Rise of Ottoman Histography

7/30/2019 Rise of Ottoman Histography

1/10

I. THE RISE OF OTTOMANHISTORIOGRAPHY

There appear to have been good reasons why Ottoman historiography firstproduced its general works early in the fifteenth century after the collapse of .Bdyezid's empire and then upon the death of Melremmed the Conqueror at the endof ihe same century. Th. Seif has already pointed out that various Tevarikh'i Al'i'O;mdn were written towards the end of the fifteenth century as a result of the .Ottoman consciousness of having established a great empire. The attempt tq,.conelate the phases of Ottomar\ historiography with the development of Ottornanhistory itself can shed new light-upon various problems.'

{With the first serious studies on Ottolan sources aftcr the First WorldWar it was thought that the oldest accounts of Ottoman history must be a.menaqibname by YakbEbi Faqih and A[rmedi's chapter on the Ottomans in hisIskendernane. Yakhqbi Faqih's work, the Menaqib-i al-i 'Ogmdn, which deals

with the period up to the time of Bdyezid the.Thunderbolt, is rnentioned only byAsSrqpaEba-zadi (Ashpz.). He had met Yakhshi Faqih in Geyve in 1413. Thi'latter had been granted land by Mehemmed I whom he seems to have supportedin his struggle for the Sultanate. The bitter criticism in Ashpz. against Q[andarh'Ali Pasha who sided with Emir Siilcymin apparently comes from YakhshiFaqih. It seems that he composed his work under Melremmed I. Fr. Giese rightlypointed out that for the first century of Ottoman history Ashpz. and theanonymous,Tevaril,h-i AI-i 'O;mdn must have used a common source whichappears to,b! Yakhshi Faqih. Giese further suggested that this source can bereconstructed from these and Neghri who, Giese thpught, had included a good text.of Ashpz, When Uruj's chronicle was discovered, it was immediately seen that itis connected with the same source.,Fr-- Babinger, its editor,.was of the opinionthat it wits composed in thp Conqueror's time and the anonymous Tevdriftftwasnothing but a new version of it. But in the first place the history of Uruj wasdedicated to Biyezid II as is seen in the introduction of the Manisa manuscript.ttn this article the taoscription systeqr of Encycktpaediu of Islam,2dcdition, is followed withthc exceprions ; E > !, {i> j and | > q. ,.,


2/10

2 FROM EMPIRE TO REPUBLICSecondly, Uruj and the anonymous Tevarifuare independent versions of theoriginal source in Ashpz. (compare, for instance, the battle of Qoyun-lriqfur inthree texts). Their relationship on the basis of a common source can beestablished from the emergence of 'Ogmin Ghizi up to the suppression ofMuqtafi, the rebellious brother of Murid II in 1422. Now it seems that theconrmon source was Yakhshi Faqih's work with a continuation to 1422.l*t ushave a closer look at our chronicles.

In the frst chapters the following theme is common to the three sources:An Oghuz group immigrated into Anatolia under Siileymdn-g[ih who wasdrowned in the Euphrates. His son Erto![ru] and his brothers moved back toStirmeli-Ququr. (Three brothers are named in NeShri and Kemil Pashz., and onlytwo in Ashpz., Uruj, and the anonymous TevarikL), 'Ala' al-Din, the Seljuqidruler, granted to Ertog[ru] and his followers the area of S0g0d-Tomalig-dnghr andErmeni-beli. This theme is enlarged in Uruj and the anonymous Tevarikhwithadditions from different sources, but from Tursun Faqih's Mulba in the name of'Ogmin Ghdzi onwards our three texts agree much more closely. Here only theanonymous Tevarikhcontains an original account of the fight at Yalak-ovabetween 'Osmln's forces and the emperor's army which was sent to relieveNicaeal. Incidentally, it is this battle not that of Qoyun-lrigin that agrees withthe account of the battle at Baphaeon described by Pachymeres. Baphaeon ismistakenly associated with Qoyun-hi$an by Hammer and by all who wrote afterhim. There is a version of the sarne account in Negfuri which is linked with'Osmdn's receiving the symbols of princely power as a reward for this success.'Ogmdn's victory over the forces sent by 'the tekvur of Konstantinople' under hisson in Uruj may be another variant of the same account. It would have beenmost surprising if there had been no mention in the Ottoman sources of thisevent which induced Pachymeres to mention 'Opman in his history for the firsttime. In fact it is mentioned try Uruj and the anonymousTevarifr,frbutit is notmentioned by Ashpz.

