Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T00:04:42.927Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Histories of Bayezid I, historians of Bayezid II: Rethinking late fifteenth-century Ottoman historiography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 October 2013

Murat Cem Mengüç
Murat Cem Mengüç*
Affiliation:
Seton Hall University
*
mengucmu@shu.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Current scholarship often describes early Ottoman historiography as a phenomenon initiated and conducted by the Ottoman state. In particular, the unprecedented growth in the number of Ottoman history books composed during the reign of Bayezid II (1481–1512) is viewed as such. Modern historians commonly argue that in the aftermath of the Kilia and Akkerman victories (1484), Bayezid II decided to propagate a new Ottoman ideology and commissioned Ottoman history books to be written for this purpose. This article argues that there is not enough evidence to suggest that Bayezid II orchestrated or directed this upsurge in history production. The premises of Halil İnalcık's earlier studies in particular, upon which much of our understanding of the subject was built, do not hold.

Keywords

Ottoman historyOttoman historiographyBayezid IBayezid IIHalil İnalcıkKiliaAkkerman
Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the SOAS , Volume 76 , Issue 3 , October 2013 , pp. 373 - 389
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 2013 

The historical accounts examined in this article come from a period described as an era of historical enlightenment among the Ottomans. These histories, which narrated the history of the empire from its very beginning, were the earliest of their kind in terms of constructing and legitimizing an Ottoman identity. They also provide evidence of an emerging historical self-consciousness among the Ottomans. Currently, scholars view this literature as the product of the Ottoman state, and suggest that the emergence of Ottoman self-consciousness was a centralized and state-conducted phenomenon. This article argues that the same literature can be interpreted as the effort of independent authors, meaning that the emergence of Ottoman historical self-consciousness may have been a collective act of the Ottoman educated class rather than the state. Modern scholars of Ottoman history commonly describe the emergence of history writing among the Ottomans as a phenomenon initiated and conducted by the Ottoman state. This was particularly so in the case of the unprecedented growth in the number of Ottoman history books composed during the reign of Bayezid II. Following the lead of earlier research conducted by Halil İnalcık, scholars have suggested that in the aftermath of the Kilia and Akkerman victories (1484), Bayezid II propagated a new Ottoman ideology by commissioning Ottoman history books to be written for this purpose.

This article questions the premises of İnalcık's thesis and argues that there is insufficient evidence to suggest that Bayezid II orchestrated the late fifteenth-century upsurge in history production. First, a survey of the literature in question suggests that the Kilia and Akkerman victories were not wholly relevant. Second, the majority of historians who wrote during Bayezid II's reign were not commissioned by the state, nor did they act as ideological spokespeople for the state. Third, the historiography of Bayezid I's reign (1389–1402), and in particular the narratives of corruption among judges during his reign, which İnalcık uses to argue his views, confirms that late fifteenth-century Ottoman historians composed independent narratives.

State-centred interpretations of Bayezid II era Ottoman historiography and their limits

The earliest surviving text that can be described as an Ottoman history was written by Ahmedi, (d. 1413).Footnote 2 In around the mid-fifteenth century, two other versions of Ottoman histories appeared, composed by Şükrullah (b. 1388) and Enveri (c. 1466).Footnote 3 Finally, at some point between 1470 and 1480 there emerged the Anonymous Histories.Footnote 4 In terms of their depiction of the Ottoman past, these texts contain three distinct traditions. Ahmedi and Şükrullah's narratives were closely related, and were previously analysed by Victor L. Ménage, who explained that both authors relied on a similar or the same source(s),Footnote 5 and their works were eulogistic and ruler-oriented. In contrast, Enveri's work represented a history of the Ottomans composed from an outsider's point of view,Footnote 6 and the Anonymous Histories were populist texts mainly influenced by the Turkic oral culture of the Ottoman/Anatolian frontier.Footnote 7

Within this body of literature, the Anonymous Histories also qualify as the earliest comprehensive Ottoman history books: that is, they were considerably longer, more detailed and inclusive of both the non-elites and the elites in their recitation of the Ottoman past. A good example of this is the way in which they told of corruption among the judges of the Bayezid I (r. 1389–1402) era, which will be discussed at length below. The details of this subject were mentioned only in passing by Ahmedi and Şükrullah, and completely ignored by Enveri; in contrast, the Anonymous Histories gave to the same subject no fewer than five folios.Footnote 8

Towards the end of the fifteenth century, new Ottoman historians and histories started to emerge. The number of Ottoman history books composed during this period dwarfed the earlier Ottoman historiography. Seven texts that qualified as Ottoman histories survive from the reign of Mehmed II (r. 1451–81). From Bayezid II's reign there were nearly two dozen. These new historians emphasized their own identities, combined the earlier sources with a tone of authority, highlighted the differences of opinion between their sources and re-arranged the sequence of the events to eliminate chronological confusion. In short, they strove to compose more comprehensive texts. The two most studied examples of such historians are Aşıkpaşazade (1400/01–1494?) and Neşri,Footnote 9 who both wrote with vigour and who revised what they deemed to be the shortcomings of previous Ottoman histories.Footnote 10 Others, and lesser-known historians such as Al'KoneviFootnote 11 and Kemal,Footnote 12 also criticize the previous era of historiography.Footnote 13

The emergence of historians such Aşıkpaşazade, Neşri, Al'Konevi and Kemal suggests that the late fifteenth century was a period of enlightenment in Ottoman historical consciousness. Most modern scholars argue that this enlightenment was due to Bayezid II's ideological interest in history books and his extensive patronage of historians. For example, Mehmed İpşirli, described the reign of Bayezid II as “the golden age of Ottoman historiography” and argued that, with the involvement of the sultan, the palace-sponsored literary elite started a new era in Ottoman historiography.Footnote 14 Similarly, Necdet Öztürk stated that while Ottoman historiography began during the reign of Mehmed II, it was “systematized” during the era of Bayezid II.Footnote 15 Gabriel Piterberg writes that: “Although periodization is unavoidably somewhat arbitrary, it might be suggested that the reign of Bayezid II, especially the late 1480s, marked a turning point in the history of Ottoman historiography… . When he returned to the capital in 1484, Bayezid II launched his historiographical project”, a claim he supported with a reference to Cemal Kafadar's work.Footnote 16 Kafadar, along with Heath Lowry, has argued that Bayezid II conducted a project in historiography in the aftermath of the 1484 Kilia and Akkerman victories. Kafadar writes: “After the elimination of Cem's challenge and re-privatization of the lands … [and] upon his return from that campaign in 888/1484 … [Bayezid II] ordered the recording of what thus far had been mostly oral traditions about the founding fathers”.Footnote 17 Lowry, by contrast, with reference to the same campaigns, points specifically to the use of the term gaza, arguing that it means “raid”, and was addressed to those Christian allies by way of an invitation to co-operate for plunder, a separate concept from jihad, which was used to invite Muslims to the same alliance in the name of religion, and offered proof of Bayezid II's construction of a new ideology with genuine emphasis on details.Footnote 18

The common consensus outlined above represents Bayezid II as an attentive Muslim ruler who gave a decisive new direction to Ottoman state ideology in the aftermath of the Kilia and Akkerman victories, and used history books for this purpose. This thesis originated from the earlier work of Halil İnalcık. Combining his research on Ottoman historiography and the Kilia and Akkerman victories, İnalcık was the first historian to point to the possible significance of these victories in terms of a shift in Ottoman ideology.Footnote 19 In 1964, in an essay dedicated to the emergence of Ottoman historiography, he wrote, “[the] unusual activity in producing compilations on the general history of the Ottomans” was caused by Bayezid II's “desire to see such works written” and the ulema's response to it.Footnote 20 Bayezid II, İnalcık argued, “wanted to use this means for shaping public opinion in his favor”.Footnote 21 In return, the ulema composed history books to communicate Bayezid II's ideology to the wider masses.Footnote 22

İnalcık's evidence for this hypothesis is threefold: first, historians Al'Konevi, Aşıkpaşazade,Footnote 23 Kıvami,Footnote 24 Tursun Bey,Footnote 25 Sarıca Kemal,Footnote 26 Ruhi,Footnote 27 Neşri and the Anonymous Histories all ended their accounts with the Kilia and Akkerman victories, which, he writes, could not be explained as a mere “coincidence”.Footnote 28 Second, a number of these historians claimed that the sultan ordered them to compose their works. Third, historians Aşıkpaşazade and Neşri made alterations to their sources, particularly in the context of the corruption of the Ottoman kadıs (judges) of Bayezid I's reign, which suggests that they were ideologically motivated and trying to satisfy Bayezid II's desires.Footnote 29 Therefore, İnalcık concluded, the increase in Ottoman historiography during the late fifteenth century represented a palace-orchestrated ideological phenomenon.Footnote 30

İnalcık's argument represents the emergence of Ottoman historical consciousness and identity as a centralized and state-sponsored act, as well as portraying Ottoman historians as submissive courtiers of a powerful ruler. Furthermore, it dismisses the possibility that some Ottoman historians of this period may have written their books to criticize the Ottoman state. The following pages will critically analyse the three premises mentioned above.

