’ and ‘Vagrants’,” 785.
200Özbek. “Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nda,” 22.
201Mehmet Genç, “Osmanlı Dünyasında Dilencilik,” in Bir Kent Sorunu: Dilencilik “Sorunlar ve Çözüm
Yolları”, ed. Suvat Parin (Istanbul: Istanbul Büyüksehir Belediyesi Zabıta Daire Baskanlıgı, 2008), 15.
202Karpat, Osmanlı Nüfusu, 187-189.
42
truth in Istanbul’s daily life.203 As a result, the fluctuations in the economy influenced
people in many ways and it is directly related to other subsections of this
chapter.
2.5 Pious Foundations
People who lost their homes or families in earthquakes or fires, people who lost their
work due to epidemic diseases or who could not work due to epidemic diseases, and
people who migrated to Istanbul from different places have needed financial contributions
to make a living. In the Ottoman social and administrative system, pious
foundations were expected to help these destitute people. Pious foundations were
institutions established by sultanic grants of land or by other private sources for
pious or charitable purposes. They were necessary for Ottoman urban life because
public works were seen as the responsibility of private ventures. Thus, pious foundations
constituted the economic sides of the imârets (public soup kitchens), which
provided the towns with public services and markets.204 The pious foundation,
which is undoubtedly religious, was also a basic social assistance system that was
used both to improve the economy of the city and to secure the financial conditions
and well-being of many residents.205
Pious foundations were administratively and financially autonomous institutions.206
The numerous social, economic and cultural functions and services provided by pious
foundations were at such a level that they in fact even shaped their cities’ physical
appearance. 207 With a religious infrastructure, the foundation was a basic outreach
system used to improve the city’s economy and secure the financial condition and
welfare of many city dwellers. The institution was utilized from the cradle to the
grave. It provided a livelihood for people affected by natural disasters. A life without
foundations was unimaginable in Istanbul.208 People could be born in a foundation
house, sleep in the foundation cradle, eat and drink the foundation foal, read a book
203Özbek, “Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nda,” 23.
204Selçuk Aksin Somel, Historical Dictionary of the Ottoman Empire(United States of America: Scarecrow
Press, Inc., 2003), 227.
205Boyar and Fleet, A Social History, 129.
206Somel, Historical Dictionary, 227.
207Boyar and Fleet, A Social History, 129.
208Boyar and Fleet, A Social History, 129.
43
in the foundation library, teach at a foundation school, receive a salary from the
administration of the foundation, and could even be put in a foundation coffin when
dead and buried in a foundation cemetery.209
One of the most important founding goals of Ottoman foundations was the fight
against poverty. Poor dervishes and dervish lodges were also among the aspects
to which foundation income was allocated in foundation charities.210 One of the
conditions for charity was to meet the needs of the poor, orphans, and widows who
were in need due to illness or other similar disasters.211
Foundations were divided into three types according to what the foundation was dedicated.
Charitable foundations were responsible for the construction and operation
of mosques, madrasahs, and imarets. Zürrî (related to lineage, family) foundations
were foundations established for one’s own family under certain conditions,212 and
the purpose of avarız foundations was to pay the taxes of those who are unable
to pay the avarız tax which was a tax for unusual circumstances such as wars or
disasters, but their scope and services have increased over time. They had duties
such as providing food, clothing, and health services to people who were unable to
work for various reasons, and contributing to the burial costs of the deceased poor
and the payment of the debts of those who could not pay them.213
Before the new management system, foundations were managed by the Administration
of Haremeyn214, the Administration of Vizier215, the Administration of Sheikh
al-islam216, the Administration of Tophâne Ümerası217, and the Administration of
209Bahaeddin Yediyıldız, XVIII. Yüzyılda Türkiye’de Vakıf Müessesesi: Bir Sosyal Tarih Incelemesi (Ankara:
Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 2003), vıı.
210Aydın, Bilgin, Ilhami Yurdakul, Ayhan Isık, Ismail Kurt, Esra Yıldız, ed. Istanbul Ser‘iyye Sicilleri Vakfiyeler
Katalogu (Istanbul: Isam Yayınları, 2015), 26.
211Aydın, Bilgin, Yurdakul, Isık, Kurt, Yıldız, ed. Istanbul Ser‘iyye, 28.
212Mustafa Güler, Osmanlı Devleti’nde Haremeyn Vakıfları (16. ve 17. Yüzyıllar) (Istanbul: Çamlıca Basın
Yayın, 2011), 25.
213Murat Yıldız, Osmanlı Vakıf Medeniyetinde Bir Veziriazam Hayatı: Amcazade Hüseyin Pasa Vakfı (Istanbul:
Bayrak Yayıncılık, 2011), 44.
214Pious foundations located in Mecca and Medina belonged to this administration. Also, some foundations
which belongs to sultan and significant persons in the administration of state belonged to Haremeyn
Administration.
215They were foundations that have been transferred to the administration of the grand viziers. Mehmed II’s
endowments can be given as an example.
216Bayezid II gave the administration of his endowments to Sheikh-al Islam.
217Bayezid, Halidiyye, Selimiyye, Laleli, Mihrisah Valide and the endowments of Mahmud II were managed
by royal mint.
44
Istanbul Qadis218.219 The management of the Mehmet II, Selim I, and Süleyman I
foundations was given to the sheikh al-islam, whereas the other sultan’s foundations
and the foundations of some extinct viziers and emirs were given to the sultan’s
relatives and the sultan’s private servants. The person establishing a foundation
would determine the rules for the administration of the foundation, and leave the
supervision of the foundation’s management to high state officials such as the grand
vizier, sheikh al-islam, chief harem eunuch, and Istanbul qadi.220
Apart from the change in institutions and their operations over time, a determinant
step was taken for the pious foundations when Evkâf-ı Hümâyûn Nezâreti (Ministry
of Foundations) was established in 1826. The purpose of establishing a ministry for
the foundations could be gathering the scattered foundation management under one
umbrella institution, preventing corruption, and centralizing foundations under the
state.221 Since the documentation and execution of the trading transactions were
done by the trustees, there was fraud. In order to prevent such events, the Ministry
of Evkaf-ı Hümayun was established. However, the situation did not get better due
to the attitudes of the employees in this institution. This contributed to the loss
of power of foundations due to irregular distribution of documents by non-existent
professions (gedik), and the use of the money collected in the foundation’s treasury
for different purposes among the offices.222
Since the establishment of the Ottoman state, the ministers appointed by the foundations,
the inspectors appointed by the state for the control of the foundations, and
the judges who were members of the county organization had been conducting the
inspection and control of the foundations.223 Judges who have the power of judiciary
have the power to control and inspect the foundations coming from the guardianship
over the properties of the foundation. After the establishment of Evkâf-ı Hümâyûn
Nezâreti, the duty of control and inspection belonged to this establishment.
During the Tanzimat period, the foundation lands of all sultans, notables of the
218The pious foundations which belonged to the qadis were managed by qadis of Istanbul. Afterwards, qaids
of Galata, Üsküdar, Eyüp and administrators such as capitan pasha, the head of Janissaries added to the
administration of pious foundations under this title.
219Ziya Kazıcı, Islâmî ve Sosyal Açıdan Vakıflar (Istanbul: Marifet Yayınları, 1985), 73-75.
220Mustafa Nuri Pasa, Netayic Ül-Vukuat: Kurumları ve Örgütleriyle Osmanlı Tarihi, ed. Neset Çagatay
(Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1980), 3-4: 284-285.
221Öztürk, Türk Yenilesme Tarihi Çerçevesinde Vakıf Müessesesi (Ankara: Türk Diyanet Vakfı Yayınları,
1995), 69.
222Mustafa Nuri Pasa, Netayic Ül-Vukuat, 285-287.
223Ahmed Akgündüz, Islâm Hukukunda ve Osmanlı Tatbikatında Vakıf Müessesesi (Istanbul: Osmanlı
Arastırmaları Vakfı, 1996), 359.
45
state, and influential, high-ranking people were captured by the Treasury of Finance
and started to be taken as tithe (ösür). Every month, the treasury would give money
dividing the income of the lands by one tenth. Fuat Pasha, who called this money
aid (iane), decreased this amount as there was a fiscal deficit in the state budget
and thus, the power of the foundations gradually decreased. 224
There were monetary foundations in the Ottoman Empire, different from other
Islamic states. Since the continuity of the endowed property was a must, it had been
discussed for a long time whether cash could be donated or not. With the fatwa
of Sheikh al-islam Ebusuud, the monetary foundations were approved.225 These
foundations, which were a common practice in the Ottoman state, were based on
the operation of cash. Initially, monetary foundations were managed by autonomous
trustees and supervised by judges, but then they started to be controlled by Evkâf-ı
Hümâyûn Nezâreti.226
As a versatile and comprehensive institution, the pious foundations continued to
exist even when the grievances, as mentioned earlier, were experienced. Since the
number of people affected by the cases mentioned above was so great, it would be an
overly optimistic guess to expect the pious foundations to help all of these people.
The deterioration of the administration and inspection mechanisms in the foundation
system over time, the abuses of the foundation properties, and the disposal of the
lands of many foundations due to the loss of land by the state have been important
factors leading to the loss of the power of the foundations.227 Therefore, during this
period, the pious foundations were not as comprehensive and robust as before.
As a result, in this chapter, the major dynamics affecting the conditions of the
people of Istanbul over a period of a century have been tried to be discussed from
the perspective of beggary. Factors such as natural disasters and fires in the city,
epidemics, the changings in the economy, the massive migration to the city, and the
deterioration of pious foundations could be influential in the increasing number of
beggars in the city because all of these variables were effective in the formation of
destitute people in the society. It is difficult to say that the nineteenth century,
unlike other times, brought many victims of disasters. The main reason for the
assumption that begging in the city increased is the increase in the population of
Istanbul. For example, the number of beggars in the city was tried to be alleviated
224Mustafa Nuri Pasa, Netayic Ül-Vukuat, 287.
225Hamdi Döndüren, “Islâm’da Vakıf ve Güncel Degeri,” Keskül, no.38 (2016): 26.
226Yıldız, Osmanlı Vakıf, 29.
227Yıldız, Osmanlı Vakıf, 30-32.
46
by sending non-Istanbul residents to their hometowns. In a document of 1874, it is
stated that the number of people who were non-Istanbul residents, had to be sent
to their hometowns was one thousand five hundred.228 Considering that there were
only one thousand five hundred people who were not from Istanbul and who were
caught, the dimensions of the beggar problem can be estimated in Istanbul. On
the other hand, since no information is available about their numbers, this cannot
go beyond an estimate. The factors discussed in the chapter are accompanied by
other factors that may have played a role in causing the increase in the urban poor.
Therefore, other possible variables that may have caused people to beg apart from
the increase in the city population were also attempted to be evaluated. However, it
can be seen that the factors mentioned in this chapter were intertwined and related
to each other.
228BOA A.MKT.MHM. 20/472, 19 Za 1290 (January 8, 1874)
47
3. THE TRANSFORMATION IN THE PERCEPTION OF
BEGGARY
With an increasing number of beggars in Istanbul, the state politics towards the
beggars became centralized and more regulated. In the period of Mahmud II, a new
agency was constituted with the name Se’ele Müdürlügü (Directorate of Beggars) or
Fukara Müdürlügü (Directorate of Poor People) and Süleyman Aga was appointed
as the director with a salary of 1,500 kurus in 1834.229 The difference between the
previous Dilenci Kethüdalıgı (Stewardship of Beggars) and the new Fukara Müdürlügü
was that the former was seen as a guild and had no direct connection to the
state with the steward of the guild acting as an intermediary between the state
and beggars. The latter, in contrast, was a bureaucratic administrative unit which
was directly dependent on the state. According to Özbek, it is understood from
the appointment of Hüseyin Aga to the directorate of this unit in 1839 that this
directorate continued to exist until the end of the 1830s.230 The existence of this
directorate can be interpreted as an indicator of a transition in the policies of the
state. While the state started to aim to control beggars directly, it still continued
the tradition of seeing them as a group in need of being recognized.