The famous story of the dragon and the dervish in connection with thesiege of Nicaea is found only in thc anonym ous Tevarftfu and is a widelyscattered folk-tale which is also found in the Saltuqname. Uruj inserted a storyabout Beba Ilyds citing his source as the Menaqibnamc by Elvin C.belebi.Besides these additions from mendqibndmes Uruj and the anonymousTevarift!give two accounts of the battle of Maritza against the Serbs, one correspondingto that of Ashpz. the other completely different. Uruj's account. of the battleagainst Mirdea in 1395 is completely original and agrees with what we now

f No*, ,.. H. lnalcrk, "(Ogmin Ghizi's Siege of Nicaer and rhc Battlc of Bapheus." The OrbmanEnirate, Elizabeth Zchariadou, cd., Rethymnon t993, 77-gg.

OTTOMAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 3know from a Turkish document about it2. No mention is made of this importantevent in Ashpz. while a second account of it is found in thc Bodleian pseudoR0tri, Nelhri^and Bihi$bti apparently from the samc source. On the other handAshpz. has whole chapters which Uruj and the anonymous Tevarikhlackaltoiether, such as thosi on Orkhan's operationg in the Sakarya valley. Ashpz.'sfurther additions from his oral sources are not included, of course, in the othertwo texts. Relating to Bdyezid I's time we find a greater number of additions'Only the anonymou s Teviri!ftcontains a detailed account of Timur's capture ofSivas and his Eeatment of Biyezid in captivity as well as the stories aboutSullin Alrmed the Jelayirid. These stories are repeated by 'Ali3 nearly twohundred years later wtro saia he obtained them from Hamzavi' On the other hand'in the anonymous Tevdrikhthe vgrse portions of these stories appear to comefrom the same source. lt is safe to say that the important additions on this periodin the anonymous Tevarif;ftmust have come from a separate source' :

The statement on Bdyezid's treatment of the comrpt qadis and theclown isfound jointly in our three texts with the difference ttrat ihe anonymous TevariLband Uruj reproduce the original source more fully. In general the anonymousTevariflis more detailed inlhe parts criticising the administration than the othersources.

uruj and Ashpz. make rhe same misrakes when they spell E n1q: o{ thebattlefield of Marj OaUiq as MainunTabaqwhile the anonymousTevdrikhgivesrhc correct form. I think this is another indicarion that Uruj cannot be consideredas a source for the anonymousTevarift!,.

To sum up Ashpz., uruj and the anonyrnousTevariftfuuse each in hisown l'ashion a common source from the emergence of 'Ogmin up to 1422' Ingeneral Ashpz.'s version is the most detailed, although Uruj appears to give in aiew places " full", treatment of the original text. All three of them add to thesommon source new information frorn different sources such as oral traditionsand menaqibnames. However, the anonymous TevAri&b must have also used arhymed work from 1402 up to 1424, probably H_amzavi's. For this reason allrhese texts musr be considerid .r r.p*uie sourcls. Kemil Pashz. and Nesbri bothof which may be connected with the Ashpz. source group should be corsideredalso separate versions because even in the statements obviously from thecommon source both of them contain details which cannot be found in any other'On the other hand individual copies of all these chronicles may be as importantas different texts because their authoqi made revisions at various dates withadditions or abridgements. For example,'the Carnbridge manuscript of Uruj2See Proceedings of the Tauh International Congress of rhe Byzantinists (Istanbul, 1957).pp. 22O-2.3vol. v, p. 94.


3/10

FROM EMPIRE TO REPUBLICconcludes with the events in 899 H. But according to the intoduction in theManisa manuscript this copy is a revision, which brings the events up to 906 H.and in it we find detailed additions, for instance on the tribes in the $ukur-ovawhich came with Siileymin'sbih, allegedly grandfather of 'Opmin. This additionwas made apparently in view of the current struggle against the Mamluks to getthe upper hand in this region. There is no doubt that Ashpz. also made such newrevisions with continuations. Therefore, Professor Wittek's theory of a moredetailed Ashpz. text than those we possess today is still valid even when werecognize rnany additions made by Neg[ri in Ashpz.'s text as coming fromR{ri's.source and the calendars.

Here is a summary of what we have said on the eadiest texts connectcdwith the so-called Yakhshi Faqih. (see the genealogy of the texts in I, p. 16below).It is to be observed that the first cornpilation originated in the period ofstruggle for the existence of the Ottoman state after the fateful defeat in 1402.One can easily see in this historical account the effort to explain the disaster asGod's punishment for the sins committed under Biyezid I. He and his vezir'AliPasha are accused of encroaching upon the $fteri'at (Shari'a) and introducinginnovations in the government. When the chronicle describes'Ogmin Ghizi ashaving no gold and silver in his possession at his death and as rejecting newtaxation on dealings in the bazaar as a violation of the $fieri'at, our sourceappears to intend to criticize his own period by setting the first Ottoman ruler asan ideal example. The emphasis put on the respect shown by the first Ottomanrulers for the dervishes by granting them generous plots of land can also beinterpreted as a denunciation of Biyezid I's policy of abolishing the right on themulk and waqf lands. Thus, this work on the first century of Ottoman historybears the marks of the great disappointment at the collapse of Biyezid's empire.The Ottomans then felt the need to have a general outlook on their historicalexistence and at the same time sought a historical basis for their future claims.The soft and conciliatory policy of Melremmed I and Murld lI in contrast toBiyezid's impetuous government seems also to be reflected in these reactionaryviews. Timur's successors regarded any new action on the part of the Ottomansaltering the situation set up by Timur in Central Anatolia as a violation of thestatud'quo, qnd sent threatening words to Murld II on account of his operationsagainst the Karamanids. What is more, the Timurids were trying to keep theottomans as their vassal, at least legally. Now what we find in the ottomanchronicles as well as in Murid's letter to Shahrukh is that in order to continuetheir gfiaza obligations in Rumeli the Ottomans claimed, as leaders of the gbaza,that they {ra! to repulse the Karamanid attack from the reua. The genealogie, inthe chronicles which link them to the Oghuz tradition seem to travi been iorged