1. The relevance of the 888/1484 Kilia and Akkerman victories to late fifteenth-century Ottoman historiography

Despite İnalcık's contention to the contrary, the Anonymous Histories, Tursun Bey and Aşıkpaşazade's works did not close their pages with the Kilia and Akkerman victories.Footnote 31 Surviving copies of the Anonymous Histories have a variety of end dates. One version, the Vienna Anonymous, terminates in 880/1472;Footnote 32 and four other copies closing with approximately the same date exist in collections located in Berlin, Konya and Istanbul.Footnote 33 Two others in the Türk Tarih Kurumu collections terminate in 878/1473–74 and 886/1481–82 respectively.Footnote 34 Moreover, the Anonymous Histories which İnalcık used, commonly known as the Giese Anonymous and the Topkapı Anonymous, bear more than one colophon, the earliest one being 896/1491.Footnote 35 It should be noted that the Anonymous Histories do not make any celebratory remarks regarding the Kilia and Akkerman victories; the event is only mentioned in passing.Footnote 36 That being said, certain insertions made to the Anonymous Histories prove that at least some of them were revised copies dating from Bayezid II's era.Footnote 37 However, these insertions are not sufficient to qualify them as texts specifically composed for Bayezid II. The Anonymous Histories are best interpreted as continuously updated versions of a narrative that preceded Bayezid II's reign.

Similarly, Tursun Bey and Aşıkpaşazade did not end their works with the Kilia and Akkerman victories. Aşıkpaşazade wrote several versions of his Tevarihi Ali Osman, from 886/1482 onwards, possibly up until 910/1505. His work bore no evidence of being initiated or composed in response to Bayezid II's wishes in the aftermath of the Kilia and Akkerman victories.Footnote 38 Tursun Bey's work, on the other hand, had the end date of 893/1488.Footnote 39

It is also imperative to reconsider why some historians closed their histories with the Kilia and Akkerman victories. One possibility is to avoid dwelling on the Mamluk and Ottoman confrontation (889/1485–901/1495). Ottoman historians disliked writing about military conflicts with other Muslim powers because they could not justify them on religious grounds or praise them in the name of Ottoman religious imperialism. Kıvami completed his work in 892/1487, Neşri composed his work from 895/1490 and continued to do so until 917/1512,Footnote 40 and Kemal wrote until 895/1490.Footnote 41 These authors may have preferred to end their works with this less controversial and more recent Ottoman victory won against the infidel Christians, rather than dwelling on the history of a war which was still in progress and which presented theological complications.

2. Bayezid II's patronage of the historians whose works terminated with the Kilia and Akkerman victories

According to İnalcık, historians who closed their works with the Kilia and Akkerman victories were ordered by Bayezid II to compose such history books. However, among those who did so, only Ruhi states that he was ordered by Bayezid to compose a history book.Footnote 42 The others – Al'Konevi, Kıvami, Kemal and Neşri – gave a diverse set of reasons for writing history books. For example, Al'Konevi wrote that his book was ordered by Mehmed II, but completed during Bayezid II's reign;Footnote 43 Kemal complained that his work was a personal endeavour and that he was discriminated against by the palace;Footnote 44 Kıvami explains that Bayezid II suggested that he compose a history book and present it to Mehmed II, but by the time he had finished it, Mehmed II had passed away and Bayezid II was the new sultan;Footnote 45 and Tursun Bey stated that, facing poverty towards the end of his life, he composed his work in the hope of financial help from Bayezid II.Footnote 46

It should also be noted that a number of historians wrote books as gifts for Bayezid II: these belonged to the genre of fethnames, which took specific military victories or particular sultans as their subject. Tursun Bey's Tarihi Ebul Feth, Kıvami's Fethnamei Sultan Mehmed, Cafer Çelebi's Mahrusei İstanbul Fethnamesi, Safai's Fetihnamei İnebahtı ve Modon, Uzun Firdevsi's Kutbname and an anonymous Gazavatı Midilli all fell into this category and were composed as gifts for Bayezid II. Most of them bore Bayezid II's library seal, proving that they were accepted.Footnote 47 Yet none of these books took the Kilia and Akkerman victories as their main subject. No historian seems to have found the Kilia and Akkerman victories a winning subject for the sultan's taste, although today we have come to view this event as a celebrated turning point in Ottoman state ideology. Meanwhile, the Ottoman campaigns and victories in the Aegean during the late 1490s seem to have received at least three fethnames.Footnote 48

3. Corruption among judges during Bayezid I's reign, its later narratives

İnalcık argued that the list of historians he provided constituted a uniform group of educated elite, the Ottoman ulema, and they composed history books as part of Bayezid II's ideological project to construct a particular version of Ottoman identity. In its origins, this conclusion was the result of İnalcık's reinterpretation of Victor Ménage's earlier research.Footnote 49 Previously, Ménage had argued that in order to avoid offending the Ottoman ulema, historians such as Al'Konevi and Neşri may have altered the information they found in their sources. His research pointed to the fact that Al'Konevi used Şükrullah as his source but deviated from the latter's narrative, first by inserting a eulogistic passage polishing the image of a leading family of Ottoman bureaucrats, namely the Çandarlı family, then erasing a section which criticized the same family. At the time when Al'Konevi wrote his book, the Çandarlı family was highly influential. Ménage also observed that Al'Konevi's alterations were in some respects similar to those made by Neşri. Which, he suggested, might have been caused by an overall desire to seek “a patron in Bayezid II with whom Ibrāhīm, the last distinguished member of the Çandarlı family, was in high favor”.Footnote 50 Thus, Ménage argued, such additions to and deletions from the sources bore the possibility of trying to accommodate personal or political preferences and should be read as such. İnalcık built on Ménage's observations and proposed a general theory of censorship. He wrote that members of the Bayezid II era ulema wrote histories that tried to polish their own image and, along with Al'Konevi and Neşri, Aşıkpaşazade also altered the information he found in the sources for similar purposes. He was convinced that these alterations, along with those made by others, indicated the ulema's general willingness to assist Bayezid II.Footnote 51

However, an overall reading of the sources shows that the so-called ideological alterations by Aşıkpaşazade and Neşri do not exist in the suggested context. Only Al'Konevi erased the offensive remarks regarding the ulema and whitewashed the Çandarlı family name. The works of Aşıkpaşazade and Neşri contain open criticism of the Çandarlı family and the ulema.

