1Much is written on the alcohol ban in Islam and its formal regulations in Muslim countries. Nevertheless, the established ideal, official and legal views have stood in the way of research on practices of alcohol consumption in Muslim societies, with, for example, the state and its officials exclusively portrayed as implementors of bans and regulations. One of the questions not asked yet is what happens when state officials cross the line themselves. This study thus investigates the officials of a Muslim state, the late Ottoman Empire under the rule of Abdülhamid II (r. 1876-1909), in their capacity as breakers of alcohol regulations.
2Sultan Abdülhamid II has today the image of a pious Islamist who, as an authoritarian caliph, made new efforts to limit alcohol consumption by Muslims. The association of alcohol bans with the characters or lifestyles of specific political figures has its own problems. First of all, Abdülhamid II was born into a court where drinking was a daily practice. After his dethronement, he complained many times to his doctor that his father, Sultan Abdülmecid (r. 1839-1861), and his brothers Sultan Murad V (r. 1876) and Sultan Mehmed Reşad (r. 1909-1918) were heavy drinkers. He himself drank a couple of times with his brother Murad when he was young but quit after vomiting once and loathed drinking. Abdülhamid added that he did not admit a drop of alcohol into his mouth after becoming a member of an order of dervishes (Atıf, 2010: 140, 156, 324).
3On the other hand, rises and declines in and prohibitions of alcohol consumption or the opening and closing of taverns are related to political crises, rebellions, wars or epidemics causing trade disruptions, public security problems, or financial difficulties (Koyuncu, 2019). The three dozen Tanzimat years down to the Russian War of 1877-78 had been relatively peaceful liberal times, therefore permitting a higher level of consumption. However, Muslim alcohol consumption was not a new phenomenon; its rise in the Tanzimat times did not necessarily relate to an enlightened ruler or reforming ruling elites.
4This rising trend of global alcohol consumption continued in the Hamidian era. No prohibition or discourse demonising drinking could ever extinguish alcohol consumption in the Ottoman Empire. Plenty of documents and memoirs suggest that Abdülhamid II could not and even did not try to control his own court. Many of his closest officials were not religious and frequently crossed the lines drawn by their master. The Sultan’s translator Aḥmed Nermi Bey, for example, born in Moscow as the son of an ʿālim from Kazan and himself also educated in the madrasas of Kazan, was a frequenter of the Gülistān tavern in Şişli (Sarıbal, 2020: 1266). Another court translator who translated detective stories from French to Turkish for Abdülhamid II was Saʿīd Bey, son of minister Ḥaḳḳı Pasha. He was also a member of the Superior Health Council and a teacher at the School of Commerce and the Imperial College of Galatasaray, where he graduated. A constant element in Saʿīd Bey’s schedule was a glass of rakı with friends in a tavern before returning home (Dumont & Georgeon 1985; Dumont 1986).
5Strikingly, the secondary literature is either on officials in Istanbul, the capital city, or in the Ottoman embassies of Europe. One of the reasons is that the accessible literature from the period, e.g., diaries, travel accounts, memoirs, are mostly written in or on Istanbul. Focusing on exemplary officials living and working in Istanbul, the established discourse on Ottoman modernisation associated alcohol consumption with westernisation. This is why historian Paul Dumont, who wrote the abovementioned articles on the court translator, is surprised that his tastes remained genuinely Ottoman: Saʿīd Bey preferred the Karagöz, the meddāḥ and Ortaoyunu plays, the çayḫāne and the narghile, and Turkish music. Whereas, according to modern expectations, the drinking official should have been a French-speaking westernised dandy. Reinforcing this image were memoirs of former diplomats who represented themselves as bon vivants drinking the best wine (Gürpınar, 2012: 538).
6Historians sometime take unconsciously sides when retrospectively looking for roots of contemporary social and political animosities. Alcohol is in this sense a major signifier, and cosmopolitanism a sample catchword. Will Hanley has criticised historical sketches of cosmopolitanism associating mental conditions with specific persons and places, qualifying a cosmopolitan by formal definitions, like languages spoken (French) and sites visited (taverns). He rightfully questions the meaning of this insistence: “Cosmopolitanism is a long word that is shorthand for wealth and secularism, both of which are signalled (in the context of Islam) by consumption of alcohol. The lifestyles of [...] cosmopolitans confirm elitism – their mobility, polyglossia, and class are qualifications of form, not content” (Hanley, 2008: 1350).
7Against the grain of Istanbul-centred westernisation narratives prioritising educated French-speaking Ottoman elites, this study presents drinking Muslim officials from provincial administrations with no western language skills and mostly without high education. I have chosen the officials from the personnel registers (sicill-i aḥvāl defterleri) held in the Hamidian period, and mentioned their birthplaces and birth years with the file numbers in the registry (BOA, DH. SAİD.). None of the habitually drinking officials examined in this article knew French; they were born, lived and worked in the provinces.
- 1 Born 1838 in Maraş, Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivleri (BOA), DH. SAİD. 10/199.
