THE SOCIOECONOMICS OF PUNISHMENT: TA’ZIR IN THE OTTOMAN LEGAL CULTURE This paper examines the link between socioeconomic status and legal status concentrating on Ta’zir punishments in the context of the Ottoman Empire from sixteenth to eighteenth centuries. Ta’zir means discretionary punishment by the judge for the minor offenses for which no textual punishment (hudud) is specified. As evidence I cite the compilations of şeyhülislam fatwas - El-Muhtarat Minel Fetava (originally dated 1525), Fetava-yı Ebussuud Efendi (o. dated 1574), Fetava-yı Ali Efendi (o. dated 1692), Fetava-yı Feyziye me'an-nukul (o. dated 1703), Fetava-yı Abdurrahim (o. dated 1715), Behçetü'l-fetava (o. dated 1743), and Neticetü'l-fetava me'an-nukul (o. dated 1800) as well as several works of Ottoman moral literature and court records. Through an examination of the aforementioned sources, I will demonstrate that there was a direct correlation between one’s socioeconomic status, the application of the law, and the social order by examining the ways in which different punishments were applied according to social status through the lens of jurisprudence in the Ottoman Empire. My discussion is based on two interrelated pillars: how people of different socioeconomic status received different punishments for the same crime and how the punishment’s severity was harsher when the victim was from a higher socioeconomic group, for example members of the ulama. Three distinctions of social status will occupy the analysis to show the varying positions of Ottoman individuals vis-a-vis law according to their status: Being a member of the Ottoman ruling class, either from the religious institution or military ranks, being a descendant of the Prophet, and being an honorable woman (muhaddere). Furthermore, I observe that mufti rulings were in tandem with the exhortations of the Ottoman literati who demanded the preservation of the empire’s social hierarchy. An examination of fatwas in the Ottoman Empire is sorely lacking. I seek to ameliorate this trend and in doing so I observe that they, in addition to court records, confirm my finding that Ottoman legal structures sought to preserve the empire’s social hierarchy.

The Great War was the last and the most important part of the series of wars that the Ottoman Empire had been involved in since 1911. This was also a total war, as the boundary between the front and home front became more or less indistinguishable. State-society relations in the Ottoman Empire were permanently altered during the Great War. On the one hand, the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), the leading political party during the war years, controlled state power and suppressed any and all opposition in the country. On the other hand, the CUP aimed at influencing society through cultural and political associations and the press in order to mobilize civilians for war. This paper assesses state-society relations of the Ottoman Empire through an analysis of the Ottoman State’s attitude towards crime and its policies for the maintenance of public order during the First World War. There are three main parts in this paper. The first part briefly examines demographic characteristics and economic conditions of Istanbul during the Great War. In the second part, control mechanisms of the government for ‘maintenance public order’ will be analyzed. In fact these mechanisms aimed to control some ‘suspected’ elements such as foreigners, newcomers, vagrants and minorities. Therefore, this analysis will cover several policies of control targeting these 'suspected' elements. In the third part, two crimes -petty theft and profiteering- will be focused on comparatively in terms of the government’s attitude to these crimes. This analysis will help us to comprehend the CUP’s understanding of public order during the War years. This paper is based on the documents of the Prime Ministry Ottoman Archives, Istanbul, and especially on the documents of the General Directorate of Security and the General Directorate of Prison. In addition, this paper is based on documents from the National Archives of the United States, Washington D.C.