Corruption among judges during Bayezid I's reign was a sensitive subject for early Ottoman historians. Bayezid I's success during his early reign was followed by a rapid demise. His tragic death as a captive in the hands of Timur, attributed to suicide, was further followed by a civil war which threatened the Ottoman state with extinction. The eulogistic histories composed by authors like Ahmedi and Şükrullah, who witnessed the consequences of these events in person, collectively shied away from discussing them. In contrast, during the late fifteenth century, starting with the Anonymous Histories, Bayezid I's history was transformed into a prime example of what constituted a flawed ruler. The corruption among the judges was narrated in this context. Its discussion during Bayezid II's reign was a highly charged matter as well. Çandarlı İbrahim Paşa, the great son of Çandarlı Halil whose name was directly associated with the corruption during Bayezid I's reign, was the personal mentor of Bayezid II from 1468 onwards. In 1486 he became a vizier and, between 1498 and 1499, served as the Ottoman Grand Vizier, to be replaced only as a result of his death. During the final decades of the fifteenth century, denigrating his family name had serious implications.

Nevertheless, the story of the corrupt judges of Bayezid I was told, and it was told almost unanimously, within a larger discussion of the path of adala (justice) and Ottoman government. Fifteenth-century Ottoman historians reflected on adala extensively, and argued that it was an attribute of God, a divine virtue. Ahmedi wrote that pre-Islamic philosophers such as Aristotle considered adala to be an essential quality for a good ruler.Footnote 52 Tursun Bey relied on the teachings of Nasreddin Al-Tusi (d. 1274) and stated that adala distinguished human beings from other beasts.Footnote 53 Neşri argued extensively that the proper application of adala was a field of knowledge on its own, only to be attained through theological education.Footnote 54

For better or worse, adala became a central theme in all depictions of Bayezid I's rule. For example, describing the reign of Bayezid I, Ahmedi wrote:

He was adil (just) like his forefathers
became knowledgeable in all state craft
he loved people of learning
gave them money and paid them respect
he was forgiving towards his subjects
and hospitable to those zahid (away from worldly possessions, ascetic).Footnote 55

Ahmedi also added that Bayezid I tried to repeat the model of Caliph Omar, a symbol of Islamic justice.Footnote 56 Şükrullah repeated Ahmedi's views word for word. He wrote:

Because his faith had no flaws, he relied on those knowledgeable people. He pitied the poor. He held existing lords high in his esteem. He showed respect towards zahid and true believers. He showed adala to people. When his religiosity and faith became known and famous, those knowledgeable ones came to his protection.Footnote 57

However, both Ahmedi and Şükrullah remained rather silent about the corruption during Bayezid I's reign. Ahmedi accepted that some kadıs started to take bribes from people and that Bayezid I had to discipline them. He wrote:

He knew that the judges are tyrannical
They are the takers of bribes and abusers of Islamic law
They don't know what is cause and effect
For him [Bayezid] it was not necessary to be interested in this world
But judges say wrong to the right, right to the wrong
He gathered them together and asked them to account
He made them return whatever they had taken
He punished them with what was necessary
Being bad is the convenient way for those who are bad
He straightened them to a degree with struggle
But how can they become honest?Footnote 58

Şükrullah also acknowledged that Bayezid I had to investigate some of the kadıs, and upon discovering that they had committed crimes, “ordered them to give back what they took against the rule of sharia, taught them a lesson and fired those who had to be fired”.Footnote 59 Şükrullah also concluded that these events were followed by a period of great comfort and calm.Footnote 60

In contrast to Ahmedi and Şükrullah, the Anonymous Histories gave a comprehensive criticism of Bayezid I's ulema. They told the story within a carefully arranged discussion of Bayezid I's overall flawed character, along with references to his drinking habit, deviation from the path of jihad and abandonment of sharia in general. They argued that the ulema around him failed on all accounts.Footnote 61 In the past, they wrote, the ulema were able to make themselves heard by the rulers. Rulers used to be frightened of them and if they committed any sin, they avoided looking the ulema in the face. During Bayezid's rule the ulema were weak.Footnote 62 In fact, Topkapı Anonymous and Giese Anonymous also quoted a section from Ahmedi in this context. This section was originally intended by Ahmedi as a general criticism of corrupt men of letters, but now was transformed into a damning criticism of Ahmedi's generation. It read:

Those who had some learning
Used to shy away from possession
For they knew that it won't last
And will become a burden in the afterlife
What happened to those intelligent men
Those who used to be judges and issued laws?
Now they live dedicated to greed
They could not be fully fed
They are worse than the people who follow the Hebrew Bible
They will sell their Quran for a penny if they could
…
They are worried that people will have equal share
Like dogs they try to steal from the people
The absence of knowledge is such, there are so many wrongs
They are like donkeys even though surrounded with books.Footnote 63

The Anonymous Histories also added that in the old days becoming a kadı was considered a burden, and it was a duty forced upon the fresh graduates of medrese (theological school). However, during Bayezid I's reign being a kadı was an asset due to the generous kickbacks one received. Young students worked with established scholars for a short period of time, performed some favours for their masters, and then became kadı while “not knowing how to read their own names”.Footnote 64 This began with the introduction of Persian and Karaman officers to the Ottoman court during the reign of Bayezid I. Viziers like Çandarlı Halil and Karamani Türk Rüstem were particularly involved. They introduced new accounting practices to the state and established a central reserve that encouraged the Ottoman government to hoard money, a practice equal to stealing from people and in contravention of the sharia.Footnote 65 Ali Paşa, who was Çandarlı Halil's son and who succeeded his father in office, recruited young boys to his court. These boys performed all kinds of favours for him, including sexual ones. In return they were appointed kadıs, and deviated from sharia regularly, ruining the prestige of the Ottoman state. They were a new generation of technocrats who meddled with the value of the Ottoman currency and eliminated the purchasing power of the common people. They even issued false fatvas (rulings) that were designed to suit their own interests, rather than follow sharia.Footnote 66

They took so many bribes that Bayezid I had to intervene. He imprisoned them in a house which he threatened to burn down. Ali Paşa hired Bayezid I's court clown Maskara Arab to save their lives. Maskara Arab played a joke on Bayezid I, brought him back to good humour, and saved them. In the end, they were all forgiven and received a pay rise so that they would stop taking bribes.Footnote 67 Even the controversial law that required people to pay a fee for kadıs' ruling was initiated in this context.Footnote 68

The Anonymous Histories were not sympathetic towards the Çandarlı family or the ulema. They represented them as central figures in the emergence of corruption in the Ottoman state. The corruption they described was not limited just to taking bribes and issuing fake fetvas either. They went so far as to point out faulty economic practices, inefficient education of bureaucrats, and these men's sexual misconduct. It is very unlikely that their narratives were composed to please Bayezid II and the Ottoman state in general.

Similarly, Aşıkpaşazade composed a damning criticism of the Çandarlı family and Bayezid I's ulema. He wrote that during the reigns of Orhan and Murad, the ulema stayed away from illegal possessions and sin in general, but their behaviour changed when Çandarlı Halil and Karamanlı Türk Rüstem became respected members of the Ottoman court and earned the title effendi (honourable sir). With these men, cheating became a general statecraft. They issued faulty rulings, corrupted the meaning of sharia, meddled with the value of the Ottoman currency and erased the fear of God from people's hearts.Footnote 69

Aşıkpaşazade in particular portrayed Çandarlı Halil's son Ali Paşa as a person who loved luxury and surrounded himself with people of the same persuasion. Bayezid I tried to punish this corruption, he wrote, but Ali Paşa used Maskara Arab to save face.Footnote 70 He wrote, “[T]he first person who caused Ottomans to sin and start practicing haram (unlawful things) was Ali Paşa, because many Arab and Persian scholars who knew how to cheat and play tricks used to keep him company”.Footnote 71 Therefore, Aşıkpaşazade's version of the events showed no signs of whitewashing the image of the ulema or the Çandarlı family.

