Colin Heywood, Colin Imber (Eds) - Studies in Ottoman History

Studies in Ottoman History
Analecta Isisiana: Ottoman and Turkish Studies
A co-publication with The Isis Press, Istanbul, the series consists of

collections of thematic essays focused on specific themes of
Ottoman and Turkish studies. These scholarly volumes address
important issues throughout Turkish history, offering in a single
volume the accumulated insights of a single author over a career of
research on the subject.
Studies in Ottoman History
In Honor of Professor V.L. Ménage
Edited by
Colin Heywood
Colin Imber
The Isis Press, Istanbul preSS

2010
Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA
www.gorgiaspress.com
Copyright © 2010 by The Isis Press, Istanbul
Originally published in 1994
All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright
Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the
prior written permission of The Isis Press, Istanbul.
2010
ISBN 978-1-61719-903-5
Reprinted from the 1994 Istanbul edition.
Printed in the United States of America

CONTENT
Preface IX
Bibliography of the Works of Professor V. L. Ménage (1956-1991)

compiled by Colin Heywood XI
Jean-Louis Bacqué-Grammont, Sur quelques pèlerins et réfugiés d'Asie

Centrale dans l'Empire Ottoman 1
Nicoarä Beldiceanu et Irène Beldiceanu-Steinherr, Considérations sur la
chronologie des sources ottomanes et ses pièges 15
Géza Dâvid, Ottoman Administrative Strategies in Western Hungary 31
Cornell H. Fleischer, Between the Lines: Realities of Scribal life in the
Sixteenth Century 45
B. H. Flemming, The Sultan's Prayer Before Battle 63
Aldo Gallotta, Il «Gazavât-i Hayreddîn Pa$a » Pars Secunda e la

Spedizione in Francia di Hayreddîn Barbarossa (1543-1544) 77
Colin Heywood, An Unsolved Murder in the Marmara (Notes on Bodl.
MS. Turk. d. 32) 91
P. M. Holt, A Notable in an Age of Transition: Jânim Bey al-Hamzàwi

(d. 944/1538) 107
Colin Imber, Canon and Apocrypha in Early Ottoman History 117
Halil înalcik, How to Read 'Äshtk Pasha-Zäde 's History 139
CemaJ Kafadar, cOsmân Beg and his Uncle: Murder in the Family? 157
Machicl Kiel, Mevlana Ne§ii and the Towns of Medieval Bulgaria 165
Vin CONTENT
î. Metin Kunt, The Waqf as an Instrument of Public Policy: Notes on
the KöpriilU Family Endowments 189
Rudi Paul Lindner, Beginning Ottoman History 199
Anthony Luttrell, Timur's Dominican Envoy 209
Irène Mélikoff, Qui était San Saltuk ? Quelques remarques sur les
manuscrits du Saltukname 231
N. Oikonomides, From Soldiers of Fortune to Gazi Warriors: the

Tzympe Affair 239
Stephen W. Reinert, A Byzantine Source on the Battles ofBileéa (?) and

Kosovo Polje: Kydones ' letters 396 and 398 Reconsidered 249
Michael Rogers, The Palace, Poisons and the Public. Some Lists of
Drugs in mid- 16th Century Ottoman Turkey 273
Claudia Römer, On Some Hâss-Estates Illegally Claimed by Arslan

Pasa, Beglerbegi of Buda1565-1566 297
Peter Sebastian, Ottoman Government Officials and their Relations with
the Republic of Venice in the Early Sixteenth Century 319
Nicolas Vatin, Deux îles à la dérive: Samos et Icaria entre 1475 et 1572. 339
Gilles Veinstein, A propos des ehl-i hiref et du devfirme 351
Stéphane Yerasimos, Fatih: une région d'Istanbul aux XVe et XVIe

siècles 369
Elizabeth A. Zachariadou, The Worrisome Wealth of the Celnik Radié 383

PREFACE
The idea of producing a Festschrift in honour of Professor Ménage had its

origin in a conversation between its two present editors in the autumn of 1989.
It soon became apparent that, despite the immediate and enthusiastic acceptance
of the idea among a large number of potential contributors, the editors' original
objective of publishing the work on the occasion of the recipient's seventieth
birthday would have to be abandoned when it was discovered, by dint of delicate
enquiry, that this event would already fall to be celebrated in the spring of the
following year.
Since then, the undertaking has progressed to a point at which the editors
can look forward with pleasure to celebrating, although a little in advance, the
accomplishment of Professor Ménage's third quarter-century, and, on behalf of all
the contributors, to offering him, together with their warmest good wishes and
congratulations, the present volume.
The Festschrift which they now present could not have appeared without
the assistance of a number of people. In the first place the editors wish to record
their indebtedness to Sinan Kuneralp, who not only took on as his own
contribution the full charge and responsibility of printing and publishing the
work, but continually encouraged and facilitated the editors in their task and bore
with stoicism and good humour the out-of-course delays which have on occasion
impeded their progress. The editors' sincere thanks are also due to Dr. Caroline
Finkel for assistance in the earlier stages of the work, and to her and to Dr.
Andrew Finkel, and also to Dr. William Hale, for their ever-willing assistance as
unofficial couriers of manuscripts, floppy discs and proofs between London and
Istanbul. Finally, to his co-editor, Dr. Colin Imber, who in difficult times last
year shouldered single-handed the major burden of the second proof stage of the
work, the undersigned expresses his deepest thanks.
Wendover, Rùz-iHiZr 1994. Colin HEYWOOD

BIBLIOGRAPHY
OF THE WORKS OF PROFESSOR V. L. MÉNAGE*
(1956-1991)
compiled by
Colin Heywood
1956
Sidelights on the devskirme from Idris and S a ' d u d d l n .

In: 3S0AS, vol. xviii, part 1, pp. 181-183.
1958
'The M a p of Hajji A h m e d ' and its makers.

In: BSOAS, vol. xxi, part 2, pp. 291-314.
1960
1
M S Fatih 4205: an autograph of K e m a l - P a s h a z i d e ' s TevarltJL-i
Al-i 'Othman, book vii.
In: BSOAS, vol. xxiii, part 2, pp. 250-264.
2
Review of: A. Zajaczkowski, Najstarsza wersja turecka Husrav u Sirin Qutba.
Czfsdl-H. Warszawa: Polska Akademia Nauk, 1958.
In: BSOAS, vol. xxiii, part 3, pp. 593-594.
This bibliography contains books, edited works, articles, notices, contributions to collective
works and to the Encyclopaedia of ¡slam (the latter separately), and •significant' reviews. It does
not include a number of short reviews of a descriptive character.
xn BIBLIOGRAPHY
1962
1
The beginnings of Ottoman historiography.
In: Bernard Lewis and P. M. Holt (edd.), Historians of the Middle East,
pp. 168-179. (London: Oxford University Press).
Î Historical Writing on the Peoples of Asia, vol. IV.
1 Turkish translation (by Salih Özbaran; with some addenda), in: Tarih
Enstitäsä Dergisi, vol. ix (1978), pp. 227-240.
2
Review of: Irène Mélikoff, La geste de Melik Dânijmend: étude critique du
Dânifmendnâme. Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve, 1960.
In: BSOAS, vol. xxv, part 2, pp. 361-363.
1963
1
The Menàqib of Yakhsiu Faqïh.
In: BSOAS, vol. xxvi, part 1, pp. 50-54.
2
Kâtib Celebiana.
3
M ü s ! Celebi's ni&hân of 815/1412.
1964
1
N e g r i ' s History of the Ottomans: the sources and development
of the text.
London: Oxford University Press, xvi, 86 pp.
1 London Oriental Series, volume 16.
2
The Serpent Column in Ottoman sources.
In: Anatolian Studies, vol. xiv, pp. 169-173.
V. L. MÉNAGE xm
1965
1
Seven Ottoman documents from the reign of Mefyemmed II.
In: S. M. Stern (ed.), Documents from Islamic chanceries. First Series,
pp. 81-118 + 223-229 (= pi. xxx-xxxvi). (Oxford: Bruno Cassirer).
1 Oriental Studies, III.
2
The mission of an Ottoman secret agent in France in 1486.
In: JRAS, October 1965, pp. 112-132.
1966
1
Some notes on the devghirme.
In: BSOAS, vol. xxix, part 1, pp. 64-78.
2
Review of. Barbara Flemming, Landschaftsgeschichte von Pamphylien, Pisidien
und Lykien im Sptitmittelalter. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1964.
In: BSOAS, vol. xxix, part 2, pp. 383-384.
1967
On the recensions of U r u j ' s 'History of the Ottomans'.

In: BSOAS, vol. xxx, part 2, pp. 314-322.
1969
1
On the Ottoman word Affriyän / Afyiryân,
In: Archivum Ottomanicum, vol. i, pp. 197-212.
2
Review of: N. Beldiceanu, Code des lois coutumières de Mehmed II: Kitûb-i
qavänin-i'ötfiyye-i 'Osmänl Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1967.
In.: BSOAS, vol. xxxii, part 1, pp. 165-167.
3
Review of. G. L. Lewis, Turkish Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967.
In: BSOAS, vol. xxxii, part 1, pp. 167-169.
4
Review of: J. Matuz, L'ouvrage de Seyfi Çelebi, historien ottoman du xvie
siècle. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1968.
In: BSOAS, vol. xxxii, part 3, pp. 621-622.
XIV BIBLIOGRAPHY
1971
1
Three Ottoman treatises on Europe.
In: C. E. Bos worth (ed.), Iran and Islam. In memory of the late Vladimir
Minorsky, pp. 421-433. (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press).
2
Another text of Urui's Ottoman chronicle.
In: Der Islam, vol. xlvii, pp. 273-277.
3
Review of. Irène Beldiceanu-Steinherr, Recherches sur les actes des règnes des
Sultans Osman, Orkhan et Murad l. Monachii: Societas Academica Dacoromana,
1967.
In: BSOAS vol. xxxiv, part 1, pp. 153-155.
4
Review of. N. H. Biegman, The Turco-Ragusan relationship according to the
firmàns ofMuràdllI (1575-1595). The Hague and Paris: Mouton, 1967.
In: BSOAS, vol. xxxiv, part 2, p. 155.
1973
1
Editor's Preface.
In: Uriel Heyd, Studies in old Ottoman criminal law. Edited by V. L.
Ménage, pp. xi-xiv. (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
1 Edited, for posthumous publication.
2
Review of. S. Vryonis, Jr., The decline of medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor
and the process of islamization from the eleventh through the fifteenth century.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971.
In: BSOAS, vol. xxxvi, part 3, pp. 659-661.
3
Review of. Sir Gerard Clauson, An etymological dictionary of pre-thirteenth-
century Turkish. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.
In: BSOAS, vol. xxxvi, part 3, pp. 658-9.
1975
1
Sir Gerard Clauson, 1891-1973.
In: JRAS, 1975, part 2, pp. 215-217.
1 Obituary notice.
V. L. MÉNAGE XV
2
Review of: T. Kortantamer, Leben und Weltbild des altosmanischen Dichters
Ahmedi unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Türkei in Europa. Freiburg in
Breisgau: Klaus Schwarz Verlag, 1973.
In: BSOAS, vol. xxxviii, part 1, pp. 160-162.
3
Review of: G. Hazai, Das Osmanisch-Türkische im XVII. Jahrhundert.
Untersuchungen an den Transkriptionstexten von Jakab Nagy de Harsäny. The
Hague and Paris: Mouton, 1973.
4
Review of: H.-J. Kornrumpf, Osmanische-Bibliographie mit besonderer
Berücksichtigung der Türkei in Europa. Leiden and Köln: E. J. Brill, 1973.
In: BSOAS, vol. xxxviii, part 1, 164-165.
5
Review of. N. Beldiceanu, Recherche sur la ville ottomane au xve siècle: étude
et actes. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1973.
1976
1
Edirne'li Ruhi'ye atfedilen Osmanli tarihiaden iki parâ.
In: Ord. Prof. Ismail Hakki Uzungarfili'ya Armagan, pp. 311-33.
(Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu).
2
The 'Annals of M u r l d II'.
In: BSOAS. vol. xxxix, part 3, pp. 570-584.
3
An Ottoman manual of provincial correspondence.
In: Wiener Zeitschrift flr die Kunde des Morgenlandes, vol. lxviii, pp. 31-
45.
1977
1
Review of: G. Bayerle, Ottoman tributes in Hungary according to sixteenth
century tapu registers ofNovigrad The Hague and Paris: Mouton, 1973.
In: Orientalistische Literaturzeitung, vol. Ixxii, part 2, cols. 198-200.
XVI BIBLIOGRAPHY
2
Review of. Konstantin Mihailoviö, Memoirs of a Janissary. Translated by
Benjamin Stolz. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1975, and idem.,
Memoiren eines Janitscharen oder Türkische Chronik (tr. R. Lachmann). Graz,
etc.: Styria Verlag, 1975.
In: BSOAS, vol. xl, part 1, pp. 155-160.
3
Review of. Hasan Özdemir, Die altosmanischen Chroniken als Quelle zur
türkischen Volkskunde. Freiburg im Breisgau: Klaus Schwarz Verlag, 1975.
In: BSOAS, vol. xl, part 1, p. 216.
1978
1
Review of. Petra Kappert, Die osmanischen Prinzen und ihre Residenz Amasya
im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert. Leiden, Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch en
Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1976.
In: Bibliotheca Orientalis, vol. xxxv, pp. 5-6.
2
Review of. S. J. Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey.
Vol. 1. Empire of the Gans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.
In: BSOAS, vol. xli, part 1, pp. 160-162.
1979
1
The Islamization of Anatolia.
In: Nehemia Levtzion (ed.), Conversion to Islam, pp. 52-67, (New York
and London: Holmes & Meier Publishers, Inc.).
1 Collected papers from a seminar entitled 'Conversion to Islam', held
at SOAS in 1972-3.
2
The "Guru Nanak" inscription at Baghdad.
In: JRAS, 1979, part 1, pp. 16-21.
1980
1
The English capitulation of 1580: a review article.
In: 1JMES, vol. xii, part 3, pp. 373-383.
1 Review of: S. A. Skilliter, William Harborne and the trade with
Turkey, 1578-1582: a documentary study of the first Anglo-Ottoman
V. L. MÉNAGE XVÏÏ
relations. London: Oxford University Press for the British Academy,

1977.
2
Review of. A. H. de Groot, The Ottoman Empire and the Dutch Republic: a
history of the earliest diplomatic relations, 1610-1630. Leiden: Nederlands
Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1978.
In: BSOAS, vol. xliii, part 1, pp. 143-144.
3
Review of: Halil inaicik and Rhoads Murphey, The History of Mehmed the
Conqueror by Tursun Beg. Minneapolis and Chicago: Bibliotheca Islamica,
1978.
In: BSOAS, vol. xliii, part 1, pp. 144-145.
4
Review of: Hilmar Krüger, Fetwa und Siyar: zur internationalrechtlichen
Gutachtenpraxis der osmanischen $eyh iil-hläm vom 17. bis 19. Jahrhundert
unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des 'Behcet Ul-Fetävä'. Wiesbaden: Otto
Harrassowitz, 1978.
In: BSOAS, xliii, part 1, pp. 145-147.
1981
Review of: A. Tietze (ed. and tr.), Mustafa 'All's Counsel for Sultans. Part 1.
Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1979.
In: BSOAS. vol. xliv, part 2, pp. 382-384.
1 For a review of Part II of the work (1982) see 1984.
1982
'Preface' to Paul Wittek, La formation de l'Empire ottoman. Edited by V. L.

Ménage., pp. i-iv. (London: Variorum Reprints, iv, [360] pp.)
1 Edited, for posthumous publication.
1983
Review of: Brigitte Moser, Die Chronik des Ahmed Sinân Celebi genannt
Bihisti. Eine Quelle zur Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches unter Sultan
Bâyezid II. München: Dr. Rudolf Trofenik, 1980.
In: BSOAS, vol. xlvi, part 3, pp. 561-562.
xvm BIBLIOGRAPHY
1984
1
Review of. Petra Kappert (ed.), Geschichte Sultan Siileymän Känünis von 1520
bis 1577, oder Tabakät ül-Memälik ve Derecät Ül-Mesälik von Celälzäde
Mustafä, genannt Koca Nigänci. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1981.
In: BSOAS, vol. xlvii, part 1, pp. 154-157.
2
Review of. A. Tietze (ed. and tr.), Mustafa 'All's Counsel for Sultans. Part II.
Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1982.
In: BSOAS, xlvii, part 2, pp. 360-362.
1985
On the constituent elements of certain sixteenth-century Ottoman

documents.
In: BSOAS, vol. xlviii, part 2, pp. 283-304.
1987
Review of. A. C. Schaendlinger, Die Schreiben Süleymäns des Prächtigen an

Vasallen, Militärbeamte, Beamte und Richter. 2 vols. Wien: Österreichische
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1986.
In: BSOAS, vol. 1, part 3, 564-566.
1988
1
The Ottomaas and Nubia in the Sixteenth Century.
In: Annales Islamologiques, vol. xxiv, pp. 137-153.
2
The Giil-i sad-berg of Mesihi. In: Osmanli Araftirmalari, vol. vii-viii, pp. 11-
32.
1990
Review of: H. Gerber, Economy and society in an Ottoman city: Bursa, 1600-
1700. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, 1988.
In: BSOAS, vol. liii, part 1, pp. 143-145.
V. L. MÉNAGE XIX
1991
1
(with Martin Hinds) Qafr Ibrïm in the Ottoman period: Turkish and
further Arabic Documents.
xii, 134 pp. + 16 pp. plates. (London: Egypt Exploration Society).
1 Texts from Excavations (ed. W. J. Tait). Eleventh Memoir.
2
Review of. Sonia Anderson, An English consul in Turkey: Paul Rycaut at
Smyrna, 1667-1678. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.
In: BSOAS, vol. liv, part 1, pp. 449-451.
Articles in the Encyclopaedia of Islam (new edition):
1958: 'À§ik Celebi Elbasan

1959: Basàïr Celebi Enos
Beglerbegi Ergiri
Bigjän, Ahmed Ertoghrul
Bidlisi, Idris 1964: FeridünBeg
Bihishtl Firdawsî
1960: Ciwi-zäde 1965: Hadïdï
Corlu Hàdjdjï Bayräm Walï
1961: Devstiirme 1966: Hasan Bey-zâde
ßhu'1-Kadr Hibri
1962: ßia'far Celebi 1967: Husayn Hezârfenn
ßjaläl-zäde Mustafà Celebi 1975: Karafeiye
ßjandarli 1976: Karli-ïli
1963: Donanma Kcmâl Pasha-zâde
DraÈ Kerbenesh
Edremit
Egriboz
Jean-Louis BACQUÉ-GRAMMnNT
SUR QUELQUES PÈLERINS ET RÉFUGIÉS

D'ASIE CENTRALE
DANS L'EMPIRE OTTOMAN*
Nous rassemblons dans cette étude trois documents ottomans ™nservés

dans les Archives du Palais de Topkapi qui ont pour point commun de concerner
des personnages venus, pour des raisons variées et à des dates diverses, de
Transoxiane ou du Khorasan à Istanbul. Leur intérêt est de révéler la difficulté que
pouvait offrir pour les autorités ottomanes la vérification des propos des
intéressés, dès lors qu'ils avaient trait à des régions aussi lointaines que peu
familières et que leur formulation usait volontiers du on-dit ou de raccourcis
commodes pour leur objet. On gardera donc en mémoire le fait que, si des
chroniques narratives et des documents d'archives nous permettent aujourd'hui de
nous assurer çà et là de la vraisemblance de ces propos, les agents de la Porte aux
époques en question ne pouvaient guère compter que sur leur confirmation bien
aléatoire par d'autres réfugiés ou des marchands des caravanes s'ils voulaient
mener une enquête approfondie.
***
Le document E. 10042 est une requête, probablement autographe, d'un

joaillier ayant jadis assumé la responsabilité de la Monnaie dans les États du
souverain timouride de Samarcande Ahmad b. Abu Sa'îd (1469-1494) et tombé
depuis lors dans la misère. La "campagne d'Albanie" à laquelle il dit avoir pris
part doit être l'expédition qui, en 1499, aboutit à la conquête de Lépante, ce qui
permet de dater sa requête des premières années du XVI e siècle. En l'absence
d'autres précisions, on peut supposer que l'auteur s'était établi en territoire
ottoman en tant que joaillier et, en 1499, suivit l'armée du sultan non comme
combattant, mais pour exercer sa profession au sein du bazar qui l'accompagnait,
hypothèse renforcée par la nature du vol dont il fut alors victime et qui le réduisit
à la détresse financière.
La présente étude s'inscrit dans le programme de recherche de "Histoire et sciences auxiliaires de

l'histoire ottomane", commun à l'Unité de Recherche Associée n" 390 du Centre National de la
Recherche Scientifique et de l'Institut Français d'Études Anatoliennes d'Istanbul, et dirigé par
l'auteur.
2 J e a n - L o u i s B A C QU É - G R A M M O NT
À une époque où l'engouement pour les modes venues d'Asie Centrale

était encore vif chez les Ottomans et où le sultan Bâyazîd II versifiait volontiers
en tchaghatay, on aurait pu penser qu'un artisan hautement qualifié et venant de
Samarcande avait sa place dans les ateliers du Sérail ou à la Monnaie d'Istanbul.
Or, il apparaît que l'auteur ne leur offrit pas ses services à son arrivée en territoire
ottoman, ni de manière claire en rédigeant cette supplique qui vise plutôt à
l'octroi d'une pension.
E.10042
1 yiiz yere koyub ot siidde-i sâmiyyeniin gubâr-i tayyibesin çejm-i umide

iktihâl etmekden sonra 2 arz-i bende-ifakîr ol-dur kim nefs-i Semerkandliyum
asil seyyidiim Seyyid 'Atâa-llâh Tirmîzî ogliyum 3 Sultân Ahmed bin Sultan
Ebû Sa'îdun nefs-i §ehr-i Semerkandda 4arb-hânesi iizerinde ve mâl-i miite'allik
4 yérlerde emîni ve emiri cevherîsi idiim §ehir tâ'ûn olub on béf giin mikdâri
içinde 5 altmiçdan ziyâde cerna 'atum fevt olub j e h i r d e n kaçdum ki bir kaç giin
tâ 'ûn sâkin 6 ola gérii gelem deyii beg duyub hi$m édiib dutub habs etdi $ehirden
kimse kaçmadi 7 s en kaçub $ehriimi niçiin bozarsin deyii nâ-hakk yere yiiz elli
bin ¡âh-rujiî 8 akçam aldi hazret-i Uâca 'Ubayd"-llâh halâs édiib sali vérdi çikdum
kaçdum 9 dort yd mikdâri memleket memleket geziib taht-i Rûma yetifiib al-
hamdyi'-llâh gâzî 1 0 ve 'âdil pâdiçâh memleketine yetiçdiïm. deyii fiikiirler édiib
Arnâvud seferin bilece 1 1 etdiim tog ¡eddiimi1 ve niçe esbâb ki getiirdiim bir
géce oglanlarum aldi kaçdi gitdi 1 2 hîç vech-ile nesnem kalmadi fakîr oldum
pirlik dati yetiçiib sari'at miistagrak oldum 1 3 eliimde san'atum var ve
cevherîyiim ve hakkâkum ammâ gâyetde pîriim tâkatum yok miisliimân ve kâfir
14 sadak[at]undan yérler bu fakîri dahi hazret-û<sl( >
sa 'Met rûhi-içiin ve merhûm
magfûr sa'îd ve ¡ehid 1 5 babaii rûhi-içiin olsun sadak[atj un ve in'âmuh ile
miistagrak édiib devâm < 1 6 devletiin du'àsina mepgûl olam bâkî fermân ol
cenâb-i 'âlîniin-diir
Après qu'il ait prosterné le visage à terre et fait de la bonne poussière du

Seuil élevé le kohol enduisant l'espoir de ses yeux, ce qui est représenté
par l'humble serviteur est ce qui [suit].
Je suis de la ville de Samarcande et un noble seyyid, fils de Seyyid 'Atâ u -

llâh de Tirmî?2. J'étais l'intendant de la Monnaie de Sultân Ahmed, fils de
'Nous proposons cette lecture avec beaucoup de réserves et parce nous n'en trouvons pas de plus
satisfaisante. On peut supposer qu'il s'agit d'une ceinture d'étoffe dans laquelle l'auteur conservait
ses pierres précieuses.
^Tirmîz, sur la rive droite de l'Amou-darya, en aval de son confluent avec le Kamrûd — Surhan-
dargâ, avait été la capitale d'un royaume indépendant où régnait une dynastie de seyyid prétendant
descendre d'Alexandre le Grand. Abû Sa'îd (1451-1469), père de Sultân Ahmad, en avait déposé le
dernier roi — §âh Sultân Muhammad — épousé sa fille et annexé ses États. Il est vraisemblable
que si sa famille avait eu quelque lien avec cette prestigieuse lignée, l'auteur n'aurait pas manqué
d'en faire mention.
PÈLERINS ET R É F U G I É S D'ASIE CENTRALE 3
Sultân Abû Sa'îd, dans la ville de Samarcande et les lieux qui en

dépendaient, et son grand joaillier. La ville subit la peste. En quinze jours,
plus de soixante de mes gens moururent. Je m'enfuis de la ville en pensant
revenir quelques jours plus tard, quand la peste se serait apaisée. Le bey 3
l'apprit, se mit en colère et m'incarcéra. "Personne ne s'est enfui de la ville
et toi, tu as fui. Pourquoi sèmes-tu la panique dans ma ville ?" dit-il, et il
me prit injustement cent cinquante mille aspres ¡âh-ruhi. Monsëigneur
Hâca 'Ubayd u -llâh 4 me sauva et me libéra bientôt. Je partis et m'enftiis 5 .
Quatre années durant, j'allai de pays en pays et atteignis le trône du pays
de Roum. "Louange à Dieu, je suis arrivé dans le pays du Souverain juste,
combattant de la Foi" dis-je, je rendis grâce et fis même la campagne
d'Albanie avec lui. Une nuit, mes garçons m'ont pris ma ceinture pleine
ainsi que quelques affaires que j'avais apportées et se sont enfuis. Il ne
m'est rien resté d'aucune manière, je chus dans la pauvreté, la vieillesse
m'avait atteint et je fus submergé par l'abattement. Ma main est habile, je
suis joaillier et graveur de pierres fines, mais extrêmement vieux et n'ai
plus de force. Musulmans et mécréants jouissent de tes aumônes. Pour
l'âme bienheureuse de Monseigneur [le Prophète] et pour l'âme, sur
laquelle s'étend la miséricorde et le pardon, de ton père bienheureux,
martyr de la Foi 6 , cet humble que voici, submerge-le aussi de ton aumône
et de ta faveur et je me consacrerai à prier pour la perpétuation de ta
fortune,
Quant au reste, l'ordre appartient à cette sublime Seigneurie.
***
Le document E.2575 est un procès-verbal des déclarations faites à la Porte

par un personnage arrêté à Alanya par les autorités ottomanes, puis amené dans
l'une des forteresses des Dardanelles pour y être incarcéré. Les points de repère
fournis par le contenu permettent d'en dater la rédaction de 1540 environ. Quant
aux faits reprochés à l'intéressé, rien n'en est dit nulle part et aucun indice ne
permet même de les deviner. Il s'agit là, d'ailleurs, d'une question bien secondaire
en comparaison de celle de l'identité de l'auteur. En effet, celui-ci se présente
comme un mîrzâ timouride de haut lignage et dont on ignorait jusqu'ici
Nous supposons qu'il s'agit du Premier minisire dont le nom n'aurait rien évoqué pour la Porte,
mais dont la durée des fonctions aurait permis de dater plus précisément l'épidémie de peste dont il
est question.
^Fameux cheik nakfbundî, mort en 895/1491. Maître et directeur de conscience de Sultân Ahmad
Mîrzâ qui ne semble guère avoir agi sans ses avis, cf. [Babur], Annette Susannah Beveridge, The
Bâbur-nùma in English, Londres, 1922, pp. 33-34.
•'On peut accueillir cette version des faits avec quelque scepticisme. La faute de l'auteur étant,
somme toute, vénielle et l'amende fort élevée, la protection de l'influent Hâca 'Ubayd'-llâh aurait
dû suffire à l'absoudre et à lui éviter l'exil. Il nous semble que le joaillier ne dit pas tout ce qu'on
souhaiterait savoir.
®Mehmed le Conquérant, décédé le 3 mai 1481 alors qu'il partait en campagne, ce qui justifie
l'épithète de çehîd.
4 Jean-Louis B ACQUÉ-GRAMMONT
l'existence : Sâlih b. B a d P ' - z z a m â n , soit un petit-fils de Sultân Husayn Mîrzâ

Baykara, l'illustre prince-poète d e Hérat qui régna sur le Khorasan de 1469 à
1506. Si l'on en doute—il y a d e sérieuses raisons pour cela—et s'il s'agit d'un
imposteur, ce Sâlih se montre en tout cas remarquablement informé des faits qu'il
relate et de leur enchaînement. Se non è vero... De prime abord, l'ensemble donne
l'illusion de la vraisemblance et, certains faits peu connus qui y sont rapportés
trouvant confirmation dans les sources les plus dignes de crédit, on pourrait
préjuger favorablement de la réalité de plusieurs autres dont on ne sait rien.
Toutefois, un examen plus attentif laisse apparaître des erreurs et anachronismes
si flagrants que la crédibilité du personnage s'en trouve nettement amoindrie.
Quelle que soit l'identité réelle de Çâlih, il nous a semblé qu'il convenait d'attirer
l'attention sur l'énigme que pose le document E.2575 et sur la contribution qu'il
pourrait éventuellement apporter à notre connaissance d'une période
particulièrement tumultueuse dans la vaste zone allant de l'Inde gangétique à la
Mésopotamie.
Il convient tout d'abord de relever et de souligner d i v e r s points

remarquables du texte. Au sujet des vicissitudes des descendants de Sultân Husayn
Baykara après qu'ils eurent été chassés de Hérat par les Ôzbeks au printemps de
1507, on dispose de données assez détaillées, grâce à Hând Amîr qui vécut dans
leur entourage, notamment celui de Muhammad-i Zamân Mîrzâ. On rappellera
brièvement qu'au terme de quelques errances, B a d î e u - z z a m â n , successeur de
H u s a y n Baykara et co-roi du Khorasan avec son frère M u i a f f a r Mîrzâ, alla
finalement retrouver ses partisans à Astarâbâd où il exerça le pouvoir pendant une
année environ. En 1508, la menace d'une offensive des Ôzbeks l'amena à aller se
placer sous la protection de Çâh tsma'îl. Après une vaine tentative de reconquête
d'Astarâbâd, il se rendit effectivement en Inde — c o m m e le dit Sâlih—, séjourna
plus d'une année dans le Sind et revint à la cour safavide en 919/1513. La suite
est bien connue : lorsque Selîm 1 e r occupa Tabriz en septembre 1514, il y trouva
B a d î e u - z z a m â n , le traita honorablement et le ramena à Istanbul. Le prince y
mourut de la peste l'année suivante. Jusqu'à ce point, le récit de Sâlih concorde
avec celui de Hând Amîr.
Quant à la carrière aventureuse de Muhammad-i Zamân, fils bien connu de

B a d î e u - z z a m â n , elle se trouve résumée par S â l i h avec nombre d'erreurs et
d'omissions suspectes. Ces dernières pourraient éventuellement s'expliquer par le
fait qu'à bien des égards, ce frère turbulent ne pouvait guère constituer une
caution morale auprès des autorités ottomanes. Mais, d'un autre point d e vue, il
avait causé tant d'ennuis à §âh Isma'îl qu'avec le recul du temps, la Porte, si elle
avait gardé le souvenir de ces lointaines affaires, pouvait n'avoir point trop d e
réserves quant à cet adversaire de son ennemi. Possédé par l'ambition de se tailler
un royaume et d'y régner au nom de la légitimité timouride, Muhammad-i Zamân
ne put jamais parvenir à ses fins c o m m e son cousin Bâbur. Les procédés assez
voisins employés dans ce but par l'un et par l'autre furent comptés à celui qui
réussit comme le fait d'un politique habile et d'un grand capitaine—ce qu'il était
réellement—, au malchanceux comme les menées condamnables d'un dangereux
trublion. Pour Sâlih, déjà suspect aux yeux des autorités ottomanes, il aurait
peut être été peu judicieux de s'étendre sur la carrière d'un tel frère. Aussi celle-ci
est-elle hâtivement rapportée, et seulement jusqu'aux troubles successoraux qui
éclatèrent en Inde moghole à la mort de Bâbur, survenue en décembre1530.
Ces observations préliminaires étant faites, il faut en venir à l'essentiel :