OTTOM AN HISTORIOGRAPHYsimply to mako the Ottomans appear the equals of the Khins in the East' so thatthey could escape the vassalage of the Timurids and claim supremacy over thetuifisn principalities in Anatolia. Biyezid I had already claimed the title ofsullan h-nn^ which would make him the heir of the seljuqids over all.Anatolia. Our ctronicle put these words in the mouth of 'Ogmin : 'If Allah gavethe Seljuqid Sultan the Sultanate, the same Allah gave methe Khanate by reasonof ghizi.If he says that he is of the Seljuqid house I say I descend fromGtilatp.'s Ya1.11jvztde of the time of Murid II added similar ststements in hisiir1fU at-i Siljuq which later were taken over by Rgli or his source. Anothertradition in our chronicle made 'ogmin the legal heir of the last seljuqid sultan.That all these claims were added in the sources in the period after Biyezid I iswell demonstrated by k6fessor Wiltek.

. )rIn brief, our,origiilal source is shaped under the strong influence of theideas current in the Ottoqan state in the first decades of the fifteenth century, andthus represents a pilticular outlook on Ottoman history which the futurehistorians, Ottomanlor,'Western, found ready for their use without understandingmuch of its true meanirrg. The compiler of this chronicle appears to have used ashis material mercqiibn|ies and gfuWvatnames written on individual events andpersons. 'i '. : :

After l4nz,however, Ashpz. on the one hand and the anonymousTevarikhand Uruj on the other follow completely different sources. Ashpz. oftenadds his own personal experiences and oral information to lhe menaqibndmeswhish he says he summarized in his work. At the end of Murid II's reign her"t;' .i,'Agiqi'nrrvigb Abmed, have seen and known all the ghazas that thisSultanmadeas.wel[.'as.thecircumstancesvrhichoccuredtohimandhisutterances ailcl.actironsl:butilrwrote them in summary in this menaqibname"' Aslbr thc ahonymoue Teuaii&hand Uruj they follow essentially a common sourcefromfl$Z to l4&1. Signifibantlj enough Uruj gives two different accounts ofMuslafds rebeliiOn 'ir*11422, the first of them is apparentll ahg s-ame as in theanonymou s Tevarikhand Ashpz. The anonymou s Tevarikhshifts to the newsource with the usual formula of 'Ravller Sht)yte eydiirler kim', on the eventsatrer 1422. The common source of Uruj and the anonymous Tevarif,! for theperiocl after this date seems to be the calendars which we shall deal withpresently. But let us first examine menaqibnames, apparently original sources ofOttoman historiography in the first period-

The origin of this religiri-heroic literature was sought on the one hand inthe populu fgi$str epics, orithe other in the Islamic tradition of nugfuzi, siyar,and meniqib-i cvliya literature. F. Ktipr0lii suggested that the achievements ofthe Anatolian Turki in the Rumeli gb";Aareas give birth to a third cycle of these

t"i4f"riOon, Munshedt,us-Seldfn, I, Isranbul lZ7 4 H.,l 93-l 9,6. sAthpr. Giese ed., p. 20.


4/10

FROM EMPIRE TO REPUBLICpopular epics after those represented by BafiAlnames and Ddnishn'endnarnes. Inhis opinion the third cycle is exemplified by the Saltuqndme which is acollection of the popular mendqib, religio-epic tales, the gftaza and islamizingactivities of the famous saint San Saltuq in Rumeli.

In Ashpz., the anonymous Tevafif,fi, and Uruj we find actually two kindsof mendqibndmei one consists of typical folk-tales as in the case of 'OgminGhdzi's dream about the future of his house, and Murad I's miraculous deeds; theother consists of menaqibndmes or gfoazavatndmes of real historical information.The typical examples of the latter are the detailed accounts of the first battle ofKossovo and of Melremmed I's activities between 1402 and l4l5 in the Bodleianpseudo-R0lri and Neqhri. The story of the capture of Bursa in Ashpz. can beconsidered as the same type of menaqibmme. As an original example of this typewe now possess a separate Qfuaznvdtname, Cluzavat-i Murad Khan on the battleof Varna in l'144. Though a menaqibname of a later period this detailed bookgives a good idea of this kind of menaqibndmes. The epic of Gbnzi Umur inEnveri's Diistirndme car. be also classified as belonging to this type ofmendqibndme or ghazavatname. Incidentally, our texts use both termsindiscriminately, a fact which is quite normal if we consider that in the Ottomanfrontier lands dervishes and gfuazis often became identical. In any case, writtenabout individual events or persons, about sultans or famous frontier begs, thesehistorical mendqibnames appear in general to give detailed and quite reliablehistorical information.