Neşri showed very little, and inconclusive, evidence of trying to clear the name of the Çandarlı family. His account opened with a full quotation from Ahmedi, which was cited previously and encapsulated the eulogistic version of the events.Footnote 72 He then extensively quoted Aşıkpaşazade's version with four specific alterations, or modifications. These modifications were: a) blaming the corruption among the judges on Rüstem Paşa; b) citing Rüstem Paşa's Karaman origin; c) citing the name of Ali Paşa and his father only in relation to the plot to save the lives of the judges; and d) changing the name of Ali Paşa's father from Halil to Hayreddin.Footnote 73 This last modification was particularly important because it was interpreted by İnalcık as an act of disguising the true identity of Çandarlı Halil Paşa.Footnote 74 However, if we follow the progression of the transformation of these names from one source to the next we observe other possibilities, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. The progression of names

It is clear from Table 1 that Ali Paşa was the culprit who organized a plot to save the lives of the judges in all versions of the story. Anyone who was familiar with the story could identify the personalities. The only thing that was missing from Neşri's version was a direct association of the name Çandarlı with the event, which could have been caused by a simple oversight or over-editing, or it may have been due to a discrepancy in his sources. It is important to note that he did not attempt to clear Ali Paşa's name. In fact, unlike the Anonymous Histories and Aşıkpaşazade, he also disclosed the value of the bribe Ali Paşa was willing to pay to the Maskara Arab upon succeeding: one thousand florins.Footnote 75

In conclusion, the ideological omissions İnalcık suggests do not exist in the suggested context, and the narratives of this episode do not bring together the Anonymous Histories, Al'Konevi, Aşıkpaşazade and Neşri as members of a uniform ulema. If anything, each narrative exposes significant distinctions between these writers. The Anonymous Histories were comfortable in naming those whom they saw as responsible for corruption in the Ottoman government; Aşıkpaşazade was willing to cite such claims he found in the Anonymous Histories; Neşri was either confused or reluctant, but could not refrain from blaming Çandarlı Ali Paşa; and only Al'Konevi erased the whole episode.

Conclusion

This article has sought to question our understanding of early Ottoman historiography and Bayezid II's role in its development. In particular, it questioned İnalcık's argument that Bayezid II conducted a historiographical project to initiate a new ideology at the aftermath of the 1484 Kilia and Akkerman victories and used history books to this end. Bayezid II had indeed acted as a patron to a number of historians but only towards the end of his reign. These historians were İdris Bitlisi (completed in 1503), Ruhi (completed in 1510–11), and Kemalpaşazade (completed in 1526). Ruhi's work was a reductive copy of the existing sources, being most similar to Şükrullah's history, but sharing common elements with the Anonymous Histories, Aşıkpaşazade and Neşri's works.Footnote 76 İdris Bitlisi's history was an extensive combination of Ruhi and Neşri's works.Footnote 77 Kemalpaşazade's work was completed long after Bayezid II's reign and brought together all that was related to Ottoman history, relying in particular on Neşri for the earlier material found in the Anonymous Histories.Footnote 78 In short, they all relied heavily on the Anonymous Histories, Aşıkpaşazade and Neşri.

Evidently, during Bayezid II's reign, a desire to achieve more comprehensive Ottoman histories emerged. Numerous historians were engaged in the construction of the Ottoman past and therefore the Ottoman identity. The textual momentum of this phenomenon appears to have started with the Anonymous Histories, and historians such as Aşıkpaşazade and Neşri. Therefore, the late fifteenth-century enlightenment in Ottoman historical self-consciousness was not the result of Bayezid II's desire to change the ideological trajectory of his empire, but involved the endeavour of a circle of authors. Whether the works of Bayezid II's historians represented an ideological transformation of its own remains a subject for further discussion. One thing is for certain: they followed in the footsteps of an Ottoman literary elite who had recently acknowledged the virtue of the Anonymous Histories.

References

2 V. L. Ménage, “A survey of the early Ottoman histories, with studies on their textual problems and their source”, Unpublished PhD thesis, University of London, 1961, vol. 1, 52 and 59–71. Ahmedi, İskendername (ed. Ünver, İsmail), İskender-nāme (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 1983)Google Scholar. Ahmedi (ed. Atsız, Nihal), İskendername, Osmanlı Tarihleri (İstanbul: Türkiye Yayınevi, 1947), 2–35Google Scholar. Sılay, Kemal, “Ahmedī's history of the Ottoman Dynasty”, Journal of Turkish Studies, 16, 1992, 129–200Google Scholar. Also, Sılay, Kemal, Tevārīh-i Mülūk-i āl-i ʻOsmān ġazv-i īşān bā-küffār / Tāce'd-Dīn İbrāhīm bin Hıżır Aḥmedī (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Üniversitesi Yakındoğu Dilleri ve Medeniyetleri Bölümü, 2004)Google Scholar.

3 While we are certain of Şükrullah's birthdate, for Enveri we have neither birth nor death dates. Şükrullah, Behçetüttevarih (ed. Atsız, Nihal), Osmanlı Tarihleri (İstanbul: Türkiye Yayınevi, 1947, 39–76)Google Scholar. Enveri, Destan (ed. Mélikoff-Sayar, Irène), Le Destan d'Umur Pacha (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1954)Google Scholar. Enveri, Düsturname (ed. Öztürk, Necdet), Fatih Devri Kaynaklarından Düstûrnâme-i Enverî (İstanbul: Kitabevi, 2003)Google Scholar. Enveri, Düsturname (ed. Yinanç, Mükrimin Halil), Düsturname-i Enveri (İstanbul: Türk Tarih Encümeni Külliyatı, 1928)Google Scholar.

4 Topkapı Anonymous (ed. Öztürk, Necdet), Anonim Tevârih-i Âli Osman (İstanbul: Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları Vakfı, 2000)Google Scholar. Giese Anonymous (ed. Giese, F., trans. Azamat, Nihat), Tevârih-i Âli Osman (İstanbul: Edebiyat Fakültesi Basımevi, 1992)Google Scholar. Vienna Anonymous (Vienna: National Bibliothek, N. 23).

5 Ménage, “A survey of the early Ottoman histories”, vol. 1, 64–71, 98–99, and 324–31.

6 Enveri was a member of the Aydınoğlu court before he found patronage among the Ottomans – his Düsturname is very distinct from the others. For example, he presents an alternative genealogy of the Ottoman dynasty and pays little attention to the achievements of the early Ottoman rulers such as Osman, Orhan and Murad. He also considers some of the key features of Ottoman mythology, such as the appointment of the house of Osman as the legitimate leaders of the jihad at the frontier by the Seljuks, or the holy dreams of the founding fathers, to be events that happened to others or that took place in alternative manners. A detailed study of why Enveri represents a different line of source and tradition of historiography can be found in the works of Ménage and Necdet Öztürk. Ménage, “A survey of the early Ottoman histories”, vol. 1, 134–46. Enveri (ed. Necdet Öztürk), Düsturname, XXI–LXXXI.

7 Anonymous Histories or the anonymous Tevarihi Ali Osman texts are a general amalgamation of stories and historical events concerning the origins and history of the Ottomans. They use Royal Calendars, official palace chronologies of the Ottoman state, but they heavily decorate these chronologies with common stories, myths, folkloric tales, saintly literature and poetry borrowed from a variety of sources. Most often they refer to the authority of ravis (tellers/readers) as their sources. They also acknowledge the role of local leaders, common soldiers and ordinary people of the frontier in the success of the Ottoman state, and at times appear heavily critical of the Ottoman state and its rulers. Their narratives stand in stark contrast to authors such as Ahmedi, Şükrullah and Enveri. A detailed source criticism of these texts can be found in Ménage's work (“A survey of the early Ottoman histories”, vol. 1, 183–202, 365–439).

8 Şükrullah, Behçetüttevarih (ed. Nihal Atsız), 57. Vienna Anonymous, f.31.b–36.a. Topkapı Anonymous (ed. Necdet Öztürk), f.20.a–22.a.

9 We do not have exact dates for Neşri, although we know that he was a poet active during Mehmed II's reign and a member of the Ottoman educated elite. He completed his history between 1487 and 1493. Ménage, “A survey of the early Ottoman histories”, vol. 1, 239–40. See also Menagé, V. L., Neshri's History of the Ottomans, The Sources and Development of the Text (London: Oxford University Press, 1964)Google Scholar.

