The rebelion of 1651
Transcript of The rebelion of 1651
The Rebellion 1651 and Its Implications through the Eyes of Tarih-i Naima
Sinan KAYA
Hist. 58T
Derin TERZİOĞLU
January 22th
, 2011
Kaya 2
The General Overview of the Ottoman Empire in the 17th
Century 1
During the 17th
century, the Ottoman Empire had to deal with several revolts mostly
directed by the Janissaries. The last three decades of the 16th
century resentments begun to be
felt2; in the center (saray-ı hümayun) with the introduction of seniority for the selection of
new sultan and an attempt to changing structures of janissaries and the economic condition
gradually caused several problems within society3 and the state has to be careful when making
any alterations in the structure of the society. Unfortunately, the first group disturbed from
these changes was coming from the palace and as a consequence of power struggles derived
from the alterations, the court faction begun to emerge. In 1622, the court faction, consisting
of the ulema (religious authorities), the janissaries and the palace, came together and they
were successful to dethrone Osman II and killed him dramatically (haile-i Osmaniye). In fact
the clique could dethrone Mustafa I in 1618, but the faction’s power never reached to this
level and never worked together like this event in 1622 until Edirne Vak’ası of 17034. If we
count 1622 event as a starting point of the revolts or beginning of the social unrest and the
state turmoil, we can determine some key events or revolts or with Mustafa Ali’s word ihtilal5
(revolution) for these kinds of events such as, 1622, 1651, 1656 and 16876.
1 For the 1651 rebellion, I prefer to use ‘rebellion’ and ‘event ’ respectively within the same meaning.
2 The most visible example here would be Mustafa Ali from Gallipoli, for detailed information see Cornell H.
Fleischer, Tariçi Mustafa Ali: Bir Osmanlı Aydın ve Bürokratı, (Istanbul, Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 1994),
241-305 3 Ömer Lütfi Barkan, ”The Price Revolution of the 16
th Century: A Turning Point in the Economic History of the
Near East,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 6 (1975): 23 4 Cemal Kafadar, Yeniçeri-Esnaf Relations: Solidarity and Conflict, unpublished M.A. dissertation at McGill
University, 1981, 102,103,104 (hereafter, I prefer to use Kafadar, Yeniçeri- Esnaf Relations); Rifa’at Ali Abou-
El-Haj, 1703 İsyanı, (Ankara: Tan Yayınları,2011); for the expanded version of the events see, Naima Hüseyin
Efendi, Tarih-i Naima, Ravzatü’l-Hüseyn fi Hülasati Ahbari’l-Hafikayn, prep. by Mehmet İşpirli, (Ankara, TTK,
2007) vol.4 p.1857,1892 (hereafter I preferred to use Tarih-i Naima and I will indicate the number of volume and
page which I will used) 5 Gelibolulu Mustafa Ali, Künhü’l Ahbar, p.241, 242, 243 (I use here the course material assigned for Hist 58.T
lectured by Derin Terzioğlu) 6 Here, I used Kafadar’s way seen in his MA thesis, Cemal Kafadar, “Janissaries and Other Riffraff of Ottoman
Istanbul: Rebels without a Cause?,” International Journal of Turkish Studies, Fall 2007 vol.13, 123 (Hereafter I
prefer to use Kafadar, Riffraff)
Kaya 3
After 1622, with the strong rule realized by Murad IV (r.1623-1640) the state faced
with small revolts known as Celali and some wars waged to the West and East. How he
realized the relatively stable environment was that he tried to create a strong center strengthen
by victories in the Western –against Polish Lithuanian army- and the Eastern –against Iran-
fronts. Then he re-filled the treasury with new heavy taxation, confiscation of the wealth from
important members of the elite and reductions of the number of the Janissaries7. Social peace
was realized with the application of strict repression over Sufi tarikats with the direction and
careful selection of Murad IV by using Kadızadeli movements8 and severe punishments of
rebellious elements9.
After Murad IV, Ibrahim I (r. 1640-1648) came to the throne and his period can be
characterized relatively as stagnation period for public unrest; in fact when we can analyze the
contemporary chronicles, we can only recognize a lot of military campaigns and its problems
especially long-lasting Create campaign. Terzioğlu puts it in the time of Ibrahim I chroniclers
preferred to be silent towards religious and social events10
; however we know that after
Ibrahim I’s deposition and then Mehmed IV’s ascendancy to the throne (r.1648-1687)
Ottoman social life entered into the crisis not only socially but also religiously. In that period
Mehmed IV witnessed two great social unrests in 1651 and 1656 and had to deal with the
third wave of Kadızadeli movement despite sometimes participating actively in the
7 Kafadar, Yeniçeri-Esnaf Relations, 98
8 Derin Terzioğlu, Sufi and Dissident in the Ottoman Empire: Niyazi-i Mısri (1618-1694), unpublished PhD
thesis, Harvard University,1999, 190,276; Madeline C. Zilfi, the Politics of Piety: The Ottoman Ulema in the
Post-Classical Age (1600-1800), (Bibliotheca Islamica, Minneapolis, 1988), 129,181, “The Kadızadelis:
Discordant Revivalism in 17th
Century Istanbul,” JNES 45, no 4; Kafadar, Yeniçeri- Esnaf Relations,98 9 Kafadar, Yeniçeri-Esnaf Relations, 98
10 Derin Terzioğlu, Sufi and Dissident in the Ottoman Empire, and personal communication of Terzioğlu. I thank
to Derin Terzioğlu, to provide lots of materials to use for this research paper.
Kaya 4
movement11
. Along with them he experienced great loss to the gate of Vienna in 1683 and the
subsequent defeats engendered his enthronement in 1687.12
In fact, the classical view of the historiography tends to see these events as a janissary
rebellion which is the symbol of ‘degeneration’. For this point of view, janissary always
preferred to rebel against the Empire when they did not take whatever they want. This
knowledge can be acceptable in a small part of the truth, but seeing the whole event in one
cause goes us to wrong and dangerous interpretation of the events and with this eye, we had
to look at every event in the glasses of ad hoc events. However, when we make close
examination of the events and read the contemporary accounts, we can face with the deepened
nature of the events and their relations to created groups and the feature of sui generis of the
event. This explanation proves the complexity of the events experienced in the 17th
century
Ottoman Istanbul; moreover, this also shows the complicated nature of the Ottoman society,
too.