In a society imbued with the ghaza spirit menaqibnames were usuallyintended to be read aloud in public gathering, in the arrny or in the bazaars wherewe ftnd, as one qali record of Bursa reports, merchants equipping soldiers at theirown expense. Reflecting popular feelings in simple language, the genre ofmendqibnarne survived in many gfuazavatnarnes as well as in such popular worksas Ashpz. and the anonymous Tevarikh in the following centurics. ActuallyAshpz. addresses his listeners,'Hey ghiziler'and concludes as follows : 'Whocverreads or listens to these menaqib of the house of 'Ogmdn and sends prayers fortheir souls,may God grant him heavenly bliss.'

As for the calendars which became the main source of Uruj and theanonymousTevai&and which were found in astrological works entttled edavital-taqvir4 jedvel al-ifotiyarat or alkam ve iftfi11iyaral, they belong to an earlybranch of Muslim astronomy. As a basis for their predictions of the future,astrologers of the early centuries of Islam included in their works chronologicallists-on_important events, political or natural. Refening ro the scheme proposedby the lkhwdn al-$afi for asrological works in the ten'th centurl, Fr. Iiosinthalconsiders them to be very close to an annalistic history. It seems that theAnatolian Turks were interesred in this 'ilm quite early. We have an originalcopy of Zayn al-Mtinejjim b. Siileymin al-Konevl's Jediel al-ikhltiyarar *iitt"n

in Sivls late in the summer l3'll which cont4ins a chronological list on theSejuqids and the llkhanids. The subsequent lrptes made on the cover of them.nuscript refening to such events as the meeiing of Bnyezid Beg, Tij al-DinBeg and ifa;i ShaA-eeldi on Qfual-dag[ on 6 Muharrcm 780, are very interestingbecause they show how astrologers recorded their ctuonological data on the spot.The signifii"n.t of the numerous Ottoman works on ahkim ve ilfttiydrA,fnanyof which contain chronological lists has been realizeAonly recently.6 The 6ldettOttoman works that have survived belong to the years of M9 and 851 H. and areobviously based on carlier works. It seems that at the beginning of each new y-eara calendar wirh ahkam ve i!!1liydrat was drawn up foithe Sultan's use. In fagtthere exists another calendar for the year of 856 H. in which the chronologicallists in the above-mentioned texts were summarized. Thus, the miineiiizs in thecourt can be regarded as the frslvaq'anuvis

Now let me give you an example of how Uruj and the- anonyr]loutTevarikbdrew their i-nformation from thise calendars. In the calendar of 849 H.we read as follows : "It is four years since the castle and the city of Novabiri andsome of its tenitory were taken from the unbelievers by $hihnb al-Din Pasha'Beglerbegi of Rumeli, and some places by Islreq Beg, Beg of Uj-eli, in the.timeof fourad-Khan." In the anonym ius Tevai*hwe read: "It was in the year of 843H. that Sultan Murid'fell upon Belgrade but could not take it.and then came backand conquered the castle of Nouab.rda and Shiheb al'Din Pasha, Beglerbegi ofRurneli, and Is[riq Beg, Beg of Uj, conquered some of its territory'" And in Urujis as follows : "[n thi yeai of Si3 H. SbinaU al-Din Pasha took the castle ofNovaberda and its territory on this side, Ishaq Beg, beg of Uj, was along withhim." Lastly Nefhri gives the same record this way: "In the year of 844 thecastle of Novabiri witti som provinces of the unbelievers were taken by Shihabal-Din and some casrles by Is[raq Bcg, beg of Uj." It is noticed that Uruj copiesout irs source fairly well but the-anonymovs Tevdrilfu leaves the honour of thecapture of Novobrdo for the Sultan. The calendars must have used a chronicle forthe first Ottoman rulers since it is unlikely that any calendar was written in thisearly period. In fact the calendars give very little information until the last yearsof Murid I. The chronicle that they may have used seems to be the same as thatused by Karamini Metremmed in 1480. lmportant contemporary evenls wereusually related in some detail as was the case with the battle of Varna in thecalendar of 849 H. This statement of one page is reduced to a few lines in thecalendar of 856 H. But it is to be noted that Uruj's descriptiop qf this battle ismuch more detailed than even that of the taqvimof 849. Apparently Uruj as wellas the anonymous Tevariftftmade use of gftazavdtnfunes for the great evcnts suchas the battles of Varna or Kossovs and one can see breaks in the chronologicalrecords of nqvimswhenever gfuazavatnames areused. Our texts contain peculiarlyabundant records taken from taqvims concerning earthquakes, asuonomical

:OTTOM AN HI STORIOGRAPHY

l"qi,

65.. rny Fatih Devri iizerinde Tetkikler ve Vesiktlur, (Ankara, 1954)' i.