8The Ottoman personnel registers held after 1879 include accounts of excessive drinking during the Hamidian era. The keyword for drinking is ʿişret, and ʿişrete inhimāk is the expression used for addictive and excessive drinking. Bekir Bey’s1 file, for example, contains a lively term for drunkenness: “his drinking habit was at the degree of an unconscious drunk” (mest-i lā ya’kil derecelerinde ʿişrete inhimākinden). He was a district governor who served as a major during the Russian War in 1877-8. Bekir Bey returned to his civilian career and was dismissed in January 1893 from his last post in Rumkale, Aleppo, because his drinking left state matters in chaos.
9Many accusations contained in the files are about open drinking (ʿalenen ʿişret). As Fikret Yilmaz (1999, 2005, 2014) wrote for earlier centuries, the more routine and private drinking habits largely escaped public scrutiny. Religiously undesirable, Muslims considered drinking a private matter; they always drank secretly and limited their social drinking to their peers. Georgeon (2002: 23, 31) observes that drinking came out of hiding among Muslims in Istanbul in the 19th century, and bureaucrats became regulars in bars and taverns. Things were different for officials in the provinces, however. A vivid Austro-Hungarian consular report about anniversary celebrations in honour of the Sultan in Skopje in 1900 includes a case in which drinking officials hid their habits and abstained from public drinking. The consul was present at a dinner given in the apartment of Major General Nūri Pasha. On the arrival of the governor, the heads of the civil and military authorities, the Serbian metropolitan and several Muslim notables: “At the table, one could see how much the local Muslim functionaries are under pressure from religious prejudices. Only the Colonel of the General Staff, Kjazim Bey, dared pour himself some wine. The Vālī, who was my neighbour at the table and otherwise liked to drink all spirits jokingly informed me that he had to forego drinking during the evening because of his second neighbor – this was the kāḏī”, the judge of the shariʿa court (Schmidt & Frantz, 2020: 44).
- 2 Born 1866 in Edirne, BOA, DH. SAİD. 98/459.
10The moral language of the accusations depends on the attitudes of those making the reports. Several files use religious and moral wording. The file of Aḥmed Kāẓim2, correspondence officer of the Post and Telegraph Office in Kofçaz, provides a rich example. The governor of the town accused him of “publicly drinking and acting disgracefully in bad company, with his family in the houses of gipsies, against the holy shariʿa and the supreme will (of the Sultan), not heeding effective advice.” He was “sometimes dancing hora with Bulgarians wearing a Bulgarian kalpak, and drinks night and day,” neglecting his job. On the night of 6 September 1902, he did not come to the office. Instead, he “danced and performed other buffooneries with the gipsies and soldiers at his drinking table friends, in his house. He should be sent from here to protect Islamic virtues and the honour of officialdom” (feżāʾil-i islāmiyeyi ve şān-ı meʾmūriyyeti ḫalelden viḳāye). This time, Kāẓim was strongly warned that he would be severely punished if case this recurred – which happened soon enough. He was dismissed on 15 July 1903. But Kāẓim was forgiven and “pitifully” appointed to İğneada on 5 June 1904 because “he rectified his morals and was in need because he had a large family.”
- 3 BOA, DH. SAİD. 110/399; 65/53.
- 4 Born 1840 in Gjirokastra, BOA, DH. SAİD. 18/459.
- 5 Born 1864 in Niş, BOA, DH. SAİD. 65/341.
11Like taṣḥīḥ-i aḫlāḳ, rectifying morals, some files use tehẕīb-i aḫlāḳ, “adorning the morals”3. The phrase taṣḥīḥ-i meslek, rectifying the way of life or career, is used for the district governor (ḳāʾimmaḳām) Ḥasan Reʾfet4, dismissed in October 1891 from Skrapar, Yannina, because he neglected state matters due to drinking and debauchery. He did not listen to warnings to rectify his lifestyle, but was later reappointed in May 1893 as ḳāʾimmaḳām of Luma, Kosovo. He accordingly assured the ministry with penitence and oaths (tevbe ve taḥlīf) of his future good behaviour. The authorities did not consider his drinking a real obstacle for employment because it was regarded as a temporary personal fault with possible improvement. Nevertheless, he did not improve and was dismissed in the last week of the same year on the same grounds. Ḥasan Neşʾet5 had also taken an oath to give up alcohol. As the Foreign Correspondence Officer at the Post and Telegraph Office in Ayvalık, he was suspended in August 1899, because it was revealed that he did not know French, obligatory for that position, and “was much too fond of drinking” (ʿişrete de ziyādesiyle münhemik). Two months later, he got another chance with an appointment as director of the office in Midye. As a hopeless case, Hasan was dismissed again at the end of December 1899. He “walked bareheaded around tavern corners by night and day and revealed telegraphic secrets”. Perhaps, though, the new flourishing modern Ottoman bureaucracy did not want to admit that there was such a thing as a hopeless case, as only ten months later, the ministry reappointed him as director to the Karaağaç office, after his promise that “he furthermore will not drink and not dare to do evil harming the dignity and duties of his office.” But Ḥasan Neʾşet ruined this last chance, too: “He did not improve his character, and as soon as he went to his place of appointment, he once again became accustomed to drinking” (ıṣlāḥ-ı nefs etmeyerek ʿişretle meʾlūf). In addition to a conviction of peculation, he was dismissed in June 1901.