10 A good example of this is Neşri's Cihannüma, the source criticism and narrative structure of which were provided in the following studies: Ménage, Neshri's History of the Ottomans; Maria Kalicin, “Characteristic genre features of Neşri's ‘History of the Ottoman Court’ Structure”, EB, 15, 1979, 34–53; Faik Reşit Unat, “Neşri Tarihi Üzerine Yapılan Çalışmalara Toplu Bir Bakış”, Belleten 7, 1943, 177–201.

11 We do not know the exact dates for Mehmed b. Hacı Halil Al'Konevi. He described himself as a clerk of the sharia court, and the height of his career came during Mehmed II's reign. He lived into the early reign of Bayezid II: Ménage, “A survey of the early Ottoman histories”, vol. 1, 102. Babinger, Franz (trans. Üçok, Coşkun), Osmanlı Tarih Yazarları ve Eserleri (Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı, 1992), 20Google Scholar.

12 While we do not have the exact dates for Kemal, we do know that at the time he completed his work in 895/1490, he was of old age. Ménage, “A survey of the early Ottoman histories”, vol. 1, 108. Öztürk, Necdet, VX. Yüzyıl Tarihçilerinden Kemal Selâtîn-nâme (1299–1490) (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2001), XXIX–XXXIGoogle Scholar; Anhegger, Robert, “Selâtinnâme Müellifi Kemal”, Türk Dili Edebiyatı, IV/4, 1952, 447–70Google Scholar.

13 For example, Al' Konevi writes that earlier historians have explained the emergence of the Ottoman dynasty via Seljuk sovereigns, yet they have made mistakes or contradictory remarks regarding Seljuk history itself, and adds that this is why he was dissatisfied and decided to write his work. Anhegger, Robert, “Mehmed B. Hacı Halîl Ül-Kunevî'nin Tarih-i Âl-i Osman'i”, Tarih Dergisi, II/3–4, 1950–51, 51Google Scholar. Kemal's criticism of previous historiography is related to language preference. On two separate occasions he argues that he writes his work in order to show that the Turkish language was as superior as Persian. Kemal, Selatinname, f.9.a and f.94.a. Kemal (ed. Öztürk, Necdet), Selatinname, VX. Yüzyıl Tarihçilerinden Kemal Selâtîn-nâme (1299–1490) (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2001)Google Scholar, 18 and 203.

14 İpşirli, Mehmet, “The Ottoman historiography”, in Çiçek, Kemal (ed.), The Great Ottoman-Turkish Civilization (Ankara: Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, 2000), 379Google Scholar.

15 Öztürk, VX. Yüzyıl Tarihçilerinden Kemal Selâtîn-nâme (1299–1490), XXII.

16 Piterberg, Gabriel, An Ottoman Tragedy: History and Historiography at Play (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003), 36Google Scholar.

17 Kafadar, Cemal, Between Two Worlds: The Construction of the Ottoman State (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), 97Google Scholar.

18 Ibid.

19 Two key studies by İnalcık on the Kilia and Akkerman region were more recently reviewed by Victor Ostapchuk in a general study of the Ottoman Black Sea. Ostapchuk, Victor, “The human landscape of the Ottoman Black Sea”, Oriente Moderno, XX (LXXXI), 1, 2001, 27–8Google Scholar. İnalcık, Halil, Sources and Studies on the Ottoman Black Sea, I, The Custom Registers of Caffa, 1487–90 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996)Google Scholar. İnalcık, Halil, “The question of the closing of the Black Sea under Ottomans”, in Αρχείον Πόντου, XXXV, 1979, 74–110Google Scholar.

20 İnalcık, “The rise of Ottoman historiography”, in Holt, P. M. and Lewis, Bernard (eds), Historians of the Middle East (London: Oxford University Press, 1964), 164–5Google Scholar.

21 Ibid.

22 Ibid.

23 Ménage, “A survey of the early Ottoman histories”, vol. 1, 220–22. Babinger, Franz (trans. Üçok, Coşkun), Osmanlı Tarih Yazarları ve Eserleri (Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı, 2000), 38–42Google Scholar.

24 We do not have the exact dates for Kıvami. Ménage writes that Kıvami was present at one or two later campaigns during Mehmed II's era. We know that he completed his work in 1488. Ménage, “A survey of the early Ottoman histories”, vol. 1, 165.

25 We do not have the exact dates for Tursun Bey but we know that the height of his career came after the conquest of Constantinople in 1453. He was part of Grand Vizier Mahmud Paşa's entourage. The closing date of his history suggests that he was still alive in 1488. Ménage, “A survey of the early Ottoman histories”, vol. 1, 172. Babinger, Osmanlı Tarih Yazarları ve Eserleri, 29.

26 The writer identified as Sarıca Kemal by İnalcık was actually Kemal. İnalcık seems to have repeated Franz Babinger's earlier suggestion that the Ottoman poet Sarıca Kemal was also the writer of Selatinname. Later studies by Robert Anhegger and Necdet Öztürk indicate that these two were different people. Öztürk, VX. Yüzyıl Tarihçilerinden Kemal Selâtîn-nâme (1299–1490), XXIX. Anhegger, “Selâtinnâme Müellifi Kemal”, 447–70.

27 İnalcık believes that Ruhi Tarihi was produced by the poet Ruhi of the same era. However, the writer appears to be a different individual. Aside from the fact that he may have been a native of Edirne we have no knowledge of his life. Ménage, “A survey of the early Ottoman histories”, vol. 1, 124–5.

28 İnalcık, “The rise of Ottoman historiography”, 164–5.

29 Ibid.

30 Ibid.

31 Ibid.

32 Vienna Anonymous, f.142.b.

33 Yerasimos, Stéphane, La fondation de Constantinople et de Sainte-Sophie (Istanbul: Institut Français d'Études Anatoliennes d'Istanbul, 1990), 251Google Scholar.

34 Ibid.

35 As shown in the Topkapı Anonymous. Topkapı Anonymous, f.86.a. For a list of anonymous Tevarihi Ali Osman texts, see Babinger, Osmanlı Tarih Yazarları ve Eserleri, 45–7, and Yerasimos, La fondation de Constantinople et de Sainte-Sophie, 251.

36 Giese Anonymous, 119. Topkapı Anonymous, f.82.a–b.

37 For example, in the chapter treating Murad II's (r. 1421–51) reign, referring to the birth of his grandson Bayezid II, there is an acknowledgement that the boy will ascend the throne in 1481 (Giese Anonymous, 74; Topkapı Anonymous, f.47.b). Similarly, in the section on the history and re-building of Constantinople and Hagia Sophia, reference is made to the discovery of a sword in the Danube River that was believed to have dated back to the days of Noah's children. The discovery of the sword is reported to have pleased Bayezid II, for he placed importance on such matters (Giese Anonymous, 90–91; Topkapı Anonymous, f.60.a–61.b).

38 Ménage, “A survey of the early Ottoman histories”, vol. 1, 222, 225–6.

39 Tursun Bey, Tarihi Ebul Feth (ed. Tulum, Mertol), Târîh-i Ebü'l-feth (İstanbul: Baha Matbaası, 1997), p. XXIIIGoogle Scholar. Tursun Bey, Tarihi Ebul Feth (ed. Murphey, Rhoads and İnalcık, Halil), History of Mehmed the Conqueror (Chicago: University of Chicago/Minnesota: Bibliotheca Islamica, 1978), 18Google Scholar.

40 The colophon of the earliest version reads 898/1492–93. Neşri, Cihannüma (ed. Taeschner, Franz), Ğihānnümā. Die Altosmanische Chronik des Mevlānā Mehemmed Neschrī. Band I. Einleitung und Text des Cod. Menzel (Leipzig: Otto Harrasowitz, 1951), vol 1, 234Google Scholar.

41 Kıvami, Fethnamei Sultan Mehmed (ed. Babinger, Franz), Fetihnâme-i Sultan Mehmed (İstanbul: Maarif Basımevi, 1955), 319Google Scholar. Kemal, Selatinname, f.101.a. Kemal (ed. Öztürk), Selatinname, 218.