5/10

FROM EMPIRE TO REPUBLICphenomena, fires and pests. The calendars, the anonymous Tevdrilfo andespecially Uruj are incomparably better in chronology than later compilationssuch as NeShri. One important characteristic of Uruj is that he gives the namesof pashas in the Divin every time there is a change. For instance, thatMe[remmed Pasha was the first vizier in 832 is reported only in Uruj, a fact alsoconfirmed by his vaqlfiyyes. For these details the Manisa and Paris manuscriptsof Uruj arc better than those. published by Babinger. Also Uruj is much moredetailed in its chronological parts up to the frrst years of Biyezid II than theanonymous. It is most likely that the latter used a taqvim or taqvims of recentdate with the data much summarized. For the first perio


6/10

l0 FROM ETT,TPIRE TO REPUBLICIt appears that Shiikrulhh, Ruhi, and Nelhi used a text which had copiedAhmedi's source more faithfully than Abmedi himself and bad continued it up tothe end of Mehemmed I's time. In fact, Shiikntlleh, R[bi, and NeShri are closely

related to each other up to 1421. The section covering the period 1399 to 1420 inthqse texts shows again a completely different character frorn the Ashpz.-Urujtradition. It deals with the uprising of the $iifis in Qaraburun, the disorders in theAmasya and Tokat region caused by the Qarakoyunlu intervention, thefortification of the tbree castles of Saqgi, Yeni-Sale and Yergdgi on the Danube,and the capture of Severin. The first group of chronicles lack these pointscompletely.R0hi makes two long additions to his source, one concerning Murid'scxpedition into Karaman-eli and the battle of Kossovo, the other concerningMehemmed I's struggle for supremacy during the period of civil war. As we have

said these must hbve been taken from two different menaqibnames. We find theseadditions in Neshri too, the first one with more detail than R[hi and the secondidentical in both texts.

For Mtrdd II's time Ru[i is an independent source with original dataexcept for the second reign of this sultan from 1446 to l45l where he appears touse the same source as Ashpz. Probably this was a separate menaqibnarne. Thisis the only part where the two texts agree. Ashpz. gives the common source inmore detail except on Me[remmed II's expedition into Qaramin-eli in 1451. Thedemonstration of the Janissaries against the Sultan during this expedition isrelated only by Ruhi. Shiikrullih gives a very superficial outline of Murld II'stime and Me[remmed Konevi seems simply to copy it. For the reign ofMehemmed the Conqueror, Qonevi appears to use a calendar which makes himvery close to Uruj anrJ the anonymous Tevari!fu. That Karamdni did not useStjkrullah directly as a source can be seen by comparing their treatment of thereign of Murid II. For the conqueror's time Karamini seems to have made use ofa calendar. As for R0hi he gives an original text on the reigns of Melremmed IIand Bdyezid II up to the conquest of Aqqerman and Kili in 1484 (he distinguishestwo expeditions of the Conqueror into Serbia in 1454 and 1455, mentions thewounding of Mahm[d Pasha during the expedition against Trebizond and thedispatch of Ahmed Bikriji by Uzun Hasan to make peace). (See the Genealogy ofthe Texts: III, p. 16 below).- - A completely original work on the conqucror's reign is Tursun Beg'sTarikh-i Ebu'l-Fetfi which is based on his o*n pimonal exftrience. As for thefuahrumes written under the conqueror we shail deal with these later.

OTTOM AN HISTORIOGRAPHYUI

Tdri&h-*b1ins, history-readers and popular poets reading mendqibndmeswere present in the oourts of the Seljuqid Sultans and Ttirkmen begs in Anatolia.The Ottomans continued the tradition. It seems that historical works in theformof gfiaTaviltndmes were written to be read aloud to the Sultan in his reueat tosatisfy his pride and literary taste.