- 6 Born 1856 in Libohova, BOA, DH. SAİD. 113/409.
- 7 Born 1870 in Edirne, BOA, DH. SAİD. 102/151.
12Similar to the use of the terms taṣḥīḥ-i aḫlāḳ and taṣḥīḥ-i meslek in the files, ıṣlāḥ-ı nefs, self-improvement, is also used to indicate positive results when officials succeeded in abandoning drinking. Meḥmed ʿAli6 was dismissed from his first office as a police commissar of the third rank in Yannina in his first year, in March 1889. After ten years, he asked for reemployment and was taken back into the ranks on the grounds of self-improvement (ıṣlāḥ-ı nefs eylediği tebeyyün). Another expression for self-reform is ṣalāḥ-ı ḥāl. Muṣṭafa Ẕihnī7, a petty official at the Zirāʿat Bank in Jerusalem, was dismissed in April 1903 but reemployed only four months later because he ceased drinking and reformed himself.
- 8 Born 1874 in Skopje, BOA, DH. SAİD. 156/263.
13Similarly, ıṣlāḥ-ı ḥāl is used in the file of ʿAbdurraʾūf8. Aged 15, he entered the Skopje telegraph office as a trainee and was appointed in 1893 to Prizren. In June 1897, he was transferred back to Skopje after accusations of harassment on local women (baʿzı muḫaḍḍarāta sarkıntılık). In March 1898, he declared that he would not travel back to Skopje from an authorised vacation to Istanbul. The authorities regarded him as having resigned and suspended him from his office. He probably could not find a better appointment and had to accept a post in July at al-Hodaydah in Yemen but managed a transfer to the province’s centre two years later. In April 1905, after almost seven years of service in Yemen, he was dismissed because of drunkenness, disobedience to his chief and unruly behaviour, with an injunction to improve his manners (ıṣlāḥ-ı ḥāl eylemesi için).
- 9 Born 1874 in Sofia, BOA, DH. SAİD. 62/445.
14Either Yemen was a place of exile for alcoholic telegraph officials, or Yemen made them drink. Among the many examples is ʿAli Fehmi9. His last position in western Anatolia was Bolvadin after June 1898, where his drunkenness caused delays in communication and involved him in punch-ups with colleagues. The admonitory punishment process revealed that he embezzled state revenues and was found guilty of peculation. After some years, in November 1905, he managed to return to state service, but this time in the remotest corner of the empire, the office at Zeydiyyah in Yemen. Eight months later, he died there at the young age of 32.
- 10 Born 1873 in Eceabad, BOA, DH. SAİD. 103/173.
- 11 “ʿİşrete inhimākı ḥasebiyle vaẓīfesine bakmamakda olduğundan.” Nāmıḳ Efendi, born 1856 in Caucasia, (...)
15In cases of dismissal, drunkenness was not enough. Invariably, other accusations follow the ʿişrete inhimāk claim, such as to “get into situations not compatible with the quality and dignity of the offıcial charge”, as in the case of ʿAli Rıżā10 (ʿişrete inhimāk ile sıfat ve ḥaysiyet-i memuriyetini muḥil aḥvāle sālik olmasından). The young accountant of the Zirāʿat Bank was only 21 when he was docked for one month’s pay as a warning, but he was then dismissed in February 1895 because he did not learn his lesson. He was also back in the service after a while. The director of dispatches in Cebel-i Bereket near Adana was also dismissed in September 1906 because he could not fulfil his duties.11
- 12 Düstūr 1/6: 96, §19.
- 13 Düstūr 1/7: 1109, §267.
- 14 Düstūr 1/8: 107, §8.
- 15 Düstūr 1/8: 665, §71.
16Heidborn’s observation (1909: 382), repeated by Georgeon (2002: 33), that the modern penal codes of the empire ignored the religious prohibition on alcohol and that the laws did not consider drinking a crime, was not entirely accurate. The penal codes were considered under customary law, the jurisdiction of the ruler, which derived its legitimacy from shari’a. All Tanzimat-era penal codes (1840, 1851, 1858) begin by emphasising that shari’a provisions will be respected and that the laws are in accordance with shari’a. Legislation in the Tanzimat period continued its evolution within the framework of the Ottoman legal tradition and did not violate religious law (Kırmızı, 2019: 106). Moreover, the 1851 Code includes an article on the punishment of drunks according to the shari’a (Ch.2, § 5). Nevertheless, codification is one thing; implementation is another, especially when enforcing punishments stipulated by shari’a jurisprudence. Here I will leave aside the difficulties caused by laws themselves and the ambiguities of legislation and concentrate on disciplinary regulations for officials. Four special regulations of the time mention alcohol use by state employees – three of them specifically concerning security personnel. The Girid Vilāyeti ʿAsākir-i Żabṭiyesi Niẓāmnāmesi of 1888 ordered that no police officer be dismissed from the profession until he finished his second year and then only under specific circumstances, of which the first one was the habit of drunkenness or gambling (serḫōşluk veya ḳumārcılığa iʿtiyād).12 The Jandarma Niẓāmnāme-i Humāyūnu of 1904 mentions almost the same provisions: Gendarmerie sergeants, corporals or privates whose drunkenness became a habit and were punished for it three times in a year and still did not improve themselves would be dismissed from the profession.13 The regulation on employees of the Hamidiye Hicaz Railway issued the same year foresees no payment for treatment costs for instances of illness or injuries due to drunkenness.14 The final regulation is from 1907, an amendment to the law organizing the courts, and forbids police officers to drink and sit in coffeehouses or casinos15. It seems that the Hamidian regime was especially sensitive about the sober public appearance of the law enforcement officers.