42 “Ba'zı muhāverāt-ı şerīfeleri esnāsında bu ma'nī fehm olundı kim tevārīh-i selātīn-i uli'l-emr-i islāmiyye ki Cenāb-ı Hak cell eve ‘alā’dan īcāb-ı itā'atde tālī resūl vāki' olmışlardı, ba'dehu kasāsi'l-enbiyā ashen-i kasās görinür, bu cihetdendür ki ekābir-i ‘ulemā anuñ zabtına ve tahrīrine mültezim olub ol bābda kitāblar tasnīf itmişlerdür, ammā tevārīh-i eşref-i selātīn ki Āl-i ‘Osmān'dur ibarāt-ı Türkiyye ile ki Diyār-ı Rūm'dan ‘ammi'n-nef ile kemā-yenbagī cem’ olmamışdur, olsa mühtahsen idi. Bu bende-i hakīr ma'nā-yı mezkūre ıttılā' bā'is oldı ki ol tevārīh'ibārāt-ı Türkiyye ile Diyār-ı Rūm ‘ammi'n-nef'dür, cem’ ide.” This quote comes from Yaşar Yücel and Halil E. Cengiz's critical edition of the Bodleian Manuscript. There are two manuscripts called Ruhi Tarihi. V. L. Ménage argues that the one kept in Oxford University's Bodleian Library is different from that found in Berlin. In contrast, Yücel and Cengiz's critical edition of the Bodleian Manuscript argues that they belong to the same author. İnalcık does not inform us which specific manuscript(s) he used. However, he provides an English translation of the passage he relies on which follows the above Turkish passage. “Sultan Bāyezīd said: ‘Histories of the prophets are regarded as the best and most preferable, and thus, the Ulemā’ prefer to write this kind of histories, but the history of the Ottoman Sultans who are the most distinguished and honorable among others has not yet been subject of a compilation written in a language for everybody's profit. It is desirable that it should have been'.” Oxford Anonymous (ed. Yücel, Yaşar and Cengiz, Halil E.), Ruhi Tarihi (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1999)Google Scholar. Ménage, “A survey of the early Ottoman histories”, vol. 1, 116–7.

43 Hacı Halil Al'Konevi (ed. Robert Anhegger), Kitabı Tarihi Ali Osman in “Mehmed B. Hacı Halîl Ül-Kunevî'nin Tarih-i Âl-i Osman-I”, Tarih Dergisi, vol. II, 3–4, 51Google Scholar. Also, Ménage, “A survey of the early Ottoman histories”, vol. 1, 102.

44 “Açup gördiler anı iy Hudâvend / Okuyup kıldılar çok dürlü ahseñt / Didüm bu paşalar olsa vâsıl / Netîce olmaya mı bize hâsıl / İşitdiler çü benden bu kelâmı / Gülüşdiler bularuñ hâs u ‘âmı / Didiler saña bundan n'ola hâsıl / Nedür bu Türkî dili ehl-i fâzıl / Buña baş aġrısı dirler bilürsin / Öziñe bunı sen niçün kılursın / Acem diline bunlar müşterîdür / Buları bil ki Türkîden berîdür / Nidersin bunı ortaya yetürüp / Bu Türkî başına haller getürüp.” Kemal, Selatin-name, f.95.b–96.a. Kemal, (ed. Öztürk), Selatinname, 206–7.

45 Kıvami (ed. Babinger), Fetihnâme-i Sultan Mehmed, V.

46 “Ve müjde-i galebe-i İslâm içün in’âm-ı pâdişâhtan ihsân-ı kirâm-ı ehl-i devletten şol kadar nakd ü cins hâsıl ittüm ki, yoksullığa tevbe itmiş idüm, ammâ nidem ki pîrlikte tevbe-şiken düştüm.” Tursun Bey (ed. Mertol Tulum), Tarihi Eb'ul Feth, 132.

47 Safai, Fethnamei İnebahtı va Modon (İstanbul: Topkapı Revan Kütüphanesi, 1980)Google Scholar, no. 1271, v. 131. Firdevsi, Uzun (ed. Olgun, İbrahim and Parmaksızoğlu, İsmet), Kutbname,… Firdevsî Rumî, Kutb-Nâme (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi)Google Scholar. Gazavatı Midilli (anon.), Cambridge: University of Cambridge LibraryGoogle Scholar, Browne, no. 706, hand list 127.

48 A somewhat similar view was expressed by Victor Ostapchuk, who argued that during the fifteenth century, Ottoman policy towards the Black Sea was not expansionist. In fact, the Black Sea was a secure zone of international commerce and the acquisition of Kilia and Akkerman were to become important military developments during the later periods, when in the seventeenth-century Ottoman policy towards the Black Sea changed due to Cossack activities. Victor Ostapchuk, “The human landscape of the Ottoman Black Sea”, 23–95.

49 Ménage, “A survey of the early Ottoman histories”, vol. 1, 104.

50 Ménage, “The beginnings of Ottoman historiography”, 173.

51 Aşıkpaşazade's status as a member of the ulema was first challenged by Paul Wittek, but it is also the case that he was recorded as having sat among the ulema during the circumcision ceremonies of Bayezid II. Although İnalıck acknowledged that Aşıkpaşazade was somewhat different from the other two writers, he may not be considered to be a member of the ulema. Wittek, Paul, “The taking of Aydos Castle: a Gazi legend and its transformation”, in Makdisi, George (ed.), Arabic and Islamic Studies in Honor of Hamilton A. R. Gibb (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Department of Near Eastern Languages, 1965), 662–72Google Scholar; Köprülü, Mehmed Fuat, “Aşıkpaşazade”, İslam Ansiklopedisi, vol. 1, 707Google Scholar. Atsız, Osmanlı Tarihleri, 80; İnalcık, “The rise of Ottoman historiography”, 165.

52 Ahmedi (ed. Ünver), İskendername, f.8.a–b.

53 Tursun (ed. Tulum), Tarihi Ebul-Feth, f.12.a. Tursun Bey, Cihan Fatihi, 15.

54 Neşri (ed. Unat and Köymen), Cihannüma, vol. 1, f.1.b. Neşri (ed. Taeschner), Cihannüma, Band I, 1–2. Neşri (ed. Taeschner, Franz), Cihannüma, Ğihānnümā. Die Altosmanische Chronik des Mevlānā Mehemmed Neschrī. Band II, Einleitung und Text des Cod. Menzel (Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1953), 1–2Google Scholar.

55 Ata dede gibi adil oldu ol / dükeli işlerde kamil oldu ol / ilm ehlini severdi ol niknam / kılurıdı inam iderdi ihtiram / hoş görürdü anı kim abid ola / hoş tutardı anı kim zahid ola / şeyh efendi geldi ana bineva / itdi anı mecmuı halka pişva. Ahmedi (ed. Ünver), İskendername, f.67.b. Ahmedi (ed. Sılay), İskendername, 155. Ahmedi (ed. Atsız), İskendername, 21.

56 Ahmedi (ed. Ünver), İskendername, f.67.b. Ahmedi (ed. Sılay), İskendername, 155. Ahmedi (ed. Atsız), İskendername, 22.

57 Bayezid Hünkar, beğlik tahtına oturunca atalarından ve dedelerinden daha iyi olarak adaleti ileri götürdü. İnancında asla bozukluk ve eksiklik olmadığından bilgi erlerine rağbet gösterdi. Yoksullara acıdı. Bayları yüce tuttu. Zahidleri, Tanrıya tapıcı aydı. Halka adalet gösterdi. İnancı ve dindarlığı bilinip ün salınca bilginler, erdemliler, ona yüz döndürdüler. Şeyh Ramazan yoksullar takımındandı. Onun gök gibi yüce eşiğine erişti. Padişah dindarlığına, müslümanlığına yakışanı yaptı. Ona köyler, şehirler, kaleler verip kazasker kıldı. Şükrullah, Behçetüttevarih (ed.), p. 56.