Sâlih est-il réellement un fils oublié de Badî eu -zzamân ? Le fait qu'aucun mîrzâ
timouride de ce nom n'est signalé par les sources du temps inciterait à répondre
par la négative. De plus, les témoignages de Bâbur—qui connaissait fort bien ses
cousins de Hérat depuis la visite qu'il leur avait rendue en 1506—et de Jiând
Amîr sont formels : au terme des sept ou huit années qui suivirent la mort de
Husayn Baykara, soit vers 1515, aucun des descendants mâles de ce dernier ne
survivait, à l'exception de Muhammad-i Zamân 7 . Peut-être pourrait-on arguer
que, malgré le soin scrupuleux qu'il apporte dans ses mémoires à retracer les
généalogies et alliances de ses parents timourides et gengiskhanides complétées
par des listes d'épouses et de concubines, Bâbur en omet parfois quelques-uns.
Nous avons ainsi trouvé une attestation concernant un frère de Badî^-zzamân, qui
vivait à Bagdad en 1520 8 . Mais, dans le cas qui nous intéresse ici, Sâlih se
présente comme un parent que le futur Grand Mogol aurait personnellement
connu à l'époque où il était roi de Kaboul et auquel il aurait attribué, à l'est de
cette ville, le petit gouvernorat de L a g m â n — L a m g â n — L a k m â n . Dans ces
conditions et même si Sâlih était alors encore jeune, il paraît bien extraordinaire
que le Bâbur-nâma ne fasse mention de lui à aucun moment. Pas plus d'ailleurs
les mémorialistes mogols contemporains des aventures indiennes de Muhammad-
i Zamân 9 . D'autre part, Sâlih commet des erreurs de chronologie troublantes. À
l'évidence, Muhammad-i Zamân demeura à Balh plus de deux années puisqu'on le
Annette Susannah Beveridge, The Bâbar-Nàma (facsimile), E.J.W. Gibb Memorial Series, J,
Londres, 1905, ff. 169V-170r : Sultan Mîrzâdek uluk pâdisûh Heridek Isiàm }ahrmin pâdijâhi bu
'acab tur kim bu on tori o^hdm iiçi vaiai? ziinâ émes idiftsk vafucûr ozide va oglanlunda avû'il va
ulusida kesîr va fà'i' idi ufbu aluriun ¡amàudin idi kim mundak uluk tànevàdadm yetti sekkiz. yiìda <
bir Muhamnuid-i Zamân Mîrzûdm iiiRe usar va 'aiónuit kulmadt ; [WS] Hànd Amîr, Tarìjx-e habib'-
ssiyar, IV, Téhéran, 1333 H.Ç. / 1955, p. 394 : çûn Soltûn Badî °-zzômân dûman-e hemmat bar
ulam-efanû afsûnd ai vey yek pesaryâdRÛr mûnd va-ht>v'-sstHtân°-t- azim' ^ân Mirzâ Mohammad-e
Zamân.
o
Document E.5599 des Archives de Topkapj dans nos [Oi], Les Ottomans, les Safavides et leurs
voisins. Contribution à l'histoire des relations internationales dans l'Orient islamique de 1514 à
1524, Publications de l'Institut historique et archéologique néerlandais d'Istanbul, LVI, 1987, pp
258, 265 et note 951.
9
The Tezkereh al vakiât, or private Memoirs of the Moghul Emperor Humayun, written in the
Persian Language by Jouher, a confidential domestic of His Majesty, translated by Major Charles
Stewart, Londres, 1932 ; Giilbeden, Hiimayunnâme, çev. Abdiirrub Yelgar ve Eymen Manyas,
Publications de la Société d'Histoire Turque, Ankara, 1944. Il en va de même pour [Abû-l-fa?l] The
Akbarnamu of Abu-l-fazl, translated from the Persian by H. Beveridge, 1, Bibliotheca Indica, New
Series, n° 910, Calcutta, 1897.
6 J e a n - L o u i s B A C Q U É - G R A M M O NT
voit attesté comme gouverneur du pays de 1517 à 1S24 ou 152S. Il vécut ensuite
en Inde plus de huit années avant de se révolter contre Humâyûn. Enfin, Bâbur
l'avait fait gouverneur du Bihâr et non de "Bicânegerd", soit Vijayanagar, dans le
sud de l'Inde, qui ne fut jamais en son pouvoir. On peut, certes, objecter que si $
âlih demeura dans les montagnes afghanes, il pouvait ignorer à la fois la
géographie de l'Inde et la carrière exacte d'un frère qu'il ne revit peut être jamais
après leur fuite de Bactriane. Ou que la durée des séjours qu'il fit lui-même à
BalJi, dans le Kaboul et éventuellement en Inde ne coïncida pas avec ceux de
Muhammad-i Zamân. On objectera surtout en faveur de la véracité des dires de S
âlih qu'il mentionne un détail fort peu connu, sinon par la chronique d'Abû-l-
fa?l : la défaite de 'Askarî Mîrzâ devant les Hazaras et les Negiider. Si cette
mention des Hazaras et des affaires du Kandahâr semble plaider pour Sâlih, ceci
ne va cependant pas sans quelques réserves. En effet, selon Abû-1-fazl, il s'agit
d'un événement survenu, d'après le contexte, en 1531 ou 1532. Or, les sources
mogoles s'accordent pour placer la révolte de Muhammad-i Zamân et, partant,
l'éventuel affrontement entre 'Askarî et Sâlih, en 1533. Même si elle ne joue que
sur quelques mois, celte divergence doit être soulignée.
La suite du récit de Sâlih recèle d'autres points inconciliables avec ce qu'on

sait par d'autres sources. Ainsi, Hoseyn Hân §âmlû, lâlâ de Sâm Mîrzâ, frère
puîné de Tahmâsb et gouverneur général du Khorasan, ne fut en fonctions auprès
du prince que de 1524 à 1528. On voit donc mal comment Sâlih, parti de ses
montagnes afghanes entre 1531 et 1533, aurait pu passer à Hérat, comme
mohrdâr de Sâm, deux années à l'issue desquelles Hoseyn Hân, en résidence
auprès de Tahmâsb en tant quamîr°-l-omarâ à partir de 1531, aurait refusé de le
livrer à Humâyûn. De plus, aucune des sources safavides que nous avons
consultées ne fait mention d'un Sâleh Mîrzâ 10 .
Le séjour de Sâlih à Bagdad fournit un point de chronologie précis

puisqu'on sait qu'à l'approche de l'armée de Soliman, le gouverneur safavide
évacua précipitamment la place à la fin de novembre 1534. Dès lors, il est aisé de
suivre et de dater le récit de l'auteur, d'une vraisemblance d'autant plus nécessaire
que les autorités ottomanes étaient en mesure d'en vérifier directement les divers
épisodes arrivée dans le Diyâr Bekir au printemps de 1535 et, peu après, à
Istanbul, au Kurkçii Mani (Mahmûd Pa$a kârbân-sarayi), installation à Alanya
vers 1536 et séjour de trois années, ce qui permet de dater le document E.2575 dé
1540 environ. La partie ottomane de la biographie de Sâlih suscite aussi, il est
vrai, d'autres interrogations. Pourquoi ce personnage, manifestement assez riche,
accomplit-il ces nombreux voyages, souvent dans des villes marchandes et même
" V a s même VAfial° ttavâriji de Fazlî Esfahânî, British Library, ms. Or. 4678, qui contient
pourtant des informations très détaillées sur le Khorasan à cette époque, notamment l'énumération
des principaux fonctionnaires en poste à Hérat à chaque changement de gouverneur ou de lâlâ.
en territoire ennemi ? À l'époque en question, Chypre était toujours vénitienne

et Venise en guerre contre la Porte...
En définitive, qui était donc Sâlih ? Un authentique mîrzâ timouride dont

l'obscure carrière se déroula dans le sillage plus remarquable de Muhammad-i
Zamân ou dans l'oubli d'une insignifiante bourgade afghane ? Un habile
imposteur ? Mais, dans ce dernier cas, la précision de divers épisodes relatés
suggère que l'homme dut en avoir une connaissance directe avant de les
amalgamer avec adresse dans le récit qu'on vient de voir. Dans l'état actuel de
notre documentation, nous ne saurions nous prononcer avec certitude pour aucune
des deux hypothèses, mais il nous a semblé que l'affaire Sâlih méritait au moins
d'être exposée.
E.2S75
1 bundan evvel emr-i pâdi$âhî-ile mahfûz olan Èedî'u-zzamân ogh

Muhammed Sâlih kendii ahvâlin takrîr édiib fôyle beyân etdi ki ben Bedî"-
2 zzamânuh sulb oghyum ol zamân-ki atam BedVu-zzamân Hirât ¡ehrinde Keçe
Baçdan sinub Esterâbâda geldi ve vâlidem ki ¡iâca Muwffer 3 Bedekci kizi-dur bu
fakîr ol hâtûndan fogdum ¡onra babam BedV"-zzamân diyâr-i Hinde du$di tic yd
mikdân gezdi ba'deh" $âh isma'ît yantna 4 Tebrîze geldi iki yd mikdâri durdi
sonra Sultân Selîm ¡jjrn Tebrîze geldiikde mezkûr babam BedVu-zzamâni
fstânbûla getiirdi bir yildan 5 sonra bu kemîne ve karindaçum Muhammed"-
zzjamân ki b'-l-fi'il diyâr-i Bicânegerdde hâkimdiir §âh fsma'île bile geldiik $âh
fsma 'il diyâr-i Balhi bize 6 vériib anda varduk iki yd mikMn anda durduk bad'eh"
Keçe Bafdan bir beg kim Kesten Kara demek-le me$hûr-dur geliib Balhi 1 bizden
aldi andan miinhezim olub Kandahâra varduk Bâburjtlan kim babam ile 'ammû
oglanlari-dur anun yantna varduk mezbûr 8 Bâbur ¡¿an bizi dutub
kanndaçuma kendii ktzin verdi bu kemîneye Kandahâr kurbtndaki Lahnân demek-
le meçhûr sancak 9 vérdi Hindi feth eyledi mezbûr kanndaçum Muhammed"-
zzamâna Bîcânegerd sancagini verdi sekiz yil mikdâri sâkin olduk 10 mezbûr
Bâbur Hanfevt olub iiç ogh kaldi biri Humâyûn biri Kâmrân biri 'Askeri mezkûr
karindaium Bâbur Han ogullanna 11 itâ'at etmeyiib Bâbur Hanuh iki ogh
Hiimâyûn ile Kâmrân karindaçum iizerine vardilar ve 'Askeri nâm bir ogh
uzerume geliib 12 kemîne dahi miinhezim olub ba 'dehu Hezâre ve Nûkder demek-
le mefhûr bir tâ'ife bu fakîre mu'âvenet édiib 'Askerîniin iizerine varub 13 biz
gâlib olub 'Askeri kaçub on giin mikdâri Kandahâr koylerini lârâc eyleduk andan
Hprâsâna geldiik Sâm ki $ûh 14 lsma'îl ogh-dur iki yd mikdân miihiirdâri
oldum sonra Kandahârdan bu fakîri istemege geldiler Hiiseyn U.an $âmlu ki
15 Sâmuii lalasi-dur bu fakîri ele vérmedi andan Bagdâda geldum terk-i 'alâ'ika
edtib varub Mekke-i §erîfe-i mu'atzemede 16 miicâvir olam ol hînde Bagdâd
kâkimi ¡¡eref-ddîn ogh Muhammed Han bu kemîneye mâni' olub koyu vérmedi
ol esnâda devletlii 17 pâdifâh hairetleri Tebrîzden Bagdâda geliib mezkûr
Muhammed Han bu fakîri bile alub Basra yolmdan Kûm ve Kejâna iletdi sora
devletlii 18 pâdifâh hairetleri Bagdâddan Tebrîze geldUklerinde bu kemîne bir
8 Jean-Louis B AC QU É-GR AMM ON T
cemâ'at-i tiiccâr-ile Diyâr Bekre geldiim andan Kayseriyyeye geldiim andan

Ankaraya 19 ve ba'deh" Bûrsaya ve Istânbûla geldiim Mahmûd Pa§a kârbân-
sarayinda iki ay mikdâri sâkin oldum soUra Kanber 'Alî nâm bir kulum
20 mezkûr kârbân-sarayda ve bir mukaffel hiicrede koyub Sinôba gecUb andan
Kefeye varub tic ay mikdâri Kefede durdum 21 sonra Mekke niyyetine Kefeden
geltib Antâliyyaya andan 'Alâ'iyyeye geliib anda iic yd mikdâri durdum bu
miiddet içinde 22 bir kerre Tra-bûlusa ve bir defa Ktbrtz atasina gecdiim eltimde
bir mikdâr dtinyâ kalmiçdi bu mâli Allah yolina tflrc etdum bu [vjech-ile
23 tekâ'iid ihtiyâr édtib sâkin olurken Antâliyya sancagi begi Toygun Beg emr
mûcibince teft[î]} édiib vuku 'i iizere der-i devlete 24 'arz édUb sonra Ayas Beg
dahi emr-ile teftî§ édiib Gelîbôlîya bile getiiriib Bogaz Hisâri kal'esinde habs emr
olub 25 hâliyf" emr-i ¡erif-le astân-i sa'Met turâbina gelindi
Muhammed Sâlih, fils de Bedî'ii-zzamân, qui était précédemment détenu

sur ordre impérial, a fait une déposition sur sa situation et exposé ce qui
[suit].
Je suis le fils légitime de Bedî'"-zzamân. Lorsque mon père Bedî' u -zzamân

fut vaincu dans la ville de Hérat par les Têtes-de-feutre", il alla à
Eslerâbâd 12 . Quant à ma mère, qui est la fille de Hâca Muzaffer Bedekci,
cet humble que je suis naquit de cette dame'-\ Ensuite, mon père Bedî'"-
' ' L e s Ô z b e k s de §aybani i i a n s emparèrent en mai 1307 de Hérat q u e Badî' u -zzamân et ses frères
s'étaient révélés incapables de défendre. Sur le terme 'Têtes-de-feutre" ou "Têtes-vertes" par lequel
les O t t o m a n s désignaient habituellement les Ôzbcks à cette époque, voir OS, note 71, pp. 42-43.
D'après HS, p. 390, Badî' u -zzainân se dirigea d'abord vers Kandahâr où § â h Çucâ' Argun lui fit le
plus mauvais accueil. C'est seulement ensuite que les fils de H u s a y n Mîrzâ c o n v e r g è r e n t vers
Astarâbâd d'où ils purent gouverner encore une année la partie occidentale du Khorasan.
' • ' D ' a p r è s Babur, p. 279, la mère de M u h a m m a d - i Z a m â n était une fille d e T a h a m - t a n Bég,
présenté c o m m e t u r k m è n e et qui, A après ce q u e laisse c o m p r e n d r e le contexte, devait être un
Akkoyunlu venu se mettre au service de Husayn Baylçara. Sâlih était donc issu J ' u n e autre mère,
e l l e - m ê m e née d'un personnage bien attesté. Si i i â n d Amîr ne parle pas du mariage de B a d î ' u -
zzamân avec une fille de H â c a M u i a f f a r Bedekci/Bitikçi, il n'en mentionne pas moins à diverses
reprises ce dernier avec l'épithète de vuiiûb-e xoltânî \eyf°~l-anâmî. H â c a Mufciffar, n o t a b l e
d'Astarâbâd, était venu se mettre au service de §3h Îsma'îl au début de la c a m p a g n e de M a r v , en
1510, et reçut dans les années suivantes la responsabilité d e diverses missions d e c o n f i a n c e ,
notamment dans le Mâzandarân el auprès d'Amîr Hân Mowsellû. L'habileté qu'il y déploya lui valut
en 1518 le titre de hân, cf. [AT] Hasan Beyg Rûmlû, Ahsan'-tiavârîh., éd. ' A b d M - h o s e y n Navâ'î,
Téhéran, 1357 H . § „ pp. 151, 163, 1 % ; HS, pp. 572, 590. À la fin d e l'été de 1514, son frère
aîné, H â c a G i y â s l l - d d î n 'Alî Bitikci, vint, à la tête du cortège des notables d'Astarâbâd, rendre
h o m m a g e à Muhammad-i Z a m â n Mîrzâ lorsque celui-ci s'empara de la ville. M u h a m m a d - i Z a m â n le
n o m m a divan emîri et c o n f é r a à son fils Ebn-e Yamîn Beyg la charge de pervdneci, cf. op. cil., p.
395. Les Bitikçi étaient des notables d'Astarâbâd qui, du t é m o i g n a g e m ê m e d e H.&nd A m î r ,
entretenaient de longue date des liens étroits avec les T i m o u r i d e s d e Hérat auxquels certains de
leurs m e m b r e s demeurèrent ainsi fidèles jusqu'au t e r m e d e leur fortune. Sans rien apporter d e
décisif pour la question qui nous occupe, ceci montre q u e le mariage de Badî' u -zzamân avec la fille
d'un représentant distingué d e la famille Bitikçi n'est pas invraisemblable. On notera avec intérêt
qu'un autre fils de H â c a M u t a f f a r n o m m é S â l i h — c e ism étant donc attesté dans la f a m i l l e — m e n a
une révolte contre T a h m â s b à Astarâbâd en 9 4 4 / 1 5 3 7 - 1 5 3 8 et fit aussitôt acte de soumission au
khan ozbek d u H_ârezm, ' U m a r C â z î Sultan L'intervention militaire d e ce dernier lui p e r m i t
PÈLERINS ET RÉFUGIÉS D'ASIE CENTRALE 9
zzamân descendit vers le pays de l'Inde, qu'il parcourut pendant trois

années 1 4 . Après cela, il vint à Tabriz, auprès de §âh tsma'îl. Il y resta
deux années' 5 . Ensuite, lorsque Sultân Selîm Han vint à Tabriz, il amena
à Istanbul mon susdit père Bedî'°-zzamân16.
d'occuper la ville avant qu'une offensive de l'ancien gouverneur safavide §adr°-ddîn ûân OstScelû,
replié sur Bestâm depuis l'inlervention kharezmienne, ne l'en chasse en ramai&n 944 / février
1538, cf. AT, pp. 367-369. Sur MSca Mufcaffar Bitikçi, voir aussi Maria Szuppe, Entre Timourides,
Uzbeks et Safavides. Questions d'histoire politique et sociale de Hérat dans la première moitié du
XVIe siècle, Studia Iranica, cahier 12, Paris, 1992, p. 158 et notes.
I 4 t f 5 , p. 394, confirme qu'après avoir quitté le GorgSn en 1508 lois de l'offensive des Ôzbeks et
être demeuré quelque temps à Reyy. en territoire safavide, Badf'-zzamfin alla passer plus d'une
année dans le Sind (liyâde bar yek-sâl dur miyân-e Sendiyân be-sar borde), d'où il revint en
919/1513 pour se mettre sous la protection de §âh Isma'îl. Si l'on admet qu'il avait quitté Reyy en
1509, ce séjour aurait donc duré un peu plus de trois années. Il apparaît que Sâlih aurait ici raison
contre le chroniqueur.
'•"D'après HS, loc. cit., on comprend que Badi'"-zzamân dut rejoindre Çâh Isma'îl dans le Khorasan
à la fin de sa deuxième campagne contre les Ôzbeks et peu avant son retour vers Ispahan. Il se
retira ensuite à Tabriz dans des conditions de séjour très honorables : dar fohûr-e sune-ye tes ' ô
a¡r ò tes'ame'e dar Horâsân be astân-e malâyek-âjyân reside malhût-e 'eyn-e eltefât gardid va
maffiûb-e ordû-ye keyhân-pûy be Aiarbâycân rafi va dar ân mamléuu az amr-e molâzemat este'fâ
nomûd va novvûb-e kâmyâb-e ¡òhi moltames-e ân hairut-râ be-'ezz-e ecâbat-e aktarân dûde
mokarrar }(>d ke Badi»zzamân Mirzâ dar $anb-e ùûzûn mutavaffen bâjad va divâniyûn-e Tabriz hur
rûz mablag-e hezâr dinar dar vach e madad-e ma 'âye û sar-ancâm nomâyand.
1 6 tfS, p. 394 : dar racab-e sane-ye a¡rm va te¡'ame'e ke pâdefâh-e Rûm Solfân Saltm banû-bar-e
ektezâ-ye mâlek'-l-molk-e vâceb'-tta'tîm be Tabrtz resîd Mîrzâ Badï°-zamân-râ tabcil ô takrîm
nomûde ham-râh-e hodbe-Estânbûl bord va Soltân Badi''-zzamân ba'daz se çakâr mâh ke dar ân
mamlakal owkât go¡aráníd be-ma n-e tâ 'ûn ¡tereftâr gardid. Celâ-zâde Muçtafù, Me 'âsir-i Selîm Uâni,
British Library, ms. Add 7848, f° 147v, donne de l'événement un récit dont la sécheresse
laisserait supposer que l'ancien souverain fut traité comme un prisonnier : mâh-t receb-i mesfûruû
yigirmi iiçiinci giini (13 septembre 1514) sâbtkâ ¡,âh-t Horâsân olan Bedî'"-zzamân Mîrzâ ile
Horâsândan gelmi¡ erbâb-i hirfeti sürgiin édiib ve iizerlerine kullar kmtilub sa'âdet û ikbâl ile al
mahallden ¡eref-i miirâca'at olundi. [HÇ] Haydar Çelebî, "Journal", in Ferîdûn Beg, Munge'âfi-
sselûtîn. I, Istanbul, 1274/1858, p. 463, confirme la date mais, sans commentaire particulier,
range le prince parmi les déportés : <jûh-i giim-râh Horâsândan Tebrîze sUrdigi ustâdân-i ehl-i hiref
ve sû 'ir tûccâr ve miitemewelân Horâsân pádi¡J}hi tifili Bedî'"-zzamân Mîrzâ sâ'ir nâmdâr
kimesneler-le mahrûse-i Istânbûla suriilmek emr olundi. En revanche, s'appuyant
vraisemblablement sur le témoignage direct de son père Hasan Cân, Sa'd".ddîn, Tâca-ttevârîii H,
Istanbul, 1280/1863, p. 283, narre l'affaire d'une façon différente, mais pèche en alléguant de
mauvais traitements subis par le souverain déchu de la part du chah, dont il semble que le seul but
soit de mettre en valeur, par contraste, la générosité du sultan ottoman : Emîr Tîmûr Han neslinden
Horâsân pûdifâht olan Sultân Hii.wyn Baykara agli Mîrzâ Béât'"-zzamân ki istiklâl iizere Horâsân
pâdifâki ohms-dur ve Mevlânâ litici ve Emîr Nevâ'îve sâ'ir efâitl-i 'Acem nânu ile tasmflerin lasdîr
ve evsâf-t cemîlesin tafirirlerin dîbâcesinde tufvîr étmifler-dûr tekâlîb-i devâlîb-i rikgâr-ile
tajitgâhindan ciidâ olub Tebrîze gelmi¡di ve kahr-t dil-hirâf-i Ktztlhaj-i biin-tîzî (nous hésitons à
comprendre ce que l'auteur veut probablement dire) cigerin delmi¡-idi jeref-i miilâzemet-i dergâh-i
pâdiiâhi birle miibâh! olub mezîd-i nevàzig û i'zâzlan-ile ser-efrâz oidi ve yevnii biñ 'osmânî
vaiîfe ta 'yîn buyurub sâye-i nevâllerinde ¡¡.ôs-hâl etdiler mahrûse-i istanbûla funûf-t huiûr ù hubûr
ile geldükde Istanbul tâ'ûm tehniyyet-i kudúma miibâderet édiib hazret-i Ebî Eyyûb Anfâri radiy"
'anh'-l-bârî merkadi civârmda yer giisterdi f e r e f - i kurb-i civârlart ile mü¡,erref olmt¡,-dur. D'après
HÇ, p. 466, Badî"-zzamân mourut le 2 receb 921 /12 août 1515 et Selîm ordonna des funérailles
conformes à son rang : mîr-i Horâsân Bedî"*-zzamân Mîrzâ fevt olub cernì' kâzî-'askerler ve
defterdârlar ve sâ'ir mevâlî-i itâm ve me}â'ih-i kirâm meyyitine varmak emr olunub pâdifâhlar
meyyitinüñ 'âdetine ise îyle defn étdiler hazret-i Ebî Eyyûbde.
10 Jean-Louis BACQUÉ-GRAMMONT
Un an plus tard, cet humble que je suis et mon frère Muhamrned"-zzarnân,

qui est effectivement gouverneur dans le pays de Bîcânegerd, vînmes
ensemble auprès de §âh isma'îl. §âh Isma'îl nous donna le pays de Balh
et nous y allâmes. Nous y demeurâmes deux années. Ensuite arriva de
chez les Têtes-de-feutre un bey appelé Kesten Kara qui nous prit Balh.
Puis nous fûmes mis en déroute et allâmes à Kandahâr 17 .
Nous allâmes auprès de Bâbur Han qui est le cousin de mon père par leurs
oncles paternels. Le susdit Bâbur Han nous traita de manière hospitalière.
Il accorda à mon frère sa propre fille et donna à cet humble que je suis le
sandjak appelé Lakmân, qui se trouve à proximité de Kandahâr. Il conquit
l'Inde. Il accorda à mon susdit frère Muhammed u -zzamân le sandjak de
Bîcânegerd 1 8 . Nous y demeurâmes huit années. Le susdit Bâbur Han
'^D'après HS, pp. 392, 395 sqq, les choses se passèrent (le manière quelque peu différente. Lors de
l'offensive des Ôzbeks en 1508. Badî" i -zzamân s'enfuit auprès du chah, en Azerbaïdjan, laissant
dans Damgân son frère Furîdûn t Husayn et Muhammad-i Zamân. Assiégés dans la place et à bout de
ressources, ces derniers obtinrent une reddition honorable et furent reçus par Çaybani qui les
laissa libres d'aller où ils voulaient. Muhammad-i Zamân se rendit en Azcrbaïjan et, jusqu'en
1514, demeura au service de $âh Isma'îl. Lorsque c e dernier partit de Tabriz pour affronter les
Ottomans, Muhammad-i Zamân se dirigea vers le Gorgân avec quelques partisans, rallia au
passage le gouverneur du Hazâr Carîb et ses troupes, marcha sur Astarâbâd, évacuée à son
approche par le gouverneur safavide Pîr ô e y b B e y g Tâ$, et s'y érigea en souverain indépendant.
Les émirs kizilbaç du Khorasan se portèrent bientôt contre lui et, le 15 m m a i û n 9 2 0 / 3 novembre
1514, le mirent en déroute à Ak Majhad, près d'Astarêbâd, le contraignant à la fuite. Peu après,
Muhammad-i Zamân apprit qu'Ordû §âh, ancien émir de son père, s'était révolté lui aussi et emparé
d'un partie du Garcestân. Il l'y rejoingnit et obtint à cette occassion l'appui des Negiider dont il
sera question plus loin Sur ces entrefaites, Dîv 'Alî Rûmlû, gouverneur de Balh, ayant quitté la
place pour rejoindre le chah, Muhammad-i Zamân alla assiéger Mohammad Bahârlû et les troupes
safavides qui y avaient été laissées. Maître des lieux le 5 rebî' II 9 2 2 / 8 mai 1516, il s'empara
ensuite de la place de §ibargân, située plus 5 l'ouest. D e s différends avec Ordû Çâh et Kivâm Bég,
frère de ce dernier, ainsi que de multiples péripéties, dont Uând Amîr, fut personnellement le
témoin, s'ensuivirent jusqu'en 1517 où Bâbur, alors roi de Kaboul et appelé à l'aide par K t v â m
Bég, prit lui-màme BallL Après d'autres péripéties, il y nomma comme gouverneur Muhaminad-i
Zamân auquel il avait accordé en mariage sa fille Ma'sûma Sultan. La faiblesse militaire de Çâh
Isma'îl après ses défaites devant les Ottomans était telle qu'il n'avait pu intervenir efficacement
contre les quelques milliers d'hommes de Muhammad-i Zamân et d'Ordû $5h ni mettre à profit la
rivalité entre ces derniers Bien qu'il y conservât peut-être une autorité nominale, la région de
Balh, position de défense avancée au nord-est de Hérat, lui échappait ainsi en faveur de Bâbur qui
était, il est vrai, son allié contre les Ozbeks depuis le lendemain de la bataille de Marv La lecture
du Bâbur-nâma révèle l'importance que le futur grand-mogol attacha longtemps à Balh, d ° n t f
comptait vraisemblablement faire une base de départ pour la reconquête de la Transoxiane jusqu'à
c e que les circonstances ne l'amènent à se tourner définitivement vers l'Inde. Après l'avoir
assiégée, Késtan Kara b Cânî Bég enleva définitivement Balh en 1524 ou, en tout cas, avant
l'automne de 1525 et en fut le gouverneur ôzbek jusqu'à sa mort en 1547. D è s son approche,
Muhammad-i Zamân était allé rejoindre Bâbur. On est bien loin du récit de Sâlih.
18
Ce récit laisse supposer que Muhammad-i Zamân épousa Ma'sûma Sultan en 1526 ou après, alors
que l'événement eu lieu en 1517 ou 1518 à Kaboul où Bâbur avait fait amener de force son cousin.
Le Lagmân, séjour que Bâbur appréciait particulièrement, se trouve à l'est de cette ville, sur la
route de l'Inde, et non dans la région de Kandahâr. Parvenu à Agra, Muhammad-i Zamân servit
fidèlement Bâbur et le suivit dans la plupart de s e s campagnes. En avril 1529, il reçut le
gouvernerai du Bihâr, avec résidence à Cûnpùr, et non celui de "Bîcânegerd", soit Vijayanagar,
dans le sud de l'Inde, qui ne releva jamais du premier Mogol.
mourut et laissa trois fils : Hiimâyûn, Kâmrân et 'Askerî. Mon susdit

frère ne fit point sa soumission aux fils de Bâbur ilan. Deux fils de Bâbur
Han, Hiimâyûn et Kâmrân, marchèrent contre mon frère 19 et un autre fils,
appelé 'Askerî, marcha contre moi. Cet insignifiant que je suis fut mis en
déroute. Après cela, une communauté appelée Hezâre et Nûkder prêta
assistance à cet humble que je suis. Nous marchâmes contre 'Askerî et
fûmes vainqueurs. 'Askerî s'enfuit et, pendant dix jours, nous mîmes au
pillage les villages du Kandahâr20
De là, nous vînmes dans le Khorasan. Pendant deux années, je fus le

gardien du sceau de Sâm, fils de §âh Isma'îl. Ensuite, on vint de Kandahâr
pour réclamer cet humble que je suis. Hiiseyn Han Çâmlu, précepteur de
Sâm, ne livra point cet humble que je suis.
Puis j'arrivai à Bagdâd. Je renonçai à tout afin d'aller m'établir pieusement

à La Mecque la noble et révérée. À ce moment, le gouverneur de Bagdâd,
ÇereP'-ddîn ogli Muhammed Han, fit obstacle à cet humble que je suis et
ne le laissa point partir. Sur ces entrefaites, Monseigneur l'Empereur
fortuné arriva à Bagdad, venant de Tabriz. Le susdit Muhammed Han prit
avec lui cet humble que je suis et, par la route de Bassora, l'amena à Kûm
et à Kejân 21 .
Ensuite, lorsque Monseigneur l'Empereur fortuné vint de Bagdad à Tabriz,

cet humble que je suis vint dans le Diyâr Bekir en compagnie de
marchands. De là, j'arrivai à Kayseriyye, puis à Ankara et, ensuite, je vins
à Brousse et à Istanbul. Je demeurai deux mois dans le caravansérail de
Mahmûd Pa§a. Ensuite, je laissai dans le susdit caravansérail, dans une
Bâbur mourut à Agra le 26 décembre 1530. Son fils aîné, Humâyûn, eut d'emblée à affronter
quelques rébellions, don! celle de son frère Kâmrân qui confia Kandahâr à son cadet 'Askarî, prit
Labore, finit par se soumettre et fut fait gouverneur de Kaboul, de Kandahâr et du Pandjab.
Muhammad-t ZamSn, dont divers indices laissent supposer que Bâbur avait envisagé un moment de
lui confier sa succession plus tôt qu'au peu capable Humâyûn, se révolta pour sa part en 1533.
Vaincu, capturé et incarcéré dans la forteresse de Bayâna, il parvint à s'en évader peu après.
Réfugié auprès de Bahâdur Çâh, roi du Gujrat, il combattit Humâyûn à ses côtés. Lors de la mort
dramatique de Bahâdur §âh à Diu en 1537, il tenta de se faire proclamer roi à sa succession, mais
fut battu et chassé du pays. Découragé par ce dernier échec, il finit par solliciter le pardon de
Humâyûn par l'entremise de Ma'sûma Sultan et servit dès lors son cousin jusqu'en 1539 où, lors de
la désastreuse défaite des Mogois à Chausa, il périt noyé dans le Gange. Voir Abû-l-fa;fl, pp. 287-
292, 297, 303, 308, 325, 328, 330, 343, 344.
20
O n a vu qu'au début de sa révolte contre Humâyûn, Kâmrân avait confié Kandahâr à 'Askarî. Il le
révoqua, peu après s'être réconcilié avec son aîné, 'Askarî ayant été défait par les Hazaras, cf. op.
cit.. p. 292. Il est remarquable de trouver ce détail peu connu dans les déclarations de ÇSIifc. t e s
Hazaras et les Neguder, populations mongoloïdes de l'Hindû-ku§ issues de la conquête
gengiskhanide, se montrèrent longtemps fidèles aux Timourides de Hérat et, en 1510,
contraignirent Çaybam Han lui-même à mener contre elles une longue et difficile expédition,
totalement infructueuse.
?1
Mohammad Hân Çaraf"-(J<lin ûglî, avait été nommé gouverneur de Bagdâd en 1529, après
l'assassinat de Zû-l-fekâr Beyg Mowsellû. À la fin de novembre 1534, il évacua effectivement la
place à l'approche de f'armée ottomane et retourna en Iran via Bassora, cf. AT, pp. 293, 330-331.
12 Jean-Louis B AC Q U É - G R AM M O N T
pièce fermée, mon serviteur nommé Kanber 'Alî. Je passai à Sinôb et, de
là, à Kefe. Je demeurai trois années à Kefe.
Puis, dans l'intention d'aller à La Mecque, j e revins de Kefe, arrivai à