The first half of the 17th
century, the general characteristics of the rebellion could be
followed a certain way: a dissenter group was created and they rebelled and they were able to
change some people in the government positions. After the alterations, the old system was
preferred and followed. On account of this we can generally say that in that time when the
opposition was satisfied with their demands, there was no problem for the state for the first
rebellions.
However with the increase of the entrance to the mercantilist economy13
or with the
extension of trade network in the 17th
century14
, the control over the society became hard
11
Derin Terzioğlu, Sufi and Dissident; Madeline C. Zilfi, Politics of Piety; Marc David Baer, Honored by Glory
of Islam,(Oxford University Press, 1998), 81-105 12
This event is really interesting. For the first time, the outside’s demands became effective for the deposition of
the sultan. With this demands, the ulema and the bureaucracy gathered in Orta Camii and they heard the demand
of outside and give their decision in the lights of this demands meaning to ‘deposition’ of the sultan. It was taken
in Baki Tezcan’s presentation at Istanbul Şehir Universty and the same information can be taken in Naima’s
adding in Feyzullah Vakası and Rifa’at Ali Abou- El-Haj, 1703 İsyanı, 155
Kaya 5
work. With the transition of the janissaries into esnaf class15
, the dimension of the social life
and the nature of the revolts can be complicated. Moreover, the state application to the
debasement of money or to decreasing the value of coin (kuruş) started to bring new burdens
to every strata of public, esnaf class in particular. Along with it, the state tried to compensate
the war expenses and palace expenses with the new and heavy taxes and state efforts to
provide circulation of the new debased money with the collection of the old one, which was
re-issued in a new currency, deepened the social unrest and state could enter easily into
turmoil. As Cemal Kafadar points out that ‘in the post-classical era, this tension between the
dynamics of fiscal discipline, on the one hand, and welfarism, on the other, provided one of
the main fault lines and one of the main causes of tremor in the Ottoman body politics’16
.
In this environment, the relationship between the Empire and its subjects was tied to
weak and the subjects were ready to rebel. After deposition of Osman II, a remarkable revolt
occurred in 1651. Actually the development of the revolt was so primitive but its
consequences and its subtitles are of great importance to consider in detail.
Before the second half of the 17th
century, interestingly, the Ottoman public
commences participating in daily political issues. We have witnessed some public angers
continued by the public outside of Istanbul (taşra). For example, in 1642 in Bursa after debate
on the issue of churches, the Ottoman administration dismissed kadı (judge) and appointed a
new one. For this appointments, public in Bursa showed reactions against government’s
decision, because common decision of public was direction of the righteous behaviors of kadı.
13
Cemal Kafadar, Coins Turned into Drops of Dew and Bankers Became Robbers of Shadows, the Economic
Boundaries of Ottoman Economic Imagination At the End of the Sixteenth Century, unpublished PhD
dissertation at McGill University, 1986, 198-203 14
Halil İnalcık, “Capital Formation in the Ottoman Empire,” The Journal of Economic History, Vol.29, No,1,
The Task of Economic History (Mar, 1969), pp, 97,98,99 15
Kafadar, Yeniçeri-Esnaf Relations, 67-85 16
Kafadar, Riffraff, 117
Kaya 6
In the end the government had to stop the decision and re-appointed the old kadı to their
post17
.
In 1651 the Esnafs of Istanbul closed down all shops in order to protest new tax and
they wanted to dismiss some people from the government and the janissary post. When we
follow the contemporary chronicle Naima, we, for the first instances, see that the event was
suppressed within two days. However, we read the following pages of his history, we witness
the spread of the events to queen mother and crucial members of the janissary Ağas; with that
rebellion, state gave up some people who created problems for the state. In short, state
exterminated one of a powerful clique with the help of the rebellion.
Before narrating the 1651 event in detail, I want to show my methodology: in that
paper, I will utilize a contemporary source called Tarih-i Naima. Why Naima is of great
importance for me is his position to the events. In the beginning he tells the event very briefly
and then he decided to tell the event with great detail, after small hesitation; however, he did
not forget his legitimization:
Yazılmak münasib degil idi, lakin tarihden maksud ahval-i âlemin nik ü bedi ve
deka’ik u hakayıkına vakıf olmaktır. Ve her kıssadan mülahaza-i akılane ile hale
münasib hisse almaktır. Ana bina’en ol hikayat-ı garibe hafz olunmayıp bi aynihi
tahrir olunmuştur.18
In his history, he preferred to show every tiny detail of the event he narrates. His eyes tried to
see every detail of the event and reader’s eyes see both what the palace did and the clique did
against the place. When we see general picture of the narration, we see that the event finished
within two days. However the subsequent events related to 1651 event continued more than
30 days: 21.08.1651 - 22.09.165119
. Furthermore, the 1651 rebellion turned its weapons
toward janissaries; in general janissaries started a revolt, and they achieved their demands.
17
Tarih-i Naima, vol.3, 961 18
Tarih-i Naima, vol.3, 1325 19
Tarh-i Naima, vol.3, 1319-1358
Kaya 7
With 1651 events, as I said before, important members of janissaries was phased out. Here my
aim is to examine the event in detail with the use of primary and secondary literature; I want
to reiterate that my main primary source would be history of Naima.
When we look at the academic works related to 1651 events, we see few articles and
thesis which either have narrated the events briefly or have showed the events in footnotes
when speaking of janissary rebellions20
. In the second half of the 17th
century the number of
janissary increased rapidly though the state tried to decrease their numbers being as the policy
of the Ottoman state of the century. The increasing the number of the janissaries meant
financial burden for society. Moreover, the Janissary Ağas gradually became so powerful and
they were never ashamed of showing their wealth to the public. These worsened economic
conditions entail new measurements. Melek Pasha in 1651 had to issue new taxes and ordered
the debasement of the currency. He attempted to collect the old coins to change new coins. In
the end the Esnafs of Istanbul participated in the activity of rebellion. They gained support of
Şeyhülislam and they desired dismissal and assassination of the Janissary Ağas. The palace
supported this rebellion and the Holly Banner (Sancak-ı Şerif) was raised in front of the
Palace which means the official permission of fighting against the janissaries. Although
janissary Ağas tried to make another plan to gain the support of the public, they became
unsuccessful. The public caught the corrupt officers and then assassinated them. It is
interesting that within the Janissary corps there were factions and most of them did not
support the Janissary Ağas and they changed their sides easily during the events21
.
