¹ Robert, K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure (New York Press, 1957), pp. 285–86.Google Scholar

² Ibid., p. 292 and n.

³ The main figures being Mosca, Pareto, and Mills; see Geriant, Parry, Political Elites (London, 1969), chap. 2.Google Scholar

⁴ Parry, , Elites, pp. 32–33.Google Scholar

⁵ See John, Higley and Lowell, G. Field, Elitism (London, 1980);Google ScholarGeorge, Moyser and Margaret, Wagstaife, “Studying Elites: Theoretical and Methodological Issues”, in Moyser, G. and Wagstaffe, M., eds., Research Methods for Elite Studies (London, 1987), pp. 6–21;Google ScholarPaul, Gerbod, “The Baccalaureate and Its Role in the Recruitment and Formation of French Elites in the 19th Century”, in Joseph, Howorth et al. eds., Elites in France: Origins, Reproduction and Power (London, 1981), pp. 46–57.Google Scholar

⁶ See Moyser, and Wagstaife, , Research Methods, pp. 6–10.Google Scholar

⁷ Published by Michael, Winter, ”Ali Efendi's ‘Anatolian Campaign Book’: A Defence of the Egyptian Army in the Seventeenth Century”, Turcica, 15 (1983): 267–309.Google Scholar

⁸ Ibid., pp. 267–70, on Ali Efendi being a Turk see p. 277; on Salih Bey, see Peter, M. Holt, “The Beylicate of Ottoman Egypt”, in Studies in the History of the Near East (London, 1973), p. 213.Google Scholar

⁹ Winter, , “Ali Efendi”, pp. 272–73.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Ibid., pp. 272, 278–79.

¹¹ Ibid., pp. 272–73, 280 ff.

¹² Ibid., p. 280.

¹³ This fact is substantiated by other sources and cases. See, for instance, Michael, Winter, “Turks, Arabs and Mamluks in the Army of Ottoman Egypt”, Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, 72 (1980): 112–13.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Winter, shares the same opinion in “Turks”, p. 100.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Winter, , “Ali Efendi”, 273–75;Google ScholarWinter, , “Turks”, pp. 109–10.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Winter, , “Ali Efendi”, 275;Google ScholarWinter, , “Turks”, p. 110.Google Scholar

¹⁷ It should be emphasized that tābi⊂ is an elastic term, and “client” or “retainer” is not the only meaning it denotes.

¹⁸ David, Ayalon, “Studies in al-Jabartī: Notes on the Transformation of Mamluk Society under the Ottomans”, in Ayalon, D., The Mamluks of Egypt (London, 1977), pp. 304–6;Google ScholarDaniel, N. Crecelius, The Roots of Modern Egypt…1760–1775 (Minneapolis and Chicago, 1981), pp. 35–36;Google ScholarPeter, M. Holt, “The Career of Küçük Muhammad”, in Holt, P. M., Studies, pp. 236, 250n.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Stanford, J. Shaw, Ottoman Egypt in the Eighteenth Century: The Nizamname-i Misir of Cezzar Ahmed Pasha (Cambridge, Mass., 1962), pp. 6–8 (hereafter Cezzar);Google ScholarUriel, Heyd, “Stanford J. Shaw, ed. and tr.: Ottoman Egypt…”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 26 (1963), 18788.Google Scholar

²⁰ Winter, , “Ali Efendi”, 293; Shaw, Cezzar, fol. 11b.Google Scholar

²¹ Redhouse Ottoman-English Lexicon (1978 edition), pp. 254, 257.Google Scholar

²² Winter, , “Ali Efendi”, 293; Shaw, Cezzar, fols. 1a–1b.Google Scholar

²³ Shaw, Cezzar, fol. 11a.