58 Şāh-ı ‘Osmānī ki ‘adleyledi ‘Ömer / Bildi ki ‘olur kāḍīler bīdādger / İşleri rişvet durur taġyīr-i şer’ / Hīç añmazlar ne durur aṣl u fer' / Dünyeyiçün ki ‘ aña gerekmez nazar / ḥaḳḳı bāṭıl bāṭılı ḥaḳ dir bular / Cem‘ itdi ḳamusını sordı ol / Ne ki aldılar girü virdürdi ol / Geregince itdi anlara cezā / Yavuz işlüye yavuzlıḳdur sezā / Cehd ile bir zerre getürdi yola / Rāstrūlıḳ hod olardan nice‘ola. Ahmedi (ed. Ünver), İskendername, f.67.b. Ahmedi (ed. Sılay), İskendername, 155. Ahmedi (ed. Atsız), İskendername, 22.

59 Kimden şeraite aykırı nesne almışlarsa ödenmesini buyurdu. Onların biyesini verdi. Azli gerekeni azletti. Şükrullah (ed. Atsız), Behçetüttevarih, 57.

60 Ibid.

61 Vienna Anonymous, f.30.b. Giese Anonymous, 31. Topkapı Anonymous (ed. Öztürk), f.20.a.

62 Osman, Orhan ve Murad Han zamanında şarap içmezlerdi. Ve hem ol zamanda ulemalar vardı ki sözlerin geçürirleridi. Ve ol zamanın padişahları ulemadan utanıb ulema ne derlerse sözlerinden çıkmazlardı. Ve eğer ali Osmandan birisi günah sadır olsa ulema anı mena iderlerdi. Eğer mena olmazlar, ol zaman ulemaları anlardan kaçarlardı ve ol zamanın padişahlarının yanına varmazlardı. Ve ulema ol zamanda mefsud değillerdi. Şimdiki ulema gibi mansuyetden korkup tek oturmazlardı. Ol ki şeraa muhallifdir, mena idüp sözlerin geçürirler idi. Vienna Anonymous, f.30.b–31.a. Giese Anonymous, 31. Topkapı Anonymous (ed. Öztürk), f.20.a.

63 İlimden kimde ki var idi eser / Ol zamanda mala itmez idi nazar / Kim bilürdi yoğ idi anda beka / Âhiretde olur kişiye saka / N'oldı şimdi ilmi da‘vî eyleyen / Ya hakîmem deyüben söz söyleyen / Kim olupdur hırsa cânı pâymâl / Karnı toymaz dirdüğince genc ü mal / Oldı Tevrât okıyandan uş beter / Bir pula bulursa Kur'an'nın satar / Eyle sevmiş işbu dünyâ menzilin / Kim tutar candan azîz âb u gilin / Hubs ü tezvîr ü hased endîşesi / İt bigi halkı talamak pîşesi / Yoh yakın ilminde lîkin tolu şek / Yüz kitâb içinde şöyle kim eşek. Giese Anonymous, 31–2. Topkapı Anonymous, ed. Öztürk, f. 20.b. Ahmedi, İskendername, ed. Ünver, f.22.b.

64 Eğer adın yazıb virsen okuyamazlar. Vienna Anonymous, f.31.a. Giese Anonymous, 33. Topkapı Anonymous (ed. Öztürk), f.20.b.

65 Heman kim Osman beğlerine Acem ve Karamanlular musâhib oldı. Osman beğleri dahı dürlü dürlü günâhlara mürtekib oldılar. Kaçan kim Çenderlü Kara Halîl ve Karamanî Türk Rüstem, bu ikisi ulular ve âlimler idi. Heman kim anlar Osman beğlerine geldiler. Dürlü dürlü hîle ile âlemi toldırdılar. Andan evvel hîsab defter bilmezlerdi. Anlar te'lîf itdiler. Akça yığup hazîne itmek anlardan kaldı. Sonın hiç fikr itmediler. Koyup gideceğin anmadılar. Vienna Anonymous, f.31.b. Giese Anonymous, 33. Topkapı Anonymous (ed. Öztürk), f.20.b.

66 Heman kim Kara Halîl-oğlı Ali Paşa vezîr oldı, fısk u fücûr ziyade oldı. Mahbûb oğlanları yanına aldı. Adını iç oğlanı kodı. Bir nice zaman ne gerekse ider. Andan çıkarup mansıb virür oldılar. Andan ilerü kadîmler var idi. Kişi ıyâlleri idi. Cümle mansıb anlarün idi. Azl idüp birine dahı virmezlerdi. Eger bir sipâhi ölse mansıbın oğlına virürlerdi. Ve eger oğlı kalmayıb kızı veyâ avratı kalsa zelil olmasun diyü anları bir kula virürlerdi. Ol ölenün tımârın bile virürlerdi. İç oğlanına rağbet itmek Ali Paşa'dan kaldı. Kaçan Ali Paşa vezîr oldı anun zamanında danişmendler çoğaldı. Her biri bir beğ yanına geldi. Anlara yarayalum deyü tabî’atlarına münâsib cevab virmek ile Allah buyruğın ve peygamber kavlin terk itdiler. Âl-i Osman bir sülb kavm itdi. Anlar ki geldiler dürlü dürlü hıleler başlayub takvâyı götürdiler, fetvâya başladılar. Yeni akça kesüp eski akçayla bazaar itmemeği anlar te'lîf eylediler. Ve eski akça gayrı vilâyete gitmesün diyü yasak itdiler. Vienna Anonymous, f.32.a. Giese Anonymous, p. 34. Topkapı Anonymous, ed. Öztürk, f.21.a.

67 Kadıların fesâdı zâhir olmağa başladı. Bayezid Han dahı hallerine muttali' oldı, hükm etdi, ne kadar kadı var secem'itdi. Yenişehir'de bir eve koydı. Dahı ot urun dedi. Hep yansunlar dedi. Vezîri Ali Paşa âciz kaldı … Vezîrlerin biri aydur: “Buna care olursa mashara Arab'dan olur” didi. Bu kez Arab'ı getürdiler. Söylediler, Arab ilerü geldi. Çağırup ayıtdı: “Hey Sultanum! Bunları kır aman virme. Ne hâyin karnallardur bunlar” didi. Yıldırım Han aydur: “Nire niçün” didi. Bir gayrı suçları dahı sandı. Arab ayıtdı: “Hey Sultanum! Bunlar neye gerek. Üşte Timür Han leşker çeküp geliyorur dirler. Sen bunları kır, dahı sen sancak götür bentabl çalayım. Varalım Timür'le uğraşalum. Heman biz ikimüz ana cevab virüriz” didi. Çün Yıldırım Han bu cevâbı işitdı. Biraz tefekküre varup ol halkı âzâd itdi. Vienna Anonymous, f.35.b. Giese Anonymous, 36. Topkapı Anonymous (ed. Öztürk), f.22.a–b.

68 Vienna Anonymous, f.32.b. Giese Anonymous, 36. Topkapı Anonymous (ed. Öztürk), f.22.b.

69 Bu Âl-i ‘Osmânîler bir sâdık soydur. Hîç bunlardan nâ-meşru’ hareket olmamış-ıdı. ‘Ulemâ bir nesneyi kim günâhdur diye, bu Âl-i Osmân andan kaçarlar-ıdı. Orhan zamânında Gāzi Murâd Han zamânında ‘ulemâ var-ıdı ve illâ müfsidler degüller-idi; tâ Çandarlu Halîl'e gelince. Kaçan kim Çandarlu Halil geldi, Türk Rüstem geldi, mevlânâ didiler. Andan soñra hemân anlar hîleye karışdurdılar. Halîl’üñ oglı ‘Ali Paşa kim vezir oldı. Danışmend dahı anuñ zamanında çok oldı. Bu Âl-i ‘Osmân bir sulb kavm-ıdı, anlar kim geldiler fetvâyı hîle itdiler ve takvâyı götürdüler. İşbu vilâyetde kim eski akçaya kimse satu ve bazaar itmeye ve hem gayrı vilâyete dahı gitmeye; bu nesne ‘Ali Paşa zamânında oldı. Aşıkpaşazade (ed. Yavuz and Saraç), Tevarihi Ali Osman, 401–2. Aşıkpaşazade (ed. Giese), Tevarihi Ali Osman, 63–4. Aşıkpaşazade (ed. Atsız), Tevarihi Ali Osman, 138–9. Regarding Türk Rüstem's Karaman origins, an earlier passage states: Bir gün Kara Rüstem dirler-imiş bir dânişmend geldi, vilâyet-i Karaman'dan. Aşıkpaşazade, Tevarihi Ali Osman (ed. Yavuz and Saraç), 382. Aşıkpaşazade (ed. Giese), Tevarihi Ali Osman, 50. Aşıkpaşazade (ed. Atsız), Tevarihi Ali Osman, 128.

