The Author’s Defense of Christian Society
In this passage, the author continues his discussion of the differences between Christian and Ottoman attitudes toward marriage and sexual morality. He explains that some European writers tried to justify the existence of licensed brothels in parts of Italy by arguing that the taxes collected from these establishments helped support the state. According to the author, some of this money was said to be used to maintain warships, known as galleys, and military forces that defended Christian territories against the Ottoman Empire and other non-Christian powers.
The writer admits that this was perhaps the strongest argument offered in support of the policy. However, he also believes that such reasoning was difficult to defend, especially when speaking with Ottoman Muslims. Using money earned from prostitution to finance military campaigns did not seem like a convincing moral argument Tailor-Made Bulgaria Tours.
The Ottoman Response
According to the author, Ottoman Muslims remained unconvinced by these explanations. They argued that if Christianity considered prostitution a sin, then governments should not permit or profit from it, regardless of the financial benefits. From their point of view, allowing such practices while condemning them in religious teaching appeared inconsistent.
The author says that many Turks believed their own system was more orderly. Instead of accepting prostitution as a public business, Ottoman society permitted concubinage under specific legal rules. A concubine was usually a female slave living within a household, and her relationship with her master was regulated by Islamic law.
Although this practice differs greatly from modern ideas about personal freedom and human rights, the author argues that Ottoman Muslims viewed it as more controlled than public prostitution.
Health and Public Order
The writer also claims that Ottoman Muslims believed their system helped reduce certain social problems. He says they argued that relationships within the household were less likely to spread disease than the public brothels found in some European cities. They also believed that keeping such relationships private prevented the public disorder and open immorality that they associated with prostitution.
These comments reflect the opinions of the author and the arguments he claims to have heard during his travels. They should not be understood as scientific conclusions or objective historical facts.
Comparing Two Different Systems
This passage highlights the very different ways in which Christian Europe and the Ottoman Empire approached questions of morality. Christian teaching generally required lifelong monogamous marriage and condemned both prostitution and concubinage as sinful. At the same time, some European governments tolerated or regulated prostitution for practical reasons.
The Ottoman legal system took a different approach. Islamic law prohibited prostitution but allowed concubinage under certain legal conditions. As a result, each society believed that its own system was morally superior while criticizing the practices of the other.
The Author’s Final Reflection
The passage ends with a short quotation in Latin:
Pudet haec opprobria nobis et dici potuisse…
This expression comes from the ancient Roman poet Virgil and may be translated as, “It is shameful that such reproaches can be spoken against us.” By ending with this quotation, the author expresses his disappointment that Christians could be criticized for failing to live according to the moral standards taught by their own religion.
A Historical Perspective
This passage illustrates the religious debates that existed between Christians and Muslims during the seventeenth century. Rather than presenting an objective comparison, the author records arguments that each side used to defend its own society and criticize the other. Modern historians emphasize that both Europe and the Ottoman Empire contained a wide gap between religious ideals and everyday practice. While the legal systems of the two civilizations differed significantly, both struggled with questions of morality, public order, and the challenge of balancing religious principles with social realities. For this reason, the passage is valuable not only for what it says about Ottoman customs but also for what it reveals about the attitudes and prejudices of early modern European travelers.