As the time went by the court and upper classes were interested in moresophisticated types of mcrcqibnames and gfoaznvdtnannes, writtcn in high literarystyle and mostly in Persian. Ahmedi's DashAn in Turkish can be regarded as oneof the first examples of it. Around 1456 Kathifi, a Persian poet, wrote hisQtrazavdtndme-i Rfim, a versified work in Persian glorifying the Conqug.rgr'sgluazas.It'was dedicated to the sultan; as a historical source it contains quite a.fgtof original information. Under Melremmed II this kind of literature which isshown under the general name of shdhname seems to have flourished. A numberof Persian poets who then invaded the Ottoman capital were in keen compgtitionnot only with the Ottoman writers but also with each other to attract ttre Sultan'sfavours. Following Kaihifi, t{amidi, Mu'ali, Shehdi are the names which havesurvived as the authors of such works during this period. In La1ifi's Tegkire itreads: "Thirty poets were granted salaries and yearly pensions (by the Conqueror)who were putting in rhyme his history or writing poms in his praise." Mu'ili'sKhiinkarnam was discovered recently at the Topkapr-Sarayr, but t{amidi's and$ehdi's works are missing. It is safe to say that shahndme-wriling as an earlytype of court historiography was established in the middle of the fifteenthcentury. Its main function was to glorify in a high literary form the exploits ofthe reigning Sultan; but occasionally shahndme writers composed also generalhrstones of the Ottoman house. For their own time they produced generallyoriginal works based on first-hand information. Still linked with the .oldmenaqibndne tradition special ghazavatrumes were composed for famous chiefsof ghaza. QLazavatndme-i MikfoAI-oSUu 'Ali Beg by S0zi Qelebi was recentlypublished by A. S. Levend. Ghazavat-i Davud Parha by Kbayr al-Din $elebi, nocopy of which has been found, was actually borrowed by Kemal Pasha-zide inhis Tevarifu at the end of the seventh volume. The genre of the old popularmenaqibnarnes seemed also to continue in the court on the one hand with theqissa-khvyans who were ranked below the shahndrne-writers, and on the otherhand with the appointment of miinSft.is who were famous stylists to composeTevari!fui dl-i 'Ogmdn on the model of fashiortable Persian historiography.Under Blyezid II who desired that the history of his house be written in Turkish,we frnd written in the &dhnAme style Qivimils Fetlndme on the Conqueror'sghazas, Kemil's Selaylnname, a general history of thc Ottomans, the Quybnameby Firdevsi on the naval expedition for Mytilene, and the gftazavatndme bySafhyi on the exploits of Kemil Re'is. Qivimi's work was recently published by

11


7/10

t2 FROM EMPIRE TO REPUBLICFr. Babinger and the manuscript copies of others are now known.T In thcfollowing centuries the genre of. tfuatman continued with numerous works someof which had real artistic value in cdligraphy, miniature and illumination. It isto be noted that some of the tfuAhnane-writers were versed not only in these butin astrology too. Sfirndmes describing royal wedding festivities can be consideredas.,a branch of lbAhnAnu genre.

IVWas it just a coincidence that many of the general histories of theOttoman house were composed in Biyezid II's time and that most of therncqncluded with the events of 1484-85? Ashpz., Rirbi, the first composition ofthe anolypous Tevdrif,ft, the Menzel manuscript of Neg[ri, Me[remmed Konevi,

Qivdmi, Sanja Kemil, Tursun Beg end their work with the events of 1484 or1485. For this unusual activity in prodt:cing compilations on the general historyof the Ottomans at that time the first and foremost reason was no doubt BiyezidII's desire to see such works written and the 'trlemi'of his time responded to it.Biyezid II then wanted to use this means for shaping public opinion in hisfavour..Biyezid represented a reactionary policy in all political, social, and legalfields in contrast to the Conqueror, while Jem Sultin, still alive, was regarded asthe symbol of the previous rdgime. In all the above-mentioned works Biyezid isdemonstrated primarily as a just and law-abiding ruler with the mission ofconsolidating the large conquests which his predecessor had made (see especiallythe introductions in Tursun Beg, Kemil Pshz., and ldris). Gedik Ahmed who wasan idol of the Janissaries and had seized actually all the power in the state wasexecuted in 1482 and his father-in-law Ishiq Pasha was dismissed from the grandvizierate the following year. The Janissaries became restless and Gedik Afrmed'sprevious opposition to the policy of concessions to Christendom was sharednaturally by all the gfiazi elements. It was under these conditions that Div0dPasha, famous for his ghaza achievements in Bosnia, was chosen as grand vizierand the Sultan fclt bound to lead the army himself into Moldavia where theConqueror had previously failed. In order to influence puhlic opinion the victorywon there should bave been propagated as widely as possible. Commenting onthe victory in Moldavia Metremmed Konevi said emphaticalty as follows: "Noneof his ancestors was able to take these two strongholds", and Tursun Begemphasizes that Sultan Metremmed was not able to lay siege to Kif.8 If theAshpz. text is read in the light of Biyezid's reacdonary policy its polemicalcharacter would become evident throughout. It can be added that in Neibri GedikAfmed is blamed for his ill advice to Biyezid during the battle of Otluq-beli in1473, while Ibrihim Chandarlr is praised for his effoits, all this being sirnply an