After this practice, there were no serious changes in the practices for beggars until the
reign of Abdulhamid II. However, the ideas that would lead to these practices were
beginning to spread and create a foundation for what was to come. Once the period
of Abdulhamid II came along, beggars were not seen as religious, saintly people, but
came to be considered as an unwanted element, indeed regarded as a problem.231
Especially the upper classes in society were rather concerned about beggars, i.e.
regarded beggary as a social, moral problem and a stain on the empire’s “modern”
229BOA C.BLD. 2161/44, 29 Ra 1250 (August 5, 1834) cited also in Özbek, “Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nda,”
21.
230Özbek, “Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nda,” 21,40.
231Özbek, “‘Beggars’ and ‘Vagrants’,” 786.
48
image.232 It is possible to see the effects of the modernization and industrialization
efforts, which started to settle with the Tanzimat period, on the policies regarding
beggars. The change in the idea of work itself and the relationship between work
and morality deeply affected the state’s perspective on society and the individuals
who make it up. As the working potential and workforce capacity of society became
the interest of the state, working became an indispensable condition for progress,
industrialization, and modernization.
Beggars took a position against industrialization with their stance of choosing not to
participate in the production processes and to not contribute to the economy. Considering
the industrialization in Istanbul and the efforts to keep up with the world
economy throughout the century, the reaction against beggars is understandable.
On the other hand, these people, who were wandering in the streets in opposition to
the modern city phenomenon that was intended to be created in Istanbul, took their
place against the new kinds of work. In turn, they also took a stand against the new
notions regarding morality with their presence and inaction on the streets, which
caused them to get negative reactions. In this new capitalist order, where the new
rather than the old had become more acceptable, the presence of these dysfunctional
people, who were considered to be shabby, not working, and reminiscent of the slow
and idle state of the pre-modern period, aroused discomfort on both the state and
the elite.
In the nineteenth century, the understanding of the concept of laziness changed to
be similar to that which emerged in the West. Influenced by the Enlightenment,
the Young Ottomans’ support for work became the general idea adopted by the
state and the elites over time. The Tanzimat generation blended the concepts of
work and morality acquired from Europe with their own interpretation of them.233
The target of the Young Ottomans, “a genuine modernist Islamic synthesis,”234 also
shows itself in the policies applied to the beggars. This transformation comes to
life both in the aid and the security policies mentioned in this chapter and in the
policies directed towards beggars directly during the reign of Abdülhamid II, which
will be mentioned in the next chapter.
Begging and vagrancy continued to be one of the city’s problems even after the
establishment of Darülaceze (Hospice). In particular, the beggars on the bridge
caused discomfort; two or three municipal police and an officer from the Darülaceze
232Özbek, “‘Beggars’ and ‘Vagrants’,” 786-787; Özbek, “Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nda,” 23,24.
233Sirin, “Avrupa ve Osmanlı,” 69.
234Serif Mardin, The Genesis Young Ottoman Thought (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1962),
408.
49
were instructed to patrol the bridge and arrest those they caught. Those who
were non-Istanbul residents would be sent to their hometowns, those who met the
admission requirements would be sent to the Darülaceze, and those with leprosy
would be sent to the Miskinler Tekkesi (special institution for leprous people). The
families of the caught children would be assured that they would not beg their
children again.235 This decision is actually a clear indication of how strict the policies
towards begging became in the last years of Abdulhamid II’s reign. Begging was
perceived as both a crime and a moral issue. There was an attempt to distinguish
those who were morally corrupt, who were guilty, and who were in need.
As it can be understood from the studies of Nadir Özbek, who has done research on
the social state aspect of the Ottoman Empire and on the newspapers, the discomfort
of the Ottoman elite about the unemployed and urban poor was evident in many
newspapers. There was news about the presence of beggars in public spaces creating
an ugly image and contaminating the modern image of the city. The clear existence
of this distinction is also found in an article with the name of “Yine Saile” in the
newspaper Sabah No. 3937 published on October 28, 1900. The writer of this article
made suggestions to the state in order to extinguish beggars. The writer proposed
that the state help destitute people, that all needy people would not be able to
fit in the Darülaceze (Hospice), and that therefore, they should be distributed to
other institutions in the provinces. The writer also recommended that the children
of beggars be sent to Darüssafaka (a school for orphans) or to Darülhayr-ı Ali
(the Imperial Orphanage). Orphans and young female beggars should be sent to
the house of corrections. Since orphans and young women were seen as future
vagrants or sex workers, it was recommended that they should be educated by
correctional institutions and their morals should be corrected. It was stated that
drastic measures should be taken against those who can work but still continue to
beg, which was actually the group that was seen as vagrants and a danger to the
safety of the city. Sending this group out of the city, as had been done for years, did
not bring a solution; therefore, these people should be employed and their capacity
for production should be used for the benefit of the country. The author’s suggestion
at this point was to give these people land in a similar way to immigrants and enable
them to produce agriproduct. This article, in which the beggars were divided into
different categories, clearly shows the view of the Ottoman elite at the time on
the different subgroups. The most interesting part of the article is that there is a
group that was deemed allowed to beg. People who had a baby and a sick spouse
were allowed to beg so long as they were licensed by the state and begged without
235BOA DH. MKT. 74/2609; 15 L 1323 (December 13, 1905) a similar document, Meclis-i Vükela put issue on
its agenda on October 26, 1905, cited in Özbek, “Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nda,” 24-25; Özbek, “‘Beggars’
and ‘Vagrants’,” 786.
50
disturbing the public.236
In this article, which offers solutions to the problem of begging and makes sharp
distinctions between different types of beggars, it was important that begging was
done under a state-issued license, even at the end of the nineteenth century. With the
increase in the number of beggars and the change in the city, begging was perceived
as a problem and danger, but it still continued to be perceived as a kind of job or
profession that could be done with a license. Besides, it can be deduced that the
main distinction among beggars was whether they could work or not. This attitude
was the reflection of the author of this article, as well as the idea that every person
should work among the Ottoman elite. In this period when the state was trying to
reform the people and the elites were trying to reform the state,237 the perspective
of the elites on the policies towards beggars is very important. The similarity of
the practices of the state with this newspaper article in the future process is also
important in this respect.
Considering the process before Se’ele Müdürlügü was established, the main actors
of social assistance, the pious foundations, lost their power and were centralized by
the state; similarly, the Janissary Corps, which were important in the security of
the city, were disbanded. The state was supposed to close the social aid gap caused
by the centralization of pious foundations and thus, be able to prevent people in
need from begging. Moreover, the gap in security caused by the abolition of the
Janissaries was supposed to be closed by imposing various sanctions on people who
were not in need and whose begging was not deemed appropriate by the state; this
was done to ensure the safety of the city.
As a result, intense migration to the city, natural disasters, epidemics, changing
social balances in the economy and social structure, the centralization of the pious
foundations, and the security gap in the city had greatly changed the perspective
of state and elite on the beggars of the city. While the problems created by the
beggars continued to grow, the social aid practices and the practices made to ensure
the social order directly affected the beggars even though there was no clear policy
change towards the beggars. At this point, it would be useful to mention the state’s
efforts to reorganize social assistance and reestablish the social order, but before
that, apart from the aforementioned reasons, it would be useful to reexamine the
situation of other groups engaged in begging in this period.
236Özbek, “Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nda,” 24-25; Özbek, “‘Beggars’ and ‘Vagrants’,” 786-787.
237Kemal Karpat, Islâm’ın Siyasallasması (Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2004), 2.
51
3.1 Tracing the Tradition of Beggary
There was another group that to a certain extent remained outside the scope of the
sultan’s authority in Istanbul, namely the dervish orders.238 With the centralization
of pious foundations in 1826 and the establishment of Bab-ı Mesihat Dairesi (The
Office of Sheik al-Islam), the financial resources of the dervish lodges came under
direct control of the central government, and thus the sheikhs and dervishes were
attempted to be controlled by the state, not just financially but also in terms of the
way they behaved.239 Apart from the tradition of begging among dervishes, this
issue affected beggars in general because the dervish lodges were the places where
beggars could stay and receive assistance. The politics of state which were hardening
in time toward beggars might have affected the relations of the beggars with the
dervish lodges. It can be observed that the former distinction between beggars and
vagrants gradually disappeared together with the increase of the beggar problem
in the city and the growing reactions against the beggars. In this complex social
equation, the official positioning of some dervishes has also moved from beggary
to vagrancy. In the first part of the thesis, it was mentioned that Bektashism was
banned in 1826. After its abolition, Bektashi mausoleums and tekyes were ruined.240
Besides, in the period of Mahmud II, the state aimed to end begging to ensure dervish
groups could receive income from tax revenues. While the dervishes complained
about insufficient revenues and the lack of provision payments, the state continued its
policies of cutting revenues and taking control.241 When the new understanding of
work and morality, which came to the fore with the Young Ottomans, is interpreted
as the rise of Orthodox Islam,242 the policies towards beggar dervish groups, which
were considered to be heterodox, can be interpreted in different ways.
In addition to this progression of dervishism towards vagrancy, there were some
documents useful to add beggars into this equation. In the calligraphy of 1839, it
is said that many unknown people dressed as dervishes roamed in the streets like
vagrants, and these people not only stayed in inns and lodges, but also in mosque
courtyards and in many other places. These people should have been given a permit
by their sheikh. People who did not know the rules should have been sent from
238Bernard Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey (London, New York, Toronto: Oxford University Press,
1965), 78.
239Özbek, Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nda Sosyal, 163.
240Barnes, An Introduction to Religious Foundations, 88.
241Barnes, An Introduction to Religious Foundations, 90-99.
242Mardin, The Genesis, 94; Karpat, Islâm’ın Siyasallasması, 2.
52
the city. Some parts of the document have already been mentioned, but the more
important part of the document is that besides the dervishes mentioned, a number
of vagrant and insane (meczub) groups were also roaming the streets and beggars
were said to be constantly increasing. Although dervishes, beggars, and vagrants
were treated separately in this document, their definitions were very similar and the
discomfort they caused was common; the main idea was that the streets must be
cleared of them.243 In another piece of calligraphy from the same date, it was said
that the necessary orders were given to the Ihtisab Nazırı (The Minister of Public
Order) Izzetlü Aga and the Kayıkhâne-i Amire Nazırı (The Minister of Boathouse)
regarding cleaning the streets of the unknown people who dressed like dervishes,
insane people, and beggars. The sultan’s approval was obtained for sending the
unsuitable ones from the city.244
In the course of the nineteenth century, the state implemented a series of practices
against vagrant dervishes living in lodges, madrasas, and inns in Istanbul. In a
decree by Meclis-i Vâlâ-yı Ahkâm-ı Adliyye (the Supreme Legislative and Judicial
Council) dated February 11, 1860 (19 B 1276), it is mentioned that the number of vagrant
dervishes who were unaware of the state’s practices and prohibitions increased
and that these dervishes were staying in tekyes, inns, and madrasas of the places
which belong to qadis of Istanbul in neighborhoods like Eyüp and Üsküdar. As a
countermeasure, the names of these vagrant dervishes and students were recorded in
the books by a commission made up of officers in each neighborhood. Every dervish
and student were linked by guarantor and they were registered, which obstructed
unregistered people from coming to these places to find shelter, in turn creating
an undesirable crowd. It was ordered that people who are unregistered or have no
information about the regulations around dwelling were not to be allowed to enter.