Antalya, puis à Alanya où j e demeurai trois années. Pendant cette période,
je passai une fois à Tripoli et une fois dans l'île de Chypre. Il restait entre
mes mains une certaine quantité de biens de ce monde, je les dépensai dans
la voie de Dieu. Alors que j'avais choisi de prendre ma retraite de cette
manière, Toygun Beg, bey du sandjak d'Antalya, inspecta [mon cas]
conformément à un ordre [qu'il avait reçu] et ce qui était effectivement
survenu fut représenté de manière conforme à la Porte de la fortune.
Ensuite, Ayas Beg effectua également une inspection sur ordre et ordre fut
donné pour qu'il m'emmène avec lui à Gallipoli et qu'on m'emprisonne
dans la forteresse de Bogaz Hisâri. Présentement, on est venu avec le
noble ordre se prosterner dans la poussière du Seuil de la félicité.
***
Le document E.3715 ne comporte ni date, ni signature, mais la graphie et

le contenu montrent qu'il fut rédigé dans le courant du XIX e siècle. Il a trait à un
intéressant quiproquo concernant un certain 'Abd u -l-halîm Efendî, uléma dans le
khanat de Hôkand et désireux de se rendre à La Mecque, en qui la Porte avait cru
voir l'ancien khan de ce pays. L'affaire est narrée ici par le fonctionnaire chargé de
lui verser une indemnité de route et de séjour conforme au rang qu'on lui
supposait, inquiet devant l'importance du montant et manifestement soucieux de
la parfaite régularité administrative des opérations à effectuer.
La lecture de ce document laisse supposer qu'en haut lieu, de généreuses

subventions pouvaient être aisément accordées par l'Etat dans de pieuses
intentions, ceci sans vérification particulière quant à l'identité et à la situation du
demandeur. Dans le cas qui nous intéresse, la Porte ne pouvait ignorer
l'importance du khanat de Hôkand qui, dans la première moitié du siècle, avait
connu une expansion s p e c t a c u l a i r e 2 2 et dont les khans sollicitaient
vraisemblablement un brevet d'investiture de la part du sultan-calife. La
succession des derniers souverains devait être d'aulanl plus aisée à garder en
mémoire et à contrôler en cas de besoin. Or, on constate ici que, si les services
du grand-vizir prirent réellement 'Abd u -l-halîm pour un ancien khan, sans même
que son titre d'efendî éveille quelque soupçon, la présence dans l'Empire ottoman
d'un personnage de cette importance supposée ne semble pas avoir éveillé de leur
part le moindre intérêt. Une tradition bien attestée aurait pourtant voulu qu'en
recevant les plus grands égards de la part de la Porte, il soit interrogé sur son
lointain pays d'origine pour la simple information de cette dernière.
22
V o i r notre "Tûrân. Une description du khanat de Khokand vers 1832 d'après un document
ottoman", Cahiers du mimde russe et soviétique, XIII/2, 1972, pp. 192-231.
E.3715
1 bâk-ipây-i vâlâ-yi cenâb-i ser-'askerlerine ma'rûi-i çûker-i kemîneleri-

dir ki 2 Hokand hâkimi sâbik 'Abda-l-halîm Efendtevlâd â 'iyâli-ile der-i sa 'âdete
gelùb bu defa mucâveret?n hacc-i ferife 'aztmet édeceginden kendiiye orada bir
sùknâ ile 3 bir mikdâr ma'âf tahsîsin bâb-i 'âlîden bâ 'arz-i hâl istid'â etmig ve
bâfermân-i hairet-i vekâlet-penâhî taraf-i bendeye havâle buyurulmif oldigtna ve
miiceddeden 4 ma'â} tahsîsi ve¡¡fine tertîbi kesretine mebnà memnû' idiigine ve
bu misillulere be§-yiïz ve dahâ ziyâde 'atiyye-i seniyye vérildigi ve mahl&l
vukû'mda ma'â} S tahsîsi olunmak iizere tahrîrât testîri miitevakkif-i irâde-i
seniyye idiigi keyfiyyetine dâ'ir bir kit'a taknr-i çâkeri bâb-i 'âliyyeden bâ
teikere-i sâmiyye 'arz û takdîm 6 ktlirunif olub efendi-i mûmà-ileyh fî-l-}iaktka
¡Lôkand hâkimi oldigi hâlde lutf û 'inâyet-i seniyye-i fiazret-i fâhâneye jâyân
olarak bef-yiiz gurûf 7 atiyye-i seniyye i'tâsi dûn olacagindan keyfiyyeti
aUlajmak iizere efendi-i mûmà-ileyh sahîhen Hôkand hâkimi olub olmadigmiii
savb-i çâkerîden 8 istifsâri miite'allik ve geref-i sudûr buyurulan emr û irâde-i
seniyye-i }âhâne iktiiâ-yt 'âtisinden bulunmif oldigi beyân-ile ol-vech-le
keyfiyyetin 9 if'ârina miibâderet olunmasin ¡âmil-i §eref-viirûd olan emir-nâme-i
asafâneleri me'âl-i vâlâsi rehîn-i îkân-i bendegânem olmug ve keyfiyyet tf-ttaharri
10 efendî-i mûmà-ileyh Hâkandin hukiimdâri ma'nâsina hâkim olmayub oranih
kuzât û niivvâbindan ve 'ulemâsindan bulundigi tahkîk kilmmi? ve imjÂ-yi 'arz-i
hâli l î hâkim deyii tahnrine mebnà taraf-i bendegânda ôyle yazilmtf olub efendî-
i mûmà-ileyh mukaddem istî}ân olundigi vech-le bej-yiiz ve yâ-hud bih gurûf
12 ve yâ-hud dahâ ziyâde ve noksân-i 'atiyye-i seniyye i'tâsi husâsinda ne-vech-
le emr û irâde-i seniyye-i miilûkâne mute'alhk û erzân buyurulur ise ol vech-le
icrâsi 13 lûzim-gelecegi ma'lûm devletleri buyuruldukdct ol-bâbda emr ûfermûn
hazret-i men leh"-l-emrin-dir bende-i m
Ce qui est représenté auprès de l'éminente poussière des pieds de Son

Excellence le commandant-en-chef par le moindre des serviteurs est ce qui
[suit].
Comme 'Abd u -l-halîm Efendî, ancien hâkim de Hôkand, était arrivé à la

Porte de ¡a félicité avec ses enfants et sa famille et devait cette fois partir
pour le noble pèlerinage et prolonger son pieux séjour [à La Mecque], il
avait sollicité par requête auprès de la Sublime Porte l'attribution d'un
logement et d'une certaine pension pour sa subsistance. Par ordre de
Monseigneur le refuge du ministère, [l'affaire] avait été transférée auprès de
ce serviteur. L'attribution une nouvelle fois d'une pension et d'une
indemnité de résidence étant impossible du fait du montant élevé de la
pension à attribuer —car, dans de tels cas, la sublime allocation s'élève à
cinq cents piastres et même davantage—et, dans le cas où il se trouverait
[un crédit] vacant [disponible], l'émission d'un ordre d'attribution étant
soumise à un irâde sublime, un rapport de votre serviteur évoquant ces
faits et auquel était joint le noble tezkere avait été présenté à la Sublime
Jean-Louis BACQUÉ-GRAMMONT
Porte. [D'autre part,] l'attribution de cinq cents piastres étant insignifiante

si Yefendî susdit est véritablement hâkim de Hôkand et digne de la bonté et
de la faveur sublimes de l'impériale Seigneurie, il était ordonné à ce
serviteur de vérifier si, d'une manière avérée, l'efendî susdit était ou non
hâkim de Hôkand, de manière à comprendre sa situation. La signification
élevée de l'ordre digne d'Asaf et dont le contenu mène à l'honneur ayant été
prise en gage par la connaissance du serviteur que je suis, il a été vérifié
par enquête que Yefendî susdit n'est pas hâkim au sens de souverain de
Hôkand, mais qu'il est l'un des cadis, nâ'ib ou 'âlim de là-bas. Le terme
hâkim avait été noté par les serviteurs du fait qu'il accompagnait la
signature de la requête.
Que la connaissaissance fortunée daigne savoir que l'on se conformera au

mode d'exécution ordonné par l'ordre ou Yirâde sublime et impérial, quel
qu'il soit, qui ordonnera l'attribution d'une allocation de cinq cents piastres
comme il avait été précédemment proposé, ou de mille piastres ou
davantage ou moins. En ce domaine, l'ordre et le commandement
appartiennent à la Seigneurie qui a le pouvoir d'ordonner.
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris

Nicoarà BELDICEANU et Irène BELDICEANU-STEINHERR
CONSIDÉRATIONS SUR LA CHRONOLOGIE

DES SOURCES OTTOMANES ET SES PIÈGES
I. Introduction
Tout chercheur qui se penche sur la documentation ottomane, le mot étant

pris dans son sens large, se trouve confronté tôt ou tard au problème de la
datation. Deux cas peuvent se présenter. Ou bien il aura affaire à un document qui
ne porte pas de date et qu'il devra placer dans son cadre chronologique ou bien il
disposera d'une date qu'il faudra transformer d'après l'ère chrétienne. C'est ce
dernier aspect qui fera l'objet de notre étude.
Transposer une date de l'hégire dans l'ère chrétienne est un exercice qui
s'avère parfois plus compliqué qu'on ne le supposerait au premier abord. Les
calculs que nous effectuons à partir des tables de conversion nous réservent
souvent des surprises. Il existe des études qui nous expliquent le fonctionnement
du calendrier musulman, mais à notre connaissance personne n'a essayé de vérifier
comment la théorie se reflète dans la pratique. En raison des nombreuses
anomalies que nous avons rencontrées en transposant les dates de l'hégire en ère
chrétienne, nous avons décidé de mener une enquête qui inclut aussi bien les
sources narratives que les documents administratifs, qu'ils émanent de la Porte ou
des instances régionales. Pour mener à bien notre travail, nous avons dû nous
contenter de la documentation à notre portée. Elle concerne les XV e et XVI e
siècles. Nous ne pouvons tirer par conséquent de cette enquête qu'un bilan
provisoire et partiel.
II. De la détermination du début de l'ère musulmane
Les Ottomans ont adopté l'ère musulmane qui s'appuie sur le calendrier
lunaire. A titre exceptionnel, d'autres calendriers circulaient aussi. A l'époque de
Mehmed II, on trouve encore les traces du calendrier des douze animaux qui dérive
16 N. B E L D I C E A N U et I. BELDICEANU-STEINHERR
du calendrier chinois. 1 Rappelons également que dans les contrats de fermage des
biens de l'État figurent souvent les mois du calendrier solaire. 2
Aujourd'hui nous nous en tiendrons seulement à l'année musulmane.

Celle-ci est divisée en douze mois. A un mois de 30 succède un mois de 29
jours. Seules les années bissextiles, le dernier mois, c'est-à-dire le iû'1-higge,
comptait aussi 30 jours au lieu de 2 9 ?
Le début de l'ère musulmane commence avec le départ du Prophète de la

Mecque pour Médine. Toutes les tables de conversion que nous possédons
actuellement fixent le début de l'ère musulmane au 16 juillet 622, mais il y avait
autrefois des tables qui commençaient avec le 15 juillet. 4 Dans son article sur les
problèmes de l'ère musulmane, M. Mayr explique que du temps du Prophète la
nouvelle lune du 1 e r muharrem de l'an 1 de l'hégire eut lieu dans la région de la
Mecque le mercredi 14 juillet à 7 heures du matin. Il convient cependant de faire
une distinction entre la nouvelle lune et la visibilité de la première lumière. Entre
les deux, il faut compter un minimum de 26 heures. A côté du calendrier
populaire qui reposait uniquement sur l'observation de la lune à l'œil nu. les
astronomes établirent un calendrier basé sur un cycle de trente années lunaires. Il
firent cependant une concession au calendrier populaire en fixant le début du cycle
le 15 juillet 622. Le calendrier cyclique étant plus court que trente années
lunaires, les astronomes ont dû décaler d'un jour (le 16 au lieu du 15 juillet 622)
le début de l'hégire pour faire coïncider le début du mois avec la nouvelle lune. Si
on se base sur des calculs astronomiques, c'est autour de l'année 850 (c. 29 mars
1446), c'est-à-dire grosso modo à la fin du règne de Muràd II, que l'ère du 16
juillet s'impose. 5 Le but que nous nous sommes assigné est de déterminer ici
comment l'ajustement du calendrier cyclique s'est fait er. réalité.
III. Application du calendrier lunaire chez les Ottomans
Avant d'entrer plus avant dans les détails, il convient de déterminer quelle
était l'attitude des Ottomans en matière de chronologie. Dans quelles
' r . Arat, "Fatih sultan Mehmcd'in yarligi", dans Türkiyat Mecmuast, t. VI (1936-39), Istanbul,
1939, p.285-345. Sur les calendriers utilisés par les Turcs voir L. Bazin, Les systèmes
chronologiques dans te monde iure ancien, Paris-Budapest, 1991.
Fekele, Die Siyüqut-Schnfi in der türkischen Finanzverwaltung, t. 1, Budapest, 1955, p, 128-
133.
•'Wüstenfeld-Mahler, Vergleuhungstubellen zur muslimischen und iranischen Zeitrechnung mit
Tafeln zur Umrechnung orient christlicher Ären, Wiesbaden, 1961; F. R. Unat, Hicrt tarihleri
e
miladi tarihe çevirme kilavuzu, 4 éd.. Ankara, 1974.
Mayr, "Probleme der islamischen Zeitrechnung", dans Mitteilungen zur osmunischen
Geschichte, t. II, 1923-1926. Hannover, 1926, p. 282.
Îdem, article cité, p. 282-283 et Osmanische Zeitrechnungen, annexe à l'ouvrage de F. Babinger,
Die Geschichtsschreiber der Osmanen und ihre Werke, Leipzig, 1927, p. 417.
LA C H R O N O L O G I E DES SOURCES 17
circonstances éprouvaient-ils le besoin de dater un événement et avec quelle

précision se sont-ils acquittés de cette tâche.
Lorsqu'on consulte les sources narratives les plus anciennes, on est étonné
de la pauvreté des indications chronologiques. La forme la plus simple de datation
que nous ayons rencontrée se manifeste dans les taqvim, les chroniques brèves
ottomanes. 6 Elles ne connaissent pas d'autres unités que l'année et un fait est daté
par rapport aux années qui se sont écoulées entre l'événement et le moment de la
rédaction de la chronologie. On dira par exemple dans une chronologie écrite en
848, que Nicée fut conquise il y a 117 ans (848 - 117 = 731 de l'hégire = 1330 de
l'ère chrétienne) 7 . Cette datation est très imprécise et le premier souci du
chercheur qui trouve un pareil manuscrit est de déterminer à quelle date il fut
rédigé.
Les chroniques les plus anciennes, celles d'Urug, de c Âsiqpa§azâde et de

Nesrï, dénotent un certain progrès. Les événements — mais pas tous — sont
suivis de leur date. Jusqu'au règne de Bâyezïd I e r , on se contente de.l'année.
Ensuite on ajoute, parfois, le mois et le jour, L'expérience montre que les dates
concernant les débuts de l'État ottoman sont sujettes à caution et il faut chercher
le complément d'information dans des sources plus précises, telles que les
chroniques brèves byzantines 8 ou les actes des puissances maritimes de l'époque,
Venise et Gênes.
C'est surtout dans l'exercice du pouvoir que le besoin de dater les

événements s'est manifesté. Les firmans et ordres du sultan sont tous datés; mais
la plupart du temps la précision est poussée seulement à une décade près. Si
gurre, le premier du mois, apparaît de-ci de-là, muntasaf (le milieu du mois) et
self} (la fin du mois), sont plutôt rares. 9 Notons que seul le souverain appose
une date sur les documents. Les vizirs et autres dignitaires ne mettent que leur
"signature". 1 0 Il en est de même des requêtes adressées par les particuliers au
sultan.
6
0 . Turan, Istanbul'un fethinden Un ce yazilmif turihi lakvimler (Les chronologies écrites avant la
conquête de Constantinople), Ankara, 1954; Atsiz, Osmanli tarihine ait lakvimler (Les
chronologies qui concernent l'histoire ottomane), Istanbul, 1961.
7
0 . Turan, op. cit., p. 16-17.
8
P . Schreiner, Die byzantinischen Kleinchromken, 3 tomes, Vienne, 1975-1979.
V Kraelitz, Osmanische Urkunden in türkischer Sprache, Vienne, 1921, p. 30-34.
,0
D a n s la première moitié du XV e siècle, on trouve cependant des documents dûment datés émis
par des dignitaires: Z. Oral, "Fatih devri vesikalarindan: Balaban Pa$a buyrultusu* (Un document
de l'époque du Conquérant, le buyrultu de Balaban Pacha), dans Fatih ve Istanbul, t. li, fase. 7-12,
Istanbul, 1954, p. 79-81; il s'agit d'un document de evâ'il iù'l-(ii%$e 842 (15-24 mai 1439). V.
Boäkov, "Eine Urkunde Sehäb ed-Din Sâhin Paja's, des Wesirs und Statthalters von Rumelien aus
dem Jahre 1453, dans Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, t. 76, Vienne 1986, p.
66-67. Le nom stylisé que le grand vizir appose sur les documents s'appelle pente. Elle ressemble
du point de vue de la forme à la tugra, mais ses composantes ne sont pas les mêmes. Sauf
18 N. B E L D I C E A N U et I. BELDICEANU-STEINHERR
Les instances qui étaient le plus concernées par la connaissance du

calendrier étaient toutes celles qui tenaient un journal. A cette catégorie
appartiennent les tribunaux religieux, et les divers bureaux de l'administration.
Citons, comme exemple, le secrétariat qui s'occupait des dépenses du palais, les
bureaux qui tenaient un registre des ordres émis par le sultan, ceux qui
inscrivaient les attributions de timar ou les revenus des fermages. C'est ce type de
documentation qui nous permettra de savoir comment les problèmes de datation
étaient vécus au quotidien.
1. La datation dans les sources narratives
Retournons d'abord aux sources narratives pour déterminer si elles

s'appuient sur l'ère du 15 ou celle du 16 juillet.
Voici un exemple qui se prête à la démonstration: la bataille de Valea

Albà entre Mehmed II et le prince de Moldavie Etienne le Grand.' 1 L'inscription
de l'église construite à Valea Albà sur le lieu même de la bataille, donne le 26
juillet 1476. 1 2 Les annales moldaves du X V e siècle, écrites en slave, ajoutent que
ce fut un vendredi 26 juillet 14761-' et la chronique moldo-allemande place la
rencontre également le vendredi (freytag) 26 juillet 1476 14 . Quant au bulletin de
victoire rédigé à cette occasion, il porte la date du 4 rebi' el-âhir, à compléter par
l'année 881 de l'hégire 15 . Une chronique anonyme ottomane assigne la bataille au
4 rebi'et-evvel 880. Il ne peut s'agir que d'une erreur de copiste, puisque Mehmed
II est de retour à Constantinople en ramaiàn 881 selon la même chronique 16 . La
conversion en ère chrétienne donne d'après l'ère du 16, le samedi 27 juillet 1476.
Étant donné que les sources moldaves concordent sur le jour, un vendredi, il en
résulte que la bataille eut heu le 26 et non le 27 juillet et que c'est l'ère du 15 qui
était à cette époque en usage à la cour de Mehmed II.
exception, le p e n t e est plate en marge du texte, soit à gauche soit à droite: t.H. Uzunçar^tli.
"Tugra ve pençeler île fcrmari ve buyuruldulara dair" (Sur les iuj>ra et les penCe ainsi que les firmans
et les buyurulciu), dans BelUien . t V. fast. 17-18. Istanbul. 1941. p. 101-157
' ' Les textes relatifs à la campagne ont été réunis dans un volume: M. Neagoe, D. Gutu, M.
Guboglu, R. Constantinescu, C Vlad, Rdiboieni. Cinci suie de uni de la campania dm 1476,
Bucarest, 1977. L'ouvrage sera cité dorénavant sous le titre abrégé Rdiboieni.
12
Rdiboieni, p. 347.
^Rdiboieni, p. 340.
u
Rdzboieni, p. 341.
' ^ L . Fekete, Einführung in die persische Puläographie, édité par H. Hazai, Budapest, 1977, p. 77-
85. L'année de l'hégire manque. Une autre main a ajouté par la suite 818, ce qui a induit en erreur
l'éditeur qui a classé le document sous le règne de Mehmed ! " Le même document se trouve copié
dans un recueil de correspondance avec la date correcte (4 rebic el-ahir 881); cf. S. Tansel, Osmanli
kaynaklarina göre Faiih sultan Mehmed'in siyusî ve askeri faaliyeti (Les actions politiques et
militaires du sultan Mehmed le Conquérant selon les sources ottomanes), Ankara, 1953, p. 227.
16
Rdiboieni, p. 345.
LA CHRONOLOGIE DES SOURCES 19
Un autre exemple qui va dans le même sens, nous est fourni par la
campagne de Bâyezîd II contre Kilia et Aqkerman. Bâyezïd II lance l'ordre de
mobilisation le vendredi 4 rebi ' el-âhir; le samedi 2 gumâiâ 'l-âhir il traverse le
pont d'Isaccea. le lundi 11 gumàiâ 'l-âhir les Turcs mettent le siège devant Kilia
et le mercredi 10 gumâzà'l-ûhir la forteresse capitule. L e vendredi suivant le
sultan remercie Dieu pour sa victoire. Le lundi 2 5 gumâ^à 'l-âhir l'armée se dirige
vers Aqkerman. L a forteresse conquise, le sultan lève le camp le samedi 2 2
regeb^1. Si l'on tient compte du jour de la semaine, voici la conversion des dates
selon l'ère chrétienne: 18
vendredi 4 R II 889 = vendredi 30 avril 1484 et non samedi 1er mai 1484
samedi 2 6 11 889 = samedi 26 juin 1484 et non dimanche 27 juin 1484
lundi 11 Cil 889 = lundi 5 juillet 1484 et non mardi 6 juillet 1484
mercredi 20 6 11 889 = mercredi 14 juillet 1484 et non jeudi 15 juillet 1484
vendredi [22 Ó1I 889] = vendredi 16 juillet 1484 et non samedi 17 juillet 1484
lundi 25 G II 889 = lundi 19 juillet 1484 et non mardi 20 juillet 1484
samedi 22 Rb 889 = samedi 14 août 1484 et non dimanche 15 août 1484
Les sept dates relatives aux phases de la campagne répondent toutes sans
exception au calendrier qui fait débuter l'hégire le 15 juillet 622. Si l'on retient la
date donnée par nos tables de conversion, on constatera un décalage d'un jour par
rapport au jour de la semaine. On conclura donc que le récit de la campagne
repose sur l'ère du 15 juillet.
Passons en revue une dernière source narrative, la biographie du prince

G e m 1 9 Nous avons établi une liste de toutes les dates qui comportent le jour de
la semaine, la conversion en ère chrétienne étant faite d'après l'ère du 16 juillet.
Cette liste permet de distinguer 5 parties.
a. La date de naissance de ô e m , le samedi 27 safer 864, est en accord avec

l'ère du 15 j u i l l e t 2 0 Etant donné qu'il s'agit d'un événement important, — la
biographie note même le moment de la journée — . on peut faire confiance à la
17
'N. Beldiceanu, "La campagne ottomane de 1484: ses préparatifs militaires et sa chronologie",
dans Le monde ottoman des Balkans (1402-1566). Institutions, société, économie; Variorum
Reprints,
1Q Londres, 1976, n" V, p. 67-77.
Dans les tableaux, les mois du calendrier musulman sont abrégés comme suit: M = muharrem ; S
= Safer ; RI = rebi ul-ewel ; Rll = rebi ul-áhir ; Gl = üumü^á'l-ewel ; óll = gumâzâ'l-âfyir ; Rb ~ regeb ;
Sn - sifbàn ; Rn = ramazón : Si = sewâl ; ZQ = zû'l-qtfde ; ZH = zú'1-higge.
I9 N. Vatin, Vakicüt-i sultán Cem (La vie de Ôem Sultan), 2 tomes ; thèse de doctorat de troisième
cycle : Université de Paris III (Sorbonne Nouvelle). Institut National des Langues et Civilisations
Orientales, exemplaire dactylographié.
20 Idem, thèse citée, t. I, p. 59.
20 N. B E L D 1 C E A N U et I. B E L D I C E A N U - S T E I N H E R R
source. On tiendra donc compte du jour de la semaine et datera l'événement du

samedi 2 2 décembre 1469 et non pas du dimanche 23 décembre.
b. Une section va du début du règne de B â y e z ï d II jusqu'au départ

d'Anatolie. Elle échappe pour le moment à toute logique. La différence excède
parfois plus de deux jours. Cette période comprend le pèlerinage à la Mecque 2 1 .
Nous avons procédé à un contrôle des dates. Si on établit un calendrier du lundi
21 muharrem au mardi 5 safer 887 2 2 , il en ressort que le mois de muharrem de
l'année 887 avait 31 jours, ce qui est exclu. Il faut donc admettre une erreur due à
l'auteur ou à sa source.
c. La troisième partie s'étend de février 1483 à janvier 1484. Elle répond à

l'ère du 15 juillet. Elle correspond grosso modo à l'arrivée de ô e m en France et
au départ d'une partie de sa suite. Le récit se termine avec l'arrivée de cette suite à
Rhodes 23 .
d. La quatrième partie va de novembre 1488 à mars 1489 et concorde avec

l'ère du 16 juillet 24 .
e. La cinquième partie, enfin, comprend les mois de janvier et février 1495

et contient le récit de la mort de Gem. Elle suit l'ère du 15 juillet 25 .
Etant donné que chacune des trois dernières sections est formée par un
groupe de dates appartenant à la même ère, on sera tenté d'avancer l'hypothèse que
l'auteur de la biographie s est servi de plusieurs sources, chacune ayant sa propre
datation.
Il faut cependant manier les hypothèses avec prudence. Une source

narrative qui s'échelonne du jeudi 28 lul-qa'de 9 4 0 (jeudi 11 juin 1534) 2 6 au
27
vendredi 14 regeb 942 (vendredi 7 janvier) énumère les différentes étapes de la
campagne de Siileymân !e Législateur contre Bagdad 2 8 . Un examen des dates
montre que le narrateur se sert d'un calendrier qui n'a rien de commun avec nos
tables de conversion. Le zul-qa'de de l'année 940 compte seulement 29 jours au
2
' Idem, thèse citée, t. I, p. 61-95.
22
/ d e m , thèse citée, 1.1, p. 75
23
Idem, thèse citée, t. I, p. 97 109.
24
idem. thèse citée, t. I, p. 129-137.
25
ldem, thèse citée, t. I, p. 171-175.
^ D ' a p r è s nos tables représentant l'ère du 16 juillet; mercredi 10 juin.
27
D ' a p r è s nus tables représentant l'ère du 16 juillet; samedi 8 janvier.
2
%asûhu's-Silâhi (Matrakçi), Beyun-i menûzil-i sefer-i clrakey«-i sut/an Siileymân han (Les étapes
de la campagne du sultan Siileymân contre les deux Iraq), éd. H.G. Yurdaydin, Ankara. 1976, p.58-
114.
LA C H R O N O L O G I E DES SOURCES 21
lieu de 30 2 9 . Le mois de $û'l-higge étant une année bissextile (dans nos tables)
compte 30 jours. Mais ensuite il y a de nouveau des divergences. Le mois de
muharrem compte 29 au lieu de 30 jours 30 et celui de safer 30 au lieu de 29 3 1 .
RebV el-evvel a seulement 29 jours et rebV el-âtfir aussi 32 . Après gumâzâ'l-âhir
il y a une coupure. Zùl-qa'de 941 compte 29 jours au lieu de 30 et zû'l-higge 30
au lieu de 29 3 3 . Dans ce cas les changements qui interviennent ne peuvent pas
être imputés à une ère précise. Si l'énumération des jours de la semaine est
cohérente, c'est-à-dire sans lacune, il faut se tenir au jour de la semaine34.
2. La datation dans les documents
L'un des rares documents impériaux qui mentionne le jour de la semaine,

est le bulletin de victoire de Mehmed II écrit à l'occasion de la défaite d'Uzun
Hasan en 878 (1473) 35 . Le document est rédigé en ouygour et contient quatre
dates, dont les trois premières sont accompagnées du jour de la semaine 36 . Si
l'on calcule les équivalences, on obtient le schéma suivant
mercredi 9 R 1 8 7 8 = mercredi 4 août 1473

mercredi 16 R 1 8 7 8 = mercredi 11 août 1473
mais mercredi 29 R 1 8 7 8 = mardi 24 août 1473
Avant de se faire une opinion sur cette datation, il faut tenir compte de
deux détails. La chronique Tûg et-tevârih spécifie que les batailles eurent lieu
toutes un mercredi, parce que Uzun Hasan le considérait comme un jour faste 37 .
Toutefois la troisième date (29 rebï' el-evvel 878) annonce le départ pour
Qarahisâr; elle ne s'applique pas à une bataille. Étant donné que le décalage d'un
jour se produit à l'intérieur du mcme mois, il est difficile d'admettre que le
secrétaire ait changé de calendrier du jour au lendemain. II faut plutôt penser à une
erreur commise par le scribe. Contrairement à la règle que nous préconisons
d'habitude, on doit alors maintenir le jour du mois et corriger celui de la semaine.
Le scribe, influencé probablement par la répétition du mot mercredi, aura fixé par
mégarde le départ pour Qarahisâr à un mercredi aussi.
29
Au vendredi 29 lû'lqa'de 940 suit le samedi m - h i ^ e 940: idem, op. cit., p. 58.
• Au lundi 29 muharrem 941 suit le mardi I e r sujer 941 : idem , op. cit., p. 73.
3
32
'Mercredi, 30 safer 941: idem, op. cit., p, 81.
ldem,op. cit., p. 88 el 91.
13
Wem, op. cit., p, 99 et 101.
34
L'éditeur a tenu compte du jour de la semaine, mais pas systématiquement.
R. Arat, article cité.
3f>
Idem, article cité, p. 299, 300, 302, 303.
^ l d e m , article cité, p. 288, n. 1.
22 N. B E L D I C E A N U e t !. B E L D I C E AN U - S T E I N H E R R
3. La datation dans les registres
Passons aux registres tenus au jour le jour. Le premier exemple nous est
fourni par le registre des dépenses des cuisines impériales 38 . Malheureusement
nous ne disposons pas d'une série complète qui s'étale sur plusieurs mois
consécutifs. Nous possédons les comptes de neuf mois repartis sur 11
fragments 3 9 . Le premier fragment commence le 11 juin 1465, le onzième, le 21
décembre 1473. Les fragments 6 et 7 concernent le gumâ^â'l-evvel 876 et les
fragments 8 et 9 le gumâzâ'l-âhir de la même année. Seuls les mois gumàzà'l-
evvel et gumâzâ'l-àhir de l'année 8 7 6 se suivent.
Lorsqu'on convertit les dates selon l'ère chrétienne, on constate que tous
les fragments reposent sur l'ère du 15 juillet sauf le n° 3. L'éditeur, à une
exception près, ne s'est pas trompé dans la transposition des dates puisqu'il a tenu
compte du jour de la semaine 4 0 . Nous avons essayé de comprendre pourquoi le
fragment n° 3 sortait de la série.
Le 1 e r z u i - h i g g e 875 étant un mardi, il correspond au mardi 21 mai 1471,

mais cette équivalence repose sur l'ère du 16 juillet. Le secrétaire arrête les
comptes le dernier jour du mois qui est pour lui le mardi 29 zû'l-higge 875, c'est-
à-dire le mardi 18 juin 1471. Or, d'après les tables de conversion dont nous
disposons, le mois de zul-higge devait compter 30 jours, l'année 875 étant une
année bissextile. En comptant seulement 29 jours, le premier muharrem tombe
sur un mercredi 19 juin et nous retrouvons de nouveau l'ère du 15 juillet.
Cet exemple montre que le secrétaire ne passe pas d'une ère à une autre,
mais que l'alternance des mois de 29 et de 30 jours ne suit pas le rythme du
calendrier classique, fait dont nous devons tenir compte à mainte reprise. La
consultation de la table de conversion montre que ce décalage doit se situer en
amont du mois de zul-qa 'de 875.
On peut donc conclure que les comptes des cuisines impériales sous le
règne de Mehmed II sont tenus d'après l'ère du 15 juillet et que le décalage
provient du fait que la distribution des mois de 30 jours et de 29 jours n'est pas la
même que dans le calendrier classique. Signalons encore un fait: le mot selh pour
le dernier jour du mois n'est employé que dans le cas des mois de trente jours.
3 * 0 . L. Barkan, "Istanbul Saraylanna ail Muhasebe Deflerleri", dans Belgeler, t. IX, fasc. 13,
Ankara, 1979, p. 1-380 (monographie occupant le (ome tout entier).
39
ldem, op. cit., p. 187-210, 211-221, 222-236, 237-246, 246-249, 251-254, 254-259, 260-
264, 264-267, 268-272, 273-280.
^ L e 18 août ¿tant un dimanche et non un samedi, on lira 17 Agustos au lieu de 18 Ajustas: Idem,
op. cit., p. 237.
En suivant l'ordre chronologique, nous arrivons aux registres du tribunal