17What happened to the drunk officials in practice is a different story. The Meʾmūrīn Muḥākemesine Dāʾir Niẓāmnāme of 187216 regulated the investigations and trials of civil servants according to an administrative procedure. The whole process was carried out by the administrative authorities and courts. The competent authority had to open a preliminary inquiry (taḥḳīḳāt-ı evveliye). The next steps varied according to the rank of the official. If the accused official was appointed by irāde, an imperial order, the authority sent the preliminary investigation file with a report of the causes of the case to the ministry involved. The minister sent it to the Grand Vizier’s office, to pass it on to the presidency of the State Council (şūrā-yı devlet), whence it arrived at a public prosecutor’s desk. The minister, as well as the Grand Vizier, could stop the procedure. If the prosecutor demanded a prosecution, the civil section (mülkiye dāʾiresi) of the State Council decreed the suspension of the civil servant. It passed the file to the Grand Vizier’s office, which, from then on, required an imperial order for the actual criminal investigation. After promulgation of the irāde, the file travelled back to the State Council. The proceedings before the latter included, if the case was a violation or a misdemeanour, the questioning of the accused by a commission, composed of members of the first instance court and an examining magistrate, and debates before this same tribunal (Heidborn, 1908: 188-190).
- 17 BOA, ŞD. 2043/6, 12.2.1320, No.6.
18A case in point is a ḳāʾimmaḳām, the governor of a district (kaza): in 1902, complaints about Mesʿūd Efendi, the district governor of Silvan, were first examined by an investigator commissioned by the governor of the province, vālī of Diyarbekir, who then sent an investigation report to the Ministry of the Interior. The ministry sent it to the Grand Vizier’s office to be forwarded to the State Council. From here it was first sent to their prosecutor’s office, who decided in the first instance what to do. One claim was that Mesʿūd delegated the district’s affairs to two Christian boys and his assistant because he himself was addicted to alcohol (ʿişretle meʿlūf olmasından dolayı umūr-ı ḳażāyı iki Ḫristiyan çocukla muʿāvine tevdīʾ). The prosecutor of the State Council determined that there was no material malpractice, and the complaint was an argument without evidence. He acquitted Mesʿūd Efendi from all the other charges and sent the file on 10 April 1902 to the Tanzimat Department of the State Council to write down the final decision to be sent to the Grand Vizier’s office.17
19If a civil servant was appointed without irāde, the procedure was a much simpler process; there was no need for an irāde to begin. For provincial employees, the case, after the preliminary investigation, was brought directly before a competent local council.
20The State Council was the highest authority in reviewing investigations against administrative officials and the cause of their dismissal by disciplinary means. As seen so far, the State Council always acted in manner protective of its officials. It declared many prosecutions unfounded and covered up even the most flagrant drinkers. The State Council did not regard excessive drinking itself as a reason for dismissal. Only if there was any disruption of official affairs, loss of state revenues or damage to state property due to alcohol consumption, could the official be banned from service. The State Council always tried to keep troubled officials within the system if there was no clear evidence based on judicial sentences in their records. The administrative decisions of higher civil authorities were not regarded as definitive. Officials could almost always find their way back to the civil service through objections to the Council.
- 18 BOA, DH. ŞFR. 120/97, 1299 Şubat 7.
21The Ministry of the Interior had high regard for and even feared the State Council decisions. In one example, the governor of Diyarbekir answered an enquiry by the Ministry of the Interior, saying that “the drinking of the deputy governor (mutaṣarrıf) of Zor is true, but it could not be understood whether it is hindering the progress of state affairs”.18 Obviously, the ministry asked for adverse consequences of his drinking to support the case against the State Council. In another case, the deputy governor of Dedeağaç (Alexandroupoli) wanted to dismiss the Director of Dispatches and asked for the permission of the governor of Edirne. The latter forwarded the request to the ministry and got the following answer:
- 19 BOA, DH.MKT. 967/13, 6 Rebīʿuʾlāḫir 1323.
It is not permissible to initiate the dismissal of the Dedeağaç Taḥrīrāt Müdürü Sırrı Efendi because of his addiction to drinking. As he is not seen in a state that requires his dismissal from his civil service duties, the condition of dependence on drink remains only a word. Civil servants dismissed for such reasons eventually apply to the State Council, obtain a decision permitting employment, and subsequently apply to the ministry and complain. Since he is expected to abandon his habit under effective counsel and advice, he should continue for now to be employed after such instruction.19
- 20 Born 1846 in Malatya, BOA, DH. SAİD. 10/933.