If the opposite action happened, the sheikh of the tekye would be reported to the
Sheikh al-Islam.245
Another group that deranged the public order was the so-called külhanbeyleri
(rowdy). During the reign of Abdulmecid, raids were made to the furnaces (külhan)
of public baths where orphans stayed. The lifestyles of those who did not have
a place to stay and sleep in the furnaces of the baths can be defined as counterculture
against the order. These people, who insisted on getting what they want from the
public, created considerable fear among the city population. Külhanbeys were people
who were left without parents and who entered this social class with a peculiar
243BOA, HAT., 31420, 29 Z 1254 (March, 15 1839)
244BOA, HAT., 31420A, 29 Z 1254 (March, 15 1839)
245Barnes, An Introduction to Religious Foundations, 100-101.
53
ceremony called "brotherhood ceremony". In this ceremony, a shirt (kefen) was put
on two young boys who took an oath to support each other for life.246 Resad Ekrem
Koçu’s work called Patrona Halil contains very interesting information about the
külhanbeys. It is said that these children who were fatherless fell into the hands
of vagrants and qalandaris, lived miserable lives in lodges, and performed various
rituals. Resad Ekrem Koçu named this sect “Layhariye” because it was based on
an Afghan Qalandar nicknamed Layhar, who lived in a bathhouse or "Külhaniye"
during the reign of Mahmud of Ghazni (the ruler of Ghaznavids), because this sect
was founded in the furnaces of Istanbul.247
Children born from sex workers or babies left in the courtyards of mosques by their
families played a role in the growth of this sect. If a child was born from a sex worker,
his mother’s death was a condition for him to join the cult. Children over eleven were
not accepted as they could not adapt, and these people, who stayed in the furnace
until the age of twenty-three, would try to survive in society by themselves.248 It
was in the interest of the state to at least know where these orphaned children
were staying, so it did not see any harm in recording them according to the baths
they lived in in the registry books (sicil defterleri) of the qadis of Istanbul.249 The
interesting position of the külhanbeys of being somewhere between the vagrant and
the dervish developed as they began to beg, thus making them a blend of three
roles. On the evening of a new person joining the sect, a feast consisting of rice
and halva was given. The person who needed to collect the ingredients for this feast
by begging for them from the grocers until the evening was a new member of the
sect. After the feast, the person who would be the brother of the new member was
determined and the above-mentioned brotherhood ceremony was held.250
According to the tradition of begging, the külhanbeys between the ages of eleven
and fifteen used to beg in groups of two, while the older ones frequented shops
asking for money and spent their days roaming around the city.251 The külhanbeys
continued their existence in Istanbul until June 1846 when around 800 külhanbeys
were collected in a raid.252 Such children were caught in raids during the reign of
246Ayse Sevim, “Dârülaceze,” Keskül, no.38 (2016): 90-103, 92.
247Koçu, Patrona Halil, 88-89.
248Koçu, Patrona Halil, 95.
249Koçu, Patrona Halil, 93.
250Koçu, Patrona Halil, 96-97.
251Koçu, Patrona Halil, 102-103.
252Koçu, Patrona Halil, 109.
54
Abdulmecid and sent to military factories, whereas young people were integrated
into military units.253 This government practice can be interpreted as an example
of the implementation of the policy of employing beggars that were able to work
within the public sector.
3.2 Reestablishing of Public Order
The separation of beggars into certain groups by the state had also been seen in
previous centuries. The state used to consider beggars as a guild and give licenses
to those they allowed to beg, and sentenced others to various penalties. When
the beggars came to be reorganized under a directorate directly affiliated with the
state, the categorizations in regard to the beggars began to sharpen as part of the
policies of strengthening the central government. The group that was not suitable
for begging in the eyes of the state and the vagrants were faced by those who ensured
the security of the city. The relation between vagrants and beggars arised from the
fact that they were both groups against the intended order. Those who did not want
to be involved in labor to have their basic needs met had to use one of two ways to
acquire someone else’s property: either by using force or begging someone to defray
their needs.254
Due to the major social changes experienced in the nineteenth century, new needs
and issues emerged in the field of security. Factors such as the rapid urbanization of
Istanbul, the emergence of poor classes, and the growth in the problem of beggary
had transformed the problem of preserving public order, especially in cities, into
a major challenge.255 Issues such as consolidating central authority and increasing
public order attracted the attention of the Sublime Porte during the reigns of Selim
III and Mahmud II.
After the dissolution of the Janissary Corps, it became necessary to reorganize the
city’s security forces, because in the past, the Janissary law enforcement officers
had played a major role in the implementation of public and town law enforcement
duties. A new organization was also required to fulfill other financial and adminis-
253Sevim, “Dârülaceze,” 92.
254Sirin, “Avrupa ve Osmanlı,” 63.
255Noémi Lévy and Alexandre Toumarkine, ed., Osmanlı’da Asayis, Suç ve Ceza: 18.-20. Yüzyıllar (Istanbul:
Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları), 4.
55
trative duties besides security.256 Some of these changes were in the neighborhood
administrations. Starting from the 1840s, neighborhoods in Istanbul started to be
governed by headmen (muhtar), not imams. The task of ensuring the security of the
neighborhood was transferred to the headman. Among the security-related duties
of the headman were to keep the records of the people living in the neighborhood
and to control the people who left the neighborhood or wanted to settle in the
neighborhood.257
Although travel permit applications existed before this period in the Ottoman Empire,
these applications gained stability during this period. With the security gap
created by the abolition of the Janissary Corps, more importance was given to the
practices of Men’-i Mürur Tezkeresi (certificate of passage).258 In the tenth article
of the Ihtisâb Agalıgı Nizâmnâmesi (Regulation of Public Official) in 1826, it was
mentioned that measures would be taken to prevent the crowding of stray people
and vagrants in Istanbul and that the residents of the neighborhoods in Istanbul
should be registered.259 Indeed, the state tried to get the city under its control
through the implementation of the Men’-i Mürur Tezkeresi by taking the census
of the population and detecting unemployed people without guarantors and taking
them out of the city in order to remove those who were the source of rebellion, theft,
and similar inappropriate behavior from the city.260 In the following period, new
regulations261 regarding the application of this plan were arranged, which shows the
importance of this implementation for the state.
While examining the measures taken to prevent begging, what and how these measures
were implemented constitutes an important part of the issue. The developments
in the security practices and new policies in regard to public order of the
city also affected the implementation of measures within the scope of begging. In
the pre-Tanzimat period, policing was limited to emergencies such as riots and social
unrest in the big cities where the army took the duty of the police and did
what was necessary. In other places, there existed local social forces that formed
the police forces on the basis of the notion of collective responsibility. Watchers of
256Taner, Osmanlı Esnafı, 72.
257Cem Behar, A Neighborhood in Ottoman Istanbul: Fruit Vendors and Civil Servants in the Kasap Ilyas
Mahalle (United States of America: State University of New York Press, 2003), 78-79.
258Nalan Turna, 19.YY.’den 20.YY’Ye Osmanlı Topraklarında Seyahat, Göç ve Asayis Belgeleri: Mürr Tezkereleri
(Istanbul: Kaknüs Yayınları, 2013), 59-60.
259Ahmed Akgündüz, Osmanlı Devletinde Belediye Teskilâtı ve Belediye Kanunları (Istanbul: Osmanlı
Arastırmaları Vakfı, 2005), 523-524; Turna, 19.YY.’den 20.YY’Ye Osmanlı Topraklarında Seyahat, 64.
260Sirin, “Avrupa ve Osmanlı,” 68,69.
261In 1841, 1844 and 1887. These regulations were mentioned in the book of Nalan Turna in detail.
56
quarters (bekçi) can be considered as an example of the latter practice in Istanbul.
These watchers received their salaries from the neighborhood they served and had a
significant share in the protection of the public order in Istanbul. Following the Armenian
revolts, the regime of Abdulhamid II issued a directive in 1896 whereby the
watchers were assigned the task of security intelligence—that is, they were provided
a position between the state and the people of the neighborhood.262
The beggar population was also an issue for the city’s appearance. Istanbul had
always been the showcase of the social and economic changes that the Empire went
through. The reaction of the Ottoman elite, mentioned at the beginning of the
chapter, against the beggars also had an effect on the fact that the image of the
modern city, which was attempting to be created, was being spoiled by the beggars.
For example, before the visit of the German emperor Wilhelm II, it was ordered
that the streets should be cleared of beggars.263 This desire to create and protect a
showcase of a modern city also revealed problems such as public morality, law, and
order. Removing unwanted masses such as beggars from the streets, controlling the
closing hours of coffee shops, restaurants, shops, and entertainment venues, hiring
night guards, and setting up street lighting were among the measures taken in this
regard.264
A special commission within the body of the Meclis-i Ali-i Tanzimat headed by Edhem
Pasha defended the necessity of a modern municipal organization in order to
modernize the city and prepared a report. The report recommended the establishment
of fourteen new municipal offices, but only the municipal organization known
as the sixth department in Beyoglu was established.265 Although Edhem Pasha
tried to make the municipal organization common while he was the Nafıa Nazırı
(Minister of Public Works), it was not possible for the city to become modernized
only by shaping the administration. The need for technical personnel required for
building infrastructure was attempted to be met by bringing personnel from Europe
and sending students to Europe. Also, he endeavored to establish an engineering
school.266 In order for the city to have a modern look, the structures of it also had
262Noémi Lévy, “Yakından Korunan Düzen: Abdülhamid Devrinden Ikinci Mesrutiyet Dönemine Bekçi
Örnegi.” in Osmanlı’da Asayis, Suç ve Ceza: 18.-20. Yüzyıllar, ed. Noémi Lévy and Alexandre Toumarkine
(Istanbul: Tarih Vakftı Yurt Yayınları), 50.
263BOA Y.PRK.BSK., 103, 29 Z 1317 (April, 30 1900)
264Nurçin Ileri, “The History of Illumination with City Gas in Late Ottoman Istanbul,” in History From
Below: A Tribute in Memory of Donald Quataert, ed. Selim Karahasanoglu and Deniz Cenk Demir
(Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi University Press, 2016), 533.
265Salih Erol, “XIX. Yüzyıl Osmanlı Devlet Adamlarından Ibrahim Edhem Pasa,” (PhD diss., Anadolu
Üniversitesi, 2019 226.
266Erol, “XIX. Yüzyıl,” 226-227.
57
to be changed. The fires that took place in Istanbul, which were considered as a
factor in the increase of beggars within the scope of the study, were also used in
the studies to create a modern city. The 1865 Hocapasa and 1870 Pera fires, which
took place during Edhem Pasha’s time as Minister of Public Works, affected the
pasha’s practices in this area. Progress was made in the construction of masonry
buildings and the improvement street arrangements in fire-prone zones. With the
Ebniye Nizanmamesi (Construction Regulation) published in 1875, the construction
of wooden structures in Istanbul and Bilâd-ı Selâse was prohibited.267
3.3 The Formation of Police Forces
Looking closer at the reformation of public security forces, the Tanzimat period
constituted a turning point for the development of a police force independent from
the army, as facilitated by the article in the Tanzimat Edict that the "life, honor
and property of the subjects" are under the security of the Sultan.268
In 1845, a first step was taken to turn the police into a civilian force and to make
them independent from the army. As a part of this policy, the Zaptiye Müsiriyeti-
Polis Nizamnamesi (Police Regulation) was published. The vast majority of the
charter covers articles on public order. Articles such as issuing licenses to travelers
within the country, checking passports and issuing residence permits, putting
pressure on beggars, controlling entertainment venues such as theater, casino, and
single houses, attempting to prevent strikes and demonstrations by workers, and inspecting
of theaters and other public places made up the majority of the seventeen
items. In the issue of the struggle with vagrants, the fact that no vagrants were
mentioned in the regulations, which would later become the main issue of policing,
indicates that poverty was not criminalized in this period even though the control
of poverty became a matter of the state.269 This situation will also be mentioned
in the next section of the chapter when discussing the regulations that have been
put into practice and those that have not. At this stage, a well-defined group of
vagrants were not yet determined and policies were not developed to confront them.