de Brousse. L'éditeur étant intéressé seulement par le contenu des documents, sa
publication ne comprend pas les jours de la semaine 4 1 . Nous avons pu nous
servir par conséquent seulement des fac-similés ajoutés à la fin de l'étude. Nous
avons relevé huit dates qui vont du mois de juin au mois d'août de l'année
1485 42 . Toutes, sans exceptions, sont calculées d'après l'ère du 15 juillet.
Voici les dates sous forme de tableau:
ère du 15 juillet ère du 16 juillet

samedi 2 Sn 8 9 0 ; samedi 13 août 1485 et non dimanche 14 août 1485
dimanche 3 Sn 890 ; dimanche 14 août 1485 et non lundi 15 août 1485
samedi 12 C i l 8 9 0 : samedi 25 juin 1485 et non dimanche 2 6 juin 1485
mercredi 16 0 1 1 8 9 0 ; mercredi 29 juin 1485 et non jeudi 3 0 juin 1485
mardi 22 6II 890 ^ mardi 5 juillet 1485 et non mercredi 6 juillet 1486
mercredi 2 3 Û II 8 9 0 : mercredi 6 juillet 1485 et non jeudi 7 juillet 1485
mercredi gurre R h 8 9 0 ; mercredi 13 juillet 1485 et non jeudi 14 juillet 1485
jeudi seih R b 8 9 0 : îeudi 11 août 1485 et non vendredi 12 août 1485
Les sondages que nous avons pu effectuer à partir des fac-similés montre
que l'éditeur des documents n'a pas tenu compte du jour de la semaine 4 3 . Le fait
que le tribunal religieux de Brousse appliquait l'ère du 15 juillet est confirmé par
le journal de Mahmùd Hiidà'ï. Les fragments qui nous sont parvenus s'étendent du
11 muharrem 985 jusqu'au 9 sevvâl 987. Il s'agit ici d'un journal privé, mais
M a h m û d Hiidâ'ï fut nâ'ib (lieutenant) du qàdï de Brousse avant de devenir
derviche 44 .
Voici un registre d'attribution de timars du règne de Bâyezîd II, conservé

aux archives de la Présidence du Conseil à Istanbul dans le fonds maliyeden
miidevver defterleri (registres transférés du Ministère des Finances) sous le n°
17893 II compte 432 pages, mais au début un certain nombre de feuillets
manquent. Les annotations commencent en septembre 1487 et se poursuivent
jusqu au mots de mai 1489.
4
*H. Inalcik, "Osmanh idare, Sosyal ve Ekonomik Tarihiyle ilgili Beigeler: Bursa Kadi
Sicillerinden Seçmeler", dans Belgier, t. X. fase. 14, Ankara, 1981, p. 1-91 (monographie
occupant le tome tout entier)
42
Idem, op. cit., pl. I, IV, V, VI et VII. Les dates ne sont pas toutes dans l'ordre chronologique.
43
L e 12 gumâzâï-ahir étant un samedi (cf. pl. IV), la transposition selon l'ère chrétienne donne le
samedi, 25 juin 1485. Nous avons affaire au calendrier qui fait débuter l'hégire le 15 juillet 622.
Pour cette raison le 11 ¿umâià'l-ahir 890 ne peut correspondre qu'au vendredi 24 juin 1485: Idem,
op. cil., n° 148, p. 50 (texte en caractères arabes), p. 85 (résumé).
^ I r è n e Beldiceanu-Steinherr, Scheich Üftäde der Begründer des öelvetijje-Ordens, Munich, 1961,
p. 3-4. Sur Hiidä'i voir H. K. Yilmaz, "A/.iz Mahmud HüdSyt", dans islam Ansikbpedisi (Tiirkiye
Diyanet Vakfi), t. IV, Istanbul, 1991, p. 338-340.
24 N. BELDICEANU et I. BELDICEANU-STEINHERR
Lorsqu'on dresse la liste des entrées datées, on constate que le bureau

fonctionnait seulement les samedis, dimanches, lundis et mardis. Il n'y a pas
d'entrées les mercredis, jeudis et vendredis. D'autre part, faute de documents à
inscrire, certains jours ouvrables ne figurent pas non plus dans le registre.
Toutefois les dates sont suffisamment proches pour se rendre compte jusqu'à quel
point le secrétaire maîtrisait la chronologie.
Tout au début une incohérence flagrante apparaît. A un dimanche 5 sevvâl

ne peut suivre un mardi 6 sevvâl. De la p.l à la p. 9 on est dans l'ère du 16
juillet. A la p.10 on saute à l'ère du 15 juillet sans aucune explication. A la
p. 14, une erreur se glisse dans le texte, car le 3 ¡A'I qa'de 892 doit être un samedi
et non pas un mardi. La série est ensuite régulière jusqu'au samedi 29 iù'1-higge
892 (p.49). C'est ici qu'un changement intervient. D'après nos tables de
conversion l'année 892 n'est pas une année bissextile. Or il compte pour le j«7
higge 30 jours au lieu de 29. En ajoutant un jour de plus, il rattrappe le retard du
jour de la semaine et retombe dans l'ère du 16 juillet.
ère du 16 juillet
samedi 2 Sn 890 = samedi 13 août 1485 et non dimanche 14 août 1485
samedi 29 ZH 892 = samedi 15 déc. 1487 et non dimanche 16 déc. 1487
dimanche 30ZH892 = dimanche 16 déc. 1487 et non lundi 17 déc. 1487
lundi I e r M 893 = lundi 17 déc. 1487
mardi 2 M 893 = mardi 18 déc. 1487
La progression est ensuite régulière jusqu'au dimanche 17 muharrem 894

(dimanche 21 décembre 1488; p. 226). A partir de la p. 226, la transposition
d'après nos tables montre que le jour de la semaine recule d'un jour (par rapport à
l'ère du 16 juillet). A un samedi 22 muharrem 894 correspond un vendredi 26
décembre 1488. Ici nous avons comme point de départ le 17 juillet. Le secrétaire
se rattrappe en escamotant le 1 er safer après le 30 muharrem (p. 240-248). On se
retrouve de nouveau dans l'ère du 16 juillet, et cela jusqu'à la fin du registre.
L'examen des dates figurant dans le registre mentionné montre, d'une part,
que les années bissextiles ne correspondent pas à nos tables de conversion et
d'autre part, que le secrétaire a commis des erreurs manifestes; mais quand il
recule ou avance de temps à autre le jour de la semaine par rapport à la date du
mois, il est difficile de savoir s'il s'agit d'un réajustement en rapport avec un
calendrier bien établi, ou d'une simple erreur.
Jetons aussi un coup d'oeil sur les registres dans lesquels étaient consignés
les ordres impériaux. Nous avons dû nous contenter d'une série de fac-similés
LA C H R O N O L O G I E DES S O U R C E S 25
tirés du Topkapi B 12321 publiés dans un livre récent45. Nous avons comptés 27
entrées qui se répartissent ainsi. 11 d'entre elles correspondent à l'ère du 16 juillet
(le jour de la semaine dans l'ère musulmane et l'ère chrétienne concordent), 8
correspondent à l'ère du 15 juillet (le jour de la semaine de l'ère chrétienne est en
avance d'un jour par rapport à la date musulmane), 4 correspondent à l'ère du 17
juillet (le jour de la semaine de l'ère chrétienne est en retard d'un jour par rapport
à la date musulmane). Trois dates sont inexplicables et une lecture reste douteuse.
Ajoutons à cela que l'ordre chronologique est interrompu à mainte reprise. Les
éditeurs d'une partie des actes n'ont d'ailleurs pas caché que ce registre posait un
problème46.
En comparant les dates consignées sur les feuillets 3 r°, 74 v° et 3 v° on

constate que le secrétaire compte seulement 29 jours pour le mois de ramazàn.
Quant à la date portée au folio 18 v°, à savoir vendredi 12 sevvâl 951 = samedi
27 décembre 1544, elle n'est pas dans la même logique.
ère du 16 juillet
fol. 3 r ° lundi 29 Rn 951 = dimanche 14 décembre 1544
fol. 7 4 v° mardi 1 §1 951 = mardi 16 décembre 1544
fol. 3 v ° mercredi 2 Si 951 = mercredi 17 décembre 1544
fol. 18 v° vendredi 12 §1 951 = samedi 27 décembre 1544
Dans ce registre on constate par conséquent un certain nombre de décalages

à l'intérieur d'un même mois qui sont difficiles à expliquer. Il faudrait examiner
une série de miihimme dejterleri conservés aux Archives de la Présidence du
Conseil pour se faire une idée plus juste 4 7 . Mais cela est une tâche aussi
fastidieuse qu' ingrate.
Pour terminer, nous avons choisi un registre de fermage concernant les

revenus fiscaux de Buda et Pesth entre les années 1571 et 1574 48 . Il offre
l'avantage d'être tenu au jour le jour, ce qui permet de déceler les endroits où se
produisent des décalages. Pour ne pas allonger notre tableauoutre mesure, nous
avons dépouillé deux fragments sur trois, les nos. II (p. 53-169) et III (p. i 70-
213) et nous avons indiqué seulement le premier et le dernier jour du mois.
45
M . Berindci, G. Veinstein, L'empire ottoman et les pays roumains (1544-1545) Paris-
Cambridge, 1987.
i(>
/deni, op. cil., p. 10.
47
V o i c i deux publications de documents qui s'appuient sur les miihimme dejterleri et qui
contiennent aussi la date d'entrée: G. Veinstein, "L'hivernage en campagne, talon d'Achille du
système militaire ottoman classique", dans Studia Islamica, fase. LV1II, Paris, 1983, pl. III, p.
135 et n. 4; Idem, "Un achat français de blé dans l'empire ottoman au milieu du XVI e siècle", dans
L'empire ottoman, la République de Turquie et la France, Istanbul-Paris, 1986, p. 34. Le lundi 13
tafer 959 tombe effectivement un lundi, si l'on prend l'ère du 15 juillet en considération.
48
L . Feketc, Gy, Kâldy-Nagy, Rechnun^biicher türkischer Finanzstellen in Buda (Ofen), 1550-
1580, Budapest, 1962, p. 53-319.
26 N. BELDICEANU et I. BELDICEANU-STEINHERR
Toutefois lorsque le secrétaire a ajouté un trentième jour à un mois qui ne

compte que vingt-neuf, le vingt-neuvième figure aussi dans le tableau. Nous
avons noté également toutes les anomalies qui se produisent à l'intérieur d'un
même mois. La première colonne représente les dates du registre, la deuxième
contient la transposition selon l'ère chrétienne, en respectant le jour de la
semaine; la troisième donne les équivalences de nos tables de conversion d'après
l'ère du 16 juillet.
Fragment n° 11 (p 53-169)
lundi 1er Si 978 = lundi 26 février 1571 lundi 26 février 1571
lundi 29 §1 9 7 8 = lundi 26 mars 1571 lundi 26 mars 1571
mardi 1 e r Z Q 978 = mardi 27 mars 1571 mardi 27 mars 1571
jeudi 3 ZQ 97849 = jeudi 29 mars 1571 jeudi 29 mars 1571
vendredi 5 Z Q 978 = vendredi 30 mars 1571 samedi 31 mars 1571
mardi 30 ZQ 978 = mardi 24 avril 1571 mercredi 25 avril 1571
mercredi 1 e r ZH 978 = mercredi 25 avril 1571 jeudi 26 avril 1571
jeudi 30 ZH 9 7 8 5 0 = jeudi 24 mai 1571 vendredi 25 mai 1571
vendredi 1 e r M 978 = vendredi 25 mai 1571 samedi 26 mai 1571
vendredi 29 M 9 7 9 5 1 = vendredi 22 juin 1571 samedi 23 juin 1571
samedi 1 e r S 979 = samedi 23 juin 1571 lundi 25 juin 1 5 7 1 5 2
samedi 29 S 979 = samedi 21 juillet 1571 lundi 23 juillet 1571
dimanche 1 e r RI 979 = dimanche 22 juillet 1571 mardi 24 juillet 1571
lundi 30 RI 9 7 9 = lundi 20 août 1571 mercredi 22 août 1571
mardi 1 e r Ril 979 = mardi 21 août 1571 jeudi 23 août 1571
mardi 29 RII 979 = mardi 18 sept. 1571 jeudi 20 sept. 1571
mercredi 30 Rll 9 7 9 5 3 = mercredi 19 sept. 1571
jeudi 1 e r ¿Î1 979 = jeudi 20 sept. 1571 vendredi 21 sept. 1571
jeudi 29 ÓI 9 7 9 5 4 = jeudi 18 oct. 1571 vendredi 19 oct. 1571
vendredi 1 e r ÛII 979 = vendredi 19 oct. 1571 dimanche 21 oct. 1571
vendredi 29 611 979 = vendredi 16 nov. 1571 dimanche 18 nov. 1571
samedi 30 Ó11 9 7 9 5 5 = samedi 17 nov, 1571
dimanche 1 e r Rb 979 = dimanche 18 nov. 1571 lundi 19 nov. 1571
dimanche 29 Rb 9 7 9 5 6 = dimanche 15 déc. 1571 lundi 16 déc. 1571
lundi I" Sn 979 = lundi 16 déc. 1571 mercredi 19 déc. 1571
date suivante présente une anomalie. En ce qui concerne le jour de la semaine, on avance
d'un jour; mais concernant le jour du mois, l'avance est de deux jours.
Année bissextile.
Muharrem a trente jours.
Différence de deux jours.
^ RebF el-àffir n'a que vingt neuf jours.
^ôumûzâ 'l-ewel a trente jofirs.
-'-'óumàiù 'l-âhir n'a que vingt-neuf jours.
^ R e g e b a trente jours.
lundi 29 Sn 979 = lundi 14 janv. 1572 mercredi 16 janv. 1572

mardi 30 S n 979 5 7 = mardi 15 janv. 1572
mercredi 1 e r Rn 979 = mercredi 16 janv. 1572 jeudi .17 janv. 1572
jeudi 30 Rn 979 = jeudi 14 févr; 1572 vendredi 15 févr. 1572
Fragment n ° III (p. 170-213)

samedi 1 er §1 979 = samedi 16 févr. 1572 samedi 16 févr. 1572
samedi 29 §1 979 = samedi 15 mars 1572 samedi 15 mars 1572
dimanche 1 er ZQ 979 = dimanche 16 mars 1572 dimanche 16 mars 1572
mardi 10ZQ97958 = mardi 25 mars 1572 mardi 25 mars 1572
jeudi 11 ZQ 979 = jeudi 27 mars 1572 mercredi 26 mars 1572
lundi 29 ZQ 979 5 9 = lundi 14 avril 1572 dimanche 13 avril 1571
mardi 1 er ZH 979 == mardi 15 avril 1572 mardi 15 avril 1572
mardi 29 ZH 979 = mardi 13 mai 1572 mardi 13 mai 1572
mercredi 1 er M 980 = mercredi 14 mai 1572 mercredi 14 mai 1572
dimanche 5 M 980 6 0 = dimanche 18 mai 1572 dimanche 18 mai 1572
lundi 5 M 980 = lundi 19 mai 1572 dimanche 18 mai 1572
jeudi 29 M 980 6 ' = jeudi 12 juin 1572 mercredi 11 juin 1572
vendredi 1 er S 980 = vendredi 13 juin 1572 vendredi 13 juin 1572 62
Voici les remarques que nous suggère cette datation. Chaque fragment
commence avec le premier sevvâl. Notons que l'observation de la nouvelle lune
était particulièrement importante à ce moment de l'année, car elle annonçait la fin
du jeûne du ramaiân. Aussi bien dans le fragment n° II que dans le fragment n°
III, la transposition des dates nous montre-t-elle que nous sommes dans l'ère du
16 juillet. Cette ère est respectée jusqu'aux premiers jours du mois de zù ï-qacde .
Dans le fragment n° II, le secrétaire passe du jeudi 3 à vendredi 5 zû 'l-qcfde, dans
le fragment n° III de mardi 10 à jeudi 11 zu 'l-qacde. Dans le premier cas, i! saute
le jour du mois (le 4 lû ïqa cde), dans le deuxième, le jour de la semaine (le
mercredi). Une autre anomalie se situe dans le mois de muharrem 980. A un
dimanche 5 muharrem suit un lundi 5 muharrem.
Abstraction faite de ces cas. la succession des jours de la semaine et des

jours du mois suit une logique propre au document. Il y a évidemment des faits
qui surprennent: les mois de muharrem, gumâzâ'l-evvel, regeb, zû'l qa' de 979 et
il .
Sa'bjn n'a que vingt-neuf jours.
58
JO
L a daie suivante présente mu: anomalie. En ce qui concerne le jour de ¡il s e n t i n e , on avance
d'un jour, mais en ce qui concerne le jour du mois, 1'avance.est seulement d'un jour.
59
Zu'l-qa c de a trente jours.
60
L a date suivante présente une anomalie. En ce qui concerne |e jour de la semaine, on avance
d'un jour, mais en ce qui concerne le jour du mois, on répète Je même jour, c'est-à-dire le 5
muhurrem.
Muharrem a trente jours.
62
L e fragment finit avec le jeudi 7 fafer 980.
28 N. BELDICEANU et I. B E L D l C E A N U - S T E I N H E R R
muharrem 980 comptent 29 jours au lieu de trente, le rebf el-âhir, gunufya'l-ahir

et saPbân comptent 30 jours au lieu de vingt-neuf. Nous attirons l'attention sur le
fait que le ramadan 979 compte 31 jours puisqu'au jeudi 30 ramadan suit le
samedi premier sewâl. Cette irrégularité dans la succession des mois de vingt-
neuf et de trente jours explique les écarts que l'on observe lorsqu'on convertit les
dates selon l'ère chrétienne. Il serait intéressant d'étudier, si les anomalies que
l'on constate dans le registre, ne sont pasdes réajustements maladroit effectués en
rapport avec la visibilité de la nouvelle lune à l'œil nu. Nous pensons en
particulier au passage du jeudi trente ramadan au samedi 1 er sevvâl 979, mais la
question dépasse notre compétence.
IV. Conclusion
Quelle leçon tirer de toutes ces observations? Elles se situent sur deux
niveaux. Elles concernent d'abord le fait historique en soi: l'application du
calendrier musulman par les Ottomans et l'importance qu'ils accordaient à la
chronologie, mais elles engagent aussi l'attitude de l'historien face à la
transposition des dates.
En ce qui concerne le premier point, les exemples que nous avons

invoqués montrent que dans l'État ottoman, là datation n'entrait en jeu que
lorsqu'un événement revêtait une significatiorr-toute particulière (naissance d'un
prince, victoire sur l'ennemi) ou lorsque l'établissement d'une chronologie était
indispensable à la bonne marche de l'Etat. Elle se situe au plus haut niveau, celui
du souverain; les dignitaires ne datent pas leur missives.
Parmi les documents datés, il y a les firmans, mais ce sont les registres
tenus au jour le jour qui révèlent comment les Ottomans maniaient la
chronologie: registres des dépenses du palais, des attributions de timar, des actes
émis par le sultan. A cela on ajoutera les registres des tribunaux religieux. Dans
de nombreux cas, l'ère choisie est celle du 15 juillet, mais on rencontre aussi
celle du 16 juillet.
Parfois la différence d'un jour ne s'explique pas par l'ère adoptée. En

parcourant les registres tenus au jour le jour, on s'aperçoit que le calendrier
musulman n'était pas appliqué avec la même rigueur qu'aujourd'hui. Pour les
années ordinaires, on ajoute au mois de $ul-higge un trentième jour et pour les
années bissextiles, on oublie dè lé faire. En outre on confond constamment les
mois de trente jours avec ceux de vingt-neuf jours. On constate par ailleurs que
l'énumération des jours est parfois illogique, qu'il s'agisse des jours de la
semaine ou des jours du mois. On est tenté d'attribuer ces irrégularités à
l'inattention, mais dans certains cas il peut s'agir d'un réajustement maladroit. Il
faut tenir compte du fait que la visibilité de la nouvelle lune primait sur les
calculs astronomiques.
Venons au deuxième point. Quelle attitude adopter face aux divergences

dans la datation? Jusqu'à présent les réponses variaient de chercheur en chercheur.
Les uns ont ignoré le problème. Ils ont transformé toutes les dates d'après l'ère du
16 juillet, sans mentionner le jour de la semaine, passant ainsi sous silence le
décalage. D'autres ont tenu compte du jour de la semaine et ont transposé les
dates selon l'ère du 15 juillet, mais ils n'ont pas jugé nécessaire d'expliquer leur
démarche. D'autres encore, alarmés par le nombre croissant de divergences, ont
préféré retenir le jour du mois, en corrigeant entre parenthèses le jour de la
semaine. Quelques-uns enfin, ont soigneusement ajouté pour chaque
transposition le jour de la semaine, mais sans faire allusion au problème que cela
posait dans certains cas.
Quels critères adopter en cas de décalage? Il faut d'abord tenir compte qu'à
l'époque, la vie était ponctuée par la suite des jours de la semaine avec sa
coupure, le vendredi, jour consacré à Dieu. Certains actes ne pouvaient avoir lieu
qu'un vendredi: la grande prière à la mosquée, la déclaration solennelle d'une
campagne militaire, l'action de grâce pour une victoire. Il serait absurde de ne pas
en tenir compte.
Quant il y a dans un texte un décalage régulier et permanent qui montre

que le document s'appuie sur l'ère du 15 juillet, le fait est à prendre en
considération. Mais lorsqu'on se trouve devant une multitude de dates qui ne
laissent apparaître aucune cohérence, on ne peut donner que les équivalences des
tables de conversion en usage de nos jours en signalant toutefois l'anomalie.
Ainsi, chaque transposition d'une date musulmane dans notre ère ne doit pas être
faite d'une façon mécanique, mais doit tenir compte d'un certain nombre de
facteurs afférents.
St. Michel-sur-Orge
Géza DAVID
OTTOMAN ADMINISTRATIVE STRATEGIES

IN WESTERN HUNGARY
The rationality of the Ottomans' military enterprises if, that is, they had
strategic plans at all, is a topic that has been rarely investigated systematically
and even less documented. The main reason for this, especially until the middle
of the 16th century, is the scarcity of archive material, but the lack of preparatory
works, i e. of sufficient source publications, and of competence also play a role
in it. Consequently, speculations, which can go so far as to speak about
"silvermine-campaigns" of which the fifth resulted in the conquest of Srebrenica
/Ottoman; Srebrenica/,' or can create a whole theory and call it "Suleyman's
offer", according to which this Sultan could have imagined Hungary as a vassal
state had he been granted free march across the country against Vienna, gain
ground. 2 If we now focus our interest only on Hungary, very few conceptual
studies can be mentioned. In one of these, published recently, the testimony of
the European and Ottoman sources regarding the period 1520-1541 has been
successfully combined and harmonized. 3 Its author presented, among others, an
undated document which can be interpreted as an Ottoman "plan" for the
occupation of Hungary. 4 It is a list of castles and fortifications — both in
western and eastern parts of the country — in the possession of the most
important Hungarian landlords on King John of Szapolya's side, who was one of
the elected kings of Hungary after the battle of Mohacs. It was prepared during
the 1541 campaign and reflects large scale intentions of the Ottoman state
leadership. The original aim, however, was only partly fulfilled, since it was too
ambitious, on the one hand, and also the Sultan was not resolute enough to
attempt to realize it. The capita! of the country was naturally appended to the
Empire but — beside the creation of two semi-ordinary sancaks in eastern
' T h i s view was exposed by a numismatist: Elemcr Piv<5, Toriik pénzek a hudohsag kori
Magyarorszdgon. Budapest 1986, 102.
2
Géza Perjés, Mohacs. Budapest 1979, passim.
3
Pàl Fodor, Magyarorszàg és a lortik Mdilus. Budapest 1991, 13-119. (This section of (he book
will be soon accessible in English in Acla Orientalia Hungarian.)
4
Ibid. 103. Turkish transcription and facsimile of the text: 87-93
32 Géza DAVID
Hungary, one for Brother George, the tutor of John Sigismund (the underage son
of King John), that was disguised as the territory of this latter, and one for Peter
Petrovics, the main adviser of the dowager queen, Isabel, around Temesvir 5 —
the rest of Hungary was left uncontrolled. Consequently the formation of further
administrative units depended on later military successes.
When conquering Buda /Budin or Budun/ the question surely arose: in

which form should it be incorporated into the Empire? Traditionally, European
acquisitions had been collected in one single vilayet or beglerbegilik, that of
Rumelia, from the huge territories of which only some coastal areas were
detached in 1534, in order to make a province for Barbarossa Hayreddin, the new
kapudan Pasha, this being perhaps the price of his changing from piracy to the
Ottomans' service. 6 The final decision was to call a new vilayet into existence,
which resolution was surely based on the perception that only a beglerbegi could
veritably match, both on military and diplomatic levels, the from now sole
western enemy of the Ottomans: the Habsburgs.
For a year or so after 1541 Buda was a strange Ottoman outpost without
hinterland and even the analysis of the first two beglerbegis' hasses reveals that
the treasury was not prepared for the establishment of the province. This implies
that political decisions had not always been previously brought into harmony
with financial considerations. 7
The first saneak seat in Transdanubia, our present region of interest, and
north of the Drava line was Mohacs /Miha^/. The first archival reference to its
beg, Kasim figured in a Sultanic order of 1 March 1542, which is mentioned in a
ruznamge. It concerns a timar granted to someone who had deserved it for his
repeated heroism in the marches. 8 If we remember that at least a month had to
pass until the proposal was evaluated in Istanbul, the beginning of February or
the end of January seem to be plausible as nomination date of the sancakbegiIt
is in a way symbolic that this very settlement won priority — not far from it
was the decisive battle fought between Louis II and Suleyman I in 1526.
At this point there was no other choice, Mohics being the only Ottoman-
controlled town. It is still remarkable that even after the rapid growth of the
-*Mihnea Berindei - Gilles Veinstein, L'Empire ottoman et les pays roumains, 1544-1545. Études
et documents. Paris-Cambridge 1987, 27-46; Pài Fodor, op. cil. 107-115.
6
C f . Aldo Galotta, "Khayr al Din Pasha, Barberousse", L'Encyclopédie de l'Islam. IV. Leiden
1978, 1189.
7
S e e my "Incomes and Possessions of the Beglerbegis of Buda in (he Sixteenth Century",
Soliman le Magnifique et son temps. Siileymân the Magnificent and His Time. Paris 1992, 388.
I s t a n b u l , Bajbakanlik Osmanli Arçivi, Maliye defteri 34, f. 632(?) r
®Using indirect data, Gyula Káldy-Nagy also put the creation of this saneak to 1542: A Buda:
siandzsúk 1559. évi dsszeírása. Budapest 1977, 7-8.
OTTOMAN ADMINISTRATIVE STRATEGIES 33
occupied lands, for 10 years or so the whole region south of Lake Balaton was
kept together and labelled mostly under the same name. Due to the fact, however,
that the beg of Mohics often stayed in the much stronger fortification of
Szekcsfi, this place also figures as the designation of this sancak.
Returning to chronology: since in the next 2-3 years the new conquests
were concentrated on the territory along the right side of the Danube, the natural
direction towards Vienna, two sancaks could be organized in these northern areas
— both formed around earlier royal centres, namely in Esztergom /Ostorgon/,
which had been also the seat of the cardinal of Hungary for centuries, and in
Szekesfehervar /Istolni Belgrad/, the coronation town. With this depriving the
country of its most important ruling and ecclesiastic cities, the Ottomans proved
again that they were well oriented in essential strategical issues, on the other
hand this surely had a psychological effect on the local population: if these
places are lost, everything is lost.
Alter these really inventive first steps, a seemingly less well-considered

period came when fortifications of secondary or third rate significance became
seats of new sancaks. When it was captured at the end of 1545, Simontornya
/§imontorna/, a lesser castle, was selected to be the centre of a /iva. 10 True, this
stronghold played a counterbalancing role against Palota, a non-negligible link of
the Hungarian chain of fortresses; nonetheless this task could also have been
performed had it been only made a nahiye-seat. Less clear is the reason why the
sancak of Koppany /Kopan/, was detached from the enormous liva of Mohdcs by
1552.' 1 It was probably intended to function as one more advanced post to secure
further territorial expansion. No similar arguments can be brought up regarding
the mim-sancak of Szekszard /Seksar/, lying near the Danube in a well-protected
region since surrounded by Ottoman lands, the first (?) beg of which was taken
captive somewhat before July 1552 and whose successor was nominated at that
date. 1 2 The area transferred to this unit had belonged partly to Simontornya, 13
l0
G é z a David, A Simonwrnyai simdzsak a 16. szazudbun. Budapest 1982. 10-11.
' 1 Its first lahrir-deften was copied into the same volume as the one of Simontornya completed in
that year: Ba$bakanlik O s m a n l i Argivi, T a p u defteri 412. — 1 cannot refrain f r o m citing an
exceptional story concerning the activity of its bea Nasuh, the shrewdness and cynicism of which
is so p e c u l i a r to the i m p e r i a l i s t i c and totalitarian mentality. He, n a m e l y , " a n o i n t e d " Istvan
(Stephen), the parson of the town to be the "bishop" of a new "diocese" and then forced him to
write letters to the n e i g h b o u r i n g villages inviting their population to submit t h e m s e l v e s to the
T u r k s . The text, which contains threats in case they would not obey, ends with the following
s i g n a t u r e a n d titles: "Istvan, f r o m God's m e r c y the elected b i s h o p of K o p p a n y in county
K o p p à n y ( N . B . no s u c h county had ever existed) by his highness the Turkish e m p e r o r . " (Cf.
Ferenc M a k s a y , IstvSn " K o p p à n y i Piispok". TUrlénelmi Szemle 1969/1-2, 129, quoted b y ElOd
Vass, T o r o k k o p p a n y 1556. évi elso torok adóòsszeirasa. Somoxy megye multjdból /Levéltàri
Évkònyv 3. Ed. by József Kanyar/. Kaposvàr 1972, 58.)
' 2 Kaldy-Nagy, op. cit. 10, note 23.

13
Dàvid, A Simomornyai szandisàk. 18.
34 G é z a DÀ V I D
partly to Székesfehérvár. 14 Finally, it is quite difficult to explain why Pécs

/Pe?Qy/, this episcopal seat, remained subordinated to Mohács-Szekcsó for so
long: the first reference to its being an independent sancak can be cited from
1568 15 and the first separate tahrir-defieri stems from 1570.16
The administrative units we have referred to so far existed for decades.

There were, however, also quite short-lived sancaks in Western Hungary, the fate
of which was partly determined by military successes or defeats, partly by
political or other considerations, which are not always easy to detect. Among
others Gordsgal /Girjgál/, this totally insignificant place, reached this status
between 1552 and 1556, 17 its beg sometimes sojourning in Siklós /§ikló§/. 18
Babócsa was also a sancak centre between 1555-1556, namely throughout

the short period it was in Ottoman hands for the first time.19 Then, quite oddly,
'Ântal Velics - Ernö Kammerer, Magyarorszägi lüriik kincstàri deflerek. II. Budapest 1890,
119. —It is curious, however, thai some villages of the nähiye of Tolna /Tölna/, one of the sub-
districts of Szekszàrd, were still enumerated as belonging to Székesfehérvàr in a rùtnàmê entry of
15 February 1554 (cf. Wien, Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv, Ehemalige Konsularakademie.
Krafft 284, f. 95'). Even if we remember that the appointment of the person in question
(otherwise the first and perhaps only sancakbegi of Veszprém /Besprem or Besprim/ in the 1
550s, cf. infra) fell around 3-12 July 1552, the failure to correct the administrative ranking is
strange.
'-'Metin Kunt, Sancaktan eyalele. 1550-1650 arasinda Osmanli ümerasi ve il idaresi (Bogazifi
Üniversitesi Yayinlan No. 154). Istanbul 1978, 134.
l6
T a p u defteri, 1012.
' ^ K ä l d y - N a g y , op. cil. 10, note 22 quotes those passages from the related miihimmedefieri
which prescribed the creation of this tivù in March 1552. Pefevi —erroneously indicating 1554
instead of 1555— enumerates Ahmed beg a s 'he head of Görözsgal among the besiegers of
Kaposvär /Kapöjvär/, Babócsa /Böböfia/ and Korotna /Körotna/ (Täril)-i Pe$evi. I. Istanbul n. d.
354 — for an unknown reason Andreas Birken gives this date as 1533: Die Provinzen des
Osmanischen Reiches. /Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B, Nr. 13/
Wiesbaden 1976, 28), who was transferred to the newly conquered Babócsa not much later, on 12
November 1555 (Ba$bakanlik Osmanli Arjivi, Kepeci 214, p. 5). Hiiseyn, the timär-defterdün of
Buda was assigned to replace him, but only for a very short time: after 3 December of the same
year he appears in Akkerman /Ak-kermän/ (ibid. p. 31). Hungarian sources know about a beg of
Görözsgal, unfortunately without specifying his name, as a participant of war events as late as
the middle of September 1556. (Cf. Fercnc Szakàly, Egy végvàri kapitäny hétkoznapjai. Horväth
Màrk szigeti kapitäny levelezése Nidasdy Tamäs nädorral és szervitoraival, 1556-1561. Somogy
megye mühjäböl. /Levéltàri Evkönyv 18. Ed. by József Kanyar/. Kaposvär 1987, 91, Nos. 20,
20/a.) The last occasion when Görözsgal is mentioned as a sancak was on 4 January 1557, but
now together with Mohécs; Kìsim Pasha returned to the double-named district, leaving the
Pasha-seat of Temesvär / T e m e j v ä r / . Oddly enoügh, he received the post "in the form of a
beglerbegilik" (beglerbegilik tarikile), that is it was his high position this time thai made the
fusion of the two livas necessary. (Ba$bakanlik Osmanli Arsivi, Mühimme Defteri 2, p. 207, No.
1878).
,8
T h i s can be the only reason for our finding this place here and there in the denomination of the
given livä (never alone, however). See e. g. in a cizye-defteri from 1554: Gyula Käldy-Nagy,
Baranya megye XVI. szäzadi lörök adóosszeiràsai. (A Magyar Nyelvtudomänyi Tärsasig
Kiadvänyai, 103. szüm), Budapest I960, 3, 77.
19
O n the related military events see: Kdlmän Benda, Zrinyi Miklós, a szigetvdri hós. Szigetväri
emlékkSnyv. Szigetvàr ¡566 évi ostromänak 400. évfordulójàra. Ed. by Lajos RüzsÄs (A
another beg appears 30 years later as being appointed there. 20 More precisely this
person, elevated to governor rank in 1585, was nominated to rule the sancak of
Babócsa, Berzence, Segesd, and Szdcsény ISbqeaJ, i. e. 4 castles of lesser
importance. One reads this with some astonishment: to call a livá after 4
settlements is unprecedented in Ottoman administrative practice, as much as the
statement that it was the Grand Vizier, 'Osmán Pasha (and not the Sultan) who
conferred the office on Hüseyn and who consequently launched the idea of
establishing this unit. No particular explanation is offered, merely a financial
term is repeated twice: the new formation was grounded on the financial surplus
(ifraz) of Szigetvár /Sigetvár/. 21 More careful analysis reveals that ifráz means in
this context a part of the incomes of the previous beg of Szigetvár which were
assigned to Hüseyn with the very same amounts, as far as the separate items are
concerned. Consequently other considerations played an actual role, in all
likelihood strategical ones — with the uniting of the military forces of the 4
párkáns, further expansion was aimed at to secure territory in the direction of
Kanizsa. All the strongholds in question lay in the front lines, almost on the
same plane, except for Berzence which is situated a little to the west. It is quite
likely, of course, that if this sancak had had a long life, the denomination would
have been reduced solely to Babócsa while the 3 other forts —sinking to náhiye
level— would have disappeared from it. However, we never hear again about this
sancak nucleus, which implies that it was abolished very soon thereafter.
The third Transdanubian livá of short existence was that of Veszprém.