22In the end, it was the State Council who decided whether officials were employable or unemployable. Therefore, the provincial and ministerial authorities had to ground accusations of drunkenness in additional facts showing harm to state affairs. For example, Ḥacı Ḥasanefendizāde İbrāhim Niyāzi20, educated in a madrasa where he had learned a little Arabic and Persian, and who was also knowledgeable in Albanian and Kurdish, was the township director (nāḥiye müdürü) of Birgi, Izmir. In March 1892, he was dismissed because of “his excessive habit of drinking and other undesirable conditions.” He objected to the decision and brought the case to the State Council by stating that he was a victim of hostility: the accusation of the district governor of Ödemiş, his immediate superior, was, he claimed, unfounded. Indeed, the State Council decided that there was no formal investigation and that the evidence for his dismissal was based solely on the words of the district governor; tainting an official with such void accusations was not acceptable (bu mis̠illū isnādat-ı muʿallaḳa ile bir meʾmūrun lekedār edilmesi cāʾiz olamayacağı). There was no other record of Niyāzi’s misbehaviour, so he remained eligible for further appointments. Soon he was appointed to other townships as director and later as ḳāʾimmaḳām of Akçahisar, Shkodra, in December 1896. But then again, in February 1898, he was dismissed for arriving intoxicated to his office and other administrative errors. He objected once more, stating that the accusation was baseless. The State Council asked the Ministry of the Interior for an investigation, and the latter forwarded the question to the governor of Shkodra. Niyāzi was dismissed because of incompetence in performing his official duties due to excessive drinking and lack of knowledge of the local conditions. As a piece of additional evidence, the provincial council informed the ministry that Niyāzi had lost his influence in the district because of his alcohol addiction: The governor’s warnings, however, proved useless, and the inspectors’ reports confirmed his ongoing obsession with alcohol and its consequences for the local administration. Yet, interestingly, the State Council decided in the end that Niyāzi’s drinking habit did not materially harm the state and country. There was no earlier record in his file that would hinder his further employment as ḳāʾimmaḳām. Nevertheless, the Civil Appointments Commission of the Ministry of Interior did not approve his suggested appointment as district governor of Aydonat. Because of his former inappropriate behaviour, the Commission decided to appoint him only as a township director. This was a rare moment where the Commission acted against the decision of the State Council. Niyāzi went to Kesendire, Salonica, where he served for over three years until dismissed anew because of “drunkenness which caused laziness and delay in performing his official duties.”
- 21 Born 1869 in İbradı, BOA, DH. SAİD. 108/299.
23Şaʿbān Şükrü Efendi21 was appointed shari’a judge to Yalova for a short while at the end of 1882. He managed to be appointed as township director (nāḥiye müdürü) to several places. In Urla, Aydın, he was dismissed because of excessive alcohol use in September 1902. He applied to the State Council to investigate the causes of dismissal and decide whether he was employable. In the end the ministry approved the governor’s demand for his discharge due to his drinking habit, deemed incompatible with his appointment. He did not follow up tax collection or listen to official advice and warnings. Otherwise, his file was clean. The State Council, therefore, ruled that there was no obstacle to his further appointment if he improved his behaviour and convinced the administration that he would not drink anymore (tenbīhāt-ı lāzimenin īfāʾsıyla bāʿde-mā ʿişret istiʿmāl etmeyeceğine ḳanāʿat ḥāṣıl oldukda yine istiḫdāmı lāzım geleceği).
- 22 Born 1843 in Salonica, BOA, DH. SAİD. 10/997.
- 23 Born 1859 in Istanbul, BOA, DH. SAİD. 47/375.
- 24 Born 1851 in Osmanpazarı, BOA, DH. SAİD. 99/99.
- 25 Born 1856 in Harput, BOA, DH. SAİD. 10/433.
- 26 Born 1844 in Yozgat, BOA, DH. SAİD. 10/555.