However, the autonomy of the police from the military was not fully achieved during
the ninteenth century since members of police units continued to be selected from
267Erol, “XIX. Yüzyıl,” 227-228.
268Ferdan Ergut, Modern Devlet ve Polis (Istanbul: Iletisim Yayınları, 2004), 105.
269Ergut, Modern Devlet ve Polis, 123-124.
58
the army. In the absence of a centralized police force, public control in cities was
highly complex, with military personnel, neighborhood imams, guards, and congregations
involved at varying levels. These developments gained a completely different
importance in the reign of Abdulhamid II. After the Ottoman-Russian War, it was
concluded that new regulations regarding the army and police were necessary. In
1879, the independent Police Ministry (Zaptiye Nezareti) emerged.270
270Ergut, Modern Devlet ve Polis, 140,141.
59
4. SOCIAL ASSISTANCE-CORRECTIONAL POLICIES IN THE
PERIOD OF ABDULHAMID II
Under all these circumstances, it is not possible to think that the state did nothing to
address the issue of needy people. The centralization of pious foundations especially
provided a role to the state in terms of helping the poor. Also, the formation of the
idea of a social state in this period also was effective in developing policies to help the
poor. In the late eighteenth and early ninteenth centuries, the state was becoming
more concerned about public wealth and health and started to show early signs of
social policies.271 In earlier periods, it was seen that there were some payments
to people who had applied in person to the state to have their needs addressed.
However, these payments became more systematic in this period. The lump sum
payment with the name of muht¯acn maası (needy payment) was made in 1838,
but it was only for 115 people.272 In fact, this payment which was done by each
foundation in its own area before the Evkaf-ı Humayun Nezareti (Ministry of Pious
Foundations) was established started to be done centrally after the centralization
of pious foundations.273 In addition, there were tev’em (twins) payments made to
families with twins or triplets. The oldest document that can be found regarding this
practice belongs to the reign of Selim III. During the reign of Abdulhamid II, these
salaries began to be paid from the municipal budget, the condition of the parents
being in need in order to receive a salary was introduced, and they were paid within
the scope of the needy payment.274 However, the scope of these payments was not
sufficient to solve the begging problem in the city.
Abdulhamid used units such as the Hazine-i Hassa Nezareti (the ministry of the
treasury for sultan’s personal expending) and the Emlak-ı Seniyye Idaresi (the min-
271Özbek, “‘Beggars’ and ‘Vagrants’,” 785.
272Öztürk, Türk Yenilesme Tarihi Çerçevesinde Vakıf Müessesi, 178.
273Öztürk, Türk Yenilesme Tarihi Çerçevesinde Vakıf Müessesi, 178.
274Gül Hanım Cengiz, “A Social Aid Practice in II. Abdülhamid Era: Tev’em Salary,” Otam 41 (Bahar 2017):
59-62.
60
istry for sultan’s personal property) to finance his charitable works. The fact that
the Ministry of Pious Foundations or Finances was not used was effective in creating
the image that the aid was the sultan’s own charity.275 By attributing the aid
directly to the sultan, the sultan became the person who responded to the demands
of the people, and at the same time, the sultan’s role as caliph was brought to the
forefront.276 An example of this is that a significant portion of the aid given on behalf
of the Sultan was spent on the construction and repair of mosques. Besides, the
expenditures made for sects, dervish lodges, sheikhs, and dervishes were important
in Abdulhamid II’s charity works. Considering the spiritual influence of the sheikhs
and dervishes on the people, the Sultan tried to control them.277
The muht¯acn term which was mentioned above was used for people who were in
constant poverty. Another term for people who suffered from disasters such as
earthquakes, floods, and fires was mus¯abn. The state usually took the initiative
to provide aid for this category of people.278 A study on the 1894 Istanbul earthquake
shows that Abdulhamid II wanted a specific commission to be established to
help earthquake victims, but due to the existence of the commission established to
help the poor, needy, and sick people during the cholera epidemic of 1892-93, the
establishment of a new commission was abandoned. As an alternative, the Iane-i
Musabin ve Hastagân Komisyonu (the assistance commission for disaster victims
and patients) was founded to help the homeless and injured disaster victims. This
commission was responsible for duties such as sending the wounded to hospitals and
treating them. It is seen that the aid task previously undertaken by foundations
was now undertaken by the state and investigations were carried out on disaster
victims.279 The head of the commission, which was established during the cholera
epidemic in 1892-93, was the Sultan himself.280 It is seen that the Sultan and the
members of the dynasty contributed by buying tickets from the aid campaigns, both
in the cholera epidemic and in the Istanbul earthquake in 1894.281
A similar aid campaign was created at the establishment of the Darülaceze (Hos-
275Özbek, Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nda Sosyal, 156.
276Selim Deringil, The Well-Protected Domains: Ideology and the Legitimation of Power in the Ottoman
Empire 1876-1909 (London; New York: I.B.Tauris, 1998), 43.
277Özbek, Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nda Sosyal, 158, 163.
278Özbek, Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nda Sosyal, 50.
279Sema Küçükalioglu Özkılıç, 1894 Depremi ve Istanbul (Istanbul: Türkiye Is Bankası Yayınları, 2015), 120,
337.
280Özkılıç, 1894 Depremi ve Istanbul, 119.
281Özkılıç, 1894 Depremi ve Istanbul, 119-121.
61
pice), which will be mentioned in the next section. Abdulhamid II developed his
symbolic power282 by being the head of aid campaigns and not using the Ministry
of Foundations in his aid. Indeed, Abdulhamid II played a role in running such aid
campaigns and in fact, the state mediated in giving what was taken from the people
to the poor and needy. The state assigned itself a task in helping those in need, but
did not take full responsibility for it. This situation can be interpreted as a stage in
the transition to social state policies.
4.1 Institutions
Working on the experiences of crime and delinquency in the Ottoman context means
working directly on the lower classes because most of the people who are judged by
state organs for illegal behavior are lower class. In the nineteenth century, while
the working classes were rapidly transforming into dangerous classes, a public discourse
was formed that the crime rates were constantly increasing.283 Defining and
dividing the working classes as criminal classes and separating them from others is
a fundamental part of elite politics.284 In the 1880s, urban poor people were divided
into two main categories in Istanbul. The first category included those who were
morally inappropriate such as beggars, vagrants, and prostitutes, while the second
category contained people who were destitute and needed help.285
With the emergence of the economic and cultural value of labor power along with
the developing capitalism, begging became a highly unwelcome practice. The aim
of the "capitalist order", which sees human beings as "labor force", was to protect
and maintain this through preventing vagrancy, begging, and the employment of
the poor.286 In the capital city, beggars were driven out of the city to be employed
by craftsmen or peasants in the provinces. In such measures, state institutions have
sought a way to have beggars and such people who were accepted as unemployed
"engage in a job". Here, the nature of the job did not seem to be very important.
Since "it is easy for an idle person to deal with idle jobs" (bos insanın, bos islerle
282Deringil, The Well-Protected Domains, 16-43.
283Özgür Sevgi Göral, “19. Yüzyıl Istanbul’unda Suç, Toplumsal Kontrol ve Hapishaneler Üzerine Çalısmak,”
in Osmanlı’da Asayis, Suç ve Ceza: 18.-20. Yüzyıllar, ed. Noémi Lévy and Alexandre Toumarkine
(Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları), 27-28.
284Göral, “19. Yüzyıl Istanbul’unda Suç,” 31.
285Nadir Özbek, “Osmanlı’dan Günümüze Darülaceze: Sosyal Politika Zihniyeti ve Kent Yoksullugunun
Degisen Niteligi,” Toplumsal Tarih, no. 288 (Aralık 2017): 52.
286Anar and Özbay, “Edebiyat Sosyolojisi,” 7.
62
ugrasması kolaydır), the state apparatus, which took its word as a principle, tried
to prevent such unoccupied people from being a problem for society and the state
by occupying them in job.287
At the end of the eighteenth century, the government started to be more concerned
about poor people and tried to make them working people. The conception and
the understanding of work changed in this period. Work was not just a degrading
activity, it was also seen as a way to access wealth with productive qualities.288 It
is obvious that behind this idea were the efforts of the Ottomans to industrialize
and adapt to the new system. It was mentioned that the West’s concepts of work
and morality began to spread among the Ottoman state and its elites. Although
the impact of these new concepts of capitalism began to be felt in the eighteenth
century, it was evident in state policies in the nineteenth century.289 It had become
a necessity for everyone to work for the progress and development of the state,
and not working had begun to be seen as a moral problem. While the distinction
of beggars as unemployed was the determining factor in aid and security policies,
policies aimed at making the people who were considered unemployable move to be
seen as workable were also seen in this period. The most suitable group for this
was undoubtedly the begging and orphaned children. Children were attempted to
be raised as the working generations of the future in accordance with the new moral
understanding of work through their education.
The aim of creating productive generations and moral construction came to life with
new education programs, schools opened for orphans, and institutions for helping the
needy. The first attempt to establish an industrial school took place in Zeytinburnu
in 1848, but although the construction of the school was completed, the school
could not begin education.290 The process that started with the correctional school
(ıslahhane) opened by Midhat Pasha in 1862 in the province of Nis continued in
Istanbul. In 1868, the Istanbul Sanayi Mektebi (industrial school) was opened with
the support of Midhat Pasha. There was a factory inside the school and education
began with orphans and poor children under the age of thirteen.291 An industrial
school was opened for girls in 1869 to provide soldiers with laundry and bandages292
287Anar and Özbay, “Edebiyat Sosyolojisi,” 9.
288Özbek, “‘Beggars’ and ‘Vagrants’,” 784.
289Karpat, Islâm’ın Siyasallasması, 7.
290Imdat Özen, “II. Mesrutiyet’e Kadar Islahhaneler ve Darülaceze,” (Master’s Thesis, Ankara Üniversitesi,
2001), 2.
291Özen, “II. Mesrutiyet’e Kadar,” 3-5.
292Özen, “II. Mesrutiyet’e Kadar,” 6.
63
and industrial schools started to open in different places in the Empire in time.
Dârü’l-Hayr-Alî, which was established in 1903 in Istanbul to protect orphans, was
able to accommodate four hundred students after only a short amount of time.293
The ıslahhane (a mix of an orphanage and a correctional school) was an institution
which aimed to educate and discipline orphans.294 The purpose of establishing the
school can be understood from the benefits determined by the commission before its
establishment. The main purpose was to develop the Ottoman industry and provide
an educated labor force. In the industrial school in Istanbul, orphans were given
priority. All the expenses of these children were covered by the state and they were
boarding at the school; thus, their numbers were set to not exceed five hundred. If
well-off families wanted to send their children to this school, the fee was 500 kurus
for a year.295 Besides, children under the age of thirteen who were convicted of
various crimes were not found appropriate to stay in prison and were thus sent to
these schools.296 This is another sign that schools were seen as places of moral
improvement rather than merely educational institutions.