This episcopal seat was in Ottoman hands first between June 1552 - June 1566,
then between October 1593 and the summer of 1598. Ottoman archival sources
confirm its being a sancak centre from July 1552 until November 1556,
governed by a certain Mehrned. 22 Reliable contemporary Hungarian reports help
Magyar Tudomànyos Akadémia Dunàntuli Tudomànyos Intézete - Érteke/.ések 1966). Budapest

1966, 34-38. Its first and probably sole beg was Ahmed, cited in note 17 and transferred here from
Gorflgal on 12 November 1555 (Kepeci 214, p. 5). A ruùs-defteri entry remembers him and his
former possessions, which were given back to him while filling an unknown post, in November
1560: Muhimme defteri 4, p 165, No 1711
20
T h e castle was captured again in 1566 and was not lost until 1594. It became a ruihiye seat at
once Later, in 1581, a ser'asker (or êribaf i) was sent here, who functioned in two more nàhiyea
those of Berzence /Berzence/ and Segesd /§ege$/ as well: Maliye defteri 15567, p. 227 This,
again, shows that the Turks attributed a strategical importance to this fortification and the region
in general.
11
" Ba§bakanhk Osmanli Arsivi, Ruznamce 78, part Szigetvir, pp. 8-9. The date of Hiiseyn beg's
nomination corresponds to 17 March 1585 while he got his t e i e r e on 30. April. —A further
interesting point is that the post had another candidate, too. The following entry under
Simonlornya in the court register on 11 May 1585 shows this: "[SimontornyaJ was given to the
new Muslim, Ibrahim beg who had earlier received the nuhiye of Babócsa in the form of sancak but
that had not been successful." (Kepeci 262, p. 21.)
22
H e was registered in the r u m a t i n e of Buda on 15 February 1554: Krafft 284, ff. 95 r -96 r . This
date, however, is misleading. The text after the enumeration of his hashes alludes to 3-12 July
1552 when he acquired the hiikm-i ¡erifiot the sancak. —A ruus-defteri passage from 28 January
1555 is a reaction to the same beg's demand to get permission to build a hamam in the castle:
36 Géza D Ä VI D
to follow up his career until May 1558. Then his and Veli beg's men, disguised
in Hungarian garments, fell upon the soldiers of Arslan, the beg of
Szdkesfehdrvdr, encamped near Hard, a village in county Tolna. Since one person
from the attackers was killed, the truth came to light. The beg of Veszprem had
to be punished; the beglerbegi sent a troop of sipahis to arrest him, then he was
brought to Buda. 23 It is almost certain that as punishment he was removed from
his office. At this stage he could turn to jehzade Bayezid, 24 who made efforts in
his interest, in all probability in vain; at least as far as Sz6kesfeh6rvdr or
Veszprem were concerned. The former was, in fact, ruled by Hamza beg between
1 5 5 8 - 1 5 6 2 , 2 5 while the latter ceased to exist and became anahiye of
Sz6kesfeherv£r. 26 Even the fact that Tur "All is mentioned as the former beg of
Veszprdm in 1564, 27 does not contradict this assertion, because in all other cases
he occurs as the governor of Szekesfehervar. 28 The explanation will be that this
latter mirliva occasionally stayed officially at Veszprem; this sort of practice was
not rare in the European regions.
A similar series of events followed one another after the second conquest
of the town. Narrative sources agree that a sancakbegi was put there at once. 2 9
Kepeci 213, p. 9. —On 23 June 1556 it was ordered that his hässes should be completed after 4 of
his villages had been granted to someone else: Kepeci 215, p. 47. —In September 1556 he gave
petitions for the replacement of certain persons in the carni' of Veszprém and it is likely that he
was the sender of a similar letter in November as well: Velics - Kammerer, op. cit. II. 258-259. —
In an undated document, submitted by f e h z ä d e Bayezid, Mehmed figures already as former
sancakbegi of Veszprém: Istanbul, Topkapi Sarayi Müzesi Arjivi, E 2142 (published by Ismail
Hakki Uzunyar$ili, Sancaga gikarilan Osmanli jehzadeleri. Bellelen XXX1X/156 (1975), 674).
Since Bayezid's mother, Hurrem died in April 1558 it would be plausible to presume that the list
of demands in question, where he asked —among other things— either Székesfehérvdr or his
previous place for the mirliva, was sent before that date to Istanbul, she being the great supporter
of this one of her sons. We shall see soon that this assumption is untenable.
2
^ C s a b a D. Veress, Värak a Bakonyban. A veszprémi, pàpai és paliilai vär hadtörtenete.
Budapest 1983, 76. The source relating this story does not give the name of the beg, but it is very
likely that we have to do with the same person even here (Earlier references to him: idem, 70. 73-
75.)
24
C f . note 22 — it remains a riddle how was he able to arrange the intervention.
2
^ M y earliest datum on him in this function is from 19 September 1558: L. Fekete — Gy. Käldy-
Nagy, Rechnungsbücher türkischer Finanzstellen in Budu (Ofen), 1550-1580. Budapest 1962,
432 —He still possessed some villages in the sancak of Buda in the second half of 1562, when
the icmäl-defteri of this Uva was finished: Velics - Kammerer, op. cit. I. Budapest 1886, 149.
2
®This change is reflected in the cizye-defteri of 1563-1565: Die Steuerkonskription des
Sandschaks Stuhlweißenburg aus den Jahren 1563 bis 1565. Unter Mitwirkung von Istvän
Hunyadi bearbeitet von Josef Matuz, A székesfehérvari szandzsäk 1563-1565. évi adóOsszeirdsa.
Hunyadi lstväti kozremiikodésével közzeteszi Matuz József. Islamwissenschaftliche Quellen und
Texte aus deutschen Bibliotheken, hrsg. von Klaus Schwarz. Band 3. Bamberg 1986, 217-219.
(Cf. also Velics-Kammerer, op cit. II. 299.)
27
K e p e c i 74, p. 130. (Cf. Imre Karäcson, Torök-magyar oklevéltdr, 1533-1789. Ed. by Lajos
Thallóczy, Jänos Krcsmärik, Gyula Szekfü. Budapest 1914, 52, No. 30.)
28
K e p e c i 218, pp. 38, 39, Kankson, op. cit. 45-46, No. 17, etc.
29
"Abdulkädir efendi: Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Türkische Handschriften, Mxt.
130 (Flügel 1053), f. 12v, Tarila Na'inui. 1. Istanbul 1281, 86.
From archival evidence his name can even be discovered to be Kalender. 30 A

Hungarian source from die beginning of 1S94 speaks about the death of the beg
of Veszprém, without specifying his name; apparently he was killed in a duel
fought with bows and arrows. 31 The definite lack of any later mïrlivâs in his
place inclines us to contend that the sancak was abolished again.
What could be the reason for these comparatively frequent changes of

administrative boundaries and for the fact that relatively so many units were
called into existence in this not very large territory?
The aim seems to have been to station the, greatest and strongest possible
military forces in the closest proximity to the Habsburg-controlled areas. The
higher number of sancaks did not too much influence the quantity of soldiers;
rather it had the purpose of providing better efficiency of command. It could also
be hoped that the escort of a beg would be bigger than the prescribed size of his
retainers and that his men were more disciplined than those of an average sipàhi.
Another consideration could have been financial. The Ottomans probably
believed at thé beginning that they could expect huge incomes from the
Hungarian provinces. It turned out, however, that the total revenues of some of
the sancaks hardly exceeded the sum normally due to a mïrlivà. Realizing this,
certain muharrirs raised the idea of abolishing a part of the smaller sancaks but
without success. 32 Finally, the high number of persons eager to get a post could
also induce the central administration to create new livâs.
Concerning territory, another question also arises. Did the Ottomans take
over the earlier Hungarian county system as they had done with administrative
entities in the Balkans? If not, did they accept the boundaries of former large
landed properties? Tibor Halasi-Kun claimed to recognize Hungarian
administrative units within the sancaks of Szeged /Segedin/ and Temesvâr —
more precisely it would be the nâhiye boundaries that would reflect the former
counties. 3 3 Although such a practice would seem quite logical, to me his
equations are not convincing enough even for the above mentioned regions,
simply because he failed to map the Hungarian data parallel to the Turkish ones.
My experiences in Transdanubiâ suggest just the contrary of his assumptions.
•>n
•'"End of November 1593: Maliye defleri 15567, p, 406 — date of an order for a lemkki, end of
June 1594; Kepeci 344, p. 475—date of an order for an ibtida-timar.
11
-"Veress D., op. cit. 143. If this information is true, the second reference in note 30 should be
interpreted as that the Sultan's decree was issued after (Calender's death.
Cf. Diivid, A Simontornyai siandzsak. 18.
• Tibor Halasi-Kun, Ottoman Toponymic Data and Medieval Boundaries in Southeastern
Hungary. From Hunyadi to Rakitezi. War and society in late medieval and early modern Hungary.
Ed. by J. M. Bak - B. K. Kirdly. Brooklyn 1982, 243-250 + 6 maps. Idem., Some Notes on
Ottoman Mufassal Defter Studies. Raiyyet Rusimu. Essays presented to Halil fnalcik on his
Seventieth Birthday by his Colleagues and Students. Journal of Turkish Studies. TUrklilk Bitgisi
Araftirmalari. Volume 10(1986), 165.
38 Géza DÀ VI D
The above-cited dismemberment of the sancak of Moh&s alone is enough to

make us suspicious. If we add that almost the half of the nahiye of Szdsz /Saz/
was given to Simontornya sometimes after 1554 34 our scepticism will grow. To
put it clearly: had this sub-unit copied any kind of previous Hungarian patterns,
this would have come to end when it was divided. If we take the nahiye of Endred
/Endrlk/ within the sancak of Simontornya we see that this small sub-district
was based on settlements from the county of Somogy, but some places from 3
other counties, those of Veszprim, Tolna, and Fejdr were also incorporated in
it. 3 5 Approaching the issue from the other direction: the territory of county
Tolna was divided among no less then 4 livas, those of Buda, Szekszdrd,
Simontornya and M o h & s . 3 6 The examples could be augmented but these are
enough to portray that on the county level the Ottomans did not follow the old
Hungarian administration in Western Hungary. It cannot, of course, be
completely excluded that occasionally other types of parallels, say among one-
time Hungarian estate-boundaries or taxation districts and Ottoman nahiyes, will
be detectable, but this topic needs further meticulous investigation. 37
Whatever considerations lay behind the creation or abolition of a liva or

the modification of its boundaries, one thing is clear: when speculating about
administrative novelties, the Ottomans in Western Hungary did not go beyond
the framework of the sancak until the 1590s. From 1594 onwards, however, a
marked change presents itself in their policy: instead of forming new livas they
show a strong aptitude to establish new vilayets. The period in question is that
of the 'long' or 15 years' War with its recurring successes and defeats, not to
speak of serious losses on both sides. To justify the lasting campaigns on an
internal political level it was necessary to prove that the new conquests were of
great importance and what else could have justified it than the fact that the castles
captured were suitable for being seats of new beglerbegiliks. To a certain extent
the Ottomans were lucky in so far as they were able to take 2 or 3 really
significant castles where the headquarters of Habsburg-Hungarian commanders-in-
chief had been set up, and which were truly worthy to be provincial centres.
The first new vilayet, however, was organized around another strategical
place that had already been in Ottoman hands since 1566. For his heroism during
34
D à v i d , A Simonlornyai szaiidzsdk. 18.
3i
lbid. 137-142.
36
F o r Buda see: Gyula Kàldy Nagy. A Badai szandzsdk 1546-1590. évi ósszeirasai. Demogrdfiai
és gazdasàgtorléneii adaiok. Budapest 1985, index: 721-746 and map. For Simontornya see:
David, A Simonlornyai szandzsdk. places in the nahiyes of Simontornya and Tamàsi /Tonna$in/;
117-132, 134-137. For Szekszàrd see among others: Velics - Kammerer, op. cit. I. 238-250. For
Mohàcs see: Kdldy-Nagy, Baranya megye. 48-64 and map.
37
M a t u z calls attention to certain villages in the sancak of Székesfehérvàr that were labelled —
without nahiye indication— as belonging to one of the neighbouring castles. He is apt to
interpret this as a kind of preservation of former castle dependencies: op. cit. 27-30, 72-75.
the Habsburg sieges of Szikesfehervar and Esztergom (the assault of this latter
town was abandoned on 29 June 1594) —as a chronicle about his life narrates—
Tiryaki Hasan received Szigetvar again, this time with beglerbegi rank. 3 8 And
indeed: the master of Szigetvar is also designated with this office in archival
documents from the beginning of July 1594. 39 Further references throw light on
certain territorial regroupings as well. Among others a decree to the beglerbegi
and defterdar of Bosnia contains the following passage: "the sancak of Pojega had
been formerly attached to the beglerbegilik of Sigetvar and it had been ordered
that its ictnal and mufassal defteris be sent to its beglerbegi H a s a n " . 4 0 The
addressees were urged, then, to hand over the registers as soon as possible...
Another note informs us about the annexing of Pecs to Szigetvdr sometime
around the middle of September 1595. 41 At present we cannot tell how far these
administrative alterations were put into real practice, the only undisputable
evidence being that the main office-holder of Szigetvar was still denoted as
beglerbegi for a while. 42 A rumamge entry referring to the middle of May 1597,
however, denotes the functioning governor, Mehmed as sancakbegi again. 4 3
From this time on Szigetvar sank back to sancak level. 44
Then, until the end of 1594, two more beglerbegis were installed in the
West-Hungarian marches; the first in Gyoor /Yanik/. This town was taken on 29
September 1594 and soon after 'Osman Pasha could march in as its first
mirmiran. His titulature is somewhat contradictory in the narrative sources; 45 the
archive material, however, unambiguously gives him the title Y a n i k
beglerbegisi46 No data has been collected so far concerning the territorial
extension of this vilayet and I can very well imagine that like the aborted
•jo
• "Tiryaki Hasan Pagamn nazalan ve Kanije savunmast. Hazirlayun: Vahit Cabuk. Tercüman 1001
Temel Eser 129. Istanbul 1978, 74. (1 could not consult the original of this work, only the
modern Turkish edition, full with misreadings as far as Hungarian personal and geographical
names are concerned.)
39
Kepeci 344, p. 98, Maliye defleri 15567, p. 309.
4
®Mühitnrne defleri 73, p. 104, No 236. The command was entered into the volume in question
on 6 July 1595
4l
K e p e c i 344. p. 362.
Mali ye defteri 15567. pp. 308. 353. 354-355, Tarih-, Nuimü. I. 133
43
Kepeci 344, p. 333.
44
i n a recent book we find the following remark: "There is also evidence that there had been a
beylerbeyilik centred on Sigetvar for at least some months in 1595 ... which was presumably
reduced in status in 1600 to become a sancak of the vilayet of Kanije." (Caroline Finkel, The
Administration of Warfare: the Oltuman Military Campaigns in Hungary, 1593-1606. Beihefte
zur Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, Band 14. Wien 1988, 18, note 23.) On the
basis of what has been said above both parts of this statement need correction.
45
N a imä e. g. asserts once that "its (namely that of Györ) sancak was given to 'Osmän Pasha"
(up. cit. I. 101), somewhat later, however, refers to him as the beglerbegi of Yanik (ibid. 133).
46
T h c earliest known reference to Osman Pasha's movements is from January 1595: Maliye
defleri 15567, p. 228. About his successor, Mahmüd Pasha we have references from the end of
1597: Maliye defleri 16052, p. 87, Ruznamie 216, part Pecs, p. 3, Karäcson, op. cit. 182, No.
238.
40 Géza D A V I D
Bab6csa liva, this 'province nucleus' also disappeared, so that its administrative
boundaries have not been drawn. This supposition is confirmed when we learn
that a governor was stationed in P5pa as well. This castle —situated only some
45 fans from Gyfir— fell into Ottoman hands sometime in October 1594 and not
much later a certain tdris crops up in official documents as its beglerbegi /Papa
beglerbegisi/47 which cannot be interpreted otherwise than as a step towards one
more province. Idris was probably succeeded by Semender Pasha whom both
Na'ima and Katib £elebi hint at once 4 8 on the Turkish side, but who is also
reported —by a European observer— to be the very person who gave up Pdpa at
once when hearing that the Habsburg forces assaulting the castle were led by the
archduke Maximilian himself. 49
Whatever internal political motivations were behind these decisions, it

must have been obvious even to those who made them, that these vilayets were
no longer the same as the earlier ones. Their territory was so small, almost
restricted to the towns themselves plus their immediate surroundings, and the
possibility of attaching to them sancaks from Buda was so limited that only
further conquests could have made them "real" provinces. This, however, was not
the case and these vilayets faded away as soon as the castles were reconquered by
the Habsburgs in 1598.
The last pafalik in Transdanubia was established around Kanizsa /Kanija/,

this significant castle, again the centre of a captainship-in-chief, after it had been
captured on 20 October 1600. 5 0 After having rebuffed a concentrated Habsburg
4 7 Kepeci344, p. 317. The date of the order spoken of in this entry is evà'il fiifar 1003, i. e. 16-25
October 1594. This Turkish evidence helps us to fix the upper limit for the fall of Pàpa. Since the
za'im, who received a raise within the above space of time, was already in Pipa itself together
with his principal, there is no possibility of misunderstanding, consequently the place had to fall
a couple of days earlier —Further pertinent data: Maliye defteri 15567, pp. 73, 184, Maliye
defteri 16052, pp. 37, 51, Kepeci 344, p. 13, covering the period 4-13 December 1594 - 17-26
July 1596. -Among the narrative sources Katib £elebi is the best informed, but like Na'ima
concerning Gy8r, he is also inconsequent, first he says that tdris beg received the sancak of Pàpa
(Imre Karàcson, Torok torténeteirók. III. Budapest 1916, 230), then he reports that 1,000 Tatars
were sent to tdris Pasha at Pipa (ibid. 231-232).
4 8 Na'ìmà, op. cil. 1. 210, Karàcson, T(irok tìirténetirók. III. 284 — misunderstood and translated
as the "Pasha of Semendre".
4 9 Veress D., op. cit. 146,
It is worth noting that the nahiye of Kanizsa figures as early as 1578 in the tahrir-defleri of
Szigetvàr with almost 500 settlements, all the more so as it sheds light on Ottoman methods of
conquest and on their efforts to legitimate their claims. However, most of the places concerned
were registered as depopulated and with symbolic taxes. Among others, Kanizsa itself was
entered into this defter, but without a single inhabitant and with merely 500 akê! (Cf. Miinchen,
Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cod. Ture. 138, ff. 109 r -136 r ; Kanizsa: f. 135 r .) In reality, after a
Turkish siege of its castle in 1573, the town lived its everyday life in those years. Consequently,
the presence of most of these localities in the nahiye of Kanizsa cannot be seen other than as a
list of wishes, which could nevertheless be used whenever the status of these places was disputed,
saying: "they occur in the defter". (For a similar practice of registration in the sancak o f
Esztergom see: Lajos Fekete, Az Esztergomi szandzsdk 1570. évi adótisszetràsu. Budapest 1943,
assault in 1601, its mirmirans were able establish themselves here for decades, so
it was possible to develop the necessary provincial institutions. Still, there
remain several obscurities concerning the first years in the history of this vilayet.
Among others one can observe a certain contradiction regarding the person
of the first beglerbegi. Chroniclers agree that he was Hasan, but they give
different by-names and former places of service. The biography of Tiryaki would
like to see its hero to be the first holder of the post, 5 1 but no other source
confirms its assertion.
Another problem was raised by Nenad Moaianin in a paper read in

Nagykanizsa and entitled: 'Verwaltungsgeschichte Mittelslawoniens als
Bestandteil des Eyalets Kanizsa' (Published in Zalai Miizeum 4[1992], 73—75,
here 73). In the Munich manuscript of ~Aini "All's Kavdnin-i Al-i Ôsman he
found a note according to which Kanizsa was a salyaneli vilayet. This, at first
sight enigmatic, issue has been already solved by recent research: the "inevitable
drop in agricultural production owing to the war" forced the state to compensate
or to fully pay high-ranking officials from the war treasury or from that of
Buda. 5 2 In the account-books of the Kanizsa treasury, which have come down to
us from the period 1616-1630 5 3 only the local defterdars figure with cash
salaries 5 4 and never the beglerbegis. This can be explained in two ways: either
supposing that stabilization came after the war period, so they were granted
prebends, or that their salyane was paid from other funds.
A further field of interest is the territorial extension of the province

Kanizsa. The author of the more trustworthy chronicle about Tiryaki Hasan
Pasha's life maintains that he copied a sultan's decree which confers the Vizier
rank upon this beglerbegi on 20 November 1600, attaching the sancaks of
Szigetvar, Pecs and Pozsega /Pojega/ to his province. 55 Original archival sources
support this indirect evidence. The account-books of the vilayet referred to above
show that the cizye of the three sancaks in question was regularly paid into to the
especially 176-185, Nos. 406-470. Cf. also my 'üemographische Veränderungen in Ungarn zur
Zeit der Türkenhcrrschaft.' Acta Historicu XXXIV (1988) [1990], 80-81.)
51
Tiryaki Hasan. 89-90.
52
F m k e i , ap eil. 278-279 (quotation on 278). — To her examples from 1602-1604 I can add
some from 1601. Accordingly, Mehmed Pasha, the actual beglerbegi of Buda got 346 620 akê for
half a year, Hasan, the former beglerbegi of Lahsä enjoyed 116,661 akfe, Ibrahim, the deßerdär of
Buda received 52,960 akfe as salyäne, to mention only the highest sums of this kind: Velics —
Kämmerer, op. eil. II. 694.
53
Kepeci 1905, 1906, ¡944, 2290, 1920, 1942.
54
£ . g . Kepeci 1905, f. l r . 2290, f. I r
55
Tiryaki Hasan. 109. Because of the false date the originality of the document can be disputed, 1
am still inclined to believe that it reflects reality in this respect.
42 Géza DÀ V I D
Kanizsa treasury from 1616 onwards. 56 The same is true about the mukátaas, of
Pécs, Szigetvár and Kanizsa. 57 If we now compare the lands under the authority
of the governor of Kanizsa with the sancaks subordinated under the short-lived
vilayet of Szigetvár, the identity strikes the eye. No signs of a livá of Kanizsa
can be documented, confirming our former statement about the inflation of
provinces and the complete lack of new sancaks in this period. 58
A final topic worth reflecting upon is the relationship of the new viláyets
to Buda. Practically all of them could only survive if smaller or larger regions
were split off from the lands belonging to Buda itself. Without being able to
give exact proportions it can be said without exaggeration that the province of
Buda became considerably smaller, reduced almost to its original area, even if in
other dimensions. This territorial decrease, however, did not parallel a decline in
the prestige of the Pashas of Buda. On the contrary: a certain subordination of the
new provinces to Buda can be observed. 59 A decree, dating from the period
between the end of 1608 - beginning of 1609, sheds light on the character of this
connection regarding Buda and Kanizsa. In it the beglerbegi of the latter vilayet is
ordered to exchange information with the Pasha of Buda, "since matters of the
community of those marches have been transferred to his right judgment",
therefore "be always in good relationship and unity with him". Finally he was
also prescribed to send a copy of the muster register to Buda. 60 How other than
as subordination can these sentences be understood? It is another question that the
policy of establishing new vilayets was perhaps partly aimed at preventing too
great a concentration of power in the hand of the governors of Buda, a possible
danger in the vicinity of the Habsburg territories where different forms of
wielding power could have been learned in the course of time.
The present survey of administrative units created by the Ottomans in

Transdanubia has not given indisputable results concerning the systematic nature
of their activity in this field. The first period after 1541, when strategically
Âdditionally the head-tax of the suncak of Zvomik /lzvomik/, of Srebrenica and of the "land of
war" Idar iil-hurbl enriched also the treasury of Kanizsa.
»Cf. the volumes cited in note 52.
58
T h e same is true about the beglerbeîlik of Eger /Egri/, called to life in 1596. -It is quite
strange that not a single suncak was organized in the province of Újvár /Oyvàr/, either: cf. József
Biaskovics, Érsekújvár az oszman-török húdoltság korában (1663-1685). Castrum Novum 3,
Nové Zámky 1986, 91 etc. —The only exception is the vilayet of Várad /Varäd/, created after
1660, where beside the suncak of Várad a separate livá was established also around the castle of
Szentjobb /Senköb/, but its sancakbexi's, income was unusually low: 115,948 [p«nz] (cf. Tapu
defteri, 795, p. 76). -We can contend, then, that most of the other sancaks enumerated by Birken
—referring to Evliyä felebi— in these administrative units (op. cit. 32-33, 36-37, 38, 41)
should be eliminated from his lists
^Regarding Eger see: Birken, up. cit. 36.
60
Kepeci 71, p. 156.
important places were chosen to be sancak-centres is characterized by rational

decisions. Then there followed periods in which it is more difficult to discover
the criteria needed for the formation of a new liva or vilayet. We tried to reveal
some of the possible reasons. Similar studies will hopefully shed light on further
important motivations of Ottoman decision making.
Eötvßs Lorand University, Budapest

Cornell H. FLEISCHER
BETWEEN THE LINES: REALITIES OF

SCRIBAL LIFE IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY
"Al-katib kadhib;" "Who writes, lies." The Arabic aphorism invoked by

such critical participants in the bureaucratic expansion of the sixteenth-century
Ottoman Empire as Mustafa Ali points at once to Ottoman awareness of the
singular social and political importance of the scribal arts, and to the humanity
of the wiclder of the pen. Behind the impersonal, apparently seamless fabric of
the imperial orders, financial registers, and formal memoranda produced by more
or less literate, and more or less privileged, members of the Ottoman ruling
apparatus, lie less orderly and more variegated histories. The scribal career as
such, and the expansion and regularization of bureaucratic functions that were
among the most notable developments in Ottoman administrative history of the
sixteenth century, are subjects that have attracted a certain amount of scholarly
interest in the last decade. 1 These studies, by and large, have focussed either on
the larger institutional frameworks within which the "Ottoman katib" is
presumed to have functioned, or on the careers of extraordinary individuals
associated with the scribal class, careers which, implicitly or explicitly, are
treated within the context of pervasive assumptions that there must have existed
something like the ideal katib and the typical scribal professional path. "The
typical Ottoman bureaucrat" has become a sufficiently powerful topos in modern
historiography as to obscure the differences between the financial clerk of the
Linda T. Darting, "Ottoman Salary Registers as a Source för Economic and Sociai History, "
Turkish Studies Association Bulletin, 14/1 (1990), 13-33; C. H. Fleischer, Bureaucrat and
Intellectual in the Ottoman Empire: The Historian Mustafa Ali (¡541-1600), Princeton, 1986;
idem, "Preliminaries to the Study of the Ottoman Bureaucracy." in 5. Tekin et. al., eds., Ra'iyyet
Riisumu: Essays Presented to Halil halctk on his Seventieth Birthday by his Colleagues and
Students, 2. vols. Cambridge, 1986, vol. 1, 135-41; D. A. Howard, "The Historical Development
of the Ottoman Imperial Registry (Defter-i hakani): Mid-Fifteenth to Mid-Seventeenth
Centuries," Archivum Ottomanicum II (1986 [1988]), 213-30; Christine Woodhead, "From
scribe to litterateur: the career of a sixteenth-century Ottoman kätib," Bulletin of the British
Society for Middle Eastern Studies. 9/1 (1982), pp. 55-74.
46 Cornell H. FLEISCHER
fifteenth century and his counterpart of the eighteenth, let alone the social,
economic, and political chasm separating the bureau chief of the sixteenth
century from his subordinate.
Such distinctions must be relevant to the historian, and to no one more

than the student of Ottoman "classicism" concerned with discovering the realities
as well as the myths of the Siileymanic saeculum aureum. For it was during the
forty-six year reign of the "Second Solomon" that the central and provincial
bureaucracies of the Empire were suddenly expanded, with a dizzying speed that
meant, among other things, that it was only toward the end of the reign, around
1S55, that any significant measure of professionalism in the scribal class as a
whole and regularity of procedure could take hold. 2 This was an era in which
literacy gained singular importance in the process of elite recruitment, both
within the bureaucratic sphere proper and more widely in the ruling class; but the
manpower needs of an expansive bureaucracy and the novelty of that professional
class were such that the "typical" Ottoman bureaucrat could not yet have come
into existence. In the interest of demythifying the received image of the Ottoman
kátip and contextualizing scribal service in the Ottoman Empire in the first half
of the sixteenth century, I should like to adduce information taken from three
petitions found in the Topkapi Palace Archives. 3 These were written, at intervals
that span roughly the first thirty years of Siileyman's reign, by functionaries
whose livelihood depended on literacy and who, though otherwise unknown, were
among those who carried out the most basic work of empire in the sixteenth
century.
The first request comes from the resident specialist in protective occult
practices in the Palace, whose particular skill is the science of letters (itm-i
huruf) and divine names {ilm-i esnw') and the production of written amulets. 4 The
otherwise unidentified petitioner wrote between late 1524 and 1537; he mentions
^Fleischer, "Preliminaries." Cf. Howard, "Imperial Registry," p. 219, whose observation that "it
is only beginning with the 960s/1550s that the ruznamês take on a consistent format,
evidencing standardized procedures that were introduced with the expansion of the Registry"
supports (in the sphere of administrative practice) conclusions reached independently by Giilru
Necipoglu, based on art historical criteria, and C Fleischer, based on historiographical and
ideological development, that various aspects of what is commonly treated as the distinctive
imperial style identified with the Siileymanic regime did not coalesce as a style until after 1550,
See C. Fleischer, "The Lawgiver as Messiah," and G. Necipoglu, "A Canon for the Arts," in Gilles
Veinstein, ed., Soliman le Mannifique et son temps, Paris, 1992.
-'i wish to thank the Republic of Turkey for granting me permission to carry out the research
(1985, 1987) in the course of which 1 found these documents, and 1 further express my particular
gratitude to the directorate of the Topkapi Palace Museum and to Ms. Ulkii Altindag, director of
the Archive. The insights and instincts of my colleague Engin Akarli, based on his research in a
later and more voluminously documented period of Ottoman bureaucratic history, have been of
invaluable assistance in the interpretation of these documents. I further thank Barbara Flemming,
for her interest in scribes.
4
Topkapt Sarayi Miizesi Arîvi [TKS] E[vrak] 9998; T. Fahd, La Divination arabe, Leiden, 1968,
pp. 219-41.
REALITIES OF S C R I B A L LIFE 47
by name the princes Mehmed (b. 1521) and Selim (b. 1524),5 and he speaks of a
Muhyiddin £elebi as Che kadiasker of Rumeli, who in this context this must be
Fenarizade. 6 He further makes reference to an impending campaign against
Christendom, which would indicate a date close to 1526, 1529, 1532 or, at the
latest, 1537. Our author vaunts the virtues of his craft, which in fact
encompasses all forms of sacred learning, having been practiced by all the
prophets and saints from the time of Adam and Idris: "There is much power in
this noble science, which, when properly applied, people think to be a saintly
prodigy [velayet]; [one can] cause rain to fall, contrary winds to blow, a village
to do things against its will, cripple a hand or a foot, blind an eye." Despite this
power, our specialist, most particularly because of the demands on his services
made by the Palace, which requires amulets for the sultan and princes to be
produced on deadlines generated by the start of campaign seasons, faces-certain
practical difficulties. 7 He has grown old in the family trade and family service to
the Ottoman house—his father would seem to have been at the court of Murad
II— and his failing eyesight prevents him from fulfilling in time his growing
list of orders. Furthermore, it seems, his education is also somewhat lacking, a
fact that threatens to compromise propriety and security. Because he must
consult others on the meaning or spelling of Arabic words, his interlocutors may
gossip about the particular sorts of amulets required, the special needs of the
sultan, and their timing.
The second of these difficulties can be solved with books; he requests that
he be given two dictionaries, the Qdmus (i. e., of FTruzabadf] and the Sihah
(i. e„ of Jawhari], which will free him from reliance on others in deciphering the
obscure texts that arc his sources and stock in trade. The solution to the first
problem is also at hand. The petitioner has an orphaned ward, named Ahmed,
who is an exceptional calligrapher of ghubar script and practiced in other styles
as well, so skilled that he can write the FMha or lkhlas on a grain of rice.
Indeed, he has already produced talismanic armbands for the sultan and the princes
Sclim and Mehmed; this took place because the objects were ordered in Edirne,
and at that time and place there was no one but Ahmed to inscribe them.
At the Gate of Felicity there are scribes w h o receive salaries. When

something is to be written, they perform the task, and spend the rest of
their time praying for the benefit of the just sovereign and warrior for the
faith. My request is that he [Ahmed] be made one of these, and so when
5
See A. D. Alderson, The Structure of the Ottoman Dynasty, Oxford, 1956, Table 30.
^Richard Repp, The Miifti of Istanbul, Oxford, 1986, p. 271, provides the dates: 1523-37.
7
1 shall not dwell here oil the importance of this and other aspects of the petition for an
understanding of the role of magical practice and the invocation of saintly intervention in the
Suleymanic regime. These subjects are dealt with in Master of the Age: Suteyman the Lawgiver
and the Remaking of Ottoman Sovereignty (forthcoming, Princeton University Press).
48 C o r n e l l H. FLEISCHER
something is ordered to be made by your servant for your exalted person

he should be assigned the writing part of the task.
This proceeding would, like the first, help to keep confidential imperial
talismanic needs.
Although the result of this request is unknown, the document suggests a

number of considerations of consequence for the study of the scribal career path
in the sixteenth century. First, it indicates that the paths of recruitment to the
ranks of the kilttab were at this point, relatively early in the reign of Siileyman,
still open, varied, and irregular 8 ; the qualifications of the orphan Ahmed would
seem to lie in his calligraphic skill and foster relationship to an occult specialist
who had professional and family service ties to the Palace, rather than in
particular clerical skills acquired through apprenticeship or other specialized
education. The onomancer's characterization of the nature of the duties of Palace
salaried scribes, while perhaps exaggerated, still evokes an impression of the
novelty of the accumulation of a sizeable body of stipended scribal talent (the
growth and structuring of the paths of scribal service in Suleyman's reign is
documented 9 ), of the perception of this development as opening a new avenue of
social mobility in a fiscally and numerically expansive government apparatus,
and of the still relatively unstructured character of the duties of the kiittab.
Once an aspiring candidate gained a toehold in the developing bureaucratic

hierarchy, his financial and social progress was by no means assured. As the next
document demonstrates with dramatic clarity, even the most persistent and
devoted katib was faced with extraordinary financial obligations imposed by his
superiors. 1 0 The first step on the ladder, for those unfortunate enough to be
obliged to work their way up from the bottom rather than being appointed
directly to a full scribal stipend within one of the unfolding branches of the
central bureaucratic service, was to serve as apprentice, salaried or unsalaried, to a
ranking scribal official. The apprentice owed his first loyalty to his master, as
both the form of appointment (salaried apprentices are identified as being attached
to particular individuals 1 1 ) and this petition make clear, until such time as the
aspirant attained an appointment and salary line in his own right.
The petitioner, who does not identify himself by name but may well be
the Mahmud registered as one of the two apprentices of the official in question,
describes himself as the ' longtime apprentice of the Accountant (muhasebeci) Ali
£elebi; [I was] the one who actually took care of the tasks that fell to his
A thesis I have advanced in Bureaucrat, chapters 6-8, and in "Preliminaries."