²⁴ Halil, Inalcik, “The Khan and the Tribal Aristocracy”, in Inalcik, H., Studies in Ottoman Social and Economic History (London, 1985), pp. 449–52;Google ScholarJohn, E. Woods, The Aqquyunlu (Minneapolis, 1976), pp.8–12.Google Scholar

²⁵ See Halil, Inalcik, “Ghulām”, Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed. (Leiden, 1960) (hereafter EI ²);Google Scholar and David, Ayalon, “Studies”.Google Scholar

²⁶ Holt, , “Career”, pp. 235–37.Google Scholar

²⁷ Shaw, Cezzar, fol. 11b; Ayalon, ,“Studies”, pp. 322–23;Google ScholarHolt, , “Career”, pp. 236, 250n;Google ScholarCrecelius, , Modern Egypt, p. 56.Google Scholar

²⁸ See again Winter, , “Ali Efendi”, 273–75, 293; Shaw, Cezzar, fols. 1a–1b.Google Scholar

²⁹ See Winter's and Shaw's introductions to the respective texts.

³⁰ On the beylicate, see Stanford, J. Shaw, Ottoman Egypt in the Age of the French Revolution (Cambridge, Mass., 1964), pp. 36–38;Google Scholar Holt, “Beylicate”; P. M. Holt, “The Patterns of Egyptian Political History from 1517 to 1798”, in idem, Political and Social Change in Modern Egypt (Oxford, 1968), pp. 79–90 (hereafter “Pattern”);Google Scholaridem, “The Last Phase of the Neo-Mamluk Regime in Egypt”, in L'Egypte au XIX^éme siécle (Paris, 1982), pp. 141–53.Google Scholar

³¹ Holt, , “Career”, pp. 236–47;Google Scholaridem, , “Pattern”, pp. 85–87;Google ScholarCrecelius, , Modern Egypt, p. 35.Google Scholar

³² Ismā⊂īl, al-Khashshāb, Tadhkira li-ahl al-basā⊂ir wa-al-absār ma⊂a wajh al-ikhtsār (Paris, BibliothÈque National, ms. arabe, 1858), fols. 9a–9b.Google Scholar

³³ Shaw, Cezzar, fols. 11a–11b, 13b–14a.

³⁴ Ibid., fol. 13b.

³⁵ Ibid.

³⁶ Ibid., fols. 11a–1b.

³⁷ Raymond offers a different distinction between yoldah and ocakh, whereby the former denotes civilians attached to the ocaks, and the latter rank-and-file soldiers. See Raymond, A., Artisans et commercants au Caire au XVIII^`me siÈcle, 2 vols. (Damascus, 1974), 1:728;Google ScholarWinter, , “Turks”, 117.Google Scholar

³⁸ Holt, , “Beylicate”, pp. 186–88, 219n.Google Scholar

³⁹ Crecelius, , Modern Egypt, pp. 36–37;Google ScholarHolt, , “Pattern”, pp. 88–90.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Al-Khashshāb, Tadhkira, fol. 14a and thereafter; al-Jabartī, , “Tārīkh Muddat al-Faransīs bi-Misr”, in Moreh, S., ed. and trans., Al-Jabarti's Chronicle of the First Seven Months of the French Occupation (Leiden, 1975), fol. lb (Arabic text).Google Scholar

⁴¹ Shaw, Cezzar, fol. 14b. It should be pointed out that while modern historiography believes that mamluk-recruited manpower was chiefly Circassian, Cezzar asserts that it was mostly Georgian. A possible explanation for this discrepancy is the fact that in the Ottoman–Russian war of 1768–74 the empire may have lost traditional territories of mamluks′ recruitment, hence the misirh were forced to look for alternatives.

⁴² Holt, , “Pattern”, pp. 80–81.Google Scholar

⁴³ Stanford, J. Shaw, The Financial and Administrative Organization of Ottoman Egypt (1517–1798) (Princeton, N.J., 1958),Google Scholar Introduction; Holt, , “Pattern”, p. 89;Google ScholarWinter, , “Turks”, 99.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Halil, Inalcik, “Ottoman Methods of Conquest”, Studia Islamica, 2 (1954), 103–29.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Winter, , “Turks”, p. 106 and n.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Shaw, Cezzar, fol. 14b.