In addition, the Eytam Nezareti (the ministry for orphans) was constituted in 1851
and Darüssafaka was established in 1872 for the protection of orphan children.297
Hamidiye Etfal Hastahane-i ‘Alisi (the imperial hospital for children) opened in
1899. The impact of ceremonies connected with the new institutions, like the annual
circumcision of thousands of poor boys in modern, sanitary conditions at the
children’s hospital, was widespread.298
In a report submitted to the palace in 1879 by Müsir Fuat Pasha, a military bureaucrat
in the first years of the reign of Abdulhamid II, it was stated that industrial
schools should be open to everyone, not just orphaned children. He supported that
these schools should be made prestigious to attract the attention of rich family children
who could start their own businesses.299 The agriculture, trade, and industry
schools opened by the state were not affiliated with the Ministry of Public Education,
but by the Ministry of Trade and Public Works. This situation exposed
293Öztürk, “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Dilenciligin Önlenmesi,” 117; Nadir Özbek, “II. Abdülhamid ve Kimsesiz
Çocukları Darülhayr-ı Ali” Tarih ve Toplum 182 (Subat 1999), 12.
294Özen, “II. Mesrutiyet’e Kadar,” 1.
295Özen, “II. Mesrutiyet’e Kadar,” 4-9.
296Özen, “II. Mesrutiyet’e Kadar,” 9.
297Öztürk, “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Dilenciligin Önlenmesi,” 117.
298Singer, Charity in Islamic Societies, 195.
299Aksin Somel, The Modernization of Public Education in the Ottoman Empire 1839-1908: Islamization,
Autocracy, and Discipline (Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill, 2001), 174.
64
an attitude that pushed educational institutions out of industry and commerce.300
In addition, these institutions were assigned a mission for the sector different from
other educational institutions, which is how it is possible to evaluate the aims of the
establishment.
The discussions on labor-oriented education were not only about industrial schools,
but also about general education policies. In an environment where non-Muslim
merchants gained power, the tendency to add professional courses to primary and
secondary school programs increased after the 1880s with the aim of creating an
educated Muslim workforce and not falling behind in socioeconomic developments.
Training civil servants should have stopped being the only goal of the state in education.
301 Breaks in the education sector’s goal of raising civil servants began to
be seen after the 1900s when there were efforts to include practical subjects in the
curriculum.302
As seen from this discussion in the field of education, orphans were deemed worthy
of industrial schools as potential beggars of the future lower class of society. The fact
that the first part of society that was seen as the labor force in the industrial field
was the lower part of the society shows that the state did not consider this field as
important as training civil servants. Although this idea has changed over time, it is
possible to observe this social distinction in the general policy of the Abdulhamid II
period. Orphanages were founded to supply laborers to large industrial complexes
and factories.303 The practice of having orphanages can be considered as a step
of transformation. The idea of rescuing children may be one of the first step in
government control in the case of beggars.
4.1.1 Darülaceze
Institutions for beggars or orphans who could potentially be beggars were briefly
mentioned. Darülaceze (Hospice) has a special importance in the subject as an
institution that was opened directly for beggars that accepted beggars of all ages
and conditions. The idea of establishing Darülaceze was brought to the agenda
when there was an increase in begging and poverty. As the nineteenth century
300Somel, The Modernization of Public Education, 177.
301Somel, The Modernization of Public Education, 173-174.
302Somel, The Modernization of Public Education, 178.
303Nazan Maksudyan, “State ‘parenthood’ and vocational orphanages (islâhhanes): Transformation of urbanity
and family life,” The History of the Family 16, no. 2 (2011): 178.
65
came to an end in Istanbul, social problems related to poverty increased.304 The
word Darülaceze was formed by the combination of two words. While "dar" means
house, "aceze" comes from the root of "acz" which means failure,305 and "aceze" used
generally for old age, disability, very young orphaned children, and people who could
not earn their living by working.306
The construction of Darülaceze was started on November 10, 1892307, and completed
in 1896 with a capacity of 1,000 people.308 It can be said that Darülaceze was a
comprehensive "social service institution" that included women, men, children, and
the elders. It provided care services for the elderly and education for children while
also helping the poor and the disabled.309
It was designed very comprehensively. It consisted of places of worship including a
mosque, an Eastern Orthodox church, and an Armenian church, separate hospitals
for men and women, a primary school with a capacity for two hundred students
with the name of Darülaceze Mekteb-i Ibtidaisi, a nursery which opened in 1903,
and workshops which were not active when Darülaceze was originally opened but
became active in time. After two years, carpet weaving and carpenter workshops
started and the number of workshops increased in time.310
Before the establishment of Darülaceze, children were gathered from the streets and
taken to the ıslahhanes as the prohibition of begging was implemented.311 However,
with the establishment of Darülaceze, a place that was specially created for beggars,
children began to receive education and those who could work were employed thanks
to the workshops. Those who were beggars who could not afford to work were forced
to go to hospice, and those who could afford to work but insisted on begging began
to be imprisoned.312
Considering the policies and establishments for the urban poor, Darülaceze was
304Ayse Mine Karaca, “II.Abdülhamid Dönemi Sergi Çalısmalarına Bir Örnek: 1891 Darülaceze Sergisi”
(Master’s Thesis, Karabük Üniversitesi, 2019), 23.
305Özen, “II. Mesrutiyet’e Kadar,” 16.
306Özbek, Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nda Sosyal, 50.
307Sevim, “Dârülaceze,” 93.
308Özbek, Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nda Sosyal, 195.
309Karaca, “II.Abdülhamid Dönemi Sergi,” 22.
310Nuran Yıldırım, Istanbul Darülaceze Müessesesi Tarihi (Istanbul: Darülaceze Vakfı Yayınları, 1996),
162,166,179.
311Maksudyan, “State ‘parenthood’,” 176.
312Sirin, “Avrupa ve Osmanlı,” 75.
66
actually a mixed summary of the policies that the Abdulhamid II regime tried to
implement, as it was an institution that catered directly to beggars of all ages and
conditions. Looking at the parts of Darülaceze, this comprehensive institution was
a product of the stance that attached importance to the welfare of the people.
Through this institution, Abdulhamid II tried to create and influence the domestic
and foreign public opinion.313 The institution, which draws an inclusive portrait of
both Islam’s tolerance and Ottoman society with its worship centers belonging to
different faiths, was both a solution for clearing the beggars from the streets with
the effect of modernization, and also to be a training and study center. This center
was aimed to include harmony with the idea of work that emerged as a result of
capitalism in the production processes.
The reason for establishing Darülaceze was increased social control and establishing
discipline over the urban poor rather than a total struggle against the urban poor.314
In addition to that, it can be interpreted as part of the regime’s aim to create
discipline, reform morality, and employ beggars. Throughout its history, Darülaceze
has come to the forefront with its institutional environment and practicality, which
made it possible to convey a more dominant political language to large masses.315
4.2 Regulations: 1890 and 1896
The struggle against poverty first came to the fore in 1886 with an imperial decree.
Upon this decree, the Council of State (Sura-yı Devlet) took up the issue on
September 7, 1886, and as a result of the negotiations, it prepared a protocol on
this subject.316 According to this protocol, the number of beggars increased even
though they were not disabled or sick, and beggars disturbed the people. If they
had a relative to take care of them, begging was prohibited whether or not they
were unable to work. For people who did not have relatives to take care of them,
their parents and children who did not have a home were to be looked after by the
government, and Darülaceze was established for them. Some of the collected children
were to be given to Tersane (shipyard), Tophane-i Amire (Imperial Armory),
and Darüssafaka, and the older girls to industrial schools. It was stated that the
313Özbek, Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nda Sosyal, 207.
314Özbek, Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nda Sosyal, 202.
315Özbek, “Osmanlı’dan Günümüze Darülaceze,” 52.
316Yıldırım, Istanbul Darülaceze Müessesesi, 22.
67
beggars should be registered and the real needy should be rescued from sluggishness
and put in order.317
However, for four years, there were no developments in this regard apart from this
protocol. By 1890, a regulation was issued on the subject. Tese’ülün Men’ine Dair
Nizamname (The Regulation of Preventing Beggary) was published on 26 Saban
1307 (April 17, 1890)318, and the first article of this regulation was to put the regulation
into effect after Darülaceze accepted its first guests. However, since Darülaceze
was established six years after the first regulation about the prevention of beggary,
this regulation was renewed and published under the same name on 13 Saban 1313
(January 29, 1896).319
There are serious differences between these two regulations. According to the ninth
article of the first regulation, if disabled or homeless people did not apply to the
Darülaceze or if they were caught by the municipality or police forces, they would
be sentenced to one week in prison. After the sentence was over, if the person was
from Istanbul, s/he would be taken to Darülaceze, and if s/he was from different
province, s/he would be sent to his or her hometown.320 This article was replaced
in the new regulation in the eighth article. According to this, imprisonment for
disabled or homeless people had been abolished, but the rule of being sent to their
hometowns if they were from the provinces and to the Darülaceze if they were from
Istanbul was kept the same.321 However, those who did not disturb the public and
begged as a form of art would be allowed to beg.322 This part of the article is proof
of the existence of a group among beggar groups that could still be allowed to beg
in the eyes of the state. What is begging while making art for the public? What
is the scope of this? Although the answers to these questions cannot be answered
within the scope of the study, this section shows that the traditions of begging were
still protected at some point.323
According to the tenth article of the first regulation, people who beg when they were
in a position to work in any job would be brought to court when caught and sentenced
317Yıldırım, Istanbul Darülaceze Müessesesi, 22-24.
318Düstur Birinci Tertib. vol. 6. Ankara: Devlet Matbaası, 1939. 607-609.
319Düstur, Birinci Tertib, vol.7, 48-49.
320Düstur, Birinci Tertib, vol.6, 608-609.
321Düstur, Birinci Tertib, vol.7, 49.
322“... ve halkı izaç etmiyen ve bir sanat vesilesile teseül eyliyenler müstesna tutulacaklardır.” Düstur, Birinci
Tertib, vol.7, 49.
323Özbek, Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nda Sosyal, 89.
68
to imprisonment between one and three months. Those whose sentences had been
completed were to be released on bail and those who were not from Istanbul were to
be sent to their hometowns. If the same person was caught begging again, the prison
sentence would be doubled.324 This article also changed in the second regulation in
the ninth article. The prison sentence was abolished but bail continued. Those who
were from the country would be sent to their homeland. Those from Istanbul who
were caught begging for the second time would be deported to the countryside. An
addition was made to the last part of the article. According to the article, people
coming from neighborhoods with correctional schools or industrial schools would not
be admitted to the Darülaceze, but would be accommodated in this area.325 This
part supports the thesis that Darülaceze was a part of a project that aimed to make
everyone work together with correctional schools.
When considering the differences between the two regulations, this situation can be
thought of as the collision of modernization and Islam and the synthesis created. The
harsh attitude seen in the first regulation was softened by the influence of Islam’s
perspective on the subject. As mentioned at the beginning of the first chapter,
although the ambivalent attitude of the Qur’an, which advises against begging but
to help the beggar, is not so tolerated in the new order of society, leaving a gap
for those who beg within the framework of the law. Abdülhamid II’s ideology,
which supported modernization while still protecting Islamic culture and aiming to
synthesize the two,326 comes to life in the second regulation. Despite all the effects
of modernization and industrialization, and all the changes in state policies and
attitudes, a legal vacuum was left for those who practiced begging as an art.
This distinction, which separates people from each other with sharp boundaries and
interprets the expectations of the Ottoman elite which were mentioned in an earlier
part of the chapter, is related to the social distinctions encountered in different social
history studies. For example, George Rude who studied social actions in Europe in
the eighteenth century divides the lower classes of the eighteenth century London
into three categories: “working trades” like small shopkeepers, artisan craftsmen,
and their apprentices; unskilled laborers like porters, servants, day laborers; and
thirdly poor people, destitute, beggars, vagrants, prostitutes and criminals.327 At
this point, it is important to consider beggars in the same category as criminals
324Düstur, Birinci Tertib, vol.6, 609.