"See "Preliminaries."
,0
TKSE7297.
' 'See the ruznamfes and mti&ahere-horan registers summarized in "Preliminaries."
REALITIES OF SCRIBAL LIFE 49
office." 1 2 The events Mahmud relates must have taken place in 1533-35,
immediately before and during the Mesopotamian campaign. When Ali £elebi
fell ill—mortally so, in the event 13 —Mahmud had asked him to confer on him
the Registry of the garrison troops (hisar erenleririin defterleri)xi. (Although there
seems as yet to have been no title or stipend earmarked for the functionary who
fulfilled this role, acquisition of these responsibilities would presumably provide
some stature as well as opportunities for gain, whether in the form of fees or
graft, that would be unavailable to a jakird). When Ali £elebi asked for "a little
something" [bir mikdar nesnecik taleb] in return, Mahmud
used whatever I owned in cash and possessions, and took out a loan using
some of my mother's and sisters' possessions as collateral. One way and
another, I gathered one thousand florins and gave them to [Ali Qelebi's
agent] Huseyin £elebi 15 ; hereturnedtwo hundred florins, saying that they
11
•'Ali (pelebi is identified as Rumeli muhasebecisi (the third o r fourth ranking member of the
ranks of the scribes of the imperial treasury) in Basbakanlik Arjivi [BBA], KSrnil Kepeci Tasnifi
[KPT] 1764, p. 145 (and elsewhere), 16 Ramazan 938/22 April 1532; according to T K S D[efter]
7843 imufahere-horun defteri dating from approximately the s a m e year—see "Preliminaries"),
7b, his salary was 40 ak(e per day, the second-highest salary (the highest being the fifty atye
drawn by the t w o ri«»iumfe-keepers) drawn by any of the treasury secretariat. K P T 1764 further
lists his yearly bonus of 3,000 akire, the same as that accorded his seniors: Of all those listed as
fukirds of the scribes of the Treasuiy (jakirdan-i kutiban-i hiiane-i 'amire), only two are noted
specifically as being apprenticed to Ali f e l e b i : A b d r and Mahmud, who first occur in the lists in
938/1532 ( K P T 1764, p. 145). Abdi, by 1 §a'ban 942/25 J a n u a r y 1536, had become o n e of the
mukata'acis of the Treasury at 20 ak(e, while Mahmud remained an apprentice at 4 akfe ( B B A ,
Maliyeden Mudevver 552, pp. 10-11). Abdi, who is certainly Civijade.Abdullah, brother of the
seyhiilislam f i v i z a d e , later became defierdur of Rumeli (1548-1553—• see' 1. H. Danijmend, izahlt
Osmanh Tarihi Kronolojisi, 6 vols., Istanbul, 1971 [Vol: 5., 251], and Mebmed Siireyya, Sicillri
Osmam. 4 vols., Istanbul, 1890-97 (111, 407)). H e is.an unlikely candidate for.authorship of this
petition, which leaves either Mahmud or one of the apprentices not identified with the name of a
master who occur in the lists. For the sake of narrative I shall iiefer to him as Mahmud.
13
AIi (pelebi must have died shortly before 13 Rebi' II, 940/1 November 1533; KPT 1863, p. 51,
records his replacement [as muhasebe'i-yi Rumeli} by Hayreddin Bey, the Anatolian Accountant
(muhusebe'i-yi Anadolu), whose 29-akê salary was increased t o the necessary 40; !
,4
T h i s probably refers t o the functions devolving on t h e : s l i g h t l y later referred to as
tezkere'i-yi kila'. The office first occurs as a distinctive category and salary line in the archival
record in Maliyeden Mudevver 7118, p. 10 (Muharrem 955/February-March 1548, where the
incumbent Mustafa Celebi is assigned a daily stipend of i S ' J t t g r f t and in K P T 6592, 24lb-268b,
which begins in 969/1561 and ends in 978/1570, and where 'the office is referred to as tezkere'i-
yi kila'-t pkk-t ewel; the duties attached to the office are described in the sections of ms. Atif
Efendi 1734, reflecting the structure of the central treasury at the end of Siileyman's reign,
published by O . L. Barkan, "H. 974-975 (M. 1567-1568) Mali Yilina ait bir O s m a n h BUtiesi,"
Istanbul Umvcrsitesi fktisat Fakultesi Mecmuasi, 19/1-4 (1957-58), 277-332 (see p. 319). The
evidence of the petition studied here suggests that in 1533-34 these functions—charge of the
appointment and payment of fortress garrison troops in "Arabistan, Efzurum, and Rumeli"—were
performed by the office of the Rumeli Accountant, w h o could presumably assign or subcontract
these duties to one of his staff.
" H u s e y i n £ e l e b i may be the apprentice scribe who after the death of Ali C e l e b r i s specifically
attached to the second-ranking ¡member of the Treasury scribal corps, the ruinamfe'i-yi sani
(Second Day-book Keeper) Hayreddin Bey (not to be confused with his junior homonym, referred
to in in. 13 ( K P T 1764, p. 174, 8 §evval 9 3 9 / 3 May 1533, and p. 184, Ramazan 939/Mareh-
April 1533)). This Huseyin f e l e b i rose quickly even as an apprentice; on p. 174 he is listed as
were under measure, and he took full measure coins to make up for these.
After a few days had passed Hiiseyin Qelebi told me, "I gave the thousand
florins you gave me to the Gfendi, so now give me thirty thousand akge
in addition. God willing, the matter will be put to the imperial council
[divan] at once, and they will give it to you." Again, I begged my mother
and sisters to help me however they could; they gave me what they could
afford, and I was able to secure a loan for thirty thousand akge, which I
then handed over [to Hiiseyin £elebi].
Within a f e w days of this exchange, Ali f e l e b i had either died or had

become so incapacitated that his position was given to Hayreddin Bey, who as
Anatolian Accountant was his proper successor. 1 6 Mahmud (assuming the
correctness of this identification of our petitioner) retained his apprenticeship to
the Rumeli Accountant, 1 7 and the garrison registers that were the object of his
desires passed either to his new master's province or, which is perhaps more
likely, to that of the latter's senior colleague, another Hayreddin Bey who as
Second Day-book keeper was the second-ranked official within the Treasury
scribal corps. 18 Mahmud applied to Hayreddin Bey for the registers, and received
an equivocal answer. In the summer of 1534 he asked for them again; Hayreddin
Bey responded that nothing could be done at that time since the sultan was about
to depart for the east on campaign. "Right now let's give you a harag register. 19
having received a yearly bonus of 2,000 ak(e, four times the amount granted most apprentices,
and two years later (24 $a'ban, 941/28 February 1535), having accompanied his master to the
Mesopotamian front, he was awarded 1,000 akfe (KPT 1764, p. 214). By 1 §a'ban 943/25
January 1536 he was the highest paid apprentice in the Treasury, with a daily stipend of 7 ak<,:e
(Maliyeden Miidevver 559, p. 10); 4 or 5 was normal. If this identification is correct, then it is
probable that, since Hiiseyin f e l e b i continues to play a pivotal role in Mahmud's narrative even
after the death of Ali £elebi, my tentative identification of the Hayreddin Bey to whom our scribe
applies as the successor of Ali f e l e b i is incorrect, and that the garrison registers were made the
province of the ruznamê'i-yi sani.
' ^ W i t h i n the Treasury scribal hierarchy, for most of the reign of Siileyman the ^¡vision of
functions into Rumelian. Anatolian, and Arab zones implied by the appointment of a defterdar for
each area was a consistent principle of organization as the financial bureaucracy expanded. The
hierarchy inherent lo this order was also applied throughout the scribal corps, as a survey of
appointment records makes clear. Just as it was a normal, or organizationally most "natural"
mode of progress for the defterdar of Anatolia, on promotion, to become defterdar of Rumeli (who
was in fact the chief of the entire financial establishment), so would the muhasebe'i-yi 'Arab be
promoted to the accountancy of Anatolia, and then to that of Rumeli. It must be remembered, of
course, that this represents one of several possible patterns, rather than a rule. For a summary of
the development of the financial apparatus of the Ottoman central government in the sixteenth
century see Fleischer, Bureaucrat, Appendix A.
'^Maliyeden Miidevver 559, p. 10, where he is listed as a 4-akê apprentice to the muhasebe'i (1
§a'ban, 942/25 January 1536)
18
S e e note 13.
'Âssignment of such precise revenue-collecting duties, based on the register of a particular
region, on an annual basis to members of the imperial cavalry units was a common mechanism
through which taxes (particularly those levied on non-Muslims) were collected and salaries
provided in the sixteenth century; the ruznamfe registers of the period are filled with references to
the practice. Such assignments were also commonly awarded to appointees attached to the Palace
who were not members of the kapikulu (imperial cavalry) corps (a particularly striking, though
Go collect [the taxes due from the non-Muslims of the region in question], and
you'll also escape the rigors of the campaign. When you come back, you'll get
those registers or we'll give you something better." Mahmud set of to the east,
collected the assigned harag dues, and also "did all I could further to gather a little
gift [for Hayreddin Bey]." While on his way back to the court, which was then in
the vicinity of Tabriz (late 1534-early 1535), he encountered between Khoy and
Marand a group of Kizilba$ who took all of his possessions, including his two
slaves and three pack animals; whether they also deprived him of the taxes he had
collected or he had otherwise disposed of these is unclear. Mahmud went to pay
his respects to Hayreddin Bey, kissing his hand; but the latter brushed him off,
saying "What's this? You haven't brought us a present?"
Once again, Huseyin Qelebi took a hand. He had a financial agent (vekil-i
hare), another Huseyin who was also a member of the elite Palace cavalry corps
of the Sons of the Sipahis (sipahi oglanlari). This Huseyin approached Mahmud
with advice and a proposition.
"Whatever you do, give the Bey a gift," he said to me. "God willing, then
he will look out for and forward your interests, whatever they might be." I
said, "What resources do I have now, that I should give a gift?" "Come,"
he said, "I have a slave boy. Let me give him to you, and you give him
to the Bey." He sold him to me for ten thousand akfe, the sale witnessed
by muslims, and I undertook to pky the money back in Istanbul. The
slave boy remained with me for a week; since I had no slave [of my own],
I did not really want to give him up. I sent him out for provisions; when
he was to return, they [i.e., Hayreddin Bey] took him and the goods he had
with him, saying '[1 am doing this] because you haven't given him to me
[as you were supposed to].' Later, they will get the money from me
before witnesses. It is my sultan's to dispose."
Mahmud's personal and professional entanglements did not end with the
woes recounted above. He had further, in a complicated fashion, acquired
responsibility for a 200,000 a*f<?-per-annum tax assignment for the flour
revenues of Iiica (probably the Ihca near Bergama is meant), for which he had
formally registered a 140,000 akge deposit with the deputy magistrate (kadi
na'ibi) of the town. Mahmud explains the reasons for the 60,000-a^fe deficit, and
the mode of his acquisition of this responsibility, as follows.
by no means unixue, example occurs in B B A Biiyiik ftuznamfe Defteri 2, p. 10, which records the
receipt of 23, 579 akfe in cizye arrears from Fitibe delivered by the famous dragoman Yunus Bey
and Muceilid Memi, one of the imperial book-binders, acting respectively as trustee (ernin) and
clerk (kdtib) of the mission (25 Muharrem 956/23 February 1549). It was often the case that
members o f the Outside Services of the Palace would collect their own salaries for a year or more
in this fashion. For a published example o f this practice see 1. H. Uzunsar$ih, Osmanh
Devletinin Merkez ve Buhriye 7e;kilau, Ankara, 1948, pp. 348-9.
A friend o f his, one Nesimi who was attached to the Palace corps o f the
Salaried ( u l u f e c i l e r ) , had been staying with him in his home (presumably in
Istanbul). Nesimi had contracted for the one-year flour registry (an defteri) of
Ilica, at five hundred thousand akfe, as a tax-farm (iltizam); when he collected the
revenues he was 6 0 , 0 0 0 akfe short o f the promised amount. "He begged me,
'Please, i f you have a friend among the retainers o f Abdi f e l e b i 2 0 , make me his
friend too.'" Mahmud arranged for an introduction to Mahmud Kethuda. Nesimi
then suggested that they (i.e., he and our k&tib Mahmud) consult with the efendi
(here clearly meaning Abdi £ e l e b i Efendi) and propose that i f he would award the
flour registers o f Ilica in iltizam contract for 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 akfe, they would give the
bey (presumably Hayreddin B e y ) 6 0 , 0 0 0 akfe. It seems that in this way he would
at o n c e make up the deficit from his original contract, although he would be
paying the amount to an individual rather than to the state, and procure the same
revenue source for another year at a much more profitable rate than that
originally established.
The offer was accepted, and the cash demanded. Nesimi put together the
required amount from his own stores o f coin ( 6 0 0 gold florins, 51 unminted
florins, 16,000 akfe) and objects made o f precious metals, and delivered the full
6 0 , 0 0 0 . Just as Nesimi was to be given formal designation as tax-farmer o f the
flour revenues o f Ilica, he died o f the plague, but not before declaring Mahmud
his legatee in front o f witnesses, The latter requested that the 6 0 , 0 0 0 akfe be
restored to him, since the tax-farm had not been conferred on Nesimi and
therefore the gift-money still belonged to Nesimi's estate. He was asked to forego
the sum, to deny his claims to it. Mahmud refused to acquiesce, saying that it
was his legal property, but he did suggest that he would perform the collection
duties for which the money had been payment as a means to resolve the dispute.
Although the authorities at first protested that this would be an "unfair" burden
on Mahmud, he insisted and made an additional request that Nesimi's brother,
who was also a member o f the Salaried Corps, be given "a little defter" (i.e.,
revenue collection assignment) that could be considered compensation to him for
loss o f his brother and his inheritance. Ultimately, the award was agreed to, but
at tax-collection time ( h a r a g vakti) Mahmud found that it was not a tax-farm
(defter... emaneti ve kitabeti He) but a legally less lucrative assignment as a
salaried tax collector ( e m a n e t ) with no licit claims on the revenues exceeding the
amount stipulated in a tax-farm contract. When he turned in his taxes together
with his warrant ( b e r a t ) , questions arose about the amount he surrendered, since
this was 6 0 , 0 0 0 akfe short. Therefore Mahmud procured a receipt for the funds
( 1 4 0 , 0 0 0 akfe) from Ihe deputy o f the magistrate ( k a d i na'ibi) o f I h c a and
Abdi Celebi is either the Arab Accountant (muhasebe'i-yi 'Arab) or the former colleague o f
Mahmud who was promoted from apprenticeship to the post o f mukala'aci in early 1536; see note
12 above. The latter case is the more likely, since the revenue source under discussion is clearly a
mukala'a] this would make the date o f final composition and submission o f the document
something after late January, 1536.
refrained from pressing his own greater claims, "with the thought that he
[Hayreddin Bey] is an important person [bir sahib-devletdiir], and [if I oblige him
now] later he will remember me kindly." His petition, undoubtedly, served as
further documentation of the propriety of his action.
One of the most remarkable aspects of this document, for all the horrors
reported by our kdtib, is the conspicuous absence of that more vigorous language
of complaint—complaint about venality of office, complaint about abuse of
position, complaint about violation of imperial ideals enshrined in kanun,
dynastic edict—that would fill the pages of similar petitions penned by a slightly
later generation. 2 ' Here, the tone—in an era that is generally supposed to have
represented a golden age of meritocratic expectations and relative freedom from
such persona] impositions—is rather one of explanation, apology, and open-
ended appeal for personal assistance, assistance that is requested not because the
subject has been wronged by greedy and immoral individuals, but because
circumstances in an otherwise normal situation have conspired to place him in a
difficult position. 22 The matter-of-fact recounting of the events, and the lack of
explicit rancor against those who have wronged him—even the defunct Ali
£elebi—suggest that it would be erroneous to read Mahmud's petition as the sort
of protest against corruption of an established, commonly understood system that
would be characteristic of a somewhat later era. At this point, relatively early in
Siileyman's reign, the relationships that structured the central administrative
apparatus were still understood to be highly personalized ones within which the
culture of exchange of "gifts" was taken as natural, if occasionally problematic.
The gift had not yet become a bribe, and Mahmud's letter has as much the weight
and tone of a report as of a complaint.
21
See, for example, the angry reports of informants and petitioners for redress of grievance
written by a number of functionaries who felt unfairly treated by Rüstern Pa$a, the grand vezir
(1544-53, 1555-61) canonized in Ottoman historiography as the institutionalizer of venality of
office in Ottoman government: M,T. Gökbilgin, "Rüstern Paja ve Hakkindaki Ithamlar." Tarih
Dergisi 8/11-12 (1955), 11-50). See also the fulminations of Mustafa Ali, cited in Fleischer,
Bureaucrat, pp. 120-21.
"Ahmet Mumcu, Ösmanh Devlelinde Küfvel, Ankara, 1%9, has noted that the age of Stileyman
is largely considered to have been extraordinarily free of venal practice in government until the
last years of the ruler (pp. 84-85, 111), in contrast to the usage common in earlier and subsequent
reigns. Other studies generally reinforce the general perception of "corruption" as a post- or late
Süleymanic development, often because they rely on both narrative and archival sources that
begin to display some depth and breadth only after 1550. See, for example, K. Röhrborn,
Untersuchungen zur osmunhchen Vemaltungsgeschichte, Berlin, 1973, pp. 114-53. I would
suggest that in terms of actual practice, exception of the first part of the reign from the rule of
what our age would call graft is unwarranted. What merits attention is the enhancement of the
language used to describe such practice as immoral and improper that occurs in the second half of
the sixteenth century. For treatment from another perspective of the change in moral and social
consciousness that this linguistic shift betokens, see C. Fleischer "Cultural Origins of the
Ottoman Nasihatname," Proceedings of the Third Congress on the Social and Economic History
of Turkey, Princeton 1983, The Isis Press, Istanbul 1990, pp. 67-78.
In the face of orderly, schematic representations of the hierarchy of rank

and responsibility according to which Ottoman government has been regularly
d e s c r i b e d — b e g i n n i n g , perhaps, with the L a w c o d e of the C o n q u e r o r and
continuing to the present—we tend to assimilate to it our modern understanding
of the nature and function of bureaucracy. 2 3 But certain notions central to this
modern understanding, such as exclusivity of service and c o m p e n s a t i o n ,
definition of function and responsibility within a single chain of command, and a
depersonalized service ethic, are most definitely not part of the bureaucratic world
of the early sixteenth century, whether in the Ottoman Empire or in E u r o p e . 2 4
Our scribe's narrative lays out an intriguing picture of the complex web of
personal and economic relationships through which Siileyman's government
functioned, and brings into relief the degree to which such relationships were
recognized as normal, even "legal," despite the apparent dictates of the logic of
the bureaucratized (or, more properly at this point, bureaucratizing) structure
within which they developed. Ali ^ e l e b i ' s apprentice not only acted as his
master's agent in private financial dealings, he also acted on his own behalf (in
demanding payment from Mahmud), and himself had a financial agent who was
also a salaried m e m b e r of the most prestigious of the Palace cavalry units.
Neither the function nor the income of Ottoman functionaries was delimited by
their m e m b e r s h i p in the imperial p a t r i m o n i a l h o u s e h o l d ; they c o u l d
simultaneously serve several masters and in several capacities without their
appropriateness for appointment, the way in which they fulfilled their ostensible
tasks, or t h e propriety of their maintaining several levels or f o r m s of
employment and loyalty being questioned. It was sufficiently natural for Nesimi
to use his friendship with an apprentice clerk to gain access to authority, in order
to be able literally to invest in his own future, for M a h m u d to detail the
transaction without shame and to use it as the basis of a legal claim on property.
Nesimi acknowledged the economic and quasi-familial nature of his relationship
with another member of his class by making Mahmud his heir, and the latter did
the same by entering a plea for Nesimi's ulufeci brother.
Mahmud pleads that he be accorded some of the perquisites that accrued to

other members of his class (such as supplemental duty-revenue assignments)
rather than denouncing capricious and venal abuse of a hierarchical structure based
on function and merit. His petition also demonstrates that, for all that his
account implies the destitution of his family as a result of his master's demands
for payment for provision of an office, the implicit and explicit references to
wealth and poverty that regularly occur in the petitions of literate Ottomans of
23
F o r an eloquent recent example see H. tnalcik, The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age 1300-
1600 (New York, 1973), p. 46.
24
F o r comparison with cognate bureaucratic phenomena in Western Europe see, inter alia, R.
Burr Litchfield, Emergence of a Bureaucracy: The Florentine Patricians, 1530-1790 (Princeton,
1986), pp. 157-8, 175-81; K. W Swart, The Sale of Offices in the Seventeenth Century, The
Hague, 1949.
the sixteenth century (see also the next document) must be interpreted within the
context of the high expectations and sense of entitlement that were part and
parcel of the sensibility of all those associated with the apparatus of Ottoman
government. Despite his debts (which he clearly hoped to be able to repay with
interest once he received the supplementary assignments he desired), Mahmud had
a dwelling in which he was able to lodge guests and, presumably, slaves.
Furthermore, he was able to support himself on his small daily stipend (four
afcfe) and on reserve resources for quite some time before he received the harag
register, and he owned pack animals and slaves that he ultimately lost to Safavi
marauders. His reluctance to do without a slave, despite his understanding that
his professional interests lay in giving the boy as a gift, bears poignant witness
to the sense of even a scribal apprentice of what constituted an acceptable
standard of living for an Ottoman gentleman. 25
The personal resources and sense of propriety of function of such

stipendiary office-holders were clearly not limited, in fact or in expectation, by
their office and the daily wage attached to it. Rather, their appointments and
stipends (these latter being as much a badge of membership in the ruling class
and a means of assigning relative rank and status as a reward for service and
means of maintenance) provided access, and entitlement, to important contacts
and additional means of attaining advancement and income. Mahmud and his
friend Nesimi could not only negotiate for lucrative revenue-collecting
assignments considered one of the normal perquisites of Palace service, they
could also be absent from Istanbul and from their "posts" for considerable periods
in order to cariy out these supplemental duties. The relative proportions, within
an individual's personal fortune, represented by stipendial and non-stipendial (but
clearly licit) sources are suggested by the document. Mahmud had a daily stipend
of four akge, or 1,400/year. Nevertheless, he was able to secure loans for over
sixty-five times that amount (calculating the akge at 60/ducat) with apparent
confidence that, once appointed to the Registry of Garrisons (at something like
4,380 akge yearly, 26 exclusive of bonuses) he would be able quickly to repay the
loan with interest. Nesimi's precise salary is not known, but in the year 1530 the
average salary of members of the two Salaried Corps was eleven akgeP Even so,
Nesimi had at his immediate disposal cash and valuables worth fifteen times his
probable annual salary. This amount may represent the sum that was missing
25
Mahmud's lifestyle, as extrapolated here, would seem rather more luxurious that that deemed
appropriate for an apprentice katib by a social critic of the late sixteenth century; see Andreas
Tietze, "Mustafa 'Alt on Luxury and the Status Symbols of Ottoman Gentlemen," Studio
Turcalogica Memoriae Alexii Bumbaci Dicala, Naples, 1982, pp. 577-90. However, two accounts
dating from the 1530's indicate that full secretaries of the chancery expected, or were expected, to
own at least two slaves: see the reports of Rambeiti (abbreviated) and Yunus Bey published as
appendices to A. H. Lybyer, The Goverment of the Ottoman Empire in the Time of Suleiman the
Magnificent, Cambridge, 1913, pp. 247, 266.
26
See note 14 above.
27
Maliyeden Mfidevver 23, 27b, Zu'l-ka'de 936.
56 C o r n e l l H. F L E I S C H E R
from the 500,000 akge he had contracted to collect (the figure obviously did not
practically allow him to secure an appropriate profit), but even so his plan to
procure the assignment again, negotiated at a lower rate of 200,000, gives a clear
sense of the magnitude of potential gains at stake. Since he was apparently able
to secure at least 440,000 akge in Ilica, a new contract at 200,000, after deduction
of his expenses (including the 60,000 payment to the bey), would leave him
with at least 180,000—forty times his annual stipend. It seems safe to assume
that Mahmud, who ultimately did the collecting and admitted to retaining 60,000
akge, profited very handsomely and felt it right that he should do so. Official
salary, for such men on their way up, was the least part of what they could
expect to earn as members of the ruling class.
The third and final document 2 8 was submitted during one of Riistem
Pa§a's two terms as grand vezir (1544-53, 1555-61) by a certain Kasim, whose
father was apparently known as Helvacioglu. Kasim's story sheds light on other
dimensions of scribal life and the class consciousness of elite Ottomans:
...your poor, downtrodden servant, being possessed of a pen-case [i.e.,

literate], had for fourteen years been an unsalaried apprentice scribe for the
Pillars of the State 2 9 . [Then] when an imperial order of the glorious
sovereign left the Harem (igriiden| that a [particular] book be copied
outside, that task was given to your prostrate servant. It was copied by
my hand and submitted to you, and when you asked, "Who wrote [i.e.,
copied] this book?" the answer was, "Your servant Kasim, who is one of
the apprentice scribes serving the great men of state [erkan], has written
it." You responded, "How much is his salary?" and they answered, "He
has no salary ." You commanded, "Let him have a salary of six akge [per
day]; and the imperial order that resulted [from this exchange] is now
extant in the offices of the Pillars of Felicity. 3 0
This being the case, it was then submitted to the dust of your blessed feet
that "The other scribes [of this sort] are not stipended; the imperial law
28
T K S E 12129.
29
Erkdn-i devlel; I take the reference to be to those scribes described in the pay lists as lcdiibun-i
divan labi'-i tevki'l and late in the reign as kaiibun-i divan-i 'ali i.e., chancery clerks working
under the chancellor (nisanci, tevki'i), although it is conceivable that the chancery scribes
attached to the defterdars are meant (kaliban-i divan tdbi'-i defterdarSnY, see "Preliminaries," pp.
138-39. On balance, the first possibility seems the more likely since, were the second the case,
Kasim could be expected to use the terminology current in the financial service that dealt with the
the payment of salaries rather than the more general (or perhaps colloquial) erkan-i devlel. In any
case, the erkan here in question are clearly the heads of the bureaucracy proper, rather than the
ministers of state (viizera), to whom such terminology at this date would more commonly be
understood to apply. See also following note.
Erkdni [sic] sa'adel; this reference, and the following one, to the written records of his several
appointments support the supposition advanced in the preceding note on the contextual meaning
of erk&n in this document.
[kanun-i is that they be compensated with i/mar-grants." 31 Thus

padi§ahi\
it was ordered that I be given a timar, and this order too is preserved
perfectly in the offices of the erkdn. After I had served under these
circumstances for some time it happened that the office of Intendant
Registrar of Anatolia 32 fell vacant and was given to this your servant.
As I was serving in this capacity, one of Riistem Pasa's retainers came

and petitioned through his connections [iltimas] for my poor position; in
justification he said, "This person's [i.e., Kasim's] father was not
someone entitled to a post 3 3 ; he's the son of a sweet-maker." On this
pretext, that person took my poor living [ b u n u n dirliicigin] without there
being any reason for my dismissal [bila sebebden]. Though my father
never held a stipended post, he occupied himself with learning; but my
grandfather was one of the Confectioners [helvaci] of the late Suitan
Bayezid, and therefore [my father] was called by this name [i.e.,
Helvaci oglu].
My hope is that you will save this, your abashed servant, from shame
among the populace and will return again the wretched post won by my
pen-case; otherwise, lovely lord, I will not have the face to return home.
It is my sultan's to dispose.
Kasim's patronymic, his heredity, and his family's history of imperial