The story narrated above is the most detailed story that I have found in the secondary
sources. Unfortunately we never understand and recognize the whole event completely,
20
As far as I see now, the event stayed in a closer context: Cemal Kafadar, Yeniçeri-Esnaf Relations, 88-119;
Marinos Sariyannis, “ ’Mob’, ‘Scamps’ and ‘Rebels’ in 17th
Century Istanbul: Some Remarks on Ottoman Social
Vocabulary,”, IJTS, vol.11 Fall 2005, (hereafter Sariyannis, Mobs) 21
Kafadar, Yeniçeri-Esnaf Relations, 96,97.
Kaya 8
because in this narration we need to know what the names of the people and the names of the
cliques and the interesting events were. For this reason, I turned my eyes to contemporary
account Naima and try to understand the complicated nature of the event.
The 1651 Rebellion within the Eyes of Naima
The whole narrative about the event is in the 5th
volume of his history. In the
transcription prepared by Mehmet İşpirli in 2007 the event was in the 3rd
volume between the
pages 1319 and 1358.
Naima stars his narration by telling misbehaviors on the issue of taxation. He does not
forget from which the power of the janissaries came: 1622, the event of dethronement of
Osman II. The janissaries thought, according to Naima, that it was not suitable for us to gain a
little money and they decided to make profit more than 3 times then before they had gained.
To realize this notion, they used sarrafs and Jewish people participating in trade activities.
When we turn our eyes to Naima we see that:
Sabıka Yeni Cami’ vak’asından sonar sipah münkesir olup Yeniçeri zabıtları
dahi kendi karları sevdasında olmakla22
kulun mevacib hususuna i’tiraz ihtimali ber-
taraf olduğun vükela-i mal gördükte “Miriye seksene alınan guruş geri mevacibe
seksene verilmek hamakattir. Mesela bir mevacibde zuyufa tebdil olunsa bin keseden
ekall mertebe üç yüz kise fazla kalır bu bir azim kardır” deyü kimini Yahudiler ve
sarraflar yediyle tebdil edip ve kimini Arnavudluk’ta vaki’ ba’zı yerlerde kem-ayar
akçe kestirip getirip mevacibe mal-ı Karun cem’ etmeği adet etmişler idi.23
In the time of paying salary for the Janissaries, the Empire appointed Defterdar Emir
Mustafa Pasha to collect required money. Emir Mustafa saw that the whole money consists of
Beğ of Belgrade and Bosnian’s debased coin (akçe) and the drinking taxes collected from the
owner of the pubs (kızıl kırpık pare). Then the Emir demanded from the Esnafs in Istanbul
22
This theme was repeated later. 23
Tarih-i Naima, vol.3, 1319
Kaya 9
that for gold the Esnafs of Istanbul had to pay 118 akçes. For that order, the money started to
be collected by bezzazistan kethüdası who was responsible for the collection of the taxes.
Bezzazistan Kethüdası and Sarachane Kethüdası went to the Esnaf and narrated the
order. The Esnaf opposed to this order (Ma’azallahi te’ala bu ne olmaz iştir). It is interesting
to point out that Naima uses the term ‘cumhur-u azim ile’, (with the power of society [the
Esnafs]), he could have recognized the power of these people when gathering. The Esnafs’
crowd decided to go to the grand vizier Melek Ahmed Pasha to show his reaction against the
order. When they narrated why they did not accept this tax, here Naima gives important
knowledge about what the janissaries participated in what kind of transactions in Istanbul:
copper and nuts and salt in Black Sea, soap and gum and ox in the Mediterranean. This
knowledge proves the idea that the Janissaries made trade via sea and dominated the market.
The grand vizier who listened to the problems of the Esnafs was angered to them and
dismissed then he said you have to pay it (Melek Ahmed Paşa hiddet ü sür’at-i gazab üzre
mecbur idi, ta’abbüs ile fukaraya azar idüp ‘Sürün bunları taşra yıkılın bire kafir gidiler,
varın tedarük edin verin’).
After Melek Ahmed’s dismissal, the Esnafs of Istanbul’s next station was Şeyhülislam
Aziz Efendi’s house. The Esnafs wanted Aziz Efendi to say the Sultan giving up the orders.
On the demand, Aziz Efendi’s response was so clear that your demand was not my
responsibility. After that, the Şeyhülislam would receive unexpected response from the
Esnafs, the Esnafs said that you had assassinated sultan Ibrahim I and his vizier, why do you
want to be interested in our problems? (Sultan İbrahim ve veziri katl ettiniz, ya şimdi bizim
ahvalimiz için ne aceb karışmazsız?). Here we understand clearly that the public did not
forget what happened in the past. After that answer, the Şeyhülislam said that if your demand
is to warn the Sultan about the opposition realized by the Esnafs of Istanbul, I can write a
petition narrating your problems to the Sultan, but the Esnafs of Istanbul wanted Şeyhülislam
Kaya 10
to go with together to the Palace. After that movement, the Esnafs decided to close down their
shops until the solution would be announced.
The crowds, whose numbers more than ten thousand, new destination would be the
Palace. The Esnaf with the Şeyhülislam went to the Palace and they reiterated their problems.
The Sultan said that no one destroys the laws issued in the time of my father Suleiman and I
do not agree with the idea of corruption of the order of my Esnafs had been. After that
response, the firman was issued. When the crowd started to dissolve, one of them (the Esnafs)
said important warming on current situation of the state:
Padişahım zulm ile alem harab oldu. Sana bildirmezler, vezir ketm eder, hala
on altı nefer kimesne vardır ki sana padişahlık ettirmezler. Beytülmal ve miriye ait
emvali cümle ekl ü bel’ ederler ki cümleden Kara Çavuş ve Bektaş Ağa ve kethüda
bey ve Samsoncu Sarı Kâtip ve Deli Birader ve fülan ve fülan bunlar zülm ü ta’addi
ile alemi haraba verib devletine müstevli oldular.