24Şaʿbān Şükrü’s hometown, Ibradı, was a small town in Akseki, Konya, known for having produced many ʿulemā who entered the religious bureaucracy. As mentioned above, he had been appointed as nāʾib to Yalova after his madrasa education. He then switched his career to the provincial administration, where he served for sixteen years until he was dismissed because of his drinking. The registers contain dozens of officials with alcohol problems who had such traditional religious Ottoman educations. They fit exactly in our argument against the French-speaking westernized dandy, the generic image of the drinking officer. ʿAli Rıżā is just one among several madrasa-educated officials who caused a scandal worth telling22. In his tenth year as a registration and tax officer in the district of Drama, on the night of Monday, 4 November 1895, he appeared drunk in a theatre, indecently yelling and acting inappropriately given his official position. Upon investigation, he was dismissed on 5 May 1896. Four months later, he was acquitted and appointed to a clerkship in Aydın, and later Limnos. After almost ten further years, in March 1906, he managed to transfer to Salonica but was pensioned because of his old age. Mümtāz Efendi was the son of a former nāʾib of Edremit23. Dismissed in May 1894 from the township of Manyas because of bad character and idleness, he was appointed to the subdistricts of Çan and Marmara five months later. From the latter, he was this time dismissed due to drunkenness in September 1896. One year later, he was posted to Sapanca. ʿAli Riżā24, son of “nüvvābdan ʿOs̠mānbāzārlı Aḥmed Efendi,” was a telegraph officer in Delvine. Two times, in May 1880 and April 1881, he was sent to other offices with lower payment as punishment for his drunkenness (serḫōşluğu cihetiyle). Meḥmed Ḫayrullah25, son of a local religious scholar (Ḫarpūt ʿulemāsından ve müderrisīninden Ḥacı Maḥmūd Efendi), had a madrasa education. In January 1906, as deputy governor of Ergani, he was accused by the governor of Diyarbekir of alcohol use and debauchery (şeref ve ḥays̠iyeti iḫlāl edecek ṣūretde ʿişret ve sefāhatla müttehem). He objected to his dismissal and defended himself on the grounds that the authorities in charge of the vilāyet held personal malice towards him (ḥaḳḳındaki isnādın ġarażdan inbiʿās̠ eylediği). The State Council cleared him of a long list of charges by deciding that all were false accusations bearing no relation to mutaṣarrıf Ḫayri Efendi and had no judicial relevance. On 15 June 1908, he was appointed deputy governor of Dersim. Meḥmed Ḥamdi’s26 father was also a madrasa professor (müderrisīnden Hacı Bekir Efendi). He served as district governor, mainly in the Aleppo and Beirut provinces. At the end of May 1902, he was dismissed because he was slow, not capable enough, and drank too much. Ḥamdi Efendi applied for an investigation of his dismissal. The State Council decided that the accusations were based on mere words and that there was no obstacle to employing him further. Thus, in February 1905, he was appointed ḳāʾimmaḳām to Mecidiye. These officials with provincial religious family backgrounds are also examples of how the central authorities tolerated drinkers. Bureaucrats of higher echelons in Istanbul tried hard not to give up their inferiors in the provinces. As if acting with class consciousness, the officialdom protected its members, sought to keep them within the system, and only got rid of the hopeless cases.
- 27 Born 1832 in İzmir, BOA, DH. SAİD. 10/317.
- 28 Born 1860 in Koritza, BOA, DH. SAİD. 113/117.
25A most embarrassing scene of public drunkenness belongs to the Head of the Trade Court in Yannina, judge Aḥmet Sabrī Efendi27. His dismissal story in August 1891 is exciting: He went for dinner to the island at Pamvotis, the lake at Yannina, with his colleagues, including a court member and the Head Scribe of the Court of Appeals. There, he drank in a way reported as incompatible with his position. But this apparently regular occurrence would not have raised a scandal had the accompanying head scribe not tried to assault one of his peers. The latter was the Head Scribe of the Trade Court, who had insisted on joining the table. With his additional provocations, the judge interfered and blew the incident up still further. Even this event was whitewashed; the judge was cleared and appointed to Erzurum in September 1892 with the same rank. Another Head of the Trade Court, in office at Koritza since August 1893, Meḥmed Şākir28, was accused of drinking in inappropriate places (münāsebetsiz maḥallerde ʿişret) and acting incompatibly with the dignity of his title. He was suspended in June 1901 but also cleared in February 1903.
- 29 Born 1874 in Cuma-yı Bâlâ/Blagoevgrad, BOA, DH. SAİD. 115/451.
26In a colleague’s house, a theatre, a restaurant, on an island, in inappropriate places... If the drinkers did not cause significant public disturbances, their drinking would not add to their files. What if they drank at the office? Today, on-duty drinking at the workplace is considered a most severe assault on order. How was it then? Most cases of on-the-job drinking are from the Post and Telegraph offices. Thus, as soon as Ḥasan Taḥsīn29 arrived at Ropçoz (today Devin, Bulgaria), in December 1903, colleagues complained about him “drinking openly within the telegraph office and drunkenly making noise.” Seven months later, he was executively dismissed and fell into poverty along with his family. In September 1904, just two months after his dismissal, the ministry took pity and decided to appoint him when a suitable position appeared.
- 30 Born 1875 in Erzurum, BOA, DH. SAİD. 104/270.
- 31 Born 1865 in Bosnia, BOA, DH. SAİD. 104/288.
- 32 Born 1861 in Safranbolu, BOA, DH. SAİD. 102/41.