service bear discussion. The trajectory of that history— from a father, who may
have had servile status and was attached to the Palace, to a son who became a
scholar, to a grandson who became a clerical bureaucrat after long years of
unsalaried apprenticeship—demonstrates that at this epoch what have been called
the "Ottoman career paths" of Sword, Learning, and Pen were,
intergenerationally, mutually permeable and interpenetrating rather than rigid and
exclusive. 3 4 At this juncture, it seems likely that affiliation with the class of
servitors broadly considered was a more significant determinant of an individual's
career prospects than membership in a particular professional category; these
categories, after all, were clearly articulated only after the reign of the Lawgiver,
and the evidence lies in favor of their being less formed and more porous in the
This statement would seem to fly in the face of the ample documentation showing that katibs
were salaried as well as (later) timared. Kasim can only mean that scribes of his sort—whatever
subcategory of the species that may represent—were to be paid by timar assignment. The
language here suggests that a kanunname is actually being quoted: sd'/'r katibler 'ulufeyle degildir
kanun-i pudisuhi tim&r He olmakdur.
32
Emin-i defter-i Anadolu; this was a provincial rather than a central bureaucratic post,
signifying headship of that office within the provincial administration that supervised matters of
land registry that were the ultimate province of the Defter-i haktmi in Istanbul; see Howard,
"Imperial Registry," (218-19). Its incumbent was paid by timar.
33
Ekl-i mensub (sic., = manstb] defil idi.
34
Bureaucrat, ch. 8.
first half of the sixteenth century than in the second. In place of, or in addition
to, the received models of the operative lines of inclusion and cleavage in
Ottoman society ( a s k e r t / r e ' à y à [ruling class/ tax-paying subjects],
seyf/ilm/kalem, slave/non-slave, muslim/non-muslim), the document gives a
name to a more elastic, but no less useful concept: the ehl-i mansib, those
entitled by heredity, among other criteria, to appointment within the ranks of the
non-tax-paying elite (asked) whatever the particulars of the individual's career
path or his legal status.
It seems clear that we must fully redraw our modern image of the structure
of the ruling elite of the "classical" Ottoman Empire. This image, though
modified in particulars, is still pervaded by romantic notions, derived largely
from Christian European sources, of the upper class as primarily non-aristocratic,
normally (or ideally) monogenerational and meritocratic in nature, and implicitly
servile in origin or actual status, a service elite of the most fundamental sort.
Victor Ménage 3 5 and Metin Kum 3 6 have addressed the question of how strictly
we should interpret contemporary European descriptions of the Ottoman
governing order of the sixteenth century. The work of these scholars focuses on
members of the miiitary-administrative career within which it has been assumed,
as stated by contemporary Christian commentators, that men of devjirme or
otherwise servile origins would predominate and so preclude the formation of an
elite that could function as something like an aristocracy of blood as well as of
service. Ménage and Kunt have shown that servile status was not an absolute
requirement for entry to the elite administrative orders. Indeed, it may only have
been a preferred qualification at very restricted and particular points in imperial
history, for example, during the decade or decade and a half during which
Siileyman felt it necessary to begin training a cadre of his own that would replace
the upper echelons of the old guard of servitors inherited from his father and
g r a n d f a t h e r . 3 7 Even so, and even at that juncture, Siileyman had still to
acknowledge the force and weight of these countervalent principles; his famous
proclamation to the /«mar-holders of the Empire of 1531, confirming the
hereditary rights to preferential status of the descendants of sipahis, spoke directly
to the question of transgenerational claims upon dynastic largesse. 38
The evidence of Kasim's story indicates that the perceptions of privileged

class identity and hereditary entitlement that informed the conflicts that provoked
the 1531 edict were not confined to the military caste, but pervaded other sectors
3
•'"Some Notes on the Dev$irme, "BSOAS 29 (1966), 64-78.
The Sultan's Servants: The Transformation of Ottimati Provincial Government, New York,
1983, pp. 33-44.
" c . Fleischer, paper delivered at the Siileyman the Magnificent Symposium, Chicago, 1987.
3
"M.T. Gökbilgin, "Kanuni Sultan Süleyman'in Timar ve Zeamet tevcihi ile llgili Fermanlan,"
Tarih Dergisi 17 (1967), 35-48.
of the ruling class as well. The numbers of those with claims to membership in
the class to which appointments, stipends, prebends, and status were to be
distributed grew, and so did the ideological articulation of that class
consciousness; the historiographical florescence of the second half of the
sixteenth century is a striking example of this latter phenomenon. The threat to
social stability represented by natural increase in elite families was limited by
mortality and the enhanced absorptive capacity of a geographically and
demographically expansive administrative apparatus. Still, once that apparatus
was in place, the challenge facing ever more vocal Ottomans threatened with
increased competition for dynastic rewards would be to renogotiate, in each
generation, the criteria by which inclusion and exclusion from the ruling class
and its particular components would be adjudicated. The factional violence that
became so marked a part of elite life at the end of the sixteenth century
represented one dimension of this process, that whereby the upper echelons of the
askeri would sort out these matters internally.
Another dimension of the process, of course, was a tension, which

became acute toward the end of Siileyman's reign, between the dynasty and the
increasingly bureaucratized elite that ostensibly served it. At issue here was the
locus of authority to pronounce on questions pertaining to the ideals, identity,
and practice of the dynastic state, particularly in matters of ideological
representation, elite reproduction, and distribution of resources. With the arrival
in the upper ranks of men like Riistem Pa§a, senior statesmen who were wholly
the products and the carriers of the burgeoning imperial culture that was forged
during the reign of the Lawgiver, the balance of power shifted in favor of the
administrators.39 These men were furthermore strengthened in their stance by
those very developments initiated by the architects of the Siileymanic regime as
supports for dynastic authority: codification of law, regularization of
administrative practice and elite recruitment procedures, a move toward
depersonalization of politics, and inculcation of expectations of regularity and
reward based on common subscription to a system (as opposed to individual
judgment) that determined standards of merit and entitlement.
It is therefore significant that Kasim should insist upon the fact that the
orders governing his changes of status were written down, recorded, and registered
in their proper place. The degree of orderliness and detail that the Siileymanic
19
The struggle for control of representation of the dynastic image between the dynasty and the
bureaucratized elite is best illustrated in the simultaneous appearance of two distinct
historiographical streams in the early 1550's, one a classicizing high style purveyed by loyal
but independent bureaucrats such as Ramazanzade and Celalzade, the other the courtly Persian
panegyric of the official ¡ehname-writers. In the writing of history, as in politics, the bureaucrats
won. See Christine Woodhead, "An Experiment in Official Historiography: The Post of
Sehnameci in the Ottoman Empire, " Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 7 5
(1983), 157-82, and Fleischer, "Messiah."
regime brought to record-keeping was probably still somewhat novel in Kasim's

day. Furthermore, the registration of these orders in the central repository of the
bureaucracy represented institutional protection against the predations of Kasim's
less scrupulous fellows (predations that seem to have been more common in
previous reigns). These records, Kasim's exposition suggests, constituted a
powerful instrument of bureaucratic authority whereby the livelihood and security
of status of members of the ruling class could be protected and the corporate
rights and identity of that class asserted. It is equally significant in this context
that our katib relates that the chief bureaucrats objected to and corrected the
sovereign's command that Kasim be given a salaried position, invoking the
priority of the impersonal principle of imperial law over individual dynastic
decree.
These few scribal narratives (one hopes that more such will appear),
seemingly frank and unpolished as they are, afford evocative and tantalizing
glimpses into the professional and family lives of men who might be described
as "ordinary" Ottomans. These were low-to-middle ranking members of the
privileged sector of society whose aspirations were focussed on the imperial court
in Istanbul in an era when the scribal service was only just taking full form and
offered opportunities for mobility to the literate. It remains only to say a few
words about the nature of that literacy as it is displayed by the documents.
For the katibs or would-be scribes whose stories have been told here,
calligraphic skill would seem to have been their primary claim to scribal
expertise, which was not necessarily buttressed by greater learning in the literary
arts or philology. This was clearly the case with Ahmed. Although Kasim's
father ostensibly occupied himself with the acquisition of religious learning, he
was either poorly schooled or disinclined to make a paying profession of his
scholarship, since he was appointed to no stipended post. This professional
decision, voluntary or otherwise, signified a break in an incipient family tradition
of service to the dynasty, a break that would ultimately count against—
temporarily, one hopes— Kasim s chances for advancement. In any event,
Kasim's father established no great family tradition of learning, for his son's
petition is filled with egregious spelling errors that show, if nothing else, that
his acquaintance with Arabic and Persian must have been rudimentary at best.
(This judgment, of course, assumes that he, rather than a professional writer of
petitions, actually penned the document; but if he did have it written for him,
sufficiently significant questions arise about why he should have done so as to
render the judgment reasonably valid). While Kasim's calligraphy may have been
impressive, as he suggests, he was clearly at a loss when required to compose a
document without a written model before him. His fourteen years of
apprenticeship seem to have done him little good in this regard; like a fair
number of his colleagues who learned their writing skills on the job rather than
in the medrese-college, Kasim remained only partly literate outside his restricted
area of competence. Mahmud's orthography is somewhat better than Kasim's

(though by no means perfect), but his style is as unpolished as that of his
colleague.
The "Ottoman bureaucrat," at this epoch of expansion when the

description of an individual with appropriate connections as "a good hand with a
pen" or "useful wielder of the reed" (yarar ehl-i kalemdur) was often enough to
secure a scribal appointment, was not necessarily a highly educated person. Nor,
does it seem, were there consistent standards of professionalism yet applied to the
motley corps of the kiittab. The observations of some Ottoman observers on the
tremendous difference in the educational levels and literacy of college- and non-
college-trained bureaucrats should be taken with some measure of seriousness and
not dismissed as the self-aggrandizing grumbling of disaffected intellectuals. 40
The "Ottoman bureaucrat" was not one type, but several, and there was a world
of difference between the Ottoman gentleman and the educated Ottoman
gentleman, although they shared professional space and class affiliation.
University of Chicago
for example, the comments of Ali summarized in Bureaucrat, pp. 214-31.

B. H. FLEMMING
THE SULTAN'S PRAYER BEFORE BATTLE
One, but not the only end of Ottoman history writing was to entertain and
to edify 1 . It is a selection of "prayers before battle" that have the latter end in
view that will be considered here. The range in time will be fixed by the
"chroniclers' narrative" 2 and Negri's Cihàn-niimà recension completed between
end 1486 and early 14933 on the one hand, and by Selànikì (on the battle of Egri)
on the other. The field of choice within these dates has been reduced by the
exclusion of important but (to me) inaccessible works. Subject to these
limitations, I try to concentrate in the following pages on a variety of prayers
before battle, and I venture to offer them as my contribution to the Festschrift for
V. L. Ménage.
Descriptions of pitched battles4 afforded occasions for elaborations on the

theme of the petition-prayer ( h à c e t namàzt; salàt al-hàca)5 and 'supplication'
(taiarru1) in passages where the sultan humbly turned to God for help. The
linking of taiarru' with prayer and significant words ( g i i n à h ) indicates that the
writers who elaborated on this theme were undoubtedly thinking of humiliation
V.L. Ménage, "On the recensions of Uruj's 'History of the Ottomans'", SSOAS 30 (1967), 314. 1
am very grateful to the Rockefeller Foundation, whose generosity enabled me to do research as a
Humanities Resident Fellow at Washington University, St. Louis, in the spring of 1991. I should
like to thank C.H. Fleischer and A. Karamustafa of Washington University, St. Louis, for their
comments on a draft of this article in May 1991, and for the great generosity with which
Professor Fleischer put his library and numerous microfilms at my disposal.
2
V.L. Ménage, "Some notes on the devshirme", BSOAS 29 (1966), 72-73, with earlier literature.
^Superbly and definitively analyzed by V.L. Ménage, Neshrtf's History of the Ottomans. The
Sources and Development of the Text, Oxford, 1964. For the edition by F.R. Unat and M.A.
Kòymen, Kitâb-t Cihan-Numâ. Nes,rì Tarihi, Ankara, 1949-1957, Ménage's siglum Ank will be
used here.
4
T . Majda has called attention to war imagery in his "Characteristics of Early Turkish Epic Style
(13th-1st half of 15th century)", in Problemy jezyków Azji i Afryki, Warsaw, 1987, 223-231.
5
Omer Nasuhi Biimen, Biiyiik fstâm ilmihali, Istanbul, 1986, 189-190; A.J. Wensinck, "Salât" in
EI 1 .
64 B. H. FLEMMING
and repentance in the religious sense. From Sinan Pasha's (died 1486)
Tatarru'name6 and from later tatarru'names7 it is evident that the word was
associated with intense spiritual contemplation and self-examination. Another
term that was used in this context was munacat, "silent and fervent prayers,
intimate conversations with God." 8
In treatments of this supplication theme by history writers we are faced

with concepts of the highest value to the Ottomans 9 . We find a choice of
references, explicit and implicit, to 'piety, faith in God' (Iman), 'compassion'
(merhamet), 'breed' (asl)w, 'purity of motive', 'psychic power' (himmet), 'honour'
(decorum and fame; namus-i padifdht), 'readiness to hold consultations as
enjoined by God' (me$veret), 'justice' ('adl u siydset), 'giving up of one's life as
an offering', 'martyrdom for the faith'.
These Ottoman concepts are generally contrasted with the 'error,

aberration' (dalal) of the Christians, with their vain boasting, their lack of
foresight and order, their arrogance, their greed for money, slaves, food and wine,
their carousing and feasting on pork so familiar in the gazavatname literature
from pre-Ottoman, indeed Seljuk and Crusader days.
It is noteworthy, although outside the scope of this paper, that the

Turkmens and the Anatolian princes in 'A§ikpa§azade, Ne§ri and others display a
'lack of breeding' (bi-asl„haramzade), an inferior quality (na-cins), 'evil-thinking,
rancour' (bed-giimdn)' 1 , 'trickery' (hile), 'infidelity and treachery', a 'feebleness of
faith' (ta'if ul-iman,, giiriik i'tikad), 'haughtiness' (tekebbur)n, and a 'lack of
sense' (kusur-i 'akl)u. However legitimate their begs might have felt in
reoccupying their territories in which they had been confirmed by Timur 1 4 , they
had no right to wage an 'unholy war' against the Ottomans who, as true gazis.
® M. Tulum (ed.), Tazarru'name, Istanbul, 1971. Sinan Pasha wrote his 'Book of Humiliation',
which soon became a highly esteemed work of exemplary prose in Ottoman literature, after
severe humiliations inflicted on him by Mehemmed II, and after his rehabilitation by Bayezid 11.
7
C f . M.Z. Pakalin, Osmunh Tarih Oeyimleri ve Terimleri Sozlugii 111, Istanbul, 1954, 427.
®For a discussion of "Free Prayer" see A. Schimmel, Mystical Dimensions of Islam. Chapel Hill,
1975. 155.
9
F o r a discussion of values sec J R. Walsh, "The Historiography of Otloman-Safavid Relations
in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries", Historians of the Middle East, 197-210.
" J ' A p z particularly stresses the notion of breed; he repeatedly refers to the Ottoman genealogy,
especially after the conquest of Constantinople.
' 'The prince of Karaman is addressed as a retrograde (miidbir) and mischief-maker (miifsid), Nejri,
Ank 219.
'^Pervading 'Apz's and the other chroniclers' chronicles is a suspicion and a resentment of the
Karamanids, the other Anatolian Princes, and especially the Turkmen chieftains. Gazi Umur Beg
of Aydin, an ally, was an exception.
"M. Tulum (ed.), Tursun Bey Tarth-i Ebii'l-Feth, Istanbul, 1977, 161.
14
O n the status quo established by Timur see H. Inalcik, "Mehemmed I", in EI 2
T H E S U L T A N ' S P R A Y E R 65
we carrying on the cihad, the battle with the infidel being God's work 1 5 . The
Chroniclers', 'Apz's, Negri's, and Sa'deddin's descriptions of the evils and
devastations of war as having befallen the principalities and the Turkmens are, it
should be observed, part of the insistence that war was God's scourge for securing
the order of the world {niiam-i 'alem), that highest of Ottoman arguments. Defeat
and despoliation, even the treacherous stratagems devised by Yorgii? Pasha, were
the portion of people whose cause was unrighteous.
The main purpose of what follows is to sketch the concepts presented in

the 'supplications' of Ottoman rulers before important battles with Christian
enemies, in their soliloquies or inner dialogues, and to trace their relationship
with the gazavatname genre. Thus, from the focal point of Kosovo 1,-1 shall
move both forward and backward in time, reviewing supplication passages
connected with some major pitched battles, especially Varna, and Kosovo II.
Negri's tazarru' of Kosovo I is one representative of a long line of literary

'supplications' which originated earlier and which was to continue 16 . The 'germ'
of Negri's Kosovo 1 tazarru' does not seem to be in the poems preceding 'Apz's
Kosovo I, but in 'Apz's, and Negri's own, rendering of the short prayer at Kosovo
II, which must be taken up below. In Negri's revised version — he acknowledges
"records" (not 'Apz) for his account of what happened on the eve of the battle
Kosovo 1 1389 — it occupies a central position.
This battle was the only instance where an Ottoman sultan was killed on
a battlefield 17 . This fact and indeed the reign of Murad I, was fit matter for an
epic poem with the moral purpose of arousing admiration and encouraging
imitation. Ahmedi, whose Iskendername Ne$ri cites explicitly by title and by
referring to the story of Alexander and the King of India' 8 , had not done this for
the first Kosovo battle, which had happened during his lifetime. For Ne§ri the
object of writing was, of course, not to compose an epic poem, but to extract
from his sources material for history. But he did dramatize the narrative by using
direct speech. Ne§rl, who often changed 'Apz's verse' 9 into prose, did not use the
three poems by which 'Apz created a presentiment of the sultan's death and then
5
V.L. Ménage, "The Beginnings of Ottoman Historiography", in B. Lewis and P.M. Holt (ed.),
Historians of the Middle East, London, 1962, 177-178; C. Imber, "The Ottoman Dynastic Myth",
Turcica 19 (1987), 13.
l6
T h e theme of giving one's life as an offering was to reappear in the poetry of Shäh Isma il.
17
P r i n c e Lazar 1 H r e b e l w a n o v i é ; and King Tvrtko I also died. On the heroic epics
commemorating Kosovo Polje see M. Braun, Kosovo, Die Schlacht auf dem Amselfelde in
geschichtlicher und epischer Überlieferung, 1937.
,8
A n k 486, 283.
19
Ménage, "Beginnings", 175, and Neshri's History, 17. For the practice of inserting poertry
into prose see R. Dankoff, "The Lyric in the Romance: The Use of Ghazals in Persian and Turkish
Masnavis", JNES 43 (1984), 9-25, esp.
66 B . H. F L E M M I N G
described the situation before and after Kosovo I, including a ritual prayer on
horseback performed by the gàzis, and a prayer by the sultan. 20 Instead, he let
himself be guided, as Ménage has shown, by a (no longer extant) source which
was related to, but more elaborate than the Oxford Anonymous 21 . This source
enabled Ne§ri to give, in his Kosovo I chapter, a full picture of Muràd I as heroic
leader. The devotion and enthusiasm he inspires indeed are shown in the plot of
Kosovo I which is in the following phases: Muràd reaches Kratovo, the Serbian
envoy taunts the sultan; a council is held; the Serbian envoy reports back to his
prince; the sultan reaches KruSevac, two insolent Serbian envoys are beheaded;
the Turks reach good flat ground and let the army rest, Muràd and Bàyezid view
the huge enemy army, Muràd is overcome by sadness and anxiety and humiliates
himself before God; there is another council: the use of camels is discussed and
rejected, Muràd sums up the discussion; the infidels hold a drinking party. The
morning; battle order, incitement and promises; 'Ali Pasha performs the morning
prayer and takes fai from the Koran; battle order of the Serbians, their
recklessness. Sultan Muràd I guides his men and is guided by the advice of his
vezirs and his son Bàyezid (Prince Ya'kub, significantly, does not have a
speaking part). By making Bàyezid (I) a 'secondary hero' Ne§ri stresses that his
ascendance to the sultanate had been as anticipated as the death of the sultan,
whose assassin is lurking among the slain. Negri's description of the morning of
the battle is a grand elaboration on the theme 'dawn'. But the heart of the matter
is the 'supplication' and self-sacrifice of Muràd I on the eve and during the night
before the battle, and this must be examined in detail.
The actual tatarru's at Kosovo I are in three phases, (i) Muràd's immediate
reaction after seeing the enemy, (ii) his summing-up of the war-council, (iii)
mist and dust at nightfall, (iv) his performing the petition-prayer, (v) his
spending the night in supplication. His concerns are, visibility; possible defeat;
consciousness of his responsibility for the Muslims who are to die. His motive
is there; he enters the battlefield, not in search of slaves and booty 22 , but in sole
zeal for God's approval. He confesses to being a frail human being. He elects to
die for the Muslims as a ransom for them. He sums up that God who made him
a gazi in the first place is now asked to provide the martyrdom in the end. (vi) At
dawn the mist vanishes as rain sets in. The military action begins 23 .
20
F . Oiese, Die altosmanische Chranik des 'ÀSikpaSazàde, Leipzig, 1929, 55-58. Cf. 'Apz ed.
Ali, 63.
21
Ménage, "Beginnings", 176; the same author's Neshri's History, 13-14, 61, beginning
chapter (45=Ank) 268; Inalcik, "Rise", 157.
22
A n early ascetic, sufi rejection of war conducted with the aim of gaining plunder has been noted
in AhmedVs divan by T. Kortantamer, Leben und Wehbild des altomanischen Dichters Ahniedi,
Freiburg, 1973, 236, and Imber, "Ottoman Dynastic Myth", 11.
2
^Ne$ri's tatarru' has undergone alteration in those parts which involve the self-sacrifice. In Mz
(F. Taeschner, tìihùnnuma 1. Leipzig, 1951) the pleading with God is simpler; in Mn (F.
THE SULTAN' S PRAYER 67
(ii) "It is recorded that when it became night and darkness descended upon
the army, the night became extremely dark and the air was excessively thick with
fog. At the same time a wind blew which choked the world with dust in such a
way that it was impossible to tell a man from a horse 24 , (iii) Murad Han Gazi
endured this until the wind abated, and then he performed a pure ablution and a
petition-prayer consisting of two rik'at. He placed his face on the earth and in
that dark night he (iv) lamented until the following day and humbled himself
before God the Almighty".
"He said: "My God, my master, my lord! So many times have you
accepted my prayer in your Presence and have not forsaken me. Accept my prayer
once more: give us rain, and by pushing away this darkness and this dust make
the world shining with light so that we can observe the army of the infidels and
fight face to face". "O God, possessions and slaves are yours; you give them to
whom you will, and I am an insignificant, incapable slave of yours. You know
my thoughts and my secrets. You know that my intention is not to gain
property and riches. I did not come here for male or female slaves. I only
genuinely and sincerely desire your approval".
In the following passage M u r a d offers himself as ransom for the

Muslims, with the 'stipulation' that these Believers shall not be killed by the
infidels. "O Lord God, make me a victim sacrificed for these Muslims. Only do
not let these believers be defeated at the hands of the infidels and be destroyed. O
God, do not make me the means of the killing of so many souls. Make them
victorious and successful. 1 give my life for these as a sacrifice; only accept this.
I am willing to give up my soul for the soldiers of Islam. Only do not show me
the death of these Believers. God, make me a guest in your neighbourhood and
sacrifice my soul, for the souls of the believers. You made me a gazi in the
beginning; provide the (bread of) martyrdom in the end. When Sultan Murad Gazi
had prayed in, this manner, uncovering his head and putting his face to the
ground, lifting up his hands, God—whose lauds be recited and who be extolled—
answered his prayer. In that very instant clouds enclosed the sky and a merciful
rain inundated the face of the earth. And the fog, too, lifted from the army of
Islam and settled down on the infidels..."
Taeschner, (jihánnümá II, Leipzig, 1955) a 'stipulation' and a 'bargain', perhaps to prepare the
audience for the death of the sultan and the Turkish victory, have been added.
24
I t is difficult to imagine a dense fog simultaneous with a strong wind bringing dust. Ne§ri's
own more concise draft (of which Mz survives), which mentioned only a combination of
excessive darkness with fog and dust, is more convincing and may be based on an observer's
account. For a comparable situation in Persian romances see J. Scott Meisami, Medieval Persian
Court Poetry, Princeton, 1987, 99.
The battle of Varna, 10 November 1444.
The "Chroniclers", the Anonymous Chronicles and Oru?, relate in some

detail the battle of Varna, for which Murad II had to be recalled from his retreat in
M a n i s a . 2 5 They may have consulted gazavat-names as H. Inalcik has
suggested. 2 6 The death in battle of (Giiyegii) Karaca Beg, the Beglerbeg of
Anatolia, is related; his troops and later the Rumelians flee, and Sultan Murad,
finding himself almost alone, turns to God. "He lifted his face to heaven,
(performed very many supplications) and said, 'o God, give strength to the
religion of Islam, and give victory and help out of consideration for the light of
Muhammad Mustafa who is the noblest of beings, for the religion of the true
light of Islam and for the light of Muhammad'. In this way he lamented. Even
before the arrow of his prayer attained its target, God the Almighty fulfilled his
prayer. By the blessings of the miracles of the Prophet, and the psychic power of
the Men of the Unseen, by the blessing of the faith of the ghazis God gave him
victory and sent an insinuation into the heart of the accursed King" (Ladislas III
of Poland) so that he challenged the sultan, out of pride and arrogance; his horse
stumbled and he fell. 2 7 N. Atsiz writes that the Chroniclers are mistaken in
describing as a rout what was really a feigned retreat in the classical manner 2 8 .
But 'Apz, too, reports that Karaca, the governor of Anatolia, was killed, and that
the King broke the ranks of the janissaries by a cavalry charge, seeking single
combat with the sultan. The Turks hamstrung his horse so that he fell down, and
a soldier named (Koca) Hi/.ir then beheaded the king. This turned the battle 2 9 .
Faced with this choice of versions, Ne§ri again turned to his source related to the
Oxford Anonymous, which may have provided him with the following dramatic
verbal exchange. When the Turkish ranks are broken, Murad II calls out to the
governor of Anatolia "Karaca, the infidel has beaten us" ( K a f i r bizi stdi Karaca).
The outcry does reflect panic on the sultan's part, but "Dayi" Karaca, who is
holding the sultan's horse-10, keeps up his courage; the sultan's standard remains
in its place as a rallying point, the drums are beaten and the criers call out their
customary " Why do you flee — the infidel is beaten" ( K a f i r sindi)31.
Ménage, "Beginnings , 172

H. Inalcik, "Rise", 158-159, cf the same author's Faith Devrì Ozerinde Telkikler ve Vesikalar
I, Ankara, 1954, 76, in which he mentions the Gazänäme-i Rüm dedicated to Mehemmed II.
27
F . Giese, Die altosmanischen aiwnymen Chroniken /. Text und Variantenverzeichnis, Breslau,
1922, 69; with considerable variants; 11. Übersetzung. Leipzig, 1925, 92-93; F. Babinger, Die
friihosmanischen Jahrbücher des Urudsch, Hanover, 1925, 57, 119.
28
" I t is clear", Atsiz wrote, "that such a rout could not turn into victory by the sultan's prayer",
Atsiz, Edirneli Oruf Beg. Oruf Beg Tarihi, Istanbul, [1972], 95.
Giese, Altosmanische Chronik des 'ASikpaSazäde, chapter 118. 122 is less correct,
•'"in the thick of battle the Aga of the Janissaries accused Karaca Beg of murdering Prince
'Alà'eddin whose Dayi he was; he is sometimes confused with the Beglerbeg of Rumeli; Inalcik,
Fatih Ozerinde Tetkikler, 60, 104
3
' Ank 650-652 = Ménage chapter Muräd II, 37; The (salaried) boz Unci had the task to cry käfir
sindi kafdi; cf. Ank 301; Ménage. Neshri's History, 49.
THE SULTAN'S PRAYER 69
Kosovo II 1448
'A§ikpa§azade who fought in the second battle of Kosovo, this "greatest

gaza", described Murad II — without squeamishness about booty and male and
female slaves 32 — as praying before the military action. The phases are, (i)
Murad views the enemy army at daybreak on Friday, (ii) he performs a petition-
prayer, (iii) his supplication expresses a concern that his sins might be
remembered against his men: "He dismounted, performed a petition-prayer of two
rik'at, touching the ground with his face. He spoke the supplication: 'o Lord,
preserve thou this handful of the community of Muhammad... help them for the
sake of the Prophet; do not make these men weak at the hands of the enemy
because of my sins". He then mounted his horse (and attacked). 33 Ne§ri follows
him closely:
"When Sultan Murad saw the army of the infidels, he immediately

dismounted, touched the earth with his face, performed a petition-prayer (Meet
namazij of two rik'at and entreated God — may he be exalted — 'Do not make
this one squadron (bolUk) of your poor believing slaves weak at the hands of the
infidels because of my many sins. God, preserve the community of the Friend
out of regard for him. And make them victorious and successful'. Then he lifted
up his head, suspended the entreaty, at once pronounced the intention of gaza and
mounted his horse". 34
Having the sultan express contrition at his "many sins" is not fortuitous;
by this device both historians glance at his sudden abdication (a failure in duty)
and at his being a seeker after pleasure ('ay} u nuf). The Anonymous Chronicles
and Oru£ are silent on this point.
As chronicles and histories multiply in the sixteenth century, we notice a

change of mood in descriptions of the rulers in battle. The first sultans of the
Ottomans had been heroes. They died quietly: their soul flew away. Ne§ri twice
uses the phrase, "the phoenix of his soul flew up like an angel to his nest in
paradise" to describe Murad I's and Mehemmed II's death. Mehemmed I died after
and illness —Allah emrine ulcqdi^. It was realized that Murad I's exploits were
greater than those of other Turkish sultans; in Negri's words, "None of the
padishahs of the house of 'Osman waged gam like this one". Murad II died after a
The economic aspects of booty are discussed in Cemai Kafadar. "When Coins Turned into
Drops of Dew and Bankers Became Robbers of Shadows: The Boundaries of Ottoman Economic
Imagination at the End of the sixteenth century", PhD Thesis McGill University, Montreal,
October 1?86, 32 and 209, note 39.
33
Giese, Altosmanische Chronik des 'ASikpakmdc, 124-125, chapter 120. 'Apzed. 'Ali, 135, has
a different version.
34
Ank 664; Ménage chapter Murad U, 40.
35
Ne$ri Ank. 550. On Orhan's death Ank 188, on SUIeyman's Ank 487; on Mùsà's Ank 516.
70 B H. FLEM M1NG
warning by a dervish; he repented of his sins and his soul went to God. 3 6 As
heroes the sultans had been exposed to anxiety. They had displayed humility and
modesty. They had been vulnerable: helpers stood by them 37 . Being isolated,
they entered into contact with the supernatural. Ertogrul and Osman had their
dreams. 'Osman spent a night in adoration of the Koran. 'Apz recorded Murad IPs
expression before a campaign that he would fight with the grace of God and the
miracles of the Prophet and the psychic power of the saints". 38 But as the leaders
of a "small band" of gazis were transfigured into Lords of the Conjunction, the
prophetic voice of that invisible being, the hatif-i gayb39, became their
appropriate contact with the world above. Mehemmed II heard this voice before
the battle with Uzun Hasan, 40 and so did Sultan Siileyman later.
If the Tevarih-i Al-i Osman are one of the most enduringly popular of
Ottoman chronicles, this is, in part, because each generation seems to find in
their story what it needs. One updating is the Siileymanname by Hadidi, a
mesnevi in hezec, completed in 1523, describing the history of the Ottomans
down to the appointment of Ibrahim Pasha. Hadidi wrote sultans' supplications
before the first and the second Kosovo battle, but none before or during the battle
of Varna 41 . Another updating, in a sense, of the TA '0 story in the middle of the
reign of Siileyman is the Cami' ul-meknunat by Mevlana 'Isa, a mesnevi in two
metres, completed in 1529/30 (first recension) 4 2 and in 1543 (second
recension) 43 . The author's major concerns — gaza, booty, the end of the world
— give the impression of reflecting contemporary feeling. 'Isa's mesnevi
contains the prayer (du'a) at Varna which by then had become traditional. In
describing the same battle, 'Isa slips into legend : the Htiir who had fought at
Varna was the saint, not a plain janissary 44 . 'Isa's chapter on Mohdcs includes a
tazarru' pronounced by Siileyman which does contain words of self-humiliation,
36
Ne$ri Ank 307, 680.
37
Murad 11 had been girded and assisted by the intercession of the saintly Emir Hazret of Bursa;
Giese, Chroniken, 77-78.
38
Giese, Altosmanische Chronik des ÄSikpaiazäde, 93f chapter 93 (campaign against Vlad
Drakul).
39
T . Fahd s.v. in El.
Tursun Bey, 157.
4
' F . Babinger, Die Geschichtsschreiber der Osmunen und ihre Werke, Leipzig, 1927, 59-60; the
MS British Museum Or. 12,896 is used by A. Ugur, The Reign of Suliun Selim / in the Li^ht of
Selim-näme Literature, Berlin, 1985, 19, 229-230. Another MS is Istanbul Üniversitesi Ktph.,
T.Y. 1268.
42
MSS. Ankara, Türk Tarih Kururnu Y. 240 (Part 6), and Leiden, University Library, Or. 1448.
43
M S S . Istanbul Üniversitesi Ktph. T.Y. 2546 and T.Y. 3263. For this work as one of the
sources of the Kiinhii l-ahbar see C.H. Fleischer, Bureaucrat and Intellectual in the Ottoman
Empire, Princeton, 1985, 248 and 250, and for its eschatological aspects my "Sahib-Kirän und
Mahdi. Türkische Endzeiterwartungen im ersten Jahrzehnt der Regierung Süleymäns", Gy. Kara
(ed.), Between the Danube and the Caucasus, Budapest 1987, 43-62.
44
F o r Hiiir in Turkish lore see H. Özdemir, Die altosmanischen Chroniken als Quelle zur
türkischen Volkskunde, Freiburg, 1975; Fleischer, Bureaucrat and Intellectual, 167.
doubts about the possibility of a Christian success, and the joy of becoming a
martyr. While no one could accuse 'Isa of sophistication, the Cihadname-i Sultan
Siileyman, composed shortly after 1529 by the poet Levhi, abounds in gazels,
kasides and mesnevi pieces, and is full of images that are symbolic rather than
documentary. Levhi's description of Suleyman's campaign in Hungary is
introduced by poems describing 'spring'. At night the ruler turns to God in a
poetical miinacat, humiliating himself before the judge of the needs of mankind,
kazl l-hdcat*5.
A wealth of imaginative detail had been developed in the sixteenth

century, when the Gazavat-i Sultan Murad was compiled. The single surviving
manuscript combines the campaigns leading up to and finishing with the battle
of Varna with the Menakibname of Mahmud Pasha. The editors have advanced
arguments to the effect that it goes back to eyewitness accounts, and that it
conforms to Christian records of the battle of Varna. 46 The description is in
stages which furnish abundant material for our subject: a miinacat in verse is
pronounced before Murad II crosses the dangerous Straits (48); -he incites his
troops to battle, then at night he performs supererogatory (navaftl) prayers and
recites poetry (57) till the morning; he exhorts his men again ('let me see if you
are men or cowards'); the date is given (1 Receb 848). During the battle the King
challenges Murad (62). Karaca, like a lion in battle, offers himself as a sacrifice;
he pronounces a supplication and becomes a martyr together with his soldiers
(63); the King then sees his chance to charge, but §ahln Pasha exhorts his
soldiers "Now is the day, let me see if you were born to be sacrifical rams", the
cowards flee, the 'pig' Yanko (Hunyadi Janos) is hit by an arrow in the eye, he
faints, the Padishah stands firm; he gives himself up to God (64). The battle
lasts from noon till late into the afternoon, the Padishah is in distress, the
Janissaries are fleeing. Seeing (his situation, the Padishah dismounts and
pronounces a miinacat in verse. Then he takes a handful of earth and touches his
breast with it, and after he has placed his hand on his forehead, he springs up like
a lion, mounts his horse, takes his sword in hand; now the other troops come;
they throw the King from his horse. On the following morning the sultan holds
a prayer of thanks (67); there follows a poem about the 'object lesson' ('ibret)
provided by this battle, the description being summed up by the author's thanks
to God (68) and his admonishment that supplication is necessary for Muslims...
(71).
45
M S . Istanbul, Topkapi Sarayi Miizesi Ktph., Hazine 1434. F.E. Karatay, Topkapi Sarayi
Müzesi Külüphanesi Tiirkfe Yazmalar Katalogu I, Istanbul, 1961, 228 no. 694.
46
H . (nalcik and M. Oguz (ed.), Gaiav&t-i Sultan Murad b. Mehemmtd fidn. hladi ve Varna
Sava&lan (1443-1444) Üierinde Animim Gazavámáme, Ankara, 1978, 58 and notes p. 105 no.
39, esp. 108-109 note 42.
I regret being unable to include Kemalpajazade's accounts of Kosovo I,