325Düstur, Birinci Tertib, vol.7, 49.
326Karpat, Islâm’ın Siyasallasması, 22.
327George Rudé, Studies in Popular Protest: Paris and London in the Eighteenth Century (New York: The
Viking Press, 1973), 50-51.
69
and vagrants. Similarly, in the Ottoman Empire, there are similarities between the
regulations related to vagrants and beggars.
Another regulation edited on 3 Sefer 1308 (September 18, 1890) with the name
Serseri Mazannai Su’ Olan Eshas Hakkında Nizamname (The Regulation About
Vagrants and Those with Criminal Records).328 This regulation was complementary
to the first regulation regarding beggars. It is possible to interpret that beggars and
vagrants were perceived as different groups from these two regulations prepared in
the same year.329 In the first article of the regulation, vagrants were defined as
those who did not engage in any work, did not live in a place permanently, did not
take care of their livelihood, and wandered on the streets.330 In the second article,
Mazannai Su’ is defined as a person who had a criminal record for crimes such as
murder, theft, and fraud.331 Evaluation of vagrants, who were defined as those who
did not work in a job, and persons with criminal records within the framework of the
same regulation, indicates that those who did not work were considered as potential
criminals by the state.332
According to the fourth article of the regulation, people determined to be vagrants
were required to find a job for themselves within the specified period and were
not allowed to leave their place without permission. If they did not find a job
or leave their place without permission, the third article of the regulation would be
applied.333 According to the third article, they were to be sentenced to imprisonment
anywhere from one month to three months. At the end of the sentence, they were
to be sent to their hometowns or determined places and would be controlled by the
Ministry of Security (Zaptiye Nezareti) for two years. If they repeated the crimes,
they would be sentenced to three months to one year in prison, and the period of
control by the police would vary between two and five years.334 One of the important
points about this text is that in the first beggar’s regulation published in the same
year, the prison sentence stipulated to be applied to workable beggars was the same
as that applied to vagrants.335
328Düstur, Birinci Tertib, vol.6, 748-751.
329Özbek, Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nda Sosyal, 92.
330Düstur, Birinci Tertib, vol.6, 748.
331Düstur, Birinci Tertib, vol.6, 748.
332Özbek, Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nda Sosyal, 91.
333Düstur, Birinci Tertib, vol.6, 748.
334Düstur, Birinci Tertib, vol.6, 748.
335Özbek, Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nda Sosyal, 91-92.
70
According to the fifth article of the 1890 regulation about beggars, the children
growing up in Darülaceze would be sent to the shipyard, Tophane-i Amire, or proper
places when they reached a certain age, and the girls would be placed in suitable
places.336 This article did not exist in the new version of regulation but entry
and exit conditions to Darülaceze were determined in a separate regulation. After
Darülaceze was opened, the regulation on begging was renewed. Darülaceze
Nizamnamesi (The Hospice Order) was published on 13 Saban 1313 (January 29,
1896).337
The rules of acceptance to Darülaceze were determined in the scope of regulation.
According to the fourteenth article of the regulation, those who were unable to
work and had no relatives were accepted to Darülaceze. It is seen that there was a
separate implementation for immigrants in this article in the rule of sending non-
Istanbul residents to their hometowns. The immigrants were accepted as beggars
from Istanbul if they met the conditions at Darülaceze.338 Leprosy or mentally
ill patients would not be admitted to Darülaceze. Instead, they would be sent to
the special institutions for these illnesses (cüzamhane and bimarhane). However,
syphilis patients would be admitted to a special ward in Darülaceze.339
Under the title of Darülaceze, it was mentioned that there were workshops in order
to teach the jobs to the residents and make production in the institution. In the
twentieth article of the regulation, it was stated that the products produced from
the workshops in the facilities would be sold in the exhibitions to be created in the
spring and during Ramadan, and the income would used for Darülaceze.340
Although the comprehensive facilities offered by Darülaceze resemble an ideal nursing
home, some of its rules show that this institution can also be interpreted as a
kind of detention center established for people who needed to be disciplined. Articles
21, 22, and 23 of the regulation show such features. According to these articles,
people staying in the Darülaceze could not go out without obtaining a license and
could not go to the kitchen, pharmacy, or any ward other than their own. If they
wanted to see their relatives, it could take place in the interview office in Darülaceze
on the day and time determined with the permission obtained from the manager
and they could not take any belongings from their relatives. Sleeping, waking, and
336Düstur, Birinci Tertib, vol.6, 608.
337Düstur, Birinci Tertib, vol.7, 43-48.
338Düstur, Birinci Tertib, vol.7, 46.
339Düstur, Birinci Tertib, vol.7, 46-47.
340Düstur, Birinci Tertib, vol.7, 47.
71
meal and break times were determined by the manager. Those who harassed others
and disobeyed the rules were to be placed in a separate room. 341
All in all, it can be said that Darülaceze was a well-thought-out nursing home for
people with disabilities, the elderly, babies, and those who could not work at all, and
a place where children and those who could work were attempted to be trained with
education and working discipline. This ambivalent situation is actually a summary
of the government’s beggar policies. It was mentioned that begging was seen as
a moral problem. The idea of work, which was seen as the solution to this moral
problem, brought discipline and control.
341Düstur, Birinci Tertib, vol.7, 47-48.
72
CONCLUSION
While the study tried to present an overview of the theme of Ottoman Istanbul’s
beggars, the relation between beggary and Islam and the usage of beggary as a
religious practice by religious orders were considered. Apart from people who begged
due to religious reasons, there were also people who begged because they were in
need. However, beggars were seen as being a part of the city as a tradesmen group. In
time, beggars started to be viewed as a problem. While this discomfort was growing,
the population of the city and the number of beggars in the city was also increasing.
It was emphasized that the reasons for this growth were related to the natural
disasters, fires, and epidemics which affected the public of the city; additionally,
the migration to the city from within and outside the borders of the country was
focused on. In addition, the changes in the economy and the deterioration of pious
foundations were dwelled upon as factors which may have been effective in the
increase of beggary in the city. Afterwards, the change in perception in the process
of seeing beggars as a problem was also discussed. In this context, the existence
of begging as a tradition in the nineteenth century was reevaluated in terms of the
definitions of the dervish and the beggar. In addition, the process of reestablishing
the public order of the state with its aid and security policies and the formation
of police forces in order to increase the security of the city were mentioned. In
the last chapter, the politics that affected the beggars in the period of Abdulhamid
II were emphasized, especially the social assistance-correctional policies put into
effect. In this scope, the establishments of institutions which related to beggars and
Darülaceze, which was established directly for the beggars, were evaluated. Lastly,
the regulations from this period were analyzed.
Unlike the studies on the problem of begging in the nineteenth century, by focusing
on beggars in nineteenth-century Istanbul, the study aimed to add the existence
of dervishes and the traditional form of begging into the equation, and tried to
reevaluate the studies carried out in this light. Although the emergence of begging
as a problem has been interpreted as a result of modernization, it can be said that
73
the practices, unlike in the West, took a new form that was unique and synthesized
with Islam.
While Islam does not tolerate the begging of people who can work, it allows people
in need to beg and includes rules that support charity in society with practices
such as sadaqa and zakat. Thus, when a Muslim person encounters a beggar, there
is a dilemma about whether the beggar is a sinner or someone who needs help.
Apart from this, the verses about people who were interested in worshiping in the
way prescribed by God have caused different interpretations among some religious
groups, and it has led to the practice of begging over time with the formation of the
ascetic lifestyle.
Therefore, it was necessary to include dervishes in the study while studying the
beggars of Istanbul. The fact that the word dervish means beggar in Persian342
may actually be linguistic proof that these two groups have a connection between
them. This connection also appears in the narrative of Evliya Çelebi where the
description of beggars as a guild includes both dervishes and people with physical
or mental disabilities. To understand why beggars were considered a tradesmen
group, it can be thought that it is because this group prays in return for the money
they receive. This interpretation both overlaps with the beggar narratives in the
traveler books used in the study and makes them more accessible. Beggars who
had a license and were registered in the Beggar Stewardship (Dilenci Kethüdalıgı
or Seele Kethüdalıgı), which transformed into the directorate later, were allowed to
beg and they were accepted as part of society.
Since beggars had many different begging styles and traditions and there were also
dervishes, it would be more accurate to understand beggars as a phenomenon consisting
of a wide variety of individuals and containing different cultures, rather than
looking at them as a single social mass. However, this multicultural social mass
started to become a severe problem in the eyes of the state and the Ottoman elite343
in the nineteenth century as a result of transformations in the perceptions of the
state and the elite due to the impact of modernization.
While their perception was changing, there was also an increase in beggars in the
city; thus, the number of beggars roaming in the streets was increasing. Such
incidents like natural disasters, epidemics, and fires in the city were emphasized as
the reasons for the increase in begging in the city. These events increased the number
of victims and people in need. In addition, intense migration to Istanbul, both from
342Koçu, Istanbul Ansiklopedisi, 8:4490.
343Özbek, “Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nda,” 24-25; Özbek, “‘Beggars’ and ‘Vagrants’,” 786-787.
74
within and outside the country’s borders, had created a disadvantaged immigrant
segment in the city and increased the amount of unemployed people. This situation
has been evaluated as one factor that led to the increase in the needy, poor people
begging on the streets. In addition, as the guilds lost their former power due to the
changes in the economy and as the development in the service sector in Istanbul
attracted more people to the city, the number of needy and unemployed people in
the city increased. Also, the loss of the former power of the pious foundations, which
was one of the critical institutions that made the Ottoman Empire a welfare state344,
and the deterioration in the management system, as well as its centralization, also
caused the aid given to the destitute people to lose its former effectiveness. All in
all, when all these factors are considered, the reasons for the increase in the number
of beggars in the city can also be understood, and thus the question of who the
beggars are can be answered.
As beggars were perceived as a problem in the city, it can be seen that it was difficult
to distinguish between the definition of the beggar and the vagrant. Many factors
played a role in the beggars becoming a problem in the city: the desire to create
the image of Istanbul as a modern city, the desire to clear the beggars from the
streets for this purpose, the desire to activate the passive social masses who were
able to work but were not working345, and the increasing need for security, especially
after the abolition of the Janissaries, the increase in Istanbul’s population, and the
centralization of the pious foundations, which was the main aid institution to the
destitute people. Thus, the implementations to restore the city’s security and new
centralized aid policies and regulations were reconsidered as they affected beggars in
the scope of the study. In addition, practices aimed at orphaned children, who were
seen as potential future beggars, were among the practices of the state employed to
solve the begging problem.
During the reign of Abdülhamid II, aid became more systematic, and commissions
were established for people who were victims of natural disasters and epidemics.
Additionally, institutions were established for the care and education of orphans,
who were seen as potential beggars of the future, and children were raised as future
workers. It is observed in the politics of this period that people who begged were
divided into two: destitute people who begged because they could not work, which
also included children and elderly people, and people who chose this as the easier
way to provide for their livelihoods. Therefore, the regulation known as Serseri
344Halil Inalcık, “The Ottoman State: Economy and Society, 1300-1600,” in An Economic and Social History
of the Ottoman Empire, 1300-1914, ed. Halil Inalcık and Donald Quataert, (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1994), 47.
345Sirin, “Avrupa ve Osmanlı,” 69.
75
Mazannai Su’ Olan Eshas Hakkında Nizamname (The Regulation About Vagrants
and Suspicious People) was published against those who did not want to have a job
without a legitimate reason; thus, the state ordered that these people must have
jobs. Thus, although the state provided a distinction between the definitions of
vagrants and beggars, the similarities with the first regulation planned for beggars
show that there was a tendency to equate beggars and vagrants. This tendency was
abandoned with the new regulation issued later on beggars.