27A simple clerk in Bayezid, Ḥasan Ẕekī30, was accused of transforming the telegraph office into a tavern in collusion with the director and making it a drinking place for other people, thus becoming unable to preserve the dignity of their civil service (telgrāfhāneyi kaḥve ve daḥa doğrusu meyḥāne ḥāline getürerek bir takım kesānın mecma‘-ı ʿişret maḥalli ittihāz eyledikleri ve bu sebeble vazīfe ve haysiyet-i meʾmuriyetlerini muḥāfaza edemedikleri). Hasan was dismissed in April 1903. After an investigation, four months later the ministry decided that his dismissal was undeserved and Hasan should return to his office. Meanwhile, Meḥmed Nūrī31, another clerk in Drama, reportedly came to the office for the night shift drunk and incapable of working, argued with other telegraph offices, and caused communication delays. In the early morning, drunk and with some telegraph revenues in his pocket, stolen from the office, he boarded a train to Salonica, molested other passengers, and was removed by the gendarmes. He was dismissed for the third, and probably, last time. Meḥmed Sezāʾī32 always came drunk to the Cide telegraph office, and his superiors feared that other officials would copy his example. They discharged him for a period so that he could recover, and five months later, in November 1894, he was taken back into employment because he managed to stop drinking (ʿişretden ferāġat idüb ıṣlāḥ-ı nefs eylemesine naẓaran). However, the same thing happened ten years later, and he was again discharged.
28All in all, after reading these and many more examples, one gains the impression that excessive drinking must have been contagious in the post and telegraph offices of the Ottoman Empire. More noticeable is how patient and forgiving the central authorities have been against all complaints of provincial superiors. They were not just tolerant of drinking issues, provided it did not harm state revenues; the central authorities also knew that petty envies and other personal affairs could cause the complaints.
29Sipping on duty was one thing but drinking on holy days was a double transgression and a cause for more vigorous stigmatization. The language of such cases is far more religious, in accord with the zeal of the reporting officers. The regimental police officer Lieutenant Ḫayrī was such a man. On 3 January 1906, he informed his commander in Gevgelija of the case of Deputy Prosecutor Muṣṭafā, who drank in the room of the Interrogator Lāmiʿ at the Hacidelo Hotel. When their cognac was finished, they asked for a new bottle. The Greek manager, Kirbako, wanted them to leave and drink somewhere else, but they objected and stayed, so he called the police. Lieutenant Ḫayrī ended his report with the comment that: “Daring to do such a thing on sacred nights, when Muslims should occupy themselves with prayer and blessing constitutes an ugly scene in front of the Christians” (bu gibi leyle-i muḳaddesede ehl-i İslām tażarruʿ ve niyazla meşġūl olacak iken böyle ḥāle cürʾet etmesi Ḫıristiyanlara ḳarşu pek çirkin bir manẓara teşkīl). The police lieutenant’s concern about the image of a Muslim state official in the eyes of the non-Muslim population is stunning. So, even if Muslims did not witness how two Muslim officials acted against Islamic morals, the officer felt embarrassed because the hotel staff and other guests, all Christians, saw it. It was not even Ramadan or any special kandil feast. It was a Wednesday night of the seventh day of Ẕuʾlḳaʿde, the first of the four inviolable sacred months of the Muslim calendar. Ḫayrī’s commandant forwarded the report to Istanbul with these words:
- 33 TFR.I.AS. 31/3049, 08.12.1323.
The regrettable audacity, and action against the world unsuitable with the dignity of his office, of a judicial officer, e.g. the deputy prosecutor, who is in charge of the preservation of general law, who knows that the shari’a prohibits drinking and that it is criticised by law and that is strictly prohibited by the imperial orders of the supreme crown holder, and who has to protect his dignity and honour more than anyone else, is seriously important and requires punishment33.
- 34 Born 1846 in Gallipoli, BOA, DH. SAİD. 10/949.
30Another police report from Siirt in April 1892 accused an official of “coming day and night drunk to state offices in the honourable Ramadan, one of the sacred months in Islam” and ordered him to attend the court. As if this were not enough, on another Ramadan evening, he went to the mosque intoxicated. He disturbed the people who had gathered for the tarawih prayer with his terrible smell, angering them with this irreligious act (cemāʿati rāyiḥa-i kerīhesiyle izʿāc ve bi-ḥużūr ederek). This was an official from the real estate registry office, Aḥmed Ḥıfẓī34, a descendant of a notable family (ʿArablılızāde Ḫazīnedār Ḥüseyin Aġa sülālesinden Ḥasan Aġa'nın oğludur). His notoriety for drunkenness was “against the highest will of the Sultan, and his further stay in Siirt could cause inconvenience”; he was dismissed two weeks after Ramadan. Nevertheless, nothing seems unforgivable in Ottoman officialdom; in October 1893, he was reappointed to the same office at Hıllah, Iraq.
- 35 Born 1869 in Rhodes, BOA, DH. SAİD. 98/253.
- 36 Born 1860 in Kirkkilise, BOA, DH. SAİD. 99/281.
- 37 Born 1858 in Bursa, BOA, DH. SAİD. 102/67.