OTTOM AN HISTORIOGRAPHYaddition to the original source by Neghri himself. Also Divird Pasha s r61e in theConquerot's time is often exaggerated in most of these works. A careful study oftheir introduction is revealing indeed: In pseudo-R0hi we read: "Sultan Biyezidsaid: 'Histories of thc prophets are regarded as the best and most preferable, andthus the '(llemd'prefer to write this kind of histories, but the history of thgOttoman Sultans who are the most distinguished and honourable among othqrshas not yet been the subject of a compilation written in a language for.everybody's profit. It is desirable that it should have been.'This staternent of theSultan made me decide to collect the histories lof the Ottomans] in Turkishwhich are circulating in the ottoman dominions'" Neihti makes a similarstatement.in his preface: "I found that many works are written on the other 'ilrnsbut that those.on.history still remain scattered especially in Turkish." SultanBdyezid's irisistence on such a history in a Turkish simple enough to beunderstood by everybody is significant.

The works written in the first years of Bayezid and directly connected withthe victory in Moldavia are most important for Ottoman historiography, becauseit was these compilations that became the basis of all that is written later on thefirst two centuries of the Ottoman history and their original sourcqs are nowmostly unavailable for us. Ashpz. obviously made several revisions of his wokwith continuations and the one seems to have been made in l4M-85. MetremmedKonevi started writing under Mehemmed the Conqueror and completed his workunder Biyezid II. An official record testifies that Mevlin4RQhi was given awardshy Biyezid rowards 1503. Sanja Kemll completed his Se/ri.rinname in Jun-e-1490.As tti Neshri's work, Professor Taeschner finds in view of the Menzelmanuscript, 1485 as terminus post quem and 1495 as terminus ante quem for theclate of its composition. Statements in Bihighti, Uruj, and the anonymousTevari[h are clear enough to show that all are written under Bdyezid II.

An attempr has been made in the preceding pages to find out what kind ofsourccs were used in the main compilations, and we concluded that in theirgreatest part Ashpz. on the one hand, R[!ri on the other, give us two differentiradiri


8/10

l5t4Ei.i,ifir{trsJiltlr-'df:B.g6Iiiil:i\1it:R{l'lr),$;iirt{('rl{

OTTOM A N H I S TOR I OGR A'PH Ypersonal accounts of Tursun Beg, too. Idris gives some original information onthe events concerning central and eastern Anatolia. The description of theOttoman court and government in a separate chapter gives this work a uniqueplace among Ottoman chronicles. The Turkish counterpart of HaSht Bihifrh isIbn Kemil's Tevdrikh-i Ali-'Ogmdn, the largest and the most importantcompilation in this period. It is also an important literary work reflecting thedesire to create a high Turkish prose competing with Persian. Ibn Kemilapparently used a detailed copy of Ncgfuri and added Karamdni's account for thefirst period. For the Conqueror's time he followed principally Tirrsun Beg andNeghri, and there are indiiations that he is also familiar with R[[ri or his sourceand a detailed copy of Uruj like the Paris or Manisa manuscripts. As was saidabove, his work iontains hire Kbayr al-Din $elebi's Ghauvat-i Davild Patha.Moreover Ibn Kemil added many important details from his personal knowledgeas well as from contacts with others. He shows great skill in selecting hissources on individual events and utilizing them. He can be regarded as thegreatest of all the Ottoman historians incluJing Khoja Sa'd al-Din,'Ali, Na'iml,and Jevdet Pasha.

FROM EMPIRE TO REPUBLICMamluk and Persian states in the East required a new evaluation of Ottomanhistory at that time. In the previous outlines of world history, for example inShiikrutlah's and Enveri's works, Ottoman history occupied a modest place as acontinuatioil of Islamic history, and the Ottoman Sultans wre presented asg@zis on the frontiers of the Muslim world. But now Biyezid II claimed to beAsfrraf al-Saldtin, the most distinguished and honoured of the Muslim rulers, andone of these compilers (R0bi) said that except for the Prophet himself and hisfour immediate successoni no other Muslim ruler had more achievements thanthe Ottoman sultans. It must be remembered that it was then that the Ottomanshad entered a long war against the Mamluks for south Anatolia and wished toshow themselves superior to their opponents in every respect. The Ottomansstill:emphasized their glaza mission but claimed that it had the most significantplace in Islam. Around 1502 Kemdl Pasha-zide said in the introduction of hiswork: "The Sultan remarked that if the histories and stories and anecdotes wcrenot written down and thus the glories and the achievements of the great rulerswere not perpetuated for the ages to come, they would be forgotten. He,therefore, asked that his achievements and those of his ancestors should berecorded. And in order to be useful for the distinguished as well as for ordinarypeople it should be composed in a clear style in Turkish and I was appointed byhim to do this."