Apart from that, the importance of this period was that the state started to prepare
regulations and establish institutions that were directly against the beggars.
Darülaceze (Hospice) was established for people who had no other solution but to
beg. Until the establishment of the hospice, it is seen that the state was against
begging only for people who could work. Together with the Darülaceze, a solution
had been found for people who had no other choice but to beg, so that there was no
part of the street that needed to be freed from begging. On the other hand, even
inside the hospice, workshops were set up for people to begin to produce goods.
This is an indication of how strong the idea of the government that everyone should
be productive was in this period.
Lastly, two regulations were prepared with the same name of Tese’ülün Men’ine Dair
Nizamname (The Regulation of Preventing Beggary) in this period. The first one
was not put into effect, but the differences between these regulations are essential
to understand the state’s perspective on begging. Despite all the implementations
designed to clean the streets of beggars, contrary to the first regulation prepared
in 1890, it is written in the published regulation that those who practiced begging
as an art would be allowed to continue to beg.346 This situation shows that the
state still left a legal gap in the tradition of begging, even after dividing the beggars
into groups and designing policies for all types of beggars. Even though the policies
towards beggars hardened with the impact of modernization and industrialization,
the bond with the past was still not broken and the impact of Islam was still present.
346Düstur, Birinci Tertib, vol.7, 49.
76
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Archival Documents
BOA A. MKT.MHM. 20/472. 19 Za 1290 (January 8, 1874)
BOA C.BLD 7597/152. 24 S 1149 (July 4, 1736)
BOA C.BLD. 1881/38. 23 Ra 1234 (January 20, 1819)
BOA C.BLD. 2161/44. 29 Ra 1250 (August 5, 1834)
BOA DH. MKT. 74/2609. 15 L 1323 (December 13, 1905)
BOA, HAT., 31420/637. 29 Z 1254 (March, 15 1839)
BOA, HAT., 31420A/637. 29 Z 1254 (March, 15 1839)
BOA Y.PRK.BSK., 103/61. 29 Z 1317 (April, 30 1900)
Official Publications
Düstur Birinci Tertib. vol. 6. Ankara: Devlet Matbaası, 1939.
Düstur Birinci Tertib. vol.7. Ankara: Devlet Matbaası. 1941.
Published Primary Sources
Ahmed Cevdet Pasa. 19.Yüzyılda Osmanlı Devlet Yönetimi: Tezâkir. Edited by Seyit
Ali Kahraman. 4 vols. Istanbul: Yeditepe Yayınevi, 2019.
Ahmet Refik. Hicri Onuncu Asırda Istanbul Hayatı. Istanbul: Enderun Kitabevi, 1988.
Akgündüz, Ahmed. Osmanlı Devletinde Belediye Teskilâtı ve Belediye Kanunları. Istanbul:
Osmanlı Arastırmaları Vakfı, 2005.
Ankaravî, Ismail. Minhâcu’l-Fukara: Fakirlerin Yolu. Edited by Saadettin Ekici. Istanbul:
Insan Yayınları, 1996.
Aydın, Bilgin, Ilhami Yurdakul, Ayhan Isık, Ismail Kurt, Esra Yıldız, ed. Istanbul
Ser‘iyye Sicilleri Vakfiyeler Katalogu. Istanbul: Isam Yayınları, 2015.
77
Barkan, Ömer Lütfi, Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi. Istanbul Vakıfları Tahrir Defteri 953 (1546)
Tarihli. Istanbul: Baha Matbaası, 1970.
Busbecq, Ogier de. Turkish Letters. London: Eland, 2005.
Clavijo, Ruy Gonzàles. Anadolu Orta Asya ve Timur. Translated by Ömer Rıza Dogrul.
Istanbul: Ses Yayınları, 1993.
Ergin, Osman Nuri. Mecelle-i Umûr-ı Belediyye. Vol. 3. Istanbul: Istanbul Büyüksehir
Belediyesi Kültür Isleri Daire Baskanlıgı Yayınları, 1995.
Evliya Çelebi. Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi: Topkapı Sarayı Bagdat 304 Yazmasının
Transkripsiyonu – Dizini. Vol.1. Edited by Orhan Saik Gökyay. Istanbul: Yapı
Kredi Yayınları, 1995.
I.Selim K¯an¯unn¯amesi (Tirana ve Leningrad nüshaları) (1512-1520), edited by Yasar
Yücel and Selami Pulaha. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 1995.
Koçu, Resad Ekrem. Istanbul Ansiklopedisi. vol.8. Istanbul: Koçu Yayınları, 1966.
Koçu, Resad Ekrem. Istanbul Tulumbacıları. Istanbul: Dogan Kitap, 2005.
Koçu, Resad Ekrem. Patrona Halil. Istanbul: Dogan Kitap, 2001.
Kuseyrî, Abdulkerim. Kuseyrî Risâlesi. Istanbul: Dergah Yayınları, 1981.
Mustafa Nuri Pasa. Netayic Ül-Vukuat: Kurumları ve Örgütleriyle Osmanlı Tarihi. vol
III-IV. Edited by Neset Çagatay. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1980.
Nisancı Mehmed Pasa. Hadisât: Osmanlı Tarihi. Edited by Enver Yasarbas. Istanbul:
Kamer Nesriyat ve Dagıtım, 1983.
The Clear Quran: A Thematic English Translation. Translated by Mustafa Khattab.
Canada: Siraj Publications, US: Furqaan Foundation, Internationally: Darussalam,
2017.
Secondary Sources
Aganoglu, H.Yıldırım. Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyet’e Balkanlar’ın Makûs Talihi. Istanbul:
Kum Saati, 2001.
Akgündüz, Ahmed. Islâm Hukukunda ve Osmanlı Tatbikatında Vakıf Müessesesi. Istanbul:
Osmanlı Arastırmaları Vakfı, 1996.
Anar, Turgay, and Fatih Özbay. “Edebiyat Sosyolojisi Baglamında Osmanlı’dan
Günümüze Türk Siirinde Dilenme ve Dilencilige Genel Bir Bakıs.” FSM Ilmi Arastırmalar
Insan ve Toplum Bilimleri Dergisi, no.2 (2013): 1-27.
Artvinli, Fatih. Delilik, Siyaset ve Toplum: Toptası Bimarhanesi (1873-1927). Istanbul:
Bogaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınevi, 2017.
Ates Pervaneleri: Tulumbacılar. Istanbul: Rezan Has Müzesi, 2011.
78
Ayar, Mesut. “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Kolera Salgını: Istanbul Örnegi (1892-1895).” PhD
diss., Marmara Üniversitesi, 2005.
Ayar, Mesut. “XIX. Asırda Osmanlı Devleti’nde Kolera Salgınları.” In Osmanlı’da Salgın
Hastalıklarla Mücadele, edited by Ibrahim Basagaoglu, Ahmet Uçar and Osman
Dogan, 79-112. Istanbul: Çamlıca Basım Yayın, 2015.
Ay, Resul. Anadolu’da Dervis ve Toplum: 13-15. Yüzyıllar. Istanbul: Kitap Yayınevi,
2008.
Babus, Fikret. Osmanlı’dan Günümüze etnik-sosyal politikalar çerçevesinde Göç ve Iskan
siyaseti ve uygulamaları. Istanbul: Ozan Yayıncılık, 2006.
Barnes, John Robert. An Introduction to Religious Foundations in the Ottoman Empire.
Leiden, New York, Kobenhavn, Köln: E.J. Brill, 1987.
Behar, Cem. A Neighborhood in Ottoman Istanbul: Fruit Vendors and Civil Servants in
the Kasap Ilyas Mahalle. United States of America: State University of New York
Press, 2003.
Behar, Cem. Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nun ve Türkiye’nin Nüfusu 1500-1927. Ankara:
T.C. Basbakanlık Devlet Istatistik Enstitüsü, 1996.
“Bektâsî Fahri,” Keskül, no.31 (2014): 70-72.
Boyar, Ebru and Kate Fleet. A Social History of Ottoman Istanbul. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2010.
Cengiz, Gül Hanım. “A Social Aid Practice in II. Abdülhamid Era: Tev’em Salary.”
Otam 41 (Spring 2017): 57-78.
Cezar, Mustafa. Osmanlı Devrinde Istanbul Yapılarında Tahribat Yapan Yangınlar ve
Tabii Afetler. Istanbul: Güzel Sanatlar Akademisi Türk San’atı Tarihi Enstitüsü
Yayınları, 1963.
Coskun, Ismail and Alev Erkilet. Istanbul Halkının Dilencilik Olgusuna Bakıs Açısı.
Istanbul: Istanbul Ticaret Odası Yayınları, 2010.
Çelik Zeynep. The Remaking of Istanbul: Portrait of an Ottoman City in the Nineteenth
Century. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1986.
Demirtas, Mehmet. “Istanbul’da Dilenciligi Önlemeye Yönelik Ilk Uygulamalar ve
XVIII. Yüzyılda Alınan Tedbirler.” In Bir Kent Sorunu: Dilencilik “Sorunlar ve
Çözüm Yolları”, edited by Suvat Parin, 171-191. Istanbul: Istanbul Büyüksehir
Belediyesi Zabıta Daire Baskanlıgı, 2008.
Demirtas, Mehmet. “Osmanlı Baskenti’nde Dilenciler ve Dilencilerin Toplum Hayatına
Etkileri.” OTAM (Ankara Üniversitesi Osmanlı Tarihi Arastırma ve Uygulama
Merkezi Dergisi), no. 20 (2006): 81-104.
Deringil, Selim. The Well-Protected Domains: Ideology and the Legitimation of Power
in the Ottoman Empire 1876-1909. London; New York: I.B.Tauris, 1998.
79
Dogan, Cem. “Kırım Harbi’nden I.Dünya Savasına Istanbul’da Dilencilik Olgusuna Bir
Bakıs (1853-1914).” Avrasya Uluslararası Arastırmalar Dergisi 3, no. 6 (Ocak 2015):
151-173.
Dogan, Cem. Itfâiyye-I Hümâyûn: Osmanlı Istanbulu’nda Yangın, Modernlesme ve Kent
Toplumu (1871-1921). Istanbul: Libra Kitapçılık ve Yayıncılık, 2019.
Döndüren, Hamdi. “Islâm’da Vakıf ve Güncel Degeri.” Keskül, no.38 (2016): 20-27.
Düzbakar, Ömer. “Osmanlı Devleti’nin Dilencilere Bakısı.” In Bir Kent Sorunu: Dilencilik
“Sorunlar ve Çözüm Yolları”, edited by Suvat Parin, 81-98. Istanbul: Istanbul
Büyüksehir Belediyesi Zabıta Daire Baskanlıgı, 2008.
Ergut, Ferdan. Modern Devlet ve Polis. Istanbul: Iletisim Yayınları, 2004.
Erler, Mehmet Yavuz. Osmanlı Devleti’nde Kuraklık ve Kıtlık (1800-1880). Istanbul:
Libra Kitap, 2010.
Erol, Salih. “XIX. Yüzyıl Osmanlı Devlet Adamlarından Ibrahim Edhem Pasa.” PhD
diss., Anadolu Üniversitesi, 2019.
Faroqhi, Suraiya N. ed. The Cambridge History of Turkey Volume 3 The Later Ottoman
Empire, 1603-1839. NewYork: Cambridge University Press, 2006, 350.
Freely, John. Evliya Çelebi’nin Istanbulu. Translated by Müfit Günay. Istanbul: Yapı
Kredi Yayınları, 2003.
Genç, Mehmet. “Osmanlı Dünyasında Dilencilik.” In Bir Kent Sorunu: Dilencilik
“Sorunlar ve Çözüm Yolları”, edited by Suvat Parin, 13-16. Istanbul: Istanbul
Büyüksehir Belediyesi Zabıta Daire Baskanlıgı, 2008.