31Other Muslim officials were caught drinking during Ramadan, too, but not all at the office. In December 1902, the deputy governor of Chios reported a telegraph clerk, Ṭalʿat35, directly to the Palace for not being a man of good behaviour, stating that he was drinking openly in Ramadan (Ramażan-ı şerīfde ʿalenen ʿişret) and should be taken into custody because of his state not complying with Islamic principles (şiʿār-ı İslāmiye'ye muġāyir şu ḥālinden dolayı). Five days later, an imperial order mandated his imprisonment, with a strong warning not to repeat such behaviour. After fifteen days, he was returned to his office. One year later, he transferred to Ayvalık, where he continued his misbehaviour: the governor of Hüdavendigar complained that he was “openly drinking and visiting bars with a hat on his head” (ʿalenen ʿişret idüb başına şapka iktisā ile meyḫāneye gitdiği), disguised as a non-Muslim – obviously because only non-Muslims were allowed to visit drinking spots. Subjected to interrogation, he was dismissed in January 1904. ʿAlī ʿOs̠mān36 was the accountant of Vize when he was discharged in November 1890 because of “not fasting in Ramadan, addiction to drinking, and behaving against the Islamic manners.” He was appointed to Midye one year later. In another case, Kāmil37 was caught publicly drinking with Christians in July 1886, and dismissed from the telegraph office in Salonica, under orders to correct himself (muʿcib-i intibāhı olub ıṣlāḥ-ı nefs etmesi içün ihrāc edilmişdir). In January 1889, he acquired an appointment to Serfidze after promising that he would not drink anymore. A magical promise which always worked to convince superior bureaucrats in Istanbul.
32A cursory search for information on disciplinary matters in the Ottoman personnel registers suggests that provincial officials’ alcohol use was a serious matter. The authorities’ prevention and intervention were based not only on the conviction that drinking officials might be too impaired to work effectively but also that drinking would harm the status and honour of public offices, if not the state itself, and thus cause disorder in towns across the Empire. Still, drinking was rarely mentioned alone in dismissals; harm to state affairs was the most important cause for concern. Without this condition, the State Council, the final place of arbitration in personnel matters, usually decided in favour of the official. The authorities disregarded recommendations for the dismissal of provincial officials if there was no substantial harm to state affairs. The State Council, consisting of experienced statesmen, never indulged in religious or moral judgements and did not make decisions based on religious concerns. Not much difference existed in the legal treatment between alcohol use outside the workplace, before or after work, and alcohol use in the workplace, during work. The decisions were not always according to rules and norms but were probably also connected with informal structures of mutual favouritism, debts of gratitude, and nepotism. More importantly, the solidarity within the officialdom should not be underrated. Especially in a time of rapid bureaucratisation, sacking an experienced functionary would be a waste of staff and an unavailable luxury. To penetrate the provinces, the modern state had to expand its organisation with efficient and loyal human resources with the capacity to grease the wheels of the growing bureaucratic machine. If one wheel faltered, the machine could stutter, and the state’s prestige could be harmed. Functionaries who committed errors through addiction and dependency thus had to be cared for, not rejected; kol kırılır, yen içinde kalır says a Turkish proverb; the arm breaks and remains in the sleeve. No one should see the defect.
33The personnel registers enable us to investigate who was drinking, when and where, but not what and why. Unfortunately, the sources do not provide enough information on what sort of alcoholic beverages the officials were keen on, whether raki, wine or beer. That knowledge could have created room, for example, to discuss the impact of products imported from European countries. Regardless of whatever that debate might have told us, one should not forget that alcohol consumption was not a new phenomenon in Muslim societies. To view drinking officials as a result of modernisation or westernisation is a problematic approach. It is as much questionable as simply connecting cosmopolitanism with secularisation and consumption of alcohol. To overcome the criticised representation of the drinking official, I chose all of the officials discussed in this study from the provinces; none of them knew any western language or was educated in Europe, and indeed some came from conservative ʿulemā families or had madrasa backgrounds. They have had more difficulties with drinking in public. A general pattern was to immediately discharge them, make them vanish for a while, and send them to another province if they promise good conduct.
34The alcohol allegations in files are about drinking in public rather than private. In the 19th century, drinking openly in the provinces was still a significant problem for provincial officials. Files of probable destitute alcoholics reveal the procedures more clearly. “Revolving door” alcoholics who were repeatedly warned but seldom succeeded at rehabilitation were discharged after repeated relapses. It is also interesting to see the trust invested in those officers who promised to quit drinking, but who were eventually dismissed when these promises were not kept. When caught and reported, excessive drinking could lead to declines, intervals, exiles, deductions on salary and deportations in the careers of civil servants. However, the seriousness and repetition of the drinking act and the resulting behaviour of the officials involved are the primary determinants in these punishments.
35The authorities were inclined to treat cases of excessive alcohol use with tolerance, especially if it did not lead to abuse of position and state resources and unrest in society. Therefore, even if someone was accused of excessive drinking, they had to as a result cause damage to state affairs and community relations to receive severe and permanent punishments. The issue of drinking and its becoming an actual problem was closely attached to time and place; meaning where and when drinking happened was the vital and more critical concern, rather than the amount and frequency of drinking. For example, consuming alcohol in the workspace during Ramadan was a more extreme situation. Even though religious order did not directly affect officials’ position in office as long as they adjusted their behaviour in public, the month of Ramadan, with its social-religious meanings, could not easily be ignored. Otherwise, authorities considered drunkenness as an aggravating circumstance. What mattered was keeping social order intact and avoiding public disturbances.
Flux RSS
