COST A36, Tributary Empires Compared
Report of the meeting of Working Group 2, Istanbul 14-16 October
Royal Courts and Capitals
The purpose of the meeting, the first of the central structures working group meetings, was to identify and compare the characteristics of an institution typical for dynastic empires as well as composite monarchies: the court. The range of examples dicussed was very wide, from ancient Rome to the eighteenth century; it included Rome, Byzantium ; Abbasi, Ottoman, Safavid, Mughal and Almohad courts, in addition to Frankish, Polish-Lithuanian, Hungarian, Spanish-Castilian, Papal, French, Sabaudian, and Austrian-Habsburg courts.
The working group meeting included five sessions:
1. Variants of Dynastic Power (three papers)
2. Households and Bureaucracies: "state" and "court" (five papers)
3. Household Organization: Structures and Practices (three papers)
4. Courts as Meeting Places and Centres of Elite Integration (three papers)
5. Courts as Conspicuous Centres: Legitimation and Display (four papers)
Session 1, Variants of Dynastic Power.
Three papers established variants within dynastic succession, a vital theme because contested succession was frequently responsible for rebellion in the premodern state. Various forms, from election, to cooptation by the ruler, and variants of hereditary succession were outlined in the papers. Metin Kunt’s paper analysed the changes in Ottoman succession; Walter Scheidel presented a global comparative overview of dynastic longevity and stability; Robert Frost focused on the consequences of elective monarchy in the Polish constitutio mixta. The consequences of the different arrangements for the stability, and more particularly for the make-up of the court were taken up in the discussion. Method and problems of global statistical comparison were also debated.
Session 2, Households and Bureaucracies: "state" and "court".
Five papers looked at the balance between ‘state’ and ‘court’; between the ruler’s domestic services (household) and the administration of his realms (government). Andrew Wallace-Hadrill and Peter Bang discussed the example of Rome , where the imperial court was imbedded in the lasting structures of the Roman republic. Although its formal position was far from clear, the court did play a vital role in the reorientation of the senatorial elites. Hugh Kennedy charted the rise of the harem at the Abbasi court, and the disappearance of dynastic female households. Jeroen Duindam underlined that institutional differentiation and government-by-paper did not end the multiple connections of household and government in early modernVienna and Versailles . Toby Osborne showed that the emerging permanent diplomacy remained firmly embedded in the domestic-dynastic context of court life. Formal and informal power, power of female actors at court, court faction, and the checks on the ruler’s personal powers also entered into the discussion.
Session 3, Household Organization: Structures and Practices.
For the purpose of wide intercultural comparison, it is essential to go from concepts and generalities to concrete aspects. This session with three papers was intended to give an impression of the structures and practices of various dynastic establishments. Mia Rodriguez-Salgado focused on the multiple courts typical for Philip II’s composite monarchy, stressing the conscious limitations of Philip’s centralising policies.Tulay Artan showed the Grand Vizir’s attempts at reconstruction of Ottoman legitimacy through stately processions in the 1720’s, after the dynasty’s return to Istanbul. Paul Magdalino sketched the various practices connecting the Byzantine court and its capital, and the decline in the 13th-14th centuries. Was ceremony effective in underpinning and consolidating dynastic rule? Discussants argued that this should not be taken for granted. The interaction of the court and its urban or regional environments; the rules and patterns organizing access to the court and the ruler, recurred in this session.
Session 4, Courts as Meeting Places and Centres of Elite Integration.
Empires could more easily conquer new territories than consolidate their administrative hold on such territories. Most empires and composite monarchies, therefore, relied strongly on the cooperation and partial self-government of local elites. The court, as a conspicuous centre of dynastic rule, offered all sorts of forms to attract the elites, to attach them to the court by titles, honours, offices – or simply as visitors. Where the ‘hard’ power of the army could only incidentally be used, and the administrative capacities and infrastructure would not allow highly centralized government, these forms of integration were vital for the coherence of the dynastic state. Three papers looked at this from different angles. Rosamund McKitterick reassessed Charlemagne’s patterns of movement, more limited than used to be thought. Janos Bak discussed the Hungarian Kingdom , analysing its limited financial capacities around 1500. Jonathan Shepard argued that the Byzantine court offered hospitality as well as a course in language and deportment to a variety of young ‘Barbarians’ from surrounding territories. The discussion took up the variants of integration either by movement of the court itself, or by the movement of elites to the enticements the court had to offer.
Session 5, Courts as Conspicuous Centres: Legitimation and Display.
The notion that elites could be integrated into the realm through their court connections leads to a more general idea – and an evident historical practice – that courts tend to demonstrate an idealised image of court life and the power of the dynastic ruler through a variety of artistic means to wider audiences. This session with four papers included discussion of ceremonial forms as well as architecture and regalia, in terms of the message they conveyed about the dynastic self-image and legitimation. Through a variety of groundplans and images from Mughal palace architecture Ebba Koch outlined the rulers’ routines of openness and withdrawal. Michael Rogers underlined the frequent change of artefacts identifying the ruler in Ottoman case, where no long-lasting regalia seem to have appeared. Amira Bennison charted the Almohad adaptation of ceremonial from earlier Ommayad examples, reconstituted in the typical Qur’an of Uthman. Steven Blake offered an introduction into the field of calendrical, biological and historcial forms of time at the Mughal, Safavid, and Ottoman courts. In the discussion, the various forms and expected audiences of ceremony and display were discussed, as well as their motivation – were they indeed seen as an instrument of power, or as an end in itself?
Conclusions
The general discussion brought together the preceding papers and discussion under three headings, each briefly introduced by a senior participant in the conference:
- Dynastic matters (Philip Mansel)
- Government and Administration (Greg Woolf)
- Ceremonies and Representation (Peter Burke)
The ensuing discussion connected the themes of this working group meeting to the preceding meeting in Copenhagen , on the nature of Empire. The household/court indeed formed an essential ingredient of most empires. Themes such as the variants of access and aloofness at court; the role of officers and occasions structuring access; the court as a centre of redistribution of wealth as well as prestige; the balances of power between rulers, courtiers, advisers were relevant for most courts under discussion. The Istanbul meeting offers a basis for an attempt to bring some system into the variety, and seek general structures as well as different forms and developments. The findings provide a point of reference for the ‘experience of empire’ working group and the Athens meeting: did the populace and the elite in the regions see the conspicuous centre in terms of its own imagery and representation, or was it seen from an altogether different perspective? The Istanbul meeting showed the potential, but also some of the complications inherent in wideranging comparative efforts – these need to be looked at in the context of the first working group on historical sociology and method of comparison. During the meeting, religion and justice were repeatedly discussed as vital elements of rulership in practice as well as in legitimation – themes that deserve to be taken up for a future meeting.
Jeroen Duindam, Utrecht University, 24 October 2005