Göktas, Ugur. “Dilenciler.” Dünden Bugüne Istanbul Ansiklopedisi, c.3, 53-54. Istanbul:
Kültür Bakanlıgı and Tarih Vakfı, 1994.
Göral, Özgür Sevgi. “19. Yüzyıl Istanbul’unda Suç, Toplumsal Kontrol ve Hapishaneler
Üzerine Çalısmak.” In Osmanlı’da Asayis, Suç ve Ceza: 18.-20. Yüzyıllar, edited
by Noémi Lévy and Alexandre Toumarkine, 17-32. Istanbul: Tarih Vakftı Yurt
Yayınları.
Gül, Abdulkadir and Salim Gökçen. Son Dönem Osmanlı Nüfusu ve Ecnebîler Meselesi.
Ankara: Cedit Nesriyat, 2010.
Güler, Mustafa. Osmanlı Devleti’nde Haremeyn Vakıfları (16. ve 17. Yüzyıllar). Istanbul:
Çamlıca Basın Yayın, 2011.
Gülten, Sadullah. Heterodoks Dervisler ve Alevîler. Ankara: Gece Kitaplıgı, 2018.
Isın, Ekrem. Everyday Life in Istanbul: Social Historical Essays on People, Culture and
Spatial Relations. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2001.
Ileri, Nurçin. “The History of Illumination with City Gas in Late Ottoman Istanbul.”
In History From Below: A Tribute in Memory of Donald Quataert, edited by Selim
Karahasanoglu and Deniz Cenk Demir, 529-550. Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi University
Press, 2016.
80
Imdat Özen. “II. Mesrutiyet’e Kadar Islahhaneler ve Darülaceze.” Master’s Thesis,
Ankara Üniversitesi, 2001.
Inalcık, Halil. “The Ottoman State: Economy and Society, 1300-1600.” In An Economic
and Social History of the Ottoman Empire 1300-1914, edited by Halil Inalcık and
Donald Quataert, 9-410. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Karamustafa, Ahmet T.. God’s Unruly Friends: Dervish Groups in the Islamic Later
Middle Period 1200-1550. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1994.
Kara, Mustafa. Türk Tasavvuf Tarihi Arastırmaları: Tarikatlar, Tekkeler, Seyhler. Istanbul:
Dergah Yayınları, 2005.
Karaca, Ayse Mine. “II.Abdülhamid Dönemi Sergi Çalısmalarına Bir Örnek: 1891
Darülaceze Sergisi.” Master’s Thesis, Karabük Üniversitesi, 2019.
Karpat, Kemal. Islâm’ın Siyasallasması. Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları,
2004.
Karpat, Kemal. Osmanlı Nüfusu 1830-1914. Istanbul: Timas Yayınları, 2010.
Karpat, Kemal H. “The Social and Economic Transformation of Istanbul in the Nineteenth
Century.” In Studies on Ottoman Social and Political History: Selected Articles
and Essays, 243-290. Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill, 2002.
Kazıcı, Ziya. Islâmî ve Sosyal Açıdan Vakıflar. Istanbul: Marifet Yayınları, 1985.
“Keskül.” Keskül, no.31 (2014): 72-73.
Köse, Resul, Nuran Koltuk and Erdinç Sahin. Dünden Bugüne Tarihi Istanbul Çarsıları.
Istanbul: Türkiye Turing ve Otomobil Kurumu, 2018.
Lévy, Noémi and Alexandre Toumarkine, ed. Osmanlı’da Asayis, Suç ve Ceza: 18.-20.
Yüzyıllar. Istanbul: Tarih Vakftı Yurt Yayınları.
Lévy, Noémi. “Yakından Korunan Düzen: Abdülhamid Devrinden Ikinci Mesrutiyet
Dönemine Bekçi Örnegi.” In Osmanlı’da Asayis, Suç ve Ceza: 18.-20. Yüzyıllar,
edited by Noémi Lévy and Alexandre Toumarkine, 17-32. Istanbul: Tarih Vakftı
Yurt Yayınları.
Lewis, Bernard. The Emergence of Modern Turkey. London, New York, Toronto: Oxford
University Press, 1965.
Maden, Fahri. “Bektâsîlik ve Bektâsîler.” Keskül, no.36 (2015): 74-82. Maksudyan,
Nazan. “State ‘parenthood’ and vocational orphanages (islâhhanes): Transformation
of urbanity and family life” The History of the Family 16, no. 2 (2011): 172-18.
Mantran, Robert. Istanbul Tarihi. Istanbul: Iletisim Yayınları, 2002.
Mardin, Serif. The Genesis Young Ottoman Thought. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University
Press, 1962.
Mazlum, Y. Mimar Deniz. “Osmanlı Arsiv Belgeleri Isıgında 22 Mayıs 1766 Istanbul
Depremi ve Ardından Gerçeklestirilen Yapı Onarımları.” PhD diss., Istanbul Teknik
Üniversitesi, 2001.
81
Mollat, Michel. The Poor in the Middle Ages: An Essay in Social History. New Haven
and London: Yale University Press, 1986.
Ocak, Ahmet Yasar. Islâm-Türk Inançlarında Hızır Yahut Hızır-Ilyas Kültü. Ankara:
Türk Kültürünü Arastırma Enstitüsü, 1990.
Ocak, Ahmet Yasar. Osmanlı Toplumunda Zındıklar ve Mülhidler: XV-XVII Yüzyıllar.
Istanbul: Timas Yayınları.
Önsoy, Rıfat. Osmanlı Sanayii ve Sanayilesme Politikası. Ankara: Türkiye Is Bankası
Yayınları, 1988.
Özaydın, Neslihan. “Arsiv Belgeleri Isıgında 1855 Depremi ve Bursa Yapılarına Etkisi.”
PhD diss., Uludag Üniversitesi, 2017.
Özbek, Nadir. “‘Beggars’ and ‘Vagrants’ in Ottoman State Policy and Public Discourse,
1876-1914.” Middle Eastern Studies 45, no. 5 (September 2009): 783-801.
Özbek, Nadir. “Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nda Dilencilere Yönelik Devlet Politikaları ve
Kamusal Söylemin Degisimi.” In Bir Kent Sorunu: Dilencilik “Sorunlar ve Çözüm
Yolları”, edited by Suvat Parin, 17-44. Istanbul: Istanbul Büyüksehir Belediyesi
Zabıta Daire Baskanlıgı, 2008.
Özbek, Nadir “Osmanlı’dan Günümüze Darülaceze: Sosyal Politika Zihniyeti ve Kent
Yoksullugunun Degisen Niteligi,” Toplumsal Tarih, no. 288 (Aralık 2017): 52-63.
Özbek, Nadir. Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nda Sosyal Devlet: Siyaset, Iktidar, Mesruiyet
1876-1914. Istanbul: Iletisim Yayınları, 2020.
Özbek, Nadir. “II.Abdülhamid ve Kimsesiz Çocukları Darülhayr-ı Ali” Tarih ve Toplum
182 (Subat 1999): 11-20.
Özkılıç, Sema Küçükalioglu. 1894 Depremi ve Istanbul. Istanbul: Türkiye Is Bankası
Yayınları, 2015.
Özen, Imdat. “II. Mesrutiyet’e Kadar Islahhaneler ve Darülaceze.” Master’s Thesis,
Ankara Üniversitesi, 2001.
Öztin, Feriha. 10 Temmuz 1894 Istanbul Depremi Raporu. Ankara: T.C. Bayındırlık ve
Iskan Bakanlıgı Afet Isleri Genel Müdürlügü Deprem Arastırma Dairesi, 1994.
Öztürk, Nazif. Türk Yenilesme Tarihi Çerçevesinde Vakıf Müessesesi. Ankara: Türk
Diyanet Vakfı Yayınları, 1995.
Öztürk, Said. “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Dilenciligin Önlenmesi.” In Bir Kent Sorunu: Dilencilik
“Sorunlar ve Çözüm Yolları”, edited by Suvat Parin, 109-122. Istanbul:
Istanbul Büyüksehir Belediyesi Zabıta Daire Baskanlıgı, 2008.
Panzac, Daniel. Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nda Veba (1700-1850). Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı
Yurt Yayınları, 1997.
Quataert, Donald. Ottoman manufacturing in the age of the Industrial Revolution.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
82
Quataert, Donald. “The Age of Reforms 1812-1914.” In An Economic and Social History
of the Ottoman Empire 1300-1914, edited by Halil Inalcık and Donald Quataert,
759-946. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Rudé, George. Studies in Popular Protest: Paris and London in the Eighteenth Century.
New York: The Viking Press, 1973.
Sakaoglu, Necdet. “Dersaadet Dilencileri ve Bir Belge.” Tarih ve Toplum 7, no.38 (1987):
86-88.
Sevim, Ayse. “Dârülaceze.” Keskül, no.38 (2016): 90-103.
Singer, Amy. Charity in Islamic Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2008.
Somel, Aksin. The Modernization of Public Education in the Ottoman Empire 1839-
1908: Islamization, Autocracy, and Discipline. Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill, 2001.
Somel, Selçuk Aksin. Historical Dictionary of the Ottoman Empire. United States of
America: Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2003.
Sahin, Ilhan. “Ahî Evran.” TDV Islâm Ansiklopedisi. Istanbul: TDV Islâm Arastırmaları
Merkezi, 1988.
Sirin, Ibrahim. “Avrupa ve Osmanlı Seyyahlarının Izlenimiyle Osmanlı ve Avrupa’da
Dilencilik.” In Bir Kent Sorunu: Dilencilik “Sorunlar ve Çözüm Yolları”, edited by
Suvat Parin, 63-80. Istanbul: Istanbul Büyüksehir Belediyesi Zabıta Daire Baskanlıgı,
2008.
Taner, Ergin. Osmanlı Esnafı Ticari ve Sosyal Hayat: Belge ve Fotograflarla. Ankara:
Halkbank, Türkiye Esnaf ve Sanaatkarlar Kredi ve Kefalet Kooperatifleri Birlikleri
Merkez Birligi, 2009.
Tekin, Zeki. “Osmanlı Istanbul’unda Dilencilik.” Antik Çag’dan XXI.Yüzyıla Büyük
Istanbul Tarihi. vol.4 455-461. Istanbul: TDV Islam Arastırmaları Merkezi, 2015.
Turna, Nalan. 19.YY.’den 20.YY’Ye Osmanlı Topraklarında Seyahat, Göç ve Asayis
Belgeleri: Mürr Tezkereleri. Istanbul: Kaknüs Yayınları, 2013.
Verrollot, Marie-Pierre. Istanbul’da Kolera: 1848 Salgını Üzerine Bir Inceleme. Edited
by Özgür Yılmaz. Istanbul: Libra Kitap, 2019.
Yediyıldız, Bahaeddin. XVIII. Yüzyılda Türkiye’de Vakıf Müessesesi: Bir Sosyal Tarih
Incelemesi. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 2003.
Yediyıldız, M. Asım. “Osmanlı Esnaf Teskilatı.” In Osmanlı Cografyasında Çarsı Kültürü
ve Çarsılar, coordinator of Project Aziz Elbas and Ahmet Erdönmez, edited by Sezai
Sevim. Bursa: Bursa Büyüksehir Belediyesi, 2011.
Yıldırım, Nuran. Istanbul Darülaceze Müessesesi Tarihi. Istanbul: Darülaceze Vakfı
Yayınları, 1996.
Yıldız, Murat. Osmanlı Vakıf Medeniyetinde Bir Veziriazam Hayatı: Amcazade Hüseyin
Pasa Vakfı. Istanbul: Bayrak Yayıncılık, 2011.
83