Mısra’ “Ali Osman devleti düşmüş ocağa yanıyor”
deyü zari künan-ı nale vü figan edip, “Mademki bunlar katl olunmayıp cezaları
evrilmeye. Padişahlık edemezsin ve memleketinde fitne vü fesad mündefi’ olmaz”
dediler. Vezirin azli ve ocak ağalarının katli babında ayak basıp ibram ettiler.24
Examining the whole paragraph directed by an Esnaf can be recognized that three groups
were formed with the sayings. The first group was the Esnaf and the second group was the
Palace and the third group was the janissary Ağas causing the damage of the stability of the
market.
Naima, here, turned to camera to the janissary Ağas who got the news from Istanbul
and were thinking the consequences of the event. The Ağas who convened in Orta Camii
(Ahmediye Camii) were supported by queen mother. Here Naima intervenes in narrative and
he speaks about queen mother:
Çün Büyük Valide noksan-ı akıl muktezasınca ağaların tarafını tutup ağalara kapı-
kethüdalık eden mekkar u hilekarlar çöyle i’tikad ettirmişler idi ki devleti tutup duran
24
Tarih-i Naima, vol.3, 1321.
Kaya 11
ağalardır, eğer ağalar giderse alem herc ü merc olur, ol fettanların süret-i hakta
söyledikleri bu makule efsunu Valide hazretleri gerçek sanıp, ağalar giderse devletin
hali nice olur alem ita’attan çıkar i’tikadında olduğu için ağayan dedikleri insafsız
mütegallibeye sahip çıkıp anlara bir zarar geldiğini istemezdi, da’ima himayet
ederdi.25
This paragraph symbolizes political language of the Ottoman Empire in the 17th
century.
Except for Murad IV, the Ottoman politics was depended upon court factions mostly directed
by the Janissary ağas. However, the queen mother played in wrong card.
Then in Orta Camii the vizier (Siyavuş Pasha), the Şeyhülislam (Aziz Efendi) and the
janissary Ağas convened a meeting. Bektaş Ağa said grand vizier that we are not happy what
you did today, if you work with us together, you can not realize your duty as a vizier. If the
time showed the date of 1622, the vizier would generally accept what the Ağas said. But the
balance was disturbed. On account of this, grand vizier says that this duty was given by our
exalted Sultan; I am only responsible for him. The exalted Sultan knows who valuable for the
post is or not. After that meeting, the janissaries decided to collect men in order to strength
their positions. And the janissaries Ağas went to the Esnafs of Istanbul and ordered open their
shops. But the Esnafs responded that these shops will only be opened with imperial decree.
(Ağa yabana söylemiş hatt-ı hümayunsuz dükkanlar açılmaz).26
In that time, the queen mother
Kösem sent news to the Ağas, and she said that as long as you kill them in inner palace, you
will not reach your desires. (Siz bunları içeriden taleb ve katl etmeyince muradınıza na’il
olamazsınız).
After these words, the queen mother Kösem went to the palace and she established
another clique related to the janissary Ağas and whose aim was to dethronement of Mehmed
IV and to make Suleiman sultan. With this group, we have for cliques: the first one is the
Janissary Ağas controlled Bektaş, Kara Çavuş Mustafa Ağa and Kethüda Bey Ömer Ağa. The
25
Tarih-i Naima, vol.3, 1322 26
Tarih-i Naima, vol.3, 1323
Kaya 12
second group was Kösem’s clique whose members are Baş-lala Eski Süleyman Ağa, the
teacher of the sultan Hoca Reyhan Ağa, Mushaib İsmail Ağa, Dilaşub Sultan who was wife of
Suleiman and who had some mental problem (safdil ve mezcub meşreb), the leaders of
rebellions and Başkapı oğlanı and Bostancı Başı Ali Ağa and Kireççi Başı whose name was
not indicated in Naima’s history. The first and second cliques would work together. The third
group was bureaucracy showing the events and preferring not to be involved in a discussion.
The last group was the Esnafs of Istanbul. We can add another group who did not make a
decision about the side of the event.
In the palace, the newly created group’s demands were spread through the palace. The
news reached to Turhan Sultan. She created a new group against Kösem Sultan. In same
night, before the janissary Ağas moved, the palace clique established by Turhan and her men
would move swiftly. This group went firstly to the Sultan and the group demanded Kösem,
the Sultan rejected this wish. However, the group would not stop and they moved to the
Kösem’s room. The group moved easily and they entered her room by killing some guardians
of Kösem. At last, Kösem was executed by Küçük Mehmed who was the member of Zülüf
and has encouraged people. ( Zülüflerden Küçük Mehmed nam bir merd-i div-hey’et darabat-ı
pey der pey) and her room was plundered. Her property was confiscated. Naima, until the end
of the Kösem’s event) was silent and this silence showed his stance towards the event.
However, after her dying, he started to praise her behavior through three pages (1329-1321).
In these pages, Naima shows commercialization of the Ottoman Empire with the example of
Kahveci Mehmed Halife who has great property and his network in the market. Then, he
makes general descriptions of the state:
Devlet-i Aliyye’de her zaman nüfüz-u kelam ve istiklal bir ta’ifeye düşüp
irade-i Rabbaniye ta’alluk ettikte isti’dad u ta’ayyün ol zümreden zail ve zümre-i
uhraya müntakil oluncaya dek her biri saye-i saltanatta atıp tutmak ve dilhahları üzre
tasarrüfatla kam-yab olmak umur-ı tabi’yye mesabesinde bir manadır. Ancak şu kadar
Kaya 13
var ki bu makule ikbal-i hassü’l-has ile izz ü ihtisasa na’il olanların her kangisi nizam-
ı akl üzre hareket edip Hakk’ın ve halkın hukuk ve hududuna ri’ayette kusur etmeye.
Anın gibiler zahiren ve batinen tevfik ile mü’eyyed ve meka’id-i alemden savn ile
zaman-ı devletleri mümted ola-gelmiştir. Anlar ki, ifrat u tefrit caniblerine gidip her
emirde hakk-ı i’tidal ki nizam-ı vücud-ı ka’inat ana mebnidir, ne idiğini bilmeye
yahud mura’atında kusur eyleye27
.