About the same time Idris Bidlisi, a famous Persian miingfr/, was orderedby the Sulian to write a great history in Persian worthy of the Ottoman house.Idris himself relates it as follows: "Sullin Bdyezid ordered that a history of thisgreat dynasty from its beginning in the year of 710 up to the present year of 908should be written in a style favoured by the distinguished as well as by ordinarypeople with the correction and elucidation of the accounts concerning thisdynasty. It is true that there are in Turkish a number of works on the subject butthcir ptories lack elegance in style and truth on the events."The Straga'iqg makes ir clear that the qadi'asker Mu'ayyad-zide hadsuggested to Biyezid II that as Molla Idris was asked to write a history of theOttoman house in Persian, it was suitable or perhaps necessary to have a work inTurkish on the same subject and this could be accomplished only if MevlindKemil Pshz. agreed to do it. It is clear that unsatisfied with the current historiesof his house, Biyezid II gave orders to rwo great miigfils of his time, Idris inPersian, Ibn Kemil in lurkish, to write this history again. They tackled the taskin a similar plan devoting a separate book to each Ottornan Sultan. With hismost elaborate work, Hatht Bihithttldris composed Ottoman history in the mostsophisticated form of Persian historiography. Later Khoja Sa'd al-bin took thiswork as a model for his Taj al-TevaribinTurkish, which became a classic. Itseems that Idris followed mainly the R0hi tradition. We find in Idris some of the

9Turkish transtarion by Mcjdi, Hadu,iq al,gfiaqa,iq,Istanbul 1269 fl.,p. 3g4.


9/10

l6 FROM EMPIRE TO REPUBLICGENEALOGY OFTIIETEKTSIY*b$i Frqih (up to l3t9 or lrt02)

IIA supplcmentcd Yakhshi Faqih up to t422

up to 1492

II. ON THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE OFTHE OTTOMAN EMPIREPARADIGMS AND RESEARCH

In this paper an attempt will be made to review the principal typologicalefforts that have been applied to Ottoman social history up to the presnt'

From the point of view of methodology, researchers on Ottoman historycan essentially be divided into two grouPs. In the first group are those who havechosen a definite theoretical model and sought to interpret the findings ofOttoman empirical historians according to that model. In the second group arehistorians who take as a subject of research the topics suggested in Karl Marx, orMax Weber or, less frequently, other models and proceed to examine them in theIight of historical sources. As the first group pressed the debate over whet'herOttoman society represented a feudal mode of production (FMP) or Asiatic modeof production (AMP) or a patrimonial statqhistorians began to do empiricalresearch on such topics as landholding and igrarian relations, socio-economicintegration between town and countryside, population pressure, impact of theprice revolution on the Ottoman empire and its place in the capitalist worldeconomy. One cannot but agree that both approaches have helped us to betterapproach and understand Ottoman society and to formulate our questions clearly.

Marxist social historians, seek to apply their model, which can bedescribed in the words of Hindess and Hirstl .r on" in which, a distinct mode-ofappropriation of the surplus-product presupposes a distinct structure of relationsof production. A distinct structure of relations of production presupposes a set offorces of production which corresporids to the conditions of the labour process itestablishes. What forms did society's ideological-legal superstructure take, withinwhat kind of dependence on that basic foundation? And, how did the whole socialstructure, as an integrated totality o1 globat structure coalesced of all itslAaty Hindcss ond PaulQ. Hirst, Pre-cupitatist Modes of Production, (London: Routlcdgc urdKegan Paul,1975), 183.

$Iif,eYti:ii,.

UI

A calendarl43l-80\Karamini Mclrmmcdup to 1484


10/10

CONTENTS

PREFACE VIIIt n. The Rise of Ottoman HistoriographyV (Historians of the Middle Eart, eds. P. Holt and B. Lewis, London7 t962,tsz-t67\ I

n. On the Social Structure of the Ottoman Empire: Paradigms andResearch 17IIII. The Qtft-fldne System and Peasant Taxationpapeireia at Eiote des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales,Paris,lune tl9Zl 6lIV. Les rdgions de Kruje et de la Dibra autour de 1467 et l5l9

\StudiaAlbanica,Il [968],89-102) 73V. Ottoman Archival Materials on Millets(Chisrtans and Jcws in the Ottoman Empire,I, eds. B. Braude andB. Lewis, New York 1981, 437-49) 9lVI. Sephardic Jews in the Ottoman Enrpire(Paper read at the Conference on Seplardic Jews,Istanbul, June 4,re92). 105VII. Turkish Impact on the Development of Modern Europe(The Onoman State and its Place in World History, ed. KemalKarpat, Leiden: Brill 1974, 5l-58) I 15VUL Political Modernization in Turkey(Polilical Modernization in Japan and Turkey, eds. R. E. Ward andD. A. Rustow, Princeton: Princeton University Press I968, 42-63).......... r23IX. Turkey Between Europe and the Middle East(Foreign Policy, Ankara VIIV3-4, 7-31) 143

X. The Caliphate and Atattirk's Inkilhb(Belleten,XLVVlS2, [9821,353-365) 153rNDEX ....:..:. 165

Rise of Ottoman Histography

Documents

Transcript of Rise of Ottoman Histography