70 Bu ‘Ali Paşa bir zevvāk kişi-y-idi, ekser mürebbîleri de zevvāk oldılar ve kādılaruñ fesâdları zâhir oldı. Bir gün Bâyezîd Han eyitdi: “Kādıları getürüñ”. didi. Hayli fesâda mübâşir kādılar tutup getürdiler. Yiñişehir'de Bâyezîd Han bir eve koydurdı. Bâyezîd Han eyitdi: “Varuñ ol eve od uruñ, içinde kādılar bile yansun.” didi. ‘Ali Paşa hayrân u ‘âcîz kaldı bunlaruñ kurtulmasında. Meger Han'uñ bir nedîmi var-ıdı. Adına Mashara ‘Arab dirler-idi. ‘Ali Paşa anı kıgırdı, aña eydür: “Eger şol kādıları handan kurtaracak olursañ saña çok mal vireyüm.” didi. Andan Mashara ‘Arab sürdi, han huzûrına geldi. Eydür: “Hanum, beni İstanbil'a ilçilige göndür.” dir. Han eydür: “Bire devletsüz, anda İstanbol'da ne'ylersin?” dir. Arab eydür: “Varayum tekürden keşişler dileyelüm.” dir. Han eydür: “Bire keşişleri ne'ylersin?” dir. Arab dahı eydür: “Hanum, kādıları kıralum keşişler kadı olsun.” dir. Han eydür: “Bire it ‘Arab! Kadılıgı keşişlere virince kendü kullaruma virsemne!” dir. ‘Arab eydür: “Senüñ kullaruñ okumuş degüllerdür, bu keşişler hod okuyub nice yıllar zahmet çekmişlerdür.” Bâyezîd Han eydür: “Ya bire ‘Arab iş niçe olur?” Arab eyitdi: “Hanum! Anı pâdişâhlar bilür ve anlaruñ hallarunı ve kāllarunı ve ef’âllarunı.” Aşıkpaşazade (ed. Yavuz and Saraç), Tevarihi Ali Osman, 401–2. Aşıkpaşazade (ed. Giese), Tevarihi Ali Osman, 63–4. Aşıkpaşazade, Tevarihi Ali Osman (ed. Atsız), 138–9.

71 El-hasıl-ı kelam, Ali Osmanın günah etmesine sebeb Ali Paşa olmuş idi. Zira anın yanına hile eder Acem danişmendleri çok gelürler idi. Aşıkpaşazade (ed. Giese), Tevarihi Ali Osman, 63–4. Aşıkpaşazade (ed. Yavuz and Saraç), Tevarihi Ali Osman, 401–2. Aşıkpaşazade (ed. Atsız), Tevarihi Ali Osman, 138–9.

72 Şâh-ı Osmanî ki ‘adliydi Ömer / Bildi ki olur kadılar bî – dâdger / İşleri rüşvet dürür tağyir-i şer’ / Hiç añmazlar ne dürür asl u fer' / Dünyayiçün ki aña garekmez nazar / Hakkı batıl batılı hak dir bular / Cem' itdi kamusın sordurdı ol / Ne ki aldılar giru virdürdi ol / Garegince itdi anlar ceza / Yavuz işlüye yavuzlukdur sezâ / Cehd - ile bir zerre getürdi yola / Râstrûluk hod anlardan nice ola. Neşri (ed. Unat and Köymen), Cihannüma, vol. 1, f.101.b. Neşri (ed. Taeschner), Cihannüma, vol. 1, 92–3. Neşri (ed. Taeschner), Cihannüma, vol. 2, 141–2.

73 Lâtife: Bu âl-i Osman bir sadık soydur. Nâ-meşru' hareket itmezlerdi. ‘Ulema yasakdur didüğinden ictinab iderlerdi. Osman ve Orhan zamanında olan ‘ulemâ tezvirât, mefâsidden müberrâ idiler. Çünkü Kara Rüstem Karaman'dan geldi, hiyle ve bid'at hadis ola başladı. Ve kadılar dahi azub, ilimleriyle ‘amel itmeyüb rüşvet almağa başladılar. Çünkü suc başdan aşdı, Bayezid Han kadıları eftiş itdürüb, her birinde bir dürlü fesad bulub hükm idüb, ne kadar kadı varsa, bunları cem’ idüb Yiñi-Şehirde cümlesin bir eve toldurub buyurdı-ki, tolayına odun yığub od ura, tâki bu zâlim kadılar cümlesi yanalar. Hayreddin Paşa oğlı Ali Paşa ol vakıt vezir-i âzam idi. Mütehayyir olub bir târik bulmadı-ki halâs ide. Meğer Hunkâr'uñ bir mashara arabı varidi. Ali Paşa anı okuyub eytdi: “Arab, eğer bu kadıları halâs iderseñ, sana temam biñ flori vireyin” didi. Andan mashara arab varub, bir çapük fistan giyüb ve bir çapük babuc giyüb, kendüyi çeküb, çevirüb beğ-vâr sürüb Hunkâr'a varub, eytdi: “Ey-Han, beni İstanbul'a ilçilükle gönder.” Hunkâr eytdi: “Andan neylerin?” didi. Arab eytdi: “Varayın, Tekvur'dan rühbanlar dileyeyin.” Bayezid Han eytdi: “Bire devletsüz, rühbanları neylersin?” Arab eytdi: “Kadıları kıralum, rühbanları kadı idelüm” didi. Bayezid Han eytdi “Kadılığı rühbanlara virince(yedek) kullaruma virsemne” didi. Arab eytdi: “Kullaruñ okumuş değildur, cahildür. Bu rühbanlar hod nice yıllar ‘ilim tarikinde çalışub, tahsil itmişlerdür. Sen kadıları kırub, Kur'an'uñ ahkâmun giderürsüñ. İncil dahi hakdur, Bâri bu rühbanlar İncil ahkâmını ifa etsünler” didi. Hunkâr'a arabuñ bu sözi tesir idub eytdi: “Ya bire arab, hal nice olur, nice idelüm?” didi. Arab eytdi: “Ben kethüdâ değilüm. Anı paşalar bilür” didi. Neşri (ed. Unat and Köymen), Cihannüma, vol. 1, f.101.b–102.a. Neşri (ed. Taeschner), Cihannüma, vol. 1, 92–3. Neşri (ed. Taeschner), Cihannüma, vol. 2, 141–2.

74 İnalcık, “The rise of Ottoman historiography”, 164–5.

75 Ibid.

76 Ménage, “A survey of the early Ottoman histories”, vol. 1, 119–20.

77 Ménage, “A survey of the early Ottoman histories”, vol. 1, 260.

78 At least for the first two volumes of Kemalpaşazade's work, its main sources were Neşri and the Anonymous Histories. Kemalpaşazade (ed. Şerafettin Turan), Tevârih-i Âl-i Osman, 1970. Tevârih-i Âl-i Osman, I. Defter (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1970), 24Google Scholar. Kemalpaşazade, Tevârih-i Âl-i Osman (ed. Şerafettin Turan), 1983. Tevârih-i Âl-i Osman, II. Defter (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi), p. XXXIGoogle Scholar.

Figure 0

Table 1. The progression of names