At the same time, Samsoncu Ömer28
came to the palace and people of the palace showed the
danger to Samsoncu and he could meet the grand vizier and he demanded the heads of four
Arab people in order to stop the rebellion (Size zarar ihtimali yoktur. Nihayeti bu dört arabıın
başların isterler ve bu da’vadan feragat etmezler. Siz emni-hatır isterseniz bu hizmette teşmir-
i sak-ı himmet etmek gereksiz). From inner side of the palace, some people being member of
the palace clique attacked to Samsoncu. He rescued his life by running away.
After that time, Naima’s eyes changed swiftly, he sometimes preferred to show the
Janissaries and sometimes turned his eyes to the Ağa Kapısı which was the gathering place for
the supporters of Esnaf and the Palace. In the janissary barracks, Bektaş Ağa said that in this
night a lot of candles were moving in the palace, I wonder what will happen. At the same time
Samsoncu Ömer came in the barracks and he said our plan had been known, and the queen
mother Kösem was killed. After those words, the janissary Ağas convened a meeting.
In the place, firstly the grand vizier and Lala started speaking of the death of Kösem
and the grand vizier said that we continue our work and God punishes who is guilty.
Moreover some people being the member of Kösem’s faction was executed (Kireççi başı ve
sa’ir hem distanlara eman verilmeyip). In the Ağa Kapısı the state official gathered including
the Sultan. In the end of the meeting, Janissary Ağas was supposed as ‘rebels’, and the Palace
took the extraordinary measures and the holy banner was raised (Pes padişah-ı alem-penah
ferman edip alem-i şerifi çıkarıp nesb ettiler).
27
Tarih-i Naima, vol.3, 1331 28
Look at footnote ‘23’
Kaya 14
Interestingly, Naima does not forget to turn his eyes to people who did not make a
decision for the selection of the clique. Naima’s example would be the mufti Abdülaziz
Efendi. When he thought of the situation, one of his men Tiryaki Solak Ahmet said that you
are invited by the Palace, you should go there. However, the response of Abdülaziz Efendi is
of great importance to see general political environment in that period:
Amma ağaların hatırı vardır, şimdi bunların yedd-i galibeleri mukarrerdir, cümle ocağı
hasm mı edelim deyü cevap verdi. Ahmed Ağa “Behey efendi! Hatır mahalli degildir
her halde taraf-ı padişhide bulunmakta selamet vardır. Bu zümrenin peymane-i ikbali
dolup hadlerini tecavüz etmişlerdir. Bunların başlarına hayr gelmez, alamet-i zavalleri
katı zahirdir. Zinhar taraf-i padişaha varmaktan gayri fikre zahib olmayasız” dedikte,
“Yine bu galip heriflerin hatırı feda olunmaz, cumhur-u ulema da ol tarafa
gitmişlerdir”.29
Abdülaziz Efendi would play the wrong card and he selected the clique of the janissary Ağas.
The Janissaries gathered in Orta Camii, and they discussed what happened in the
Palace. People said that these people killed Kösem Sultan and her men, and the classical
religious rhetoric was repeated. In the end, the janissary Ağa, Kethüda Bey, Bektaş Ağa and
other Ağas from different branch (ocak), Asesbaşı Ömer and Baş Çavuş Önder Ali created the
main faction towards the Palace. Indeed, the four factions decrease two main factions: The
Palace and the Janissaries.
In the Palace, the new selection for the new post was realized, because the Müfti, the
Kadıasker and the Istanbul Efendisi did not come and they became rebels. Hocazade Mesud
was selected for Rumeli Kadıasker , for Istanbul Kazası Beyazi Hasan Efendi was preferred.
The most important problem was raised on the selection of the Şeyhülislam. In first minutes
of the meeting the palace clique and Turhan Sultan demanded Ebu Sa’id as a Şeyhülislam,
however vizier wanted Baha’i Efendi as Şeyhülislam because his language was good to get
down the problems (Baha’i ceriyyü’l-cenan ce hadidü’l-lisan bir pervadır). Why Ebu Sa’id
29
Tarih-i Naima, vol. 3, 1334
Kaya 15
did not desire was that he did not come when the holly banner was raised. However, Hanefi
Efendi who was the religious scholar came to the Palace before Ebu Sa’id to gain the
appointment of the post of Şeyhülislam. In the end Hanefi Efendi gained the post. However,
someone had gone to Ebu Sa’id and he came to the Palace and he gathered the post. But
Hanefi Efendi did not want to give the appointment document to Sa’id Efendi, but at last
Sa’id Efendi became the Şeyhülislam. Indeed, in Palace everyone confused about what will
happen, to give this theme, Naima gives Hocazade’s words: Efendi şimdi böyle iktiza eyledi,
iş bitsin de sadr-ı Rum dahi olursun, elem çekmen.
The Palace sent some servants to every street of Istanbul to announce that people who
have the member of the Islam community should gather in front of the Palace and within two
hours people would fill the every corner of the Palace. Moreover, it is noted that a lot of
janissaries changed their decisions and came to the Palace. After that movement, the Palace
decided to send a firman which warned the rebels:
Siz ki, Yeniçeri ağalarından Yeniçeri ağası ve kul Kethüdası ve Bektaş Ağasız.
Gerktür ki huzuruma gelip ayak divanına hazır olasız. Muhalefet ederseniz
hakkınızdan gelinir30
.
When we look at the firman, we can easily see that the Palace clique strengthened its hands.
In that movement we should remember some important information: in the dethronement of
Osman II, the palace had had to go Yeni Camii (Valide Sultan Camii) and they tried to make
an agreement with the Janissaries; however, the place, in that time, preserved its
determination and the hands of the Janissaries experienced disempowerment in that time.
Moreover, the two factions’ centers were also important. The Palace faction settled in
Ağa Kapısı; the Janissary clique was ready in Orta Camii (Fatih) to fight. The two centers
both were closed to each other and away from each other. Interestingly, during 17th
century
30
Tarih-i Naima, vol.3, 1337
Kaya 16
movement such as Janissary Rebellions and Kadızadelis movement the opposition group
generally located in Fatih; however, Naima gives no hints why the opposition group preferred
to settle down here.
When the firman came to the Orta Camii, the crowd read this aloud and one of the
janissaries Ağas Kara Çavuş said that we never go there, but we never rebel our Sultan, the
state was deceived. There Naima wanted to make a comment on the issue and he said that the
janissary Ağas did not understand what the true nature of the state is and their role within the
state would be. However, some of the janissaries continued to change their position and they
started going to the Palace.
