Les arguments juridiques dans la constitution des traités de paix entre chrétiens et Turcs du xiiie au xve siècle

Abstract

This article examines the development and diversification of legal arguments in Christian-Turkish treaty making in a diachronic perspective. The emergence of the Seljuk sultanate of Konya and other Turkish-Muslim principalities in Asia Minor quickly resulted in the establishment of diplomatic relations with their Christian neighbours in the eastern Mediterranean, such as Byzantium, the Empire of Trebizond, the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, Venice after 1204, and various Frankish states. The legal basis for bilateral agreements resulting from these contacts, mostly peace treaties and commercial agreements, came from practices and concepts of Muslim-Christian diplomacy, the adoption of ideological features originating from commonly accepted supreme authorities, such as the Byzantine emperor or the Muslim caliphate, and a set of local customs related to the traditions of various political entities. This study focuses on the characteristics of the legal discourse in Christian-Muslim treaty making in late medieval Anatolia. The scope of investigation comprises the earliest surviving examples of Frankish-Seljuk treaties dating to the early thirteenth century, the treaties of Venice and other Christian powers with the emirates of Menteshe and Karaman, and the early Christian-Ottoman treaties of the fifteenth century. Generally speaking, there are clearly visible traces of continuity in the use of Byzantine chancery practices and Arabic formulaic patterns in treaties issued in the Greek language. However, there are also important shifts from a treaty type following Byzantine imperial models to ones strongly influenced by Muslim-Arabic patterns. With the rise of the Ottoman Emirate to an empire, especially in the wake of 1453, the language of the treaties increasingly reflects ideas of superiority and universal aims based on a combination of Muslim and Byzantine concepts.