Россия и Арабский мир: к 200-летию профессора Санкт-Петербургского университета Шейха ат-Тантави (1810–1861)

206 trade becomes active in any seaport or along a railway line, the Osmanli re- tires and disappears, while Greeks, Armenians, and Levantines thrive in his place… The true Turk has three spheres of activity. First he is a government official… Secondly, he is an agriculturalist and a breeder of animals… Thirdly, the Turk is a soldier…” 1 What is the origin of this generalization? As mentioned, it was formed by Europeans residing in or visiting the main Mediterranean and Aegean port cities. The expansion of these cities in the second half of the 19th century was rapid, and one of the main characteristics of this process was an increase in the number of foreign and non-Muslim residents there and the substantial influence these two groups had on the economic development of those areas. In the early stages of the emergence of the generalization, it referred, first and foremost, to Istanbul and Izmir, whether explicitly or implicitly in the context of the narrative. With the passage of time, the generalization was applied to the entire Ottoman Empire. Hence, at its inception the generaliza- tion was the outcome of an ungrounded inductive impression. A further fallacy in this generalization was that the impression gained by outward appearances was deceptive, since it was easier to identify foreign and non-Muslim big merchants, bankers and investors than their Muslim counterparts. The latter generally did not expose their wealth, as they had no confidence that the authorities would respect private property rights. Al- though the müsadere (expropriation of property by the authorities) had been abrogated in 1837, and the imperial decree ( khatt-i sherif Gülkhane ) of 1839 determined that the authorities would respect private property rights with regard to all Ottoman subjects, the Muslim merchants’ concern over the ex- propriation of property did not wane for decades thereafter. During the period in which the generalization was formulated, foreign visitors, some of whom were not conversant in the local language, and who had only a casual knowl- edge of Ottoman society, could not have known that only a short distance from the offices of Greek or Armenian big merchants, Muslim tujjār had their offices, and the scope of their business did not fall short of that of the non-Muslims. Hence, two fallacies (an inductive and a deductive one) under- lay the very basis of the paradigm. The acceptance of this generalization by Europeans was facilitated by the way Ottomans were perceived in Europe generally. In the 16th century, the time of the great conquests in the Balkans and Central Europe, the pre- vailing image of the Ottomans was of fearless and ruthless soldiers. The Ot- tomans themselves unintentionally reinforced this image in ways that were perceived by Europeans as a lack of interest on the part of the Ottoman rulers 1 Ibid., p. 95.