At the same time, in the place some members of the court wanted to fight against the
janissaries. However, Ebu Sa’id Efendi, the Şeyhülislam, said that we should not show any
kind of reactions against them, because the janissaries begun to dissolve, gradually their
power would weaken. In that time the Janissary Ağas sent a petition written by Kara Hasan-
zade Çelebi, in that petition they expanded their demands and they wanted more ten people
who were the member of the Zülüf class participating in the execution of Kösem with the old
demand of four Arab people. The Palace was responded quickly that no one was given and no
one did send to exile. The Janissary Ağas took new measurements, and Ağas wanted to collect
all powers to fight, however, someone said that there were not enough people to create the
opposition (Behey ağas sen ne söylersin, odalarda yoldaş kalmadı. Hep Saray-ı Hümayuna
gittiler, kimi zabt edelim).
In that time a person called Samsoncu Ömer, whose ethnic origin was Turk, proposed
a new plan which if we burn some houses in Istanbul and we allow the Janissaries to make
plundering, we will re-gain our strength. After that proposal, the response of the janissary
Ağas represented the classical rhetoric of the janissary and the state:
Kaya 17
Bre Ömer bre eşek bu senin söylediğin söz ne asıl sözdür, sus ol makule türrehatı
ağzına alma bir kaç günlük ömr için din ü devlete a’da vü küffar gibi ihanet mi edelim.
Ve cihan durdukça siper-i lanet ve ocağımızın temeli münhedim ve muzmahill olmağa
sebeb ve illet mi olalım31
.
Moreover, the reaction made by the Janissary Ağas included the Islamic rhetoric; interestingly
the state used the same rhetoric, too. Moreover if we examine the person proposing the plan,
we will have some important information about the point of view on ethnic origins of people
in the 17th
century. From the last years of the 16th
century to the end of 17th
century chronicles
started to criticize people coming to Istanbul from Anatolia, they called them Turks (etrak pl.
or Etrak-i ‘Avam) and they were obsessed against them. These people’s names transformed
etrak to manav in Istanbul. Mustafa Ali writes about them as manav namı ile ma’ruf olan
kasibin-i enam, which Andreas Tietze notes in Ali’s time a contemptuous designation for low-
class city dwellers of ruler stock.32
Moreover, Ali also wrote that these manavs engage in
trade and sometimes become rich. And Ahmet Refik said about them haricden beş yıldan
beru İstabbul’a gelüb tavattun iden… eğer mavavgadlar ve eğer çift bozanlardır. We also see
them in the kadı records as sair tavaif-i islamiye gibi anlar da eyili yaramazlı bir taifedir33
.
We can understand that Naima is so conscious when using the term ‘Turk’34
. After that
answer, the janissary Ağas made a new plan to gather people in Orta Camii. The new plan
would be that Ağas would bring gold and silver coins and people would be called; after
coming to money no one responded it negatively. In the end, Kethüda Bey started shouting to
Bektaş Ağa:
Tu yüzüne! Allah bela versin! Bre tama’kar Arnavud ! Ne eyledinse eyledin,
bize mal lazımdır başımıza ne halet gelir. Devlet yüz çevirdkte akçe her derdimize
derman olur hemen mal cem‘ edelim deyüp, bizi kendi halimize koymayıp ifsad
eyledin. Ve cem’-i mal için dünyanın fesadatın ettirip bizi baştan çıkardın dedi. Imdi
31
Tarih-i Naima, vol. 3, 1339 32
Sariyannis, Mobs, 4 33
Ibid, 4 34
In that point we never forget the Ottomanization process narrated by Mustafa Ali from Galippoli.
Kaya 18
görelim bu kadar malımız var bir adam yanımıza meyl ettirebilir misin görelim akçe
ne işimize yaradı deyip hararetinden bi-hadd şütüm eyledi35
.
In these words, we can easily recognize that the power of the janissary Ağas commence
breaking. After this fighting, Şeyh Veli who was one of the most respectable man for the
janissary Ağas changed its side and said that you (the janissary Ağas) became Pharaoh, and
you disturbed the order of the society. You did not accept the counsel given by the state. The
janissary Ağas opposed this argument and said that when you take our money from us, you
did not say anything. Şeyh Veli responded that now it’s the time to turn our face, and he left
the Orta Camii, and went to the Palace. Şaban Efendi, Sun’i-zade, Çelebizade followed the
way opened by Şeyh Veli. Then Kudsi-zade went to his home and started to wait the
consequences of the event. Müfti Aziz Efendi with his Bostancıbaşı preferred the same way
and he went to his house located in Samatya. These men were now waiting the destiny which
will be drawn about them.
The place gave the news about the dissolution of the janissary clique, and people
started to discuss on what the next movement would be. In that movement, the janissary Ağas
wrote a petition to Baha’i Efendi and Lala Suleiman Pasha to be forgiven by the exalted
Sultan, because the Janissary Ağas knew that the next action against towards Ağas would be
execution; on account of this, we left our properties and post which will be given after the
event, we want only to preserve our lives (Cümlemiz mansıblarımızdan geçtik, kuşça canımızı
bize bağışlan). With the convincing the Sultan, the lives of Ağas was preserved. Now it is
time to arrange the appointments. The Kul Kethudalığı was given to Küçük Kasım whose
main feature in Naima’s history was his old age. Mustafa Ağa was appointed as the
Samsoncubaşı. Kara Çavuş who had been one of the main members of the janissary Ağas’
clique was firstly dismissed his position and the given the province of Tımaşvar for
continuing his life as timar. Other members of the clique Yadigar, the Kul Kethudalığı was
35
Tarih-i Naima, vol. 3, 1339
Kaya 19
given the province of Bosnia as timar. Bektaş Ağa who was the chief of the clique was given
the sanjak of Bursa for timar. And Mehmed Pasha went to the Orta Camii and read the new
appointments and the Ağas accepted the rules. Then the palace Cinci Limni Cühud Hüseyin
were appointed as the Şehir subaşısı.
At the same time, Naima turned his face to the old palace (Saray-ı Atik). There Kösem
Sultan was buried in the cemetery of Ahmed I. Moreover her servant was sent to the old
palace and their lives were preserved. Naima did not forget to show the outside of Istanbul.