⁴⁷ For the devşirme, see Victor L. Menage, “Devirme”, E1 ², Parry, V. J., “The Period of Murad IV”, in Michael, A. Cook, ed., A History of the Ottoman Empire to 1730 (Cambridge, 1976), pp. 133–57.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ See note 32.

⁴⁹ On al-Khashshāb and his writings, see Jabartī, , ⊂Ajā⊃b al-āthār fī-tarājim wa-al-akhbār, 4 vols. (Bulaq, 1879–1980), 2:14–18, 3:238–39;Google ScholarPeter, Gran, Islamic Roots of Capitalism (Austin, Tex., 1979), pp. 40–42, 59–61, 79–80;Google Scholar on the Tadhkira being written at French request and integrated into the Description, see Délaporte, M., “Abrégé chronologique des Mamlouks d'Egypte”, Description de l'Egypte, 22 vols. (Paris, 1809–1812), 15:324.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ A1-Khashshāb, Tadhkira, fols. 9a–9b, 15b.

⁵¹ P. M. Holt, “Al-Jabarti's Introduction to the History of Ottoman Egypt”, in Holt, , Studies, pp. 161–77.Google Scholar

⁵² See, for example, al-Khashshāb, Tadhkira, fols. 9b, 15a.

⁵³ Halil, Inalcik, “Centralization and Decentralization in Ottoman Administration”, Thomas, Naff and Roger, Owen, eds., Studies in 18th Century Islamic History (Carbondale, III., 1977), pp. 23–57.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Ibid., pp. 27–28; on the accumulation of power at the hands of the provincial governors, the ümera; see also Metin, Kunt, The Sultan's Servants (New York, 1983).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Inalcik, , “Centralization”, pp. 27–31.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ The Marxist notion “appropriation of the surplus” employed here, and its application to the Ottoman and Ottoman Egyptian context, is similar to that utilized by Roger, Owen, The Middle-East in the World Economy (New York, 1981),Google Scholar introduction; Huri, Islamoğlu and çağlar, Keyder, “An Agenda for Ottoman History”, Review, 1 (1977), 31–57.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Inalcik, , “Centralization”, pp. 29–31, 35.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Ibid., pp. 31–35.

⁵⁹ Shaw, , The Financial, pp. 26–30.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Owen, , World Economy, pp. 15–16;Google Scholar Shaw, “Land Holding and Land-Tax Revenues in Ottoman Egypt”, in Holt, , ed., Political and Social, p. 94.Google Scholar

⁶¹ For Anatolia see again Inalcik, , “Centralization”, pp. 34–35;Google Scholar for Ottoman Egypt see Owen, , World Economy, pp. 12–14.Google Scholar

⁶² Shaw, , “Land Holding”, pp. 95–96, 100.Google Scholar

⁶³ A1-Khashshgb, Tadhkira, fols. 4a–4b.

⁶⁴ Ibid., fol. 9b.

⁶⁵ For the series of reforms aimed at dealing with ayanship and finally abolishing it, see Inalcik, , “Centralization”, pp. 49–51;Google Scholar for the decision to send a force to Egypt and its implementation, see Shaw, , Ottoman Egypt in the 18th Century, pp. 6–8.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Bernard, Lewis, “Ottoman Observers of Ottoman Decline”, Islamic Studies, 1 (1962): 71–87;Google ScholarHalil, Inalcik, “The Heyday and Decline of the Ottoman Empire”, in Holt, , Lambton, , and Lewis, , eds., Cambridge History of Islam (Cambridge, England, 1970), pp. 345–47;Google ScholarNorman, Itzkowitz, The Ottoman Empire and Islamic Tradition (New York, 1972), pp. 58–61, 79–91.Google Scholar