There Bektaş Ağa and his servants were preparing his necessary things to leave the city.
Thought in this time we see the event has finished, we can see that the state does not closed
the book when following the subsequent pages of Naima’s history.
Then Bektaş Ağa did not leave from the city. He firstly went to Samsoncus and he
wanted to hide himself. They said that if you do not obey the orders of the state (ulu’l emr),
we cannot protect you. He then went to Terlikçi Mehmet Çelebi who has the member of
Halveti branch. He started to hide himself. At the same time, state controlled Bektaş Ağa
whether he went to Bursa or not, and the state was appointed Boyacı Hasan Ağa to find
Bektaş. He searched for Bektaş and he was not being successful. Then he said that if someone
says where Bektaş is, he was gifted by the state. A boy who went to bazaar to buy some meals
to Bektaş Ağa said that if you show what I will gain, I can say where Bektaş Ağa is. Then
Bektaş Ağa was found in his hidden place and he fought and he killed some people. At last
the boy who helped Boyacı Hasan Ağa wanted to carry Bektaş Ağa to the place. However,
Boyacı Hasan Ağa warned that if you go to the Palace with Bektaş Ağa arrested without
hiding him, you will be disturbed in the future by the janissaries. On account of this, the boy
and Boyacı Hasan Ağa went to the Palace with Bektaş Ağa and he was executed in the Palace.
The Palace confiscated his property and Naima notes his death as ‘boğup cüssesini meydana
siyasete ilka ettiler’.
Kaya 20
The same destiny would be drawn for Kara Çavuş. Here Naima gives the name of him:
Mustafa Ağa. He appointed as Kethüda and then he show the reaction against Boyacı Hasan
Paşa and Kara Çavuş was picked to the Palace. He went to the Sultan, and the Sultan asked I
wonder why you created disturbances (fitne) in society, he responded that I am not guilty, the
head of the rebel was Bektaş Ağa and Kul Kethudası. The sultan said that are you one of the
ağas? He said that yes, I am one of them but I cannot say anything to them (Bektaş Ağa and
Kethüda) because they are riffraff (mütegallibe). Sultan then said that I sent firman to come
back to the Palace, why did you obey this rule? He said that I tried to obey but Bektaş Ağa
and Kethüda did not allow. In the end the Sultan said the last words: kill him. In the way, he
cried a lot, but Bostancıbaşı, responsible for the execution, said the general rule for rebels:
Ağa hazretleri bu ağlamak evvel gerek idi, son peşimanlık fa’ide vermeyeceği meşhurdur.
Ulu’l-emre muhalefet fi’l-hakika candan el yumaktır ve devlete istila edip bir perva atıp
tutmak kişiyi kendiyi bela vü helak deryasına atmaktır.36
Then he was executed by two kuls.
The next of the chain of the execution was old Kul Kethudası Mehmed Ağa. When he
went to Bosnia, he heard the execution of Bektaş and Kara Çavuş. He was afraid of and he
run away with his some servants and the state understood he run away and he issued a firman
to catch him. At least he caught and he was executed. Naima said that if he was not afraid of
and he went to Bosnia, he would save his life. In the end state confiscated the three Ağa’s
property and these properties directly sent to the treasury. Naima said his last words about the
three:
Hasılı kelam, bir iki sene aleme velvele verip, Devlet-i Aliyye’yi kabza-i
tasarruflarına alan ağaların akıbeti-i hali bu vecihle hitam bulup keen-lem-yekün
oldular. Ve sa’ir etba’ u levahıkları dahi muzmahil olup bunların kuvvetiyle hadden
36
Tarih-i Naima, vol3., 1347
Kaya 21
tecavüz edenler cezaların buldular, nitekim tafsili gelse gerektir. Tavr-i haddi tecavüz
eden bağilerin hakkında adaletullah böyle cari ola-gelmiştir.37
Moreover, we left the Mufti Aziz Efendi in his house when he was waiting for his gift from
the state. On account of not selecting the clique of the Palace, he was exiled to the island of
Sakız. With the last movement, the event was being finished.
Some Comments instead of Conclusion
In that paper, I try to look at general characteristics of Ottoman Empire in the 17th
century and focus on a rebellion happened in 1651 in particular. Within the borders of
Ottoman modernization (1789-1899) Ortaylı says for the 19th
century as ‘the Longest
Century’ for the Empire; if we consider the early-modern Ottomans, the 17th
century can be
named as ‘the Longest Century’ for the Ottoman Empire. Where my thought came from is
that if we look at the 18th
century we can see only two rebellions38
and stable and growing
bureaucracy. On the other hand, in the 17th
century Ottoman Empire and its bureaucrats had to
deal with military, socio-cultural changes. Indeed it developed into religious issue and the
state had to intervene with religious preferences for people. For this reason the Empire
sometimes had to support the Kadızadeli movement39
, in the end of the century it extended its
borders with the event of Sabbatai Sevi40
and the state tried to reach the unified religious
practices which were not suitable for the Ottoman Empire41
.
In the first years of the 17th
century, Ottoman Empire had to deal firstly with the
Austrian Wars and the alteration of the selection method of the Sultan. In the inner of the
palace, the struggle between power centers was widened and the groups started to be created.
37
Tarih-i Naima, vol3., 1349 38
Kafadar, Yeniçeri-Esnaf Relations, 120,121,122 39
Derin Terzioğlu, Sufi and Dissident in the Ottoman Empire: Niyazi-i Mısri (1618-1694), unpublished PhD
dissertation at Harvard University in 1999. 40
Fariba Zarinebaf, Crime and Punishment in Istanbul 1700-1800, (University of California Press, 2010), 106
and the relationship between Jewish converts and the Empire see David Marc Baer, Honored by the Glory of
Islam,(Oxford University Press, 2008), 121, 138 41
Cemal Kafadar, Between Two Worlds, (California University Press, 1995).
Kaya 22
This groups or factions grew in dramatically and in 1622 the court faction was so successful
in the event of the deposition of Osman II42
. In that period the importance and effectiveness of
the Janissary rose within the decision-making process of the state mechanism. Moreover, the
queen mothers were so active and interestingly two queen mothers represent two cliques and
Turhan Sultan showed Kösem’s death easily.
Along with these changes, the economic structure of the state transformed into the
mercantilist economy and people were accustomed to these regulations. Moreover the
Janissary soldiers melting into society and they started to controlled some important branches
of the economic life such as bread43
although some people showed reaction to the new
regulations44
. Even the state started to send the rules of market regulations to the Janissary
barracks although the state only sent these regulations to only the Esnafs. On account of this
we can easily say that the economic life in the 17th
century in Ottoman Empire became
complicated.
My research subject is on the 1651 rebellion and its reflections on one of the
contemporary chronicles Tarih-i Naima. What it was great importance of this is that for the
first time the public showed a reaction towards both the state regulations and the Janissary
applications and with the support of the state, the Janissary Ağas was exterminated and the
market breathed easily. As Cemal Kafadar puts it, the Esnafs of Istanbul did not want to
damage the structure of the market and they are not subjected to ‘zorbalık’45
. In the end they
were successful to continue their rules. Another important point I want to emphasize is the
strength of ‘public memory’. When the Şeyhülislam rejected go to the Palace with Esnafs, the
42
Baki Tezcan, The Second Ottoman Empire: Political and Social Transformation in the Early Modern World,
(Cambridge, 2011), 14-45, and “The Second Empire: The Transformation of the Ottoman Polity in the Early
Modern Era,” Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, vol29, no.23, 2009. 43
Cemal Kafadar, Riffraff, 118 44
Marinos Sariyannis, “Kadızadeli Movement as a Social and Political Phenomenon: the Rise of a ‘Mercantile
Ethic,” I thank to Derin Terzioğlu to provide this article to my use. 45
Kafadar, Yeniçeri-Esnaf Relations, 97
Kaya 23
Esnafs’ reactions were considerable: the Şeyhülislam was remembered his role of the
dethronement and execution of the Ibrahim I and his vizier. It sounds good to say that Tarih-i
Naima can show the confusion of people during the event.
In the end of the 17th
century, we can say that the Empire was so successful to adapt
itself to the changes. Within the 17th
century, the public places developed and spread rapidly
such as coffeehouses and shadow theatre46
, and we can see in the changing commercial
vocabulary and practices (e.g. the use of poliçe), agricultural activity (the introduction of
tobacco, culinary techniques (the ubiquity of tomato paste), design concepts (three
dimensional wall paintings), pastime habits (card games), or items of personal use (watches,
clocks and eyeglasses) among Ottoman Turks47
. The Ottoman society went through great
changes in the 17th
century and it must be reconsidered in great detail.
46
Kafadar, Riffraff, 120 47
Cemal Kafadar, “A Death in Venice (1575): Anatolian Muslim Merchants Trading in the Serenissima,”
Journal of Turkish Studies: Raiyyet Rüsumu Essays presented to Halil İnalcık on his 70th
birthday by his
colleagues and students, ed. by Şinasi Tekin and Gönül Alpay Tekin, Vol.10, 1986, p,211
Kaya 24
Bibliography
Baer, Marc David, Honored by Glory of Islam,(Oxford University Press, 1998).
Barkan, Ömer Lütfi, ”The Price Revolution of the 16th
Century: A Turning Point in the
Economic History of the Near East,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 6 (1975).
El-Haj, Rifa’at Ali Abou, 1703 İsyanı, (Ankara: Tan Yayınları,2011).
Fleischer, Cornell H., Tariçi Mustafa Ali: Bir Osmanlı Aydın ve Bürokratı, (Istanbul, Tarih
Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 1994).
İnalcık, Halil, “Capital Formation in the Ottoman Empire,” The Journal of Economic History,
Vol.29, No,1, The Task of Economic History (Mar, 1969).
Kafadar, Cemal, A Death in Venice (1575): Anatolian Muslim Merchants Trading in the
Serenissima,” Journal of Turkish Studies: Raiyyet Rüsumu Essays presented to Halil İnalcık
on his 70th
birthday by his colleagues and students, ed. by Şinasi Tekin and Gönül Alpay
Tekin, Vol.10, 1986.
---- Between Two Worlds: The Construction of the Ottoman State, (California University
Press, 1995).
---- Janissaries and Other Riffraff of Ottoman Istanbul: Rebels without a Cause?,”
International Journal of Turkish Studies, Fall 2007 vol.13.
----When Coins Turned into Drops of Dew and Bankers Became Robbers of Shadows, the
Economic Boundaries of Ottoman Economic Imagination At the End of the Sixteenth Century,
unpublished PhD dissertation at McGill University, 1986.
---- Yeniçeri-Esnaf Relations: Solidarity and Conflict, unpublished M.A. dissertation at
McGill University, 1981.
Naima Hüseyin Efendi, Tarih-i Naima, Ravzatü’l-Hüseyn fi Hülasati Ahbari’l-Hafikayn, prep.
by Mehmet İşpirli, (Ankara, TTK, 2007) vol.3 and 4.
Kaya 25
Sariyannis, Marinos, “Kadızadeli Movement as a Social and Political Phenomenon: the Rise
of a ‘Mercantile Ethic”.
---- “’Mob’, ‘Scamps’ and ‘Rebels’ in 17th
Century Istanbul: Some Remarks on Ottoman
Social Vocabulary,”, IJTS, vol.11 Fall 2005.
---- “Ottoman Critics of Society and the State, Fifteenth to Early Eighteenth Centuries:
Towards a Corpus For the Study of Ottoman Political Thought,” Archivum Ottomanicum,
Vol.25, 2008.
Terzioğlu, Derin, Sufi and Dissident in the Ottoman Empire: Niyazi-i Mısri(1618-1694),
unpublished PhD thesis, Harvard University, 1999.
Tezcan, Baki, The Second Ottoman Empire: Political and Social Transformation in the Early
Modern World, (Cambridge, 2011).
---- “The Second Empire: The Transformation of the Ottoman Polity in the Early Modern
Era,” Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, vol29, no.23, 2009.
.
Zarinebaf, Fariba, Crime and Punishment in Istanbul 1700-1800, (University of California
Press, 2010).
Zilfi, Madeline C., The Politics of Piety: The Ottoman Ulema in the Post-Classical Age
(1600-1800), (Bibliotheca Islamica, Minneapolis, 1988).
---- “The Kadızadelis: Discordant Revivalism in 17th
Century Istanbul,” JNES 45, no 4.