Varna 47 , and Kosovo II 48 . His work occupies a central and connecting position
between the Tevarih-i Al-i 'Osman and the 'Persianizing' histories 49 . The
publication by A. Ugur of defter IX contains a prayer before the battle of
Qaldiran in which Sultan Selim does not appear; it is his soldiers who stay
awake all night and present supplications (tazarru") to the Creator 50 . Neither does
Kemalpagazade mention, in his splendid description of the battle of Mohacs, a
sultan's taiarru'; indeed, the sultan did not actually conduct the battle; it was
Ibrahim Pasha who commanded the attacking troops 51 . Celalzade Mustafa, Koca
Ni§anci, describes how the citizens of Istanbul prayed for victory when the army
left for Hungary, and how, in the plain of Moh&s, Sultan Suleyman incited his
troops to fight. "Then the sultan lifted his hands to God, presented his needs
(hacdt) and perfomed tazarru' and miinacat, and the people present, perhaps the
angels in heaven, chanted amln in unison and shed tears (five beyt on du'a) 52 ."
The proud tatarru' with which Haki prefaces his Siileymdnndme, an epic
account of Siileyman's campaign against Persia (Nakhîvan) completed in
1556/7, contains not one word of self-humiliation or doubt about the possibility
of a Safavid success. On the contrary, his verses make proud assertions about the
exalted position of his sultan 53 .
While Hoca Sa'deddin 54 writes in the easy-flowing and highly polished

(linguistically Middle-Ottoman) "Persian-Ottoman" prose for which he has often
been praised, it is noteworthy that, besides interweaving his concepts, he inserts
mesnevi verse in Old Ottoman ('modernized' in the printed edition) invoking,
without mentioning a source, the long prayers said in Ibn 'Ala's Dani§mendncune
of 1360/61, in which the h e r o and his friend Artuhi pronounce both miinacat and
47
Cited in tnalcik, Fatih Devri. 60, 75.
48
§ . Turan, ibn Kemal: levar ih-1 Al-i Osman, VII. defter, Ankara, 1957, and the same author's ibn
Kemal: Tevärih-i Al-i Osman, VII. defter (lenkidli iranskripsiyon), Ankara, 1957. For the last
part of the reign of Murad II, 847-855, only one manuscript, Paris, Suppl. ture 157, is known:
V.L. Ménage, "MS Fatih 4205: An Autograph of Kemäl-Pashazäde's Tevarikh-i Àl-i 'Othmùn,
Book VII", BSOAS 23 (I960), 263-264.
4
' For the Gazavat-nàme which Kemàlpasazàde incorporated into his seventh defter see tnalcik,
"Rise", 163, 167; 5. Turan, Ibn Kemal: Tevürih-i Al-i Osman, VII. defter (lenkidli
iranskripsiyon), Ankara, 1957, introduction.
50
A. Ugur, Reign of Sultan Selim I in the Light of the Seltm-nàme Literature, 105, 383; based on
the MS Siileymaniye, Veliyiiddin Ef. 2447.
51
Pavet de Courteille, Histoire de la campagne de Mohaczpar Kemal Pachazadeh, Paris, 1859.
52
P . Kappert (ed.), Geschichte Sultan Siileymàn Känünis von 1520 bis ISS7, Wiesbaden, 1981,
62, 63, 143b and 144b.
5 3 M S Topkapi Sarayi Miizesi Ktph., Revan 1289, Karatay, Topkapt Sarayi Miizesi Kutiiphanesi
Tärkfe Yavnalar Katalogu I, 220 no. 673; GOW 54, note 2.
S^His Täc (it-tevärih was begun under Selim II and dedicated to Muräd III in 1575. He died on 2
October 1599. On his indebtedness to Ora? see V.L. Ménage, "Another text of Urui's Ottoman
chronicle", Der Islam 47 (1967Ì, 273-277.
THE S U L T A N ' S PRAYER 73
taiarru'55 in verse. Sa'deddin's effort to achieve a special style merits separate

study 56 . His taiarru' before Kosovo I (Tac I, 119-120) is on themes with which
he and his contemporaries were deeply concerned. Honour is foremost. His
concerns are that the banners of Islam may bend, that a fall from glory to
dishonour, casualties, even enemy occupation may occur; the immediate problem
of 'dust' only comes fourth; his concerns are about the ruin of years of endeavour;
his appeal to be a ransom points forward to Murad's death. "But the army-leading
king became sad because of the great numbers of the enemy force, and his
compassionate eyes became moist on behalf of the soldiers of Islam, especially
as from the enemy side there blew a contrary wind, and the fear that the fact that
the shield of dust filled that plain would make the eyes of the forces of Islam
opaque and turbid became an additional burden. Consequently the sultan —
performing his task — shed successive tears, which were the envy of tulips upon
the countenance of entreaty, and in the darkness of the night he opened the hand
of need (facet), and he lifted a silent and fervent prayer to the court of the judge
of the needs of mankind (ka/J l-hacat) and said with earnest supplication (taiarru")
and misery and a flood of tears "my God, you are the ruler who gives shelter to
the people of the universe, and you are the one on whom hope is fixed for the
commonalty of servants in palaces and in poverty, in hardship and in ease. Do
not make the upright banners of Islam crooked in the hands of the despicable
infidels, and [do not make] this weak slave ill-famed among mankind. Verse:
For the honour of the most honourable Friend, for the blood that flowed
in Kerbela;
For the eye that weeps in the night of separation, for the face which is put
down on the way of your love;
For the sad heart of the suffering, for their sigh which affects the soul;
Make, o Lord, your kindness a companion of the way; make your
guarding an aid and protection for us;
Be the defender and helper of the Muslims. Keep the hand of the enemy
away from us.
Do not look, o Lord, at our sin; grace with favour our heart-felt sigh.
Do not, o Lord, destroy the warriors for the faith. Do not make us the
target of the enemy's arrow.
Protect our eyes from the dust of the battlefield. Guard the troops of Islam
from danger.
Do not, o Lord, ruin with your wrath our endeavour and our exertion
which have lasted so many years, and our good name in campaigns for
Islam:
55
I. Milikoff, La Gesle de Melik Oani^mend U, Paris, 1960, 57-59, 106-107, UQ-111 152-
153, 164-165, 188-189; 200.
Imber, "Ottoman Dynastic Myth", quotes from the long prayer, in verse, which Sa'deddin put
into the mouth of 'OsmSn.
74 B H. FLEMMING
D o not ruin (them); do not make my face black among the people.
I will become a ransom (fida) in the way of Islam; I will become the
shield for the soldiers on the way of salvation.
M a k e m e a martyr in the way of religion; make me fortunate in the
hereafter.
D o not let the domain of Islam be trodden under foot, do not make it a
resting-place of the race of error;
Your beneficence is great for the Muslims; I wish that it may reach
completion."
With words of this kind and sorrowing he performed earnest supplication

and entreating and spent that dark night in supplication and lamentation."
M u s t a f a All in his influential universal history, the Kiinh ul-ahbar,57
recomposed the ritual prayer of two rik'at and a miindcdt before Kosovo I,
eliminating its contents 5 8 .
For the Varna battle Hoca Sa'deddin wrote a miinacdt (Tac I 380-381), the
spirit of which agrees with the tazarru' of the Anonymous Chronicles. In this
battle both Sa'deddin and Mustafa 'Alt 5 9 mention only Koca Hizir the janissary.
On Kosovo II Sa'deddin is relatively short; he has no reason to go into the
sultan's contrition, as he has spoken of sins earlier on. His taiarru' is in indirect
speech (Tac I 395:10): "While he requested a favourable opportunity and invoked
God's help in battle, he lifted his prayers to the mirror-like face of the wished-for
in order that the desired countenance might manifest itself. With supplication and
humbling himself in prayer and in need he asked from the court of God the
Absolute Actor that the soldiers of Islam be victorious. After praying in the heart
in this way and presenting the exigencies he asked the Protector for aid, seeking
his support and then mounted an ambling sorrel horse and becoming firm like a
mountain in the middle of the troops whose orbit is victory and on the field of
vengeance he made the fighters listen to, and inspired them by the Koranic 'kill
those who join other gods with God' (Sura 5:5)."
As a statesman Hoca Sa'deddin had advised against beginning what came

to be known as the Long War with Austria. But when the decision had been
made he encouragcd Mehemmed III to take the field in person, and to become,
thirty years after Siileyman died on campaign, the first sultan to lead the army
into Hungary again. He took with him the Standard of the Prophet, which had
57
F l e i s c h e r , Bureaucrat and Intellectual, passim; on 'Ali's beginning and completion of the w o r k
140, 148.
58
' A l i , Kiinhii l-ahbar, IV, 72-3, Vaki'a 13.
59
' A l i , Kiinhii l-ahbar, IV, 214.
only recently been brought from Damascus 6 0 . Before Egri 6 1 the ulema said
prayers (du'a) and 'supplications' day and night—and the siege succeeded 62 .
Mustafa Selaniki 6 3 describes this and the great battle in the plain of Mez6-
Keresztes on 25 October, 1596, when Christian forces overran the Ottoman
infantry ranks. "While the sultan lamented and cried 'intercession o Prophet of
God, and God, help' placing his forehead on the Noble Mantle" (hirka-i serif) his
excellency the Hoca Efendi Mevlana Sa'deddin strengthened him with eloquent
words to stand firm with patience and perseverance" 64 , and almost at the very
moment of defeat, the battle was won 65 .
It is not easy briefly to summarize the common features and differences of

the 'supplications' which we have discussed. Most of them were held at night;
the ritual element, the prayer, was crucial. The sacrificial nature of the death of
Murad I was not forgotten: Sultan Suleyman is credited by at least one author
(Mevlana 'Isa) with a willingness to die as a martyr. The internal structure of the
supplications' changed; so did their patterns of concepts, rhetoric and tone within
the changing historical fabric. If Apz in his report on Kosovo II provides the
short plot and the 'germ' of the tazarru', Ne§ri in his Kosovo I chapter may be
said to have established the precedent for later passages sounding the note of epic
heroism. Mustafa 'AH in his Ktinh ul-ahbar offers abridgement on a larger scale,
while adding interesting reflections which are outside the scope of this paper.
Sa'deddin both relates back to the Tevarih-i Al-i 'Osmdn and points forward to the
other masters o f Ottoman historiography. They all comment on Ottoman
values 66 . A final consideration, in writing this paper, has been to suggest how
useful it would be to avoid a sharp distinction between the documentary and the
literary (of the genre of the Battal-name and the Dani§mend-name)bl. In this the
prayer before battle may be a fruitful line of enquiry.
University of Leiden
6 0 Mchmet lp$irli (ed.), Selaniki Mustafa Efendi. Tárih-i Selaniki II. Istanbul, 1989. II, 611 CI
Huart, "Sandjak Sharif', Et.
6 1 C f . Jan Schmidt, "The Egri-Campaign of 1596. Military History and the problem of sources",
Habsburgisch-osmanische Beziehungen. C1EPO Colloque Wien, 26. -30. Sept 19X3 Vienna
1985, 125-144.
62 lp$irli, Tárih-i Selániki II, 635.
/•q
On Selaniki as a historian see C.H. Fleischer, Bureaucrat and intellectual, 130-13!.
64 tp§irii, Tárih-i Selaniki II, 641.
6 5 C.H.Fleischer, Bureaucrat and intellectual, 169.
Their study may be extended, for example, to the sultans' promises to God (Báyezid l's adak
before the battle of Nicopolis) or to their 'incitements to battle'.
6 7 lnalcik,"Rise", 156-157; Ménage, "Recensions of Uruj", 315. Cf. also G.L. Lewis, "The
Utility of Ottoman Fethnames", Historians of the Middle East, 192-1%,
Aldo GALLOTTA
IL «GAZAVAT-IHAYREDDIN PA§A » PARS

SECUNDA E LA SPEDIZIONE IN FRANCIA DI
HAYREDDIN BARBAROSSA (1543-1544).
1.0 Nell'occuparmi del Gazavàt-i Hayreddin Pa$ax , opera scritta da

Muràdf o Seyyid Muràd che narra la storia delle imprese del famoso corsaro e
ammiraglio della flotta ottomana, Hayreddin Pa§a Barbarossa, fino al 1541, anno
in cui Carlo V portò lo sfortunato attacco contro Algeri, ebbi l'opportunità di
esaminare il ms. ture 1186 della Bibliothèque Nationale di Parigi, che nel
catalogo di Blochet figura sotto il titolo di Gazavàt-i Hayreddin Pa§a2. L'esame
dell'opera mi permise di determinare che essa narra la storia del Barbarossa dal suo
arrivo in Francia nel 1543 alla sua morte nel 1546. Autore risultava essere lo
stesso Muràdi, per cui chiamai quest'opera Gazavàt-i Hayreddin Pa§a. Pars
Secunda
Il manoscritto, che per quanto ho potuto determinare è un unicum, è

datato receb 953/in. 28 agosto 1546, ossia posteriore solo di poco più di due
mesi alla morte di Hayreddin Pa§a. Verosimilmente trattasi dell'autografo 4 . Per la
sua compilazione l'autore si è avvalso in primo luogo degli atti ufficiali della
cancelleria ottomana, riproducendo anche integralmente i firmani sultaniali
emessi da Sultàn Suleymàn Qànùni e parte della corrispondenza intercorsa tra
Hayreddin e lo stesso Sultano; in secondo luogo si è giovato di quanto il Pa§a
stesso gli aveva raccontato. E' pertanto una fonte di primaria importanza per la
storia della spedizione in Francia della flotta ottomana negli anni 1543-1544.
E' mia intenzione pubblicare questo testo, come contributo ulteriore alla
storia delle relazioni franco-turche nel XVI secolo. Queste pagine, volendo
costituirne la premessa, sono dedicate alla messa a punto di alcune questioni
óazavàt di Hayreddin Barbarossa «Studi Magrebini», IH, 1970, pp. 79-160.

^Catalogue des manuscrits turcs de la Bibliothèque Wationale, II, Paris 1932, pp. 28-29.
3
Art. cit., pp. 101-102.
Îbidem.
78 A l d o G A L L O T T A
generali sul problema della collaborazione franco-turca, all'integrazione delle

informazioni su qualche questione poco nota sulla base del Gazavàt-i Hay redditi
Pa§a e alla presentazione del contenuto della Pars Secunda di quest'opera.
1.1 La partecipazione della flotta ottomana alla lotta franco-spagnola, a

fianco dell'armata francese, negli anni 1543-1544, ebbe vasta eco in Europa: per
la prima volta un'armata musulmana metteva piede, indisturbata e con l'appoggio
ufficiale di una potenza cristiana, sul suolo europeo 3 . L'Europa cattolica gridò
allora allò scandalo e tacciò di "empietà" l'alleanza stretta dal Cristianissimo
Francesco I di Francia con il sultano ottomano Solimano il Magnifico 6 .
Fu questo l'episodio più eclatante della vicenda del rapporto franco-turco

nel XVI secolo. La letteratura occidentale sia sulla presenza navale ottomana in
Francia nel 1543-1544 sia sul tema generale dell'alleanza turco-francese è
abbondante e l'argomento ci è sufficientemente noto in tutti i suoi particolari 7 .
Essa, tuttavia, risente per lo più del limite derivante dalla necessità di giustificare
o difendere ad ogni costo da una parte la politica francese, dall'altra di magnificare
la politica spagnola mettendo in rilievo l'eccessiva spregiudicatezza del sovrano
francese.
In effetti la collaborazione franco-turca, che aprì indubbiamente una pagina

nuova nella storia del Mediterraneo, va considerata sotto vari aspetti. Non v'è
dubbio che Francesco I andò oltre quanto sino allora si era praticato da parte
cristiana. Nel corso dell'ascesa della potenza ottomana molte volte i cristiani
avevano patteggiato con i Turchi e più di una volta potenze cristiane avevano
adoperato la loro diplomazia per istigare i Turchi ai danni di altre potenze
cristiane, ma non si era mai visto che una potenza europea affiancasse le proprie
forze a quelle turche in un'azione militare contro un'altra potenza cristiana, come
fece il re dei Francesi. Non è qui il luogo per giudicare la sua condotta, bastando
osservare che essa non va considerata alla luce dei valori morali propri del mondo
^Ricordiamo che i Turchi avevano giù messo piede a Otranto nel 1480 e avevano tenuto la città
per un anno. Anche se vi è discussione sulla responsabilità diretta o indiretta di Venezia in merito
all'avvenimento, non vi è dubbio alcuno che l'iniziativa turca non godette, almeno ufficialmente,
di appoggi da parte di potenze europee. Ved. sulla questione A. Bombaci, Venezia e l'impresa
turca di Otranto, «Rivista storica italiana», LXVI, 1954, pp. 159-203 e A. Callotta, The Turks in
Ualy (XV-XVUh centuries). In: ¡Vllth CIEPO Symposium, Pécs 7-11 September 1986 (in corso di
stampa).
^Significativo è il titolo dell'articolo che lo storico della marina italiana C. Manfroni dedicò alla
uestione: L'empia alleanza, «Rivista marittima», 1895, pp. 37-65, 275-298.
Oltre alle storie generali e alle storie delle marine nazionali ved. I. Ursu, La politique orientale
de François 1er, Paris 1908; B. de Saint Priest, Mémoire sur l'ambassade de Turquie, Paris 1878; R.
Rieger, Die Einbeziehung der Osmunen in das abendländische Staatssystem. König Franz I. von
Frankreich, Sultan Soliman der Prächtige und die Habsburger, Güttingen 1928; C. Göllner, Die
Haltung der öffentlichen Meinung zum Türken Bündniss Franz I. von Frankreich, «RHSE», XX,
1943, pp. 208-227; E. Charrière, Négociations de la France dans le Levant, I, Paris 1848.
IL "GA Z A V A T - 1 tfAYREDDlN PA§A 79
medioevale, ma della nuova mentalità che si era andata sviluppando nel mondo
della Rinascenza. Quel che più ci interessa è il punto di vista turco.
2.1 La documentazione ottomana disponibile sul tema è stata da tempo

studiata 8 . La trattazione moderna più completa sulla spedizione in Francia del
Barbarossa, basata sia su fonti orientali che su fonti occidentali è quella di J.
Laroche del 1969 9 . La studiosa francese pubblica in trascrizione e in traduzione 10
un testo turco del XVI secolo, scritto immediatamente dopo gli avvenimenti
narrati, contenuto in una storia della campagna ungherese di Solimano il
Magnifico. Le notizie fornite dal testo turco sono confrontate e adeguatamente
commentate con quanto riferiscono Paolo Giovio, alcuni contemporanei e i
documenti degli Archivi di Tolone, Aix, Marsiglia e Monaco. La trattazione più
ampia e documentata sul tema generale delle relazioni franco-turche nel XVI
secolo, invece, è contenuta nel III volume dello studio di Kenneth M. Setton
dedicato a The Papacy and the Levant11. Ivi il problema è inserito nel giusto
contesto internazionale ed è illustrato con abbondanti riferimenti, oltre che alla
letteratura esistente, a una gran massa di documentazione, in parte ancora inedita.
Attenzione è rivolta anche alla Collezione di documenti turchi dell'Archivio di
Stato di Venezia, consultata tramite traduzioni veneziane coeve o tramite i
Regesti Bombaci 1 2 .
Volendo considerare la questione dell'alleanza franco-turca dal punto di

vista turco, c'è innanzitutto da rilevare che giuridicamente era normale che nella
guerra santa il Sultano si avvalesse di infedeli contro altri infedeli (o addirittura
contro altri musulmani "miscredenti") ed il giudizio morale non era differente da
quello giuridico in un ambiente come quello musulmano in cui non esisteva una
separazione concettuale e pratica fra diritto e morale. Politicamente il prestigio
del Sultano si avvantaggiava dall'aiuto prestato alla Francia, essendo il re francese
presentato dalla propaganda ottomana come un vassallo che chiedeva umilmente
protezione. La testimonianza dell'autorevole storico Ibn Kemàl (Kemal-pa$a-zade)
è al riguardo assai esplicita. Nel suo linguaggio immaginifico egli riferisce
dell'inizio delle trattative col re di Francia e narra che la "corona" di "Cesare", il
titolo del re più potente fra i cristiani, che era stata sempre appannaggio dei
g
J. von Hammer, Mémoire sur les premières relations diplomatiques entre la France et la Porte,
«JA», X, 1827, pp. 19-45; I. Soysal, Titrk-Fransu Diplomasi Miinasebetlerinin ilk Devresi,
«Tarih Dergisi», III, 5-6. 1953, pp. 63-94.
9
L'expédition en Provence de l'armée de mer du Sultan Suleymun sous le commandement de
l'amiral Hayreddin Pacha, dit Barberousse (1543-1544), «Turcica», I, 1969, pp. 161-211.
10
La trascrizione è opera di F. Karatay, la traduzione di J. Deny; ved. ib,, p. 161-163.
11
The Sixteenth Century to the Reign of Julius 111, Philadelphia 1984.
Ved. A. Bombaci, La collezione di documenti turchi dell'Archivio di Slato di Venezia, «RSO»,
XXIV, 1949, pp. 95-107; P. Sebastian, The Turkish documents in the Venetian State Archives. À
Note on the Indice Bombaci. In: Studia Turcologica memoriae Alexii Bombaci dicala, Napoli
v
1982, pp. 497-510.
80 Aldo G ALLOTTA
tedeschi "gente aitante come platani e pini, dal volto rude, pronta a battagliare" ed
ansiosi di porre i loro piedi funesti in Costantinopoli (è rievocata qui la vittoria
di Federico Barbarossa sul sultano selgiuchide di Konya), era contesa fra il re di
Spagna e il re di Francia. Quest'ultimo, vinto e assediato, non aveva visto altro
scampo che mettersi quale umile atomo al seguito del sultano simile al sole e per
bocca di un ambasciatore lo aveva esortato a combattere in Ungheria,
promettendo che, divenuto schiavo del beneficio, avrebbe volentieri chinato la
nuca al giogo dell'obbedienza 1 3 . Non c'era, come si vede, alcuna difficoltà a
presentare ai sudditi musulmani del sultano un'alleanza tacciata di "empia" nel
mondo cristiano.
Praticamente per i Turchi l'alleanza con 1 Francesi non era un buon affare:
per la prima volta essi avevano a che fare con una potenza cristiana che invece di
sborsare danaro ne chiedeva; inoltre la flotta ottomana doveva essere impegnata in
una impresa che non la interessava direttamente e si svolgeva in un settore, il
Mediterraneo occidentale, che per Costantinopoli era secondario. Come è noto,
infatti, l'espansione turca nel Mediterraneo occidentale, se pure rientra nel quadro
dell'antagonismo con gli Asburgo, in particolare con Carlo V, ebbe in sostanza
carattere del tutto avventuroso e solo tenuemente si collega a un motivo
religioso, la solidarietà religiosa con i Moriscos, costretti in Spagna a professare
di nascosto la loro fede islamica o ad abbandonare clandestinamente il paese. Il
Sultano ottomano figura quale protettore di questi derelitti ed essi in qualche
momento con le loro rivolte agirono, come è stato detto, da "quinta colonna" a
vantaggio dei Turchi 1 4 . A parte questo motivo, che già in precedenza aveva fatto
rivolgere l'attenzione dei Turchi verso il bacino occidentale del Mediterraneo 1 5 ,
gli inizi della dominazione turca sulle sue sponde africane sono legati alle vicende
e attività dei fratelli Barbarossa. Orni, e Hayreddtn 16 .
Non è difficile, pertanto, supporre che nell'indurre il sultano all'intervento

in favore dei francesi ebbe molto peso il consiglio del suo Qapudan Pa§a, la cui
stella era sorta proprio in quel settore e che certamente patrocinava un maggior
impegno ottomano nel Magreb. Un aspetto importante è che per la prima volta
l'impero ottomano diventa intimamente partecipe del gioco di forze per
l'equilibrio politico europeo, nonostante esso appartenesse a un mondo non solo
diverso, ma antitetico. Questo avrebbe potuto portare a un mutamento nella
situazione di contrapposizione globale fra mondo musulmano e mondo cristiano,
se all'alleanza con i francesi avesse corrisposto una evoluzione ideologica da parte
' • ' c f r . M. Pavet de Courteille, Histnire de la campagne de Mnhacz par Kemal Pacha Zadeh, Paris
1859, pp. 24-26.
14
A.C. Hess, The Moriscos: an Ottoman Fifth Column in Sixteenth century Spain, «American
Historical Review», LXXIV, 1, 1969, pp. 1-25.
'-"Basta ricordare l'attività di Keniàl Re'is, su cui ved. H.A. von Burski, Kemäl He'is: Ein Beitrag
zur Geschichte der türkischen Flutte, Bonn 1928, e, per ultimo, E.l. 2, s. v.
16
V e d . £./. 2, s. v. Khayr al-Din (Khidir) Hat ha Barberousse.
IL "GAZAVAT-I yAYREDDIN PA§A" 81
ottomana, cosa che non avvenne e non poteva allora avvenire. L'alleanza militare
turco-francese rimase quindi un episodio isolato che troverà riscontro solo a
distanza di secoli, in un'atmosfera ben diversa 17 .
Non occorre dilungarsi sulla cronaca delle relazioni diplomatiche fra

Francesco I e Sultàn Sttleymin 1 8 , bastando dire che essa è conforme alla
prospettiva che abbiamo tracciato: da una parte si nota il comportamento incerto
da parte francese (solo dopo Pavia, nel 1525, Francesco I smise di atteggiarsi
come gli altri principi cristiani a paladino di una crociata contro il turco; ma i
suoi atti lasciavano sempre intravedere la possibilità di una sua adesione alla lega
cristiana, come nel 1532 e nel 1538) e la circospezione nel condurre gli approcci,
che ebbero inizio nel 1525; dall'altra parte la riluttanza turca (Solimano si
dimostrò estremamente cauto nell'impegnarsi col re di Francia; il comportamento
di quest'ultimo, infatti, lo portava a diffidare della sincerità delle intenzioni
francesi e i rapporti attraversarono momenti critici, come ad esempio alla fine del
1540, dopo la tregua di Aigues Mortes del 1538 e la visita di Carlo V in Francia
del 1540: Solimano avrebbe dichiarato all'inviato francese Ringon che sarebbe
stato bene se gli avesse fatto tagliare la testa!).
2.2 Era interesse sia di Francesco I sia di Solimano che i rapporti fra i
due stati si svolgessero tramite Barbarossa. E di fatto le trattative divennero più
stringenti e diedero risultali concreti, quando sulla scena comparve HayreddTn
Barbarossa. Se da parte turca HayreddTn era l'esperto di cose occidentali che, in
un certo senso, doveva garantire l'osservanza dei patti da parte francese fungendo
da tramite, nelle intenzioni francesi egli era la persona influente presso il Sultano
che doveva e poteva caldeggiare le richieste francesi e il coinvolgimento turco nel
Mediterraneo occidentale.
La partecipazione di HayreddTn Barbarossa alle trattative turco-francesi era

fatta risalire dagli studiosi solo alla circostanza della sua chiamata a Istanbul alla
fine del 1533 perché gli fosse affidato il comando della flotta ottomana. La
testimonianza fornitaci dal Gazavàt-i Hayreddin Pa$a ci permette, invece, di
stabilire che già prima del 1529 il Barbarossa aveva avuto incarico dal Sultano di
seguire da presso il problema dei rapporti con la Francia; pertanto bisogna rendere
ragione alla supposizione avanzata da Charrière, secondo cui, dopo il silenzio
seguito alla prima missione del Frangipane, è lecito pensare a una ripresa delle
trattative nel 1528, con l'invio di un agente a tal fine in concomitanza con la
definizione di alcune questioni relative ai Luoghi Santi 19 .
17
l
' A g l i inizi del XIX secolo sotto Sciiti) Ili ci furono progetti di azioni coordinate comuni franco-
turche. Ved. St. J. Shaw, L'impero ottomano dopo il 1453, p. 471, In: Bombaci-Shaw, L'Impero
Ottomano,
» o
Torino 1981.
Ved. la bibliografia citata nelle note precedenti.
i9
Op. cìt. p. 173.
82 Aldo GALLOTTA
Nel Gazavàt-i Hayreddin Pa$a si riferisce che, dopo la presa del Peñón di
Algeri il 27 maggio 1529 e dopo che Aydin Rels, uno dei luogotenenti del "re di
Algeri" e corsaro tra i più famosi del Mediterraneo, recatosi con 15 navi in aiuto
dei Moriscos in rivolta nella regione di Oliva, ebbe sbaragliato, al largo delle
coste spagnole, la squadra navale di Don Rodrigo Portundo, Hayreddin inviò due
galee a Istanbul per comunicare le sue vittorie al Sultano. Questi di contro gli
inviò il favuf Mustafà col suo hiikm-i ferìf nel quale, dopo aver ricordato le
trattative in corso col re di Francia ("Il re di Francia ha inviato a questa mia Porta
Fortunata suoi valenti uomini, ci sono state tra noi alcune parole"), ordinava a
Hayreddin:
«Tu manderai nei paesi di Francia una tua persona valida ed esperta e gli
farai prendere informazioni le più complete possibili, sì che qui si sappia
se essi (i francesi) mantengono o meno la loro parola e quali sono i loro
discorsi e i loro atti, cosa fanno e cosa non fanno. In breve devi informarti
in modo chiaro, certo e completo di quanto fa il re di Francia, qualunque
cosa sia e, quando lo avrai saputo per certo, me lo farai sapere tramite il
gavuf Mustafà»20.
Hayreddin eseguì subito l'ordine del padiscià, fece prendere le informazioni

richieste e le inviò alla Sublime Porta col favu$ Mustafà. Questi, giunto a
Istanbul, le comunicò alla nobile Corte del Sultano21.
La testimonianza è abbastanza significativa circa l'atteggiamento turco nei

confronti dell'alleato francese. Evidentemente c'era stato un accordo tra Solimano
e Francesco I per un'azione comune. Solimano, che o perché non si fidava
eccessivamente della sua controparte o solo per essere certo che il re francese
agisse secondo i patti, si rivolse a Hayreddin, la persona fidata che più di ogni
altro era a conoscenza degli intrighi d'Europa e che in ogni caso da Algeri aveva
ogni possibilità di ottenere informazioni di prima mano.
Purtroppo non conosciamo il tenore delle informazioni fornite dal

Barbarossa al Sultano. E' verosimile, però, per gli avvenimenti successivi, che
portarono Solimano alle porte di Vienna, che le informazioni furono rassicuranti
circa il comportamento del re di Francia. D'altra parte in quello stesso anno il
Lautrec giungeva sino a Napoli.
A partire almeno dal 1529 quindi Hayreddin ebbe un ruolo di primo piano
nei rapporti diplomatici tra Parigi e Istanbul. Dalla documentazione in nostro
possesso sappiamo che regolarmente emissari del Barbarossa si recavano in
Francia e che emissari francesi a loro volta visitavano Algeri. Momenti
20
F . 164 f. Ved. A. Gallona, 11 "Gazavàt-i Hayreddin Pasa', Napoli 1981 (facsimile del ms).
21
F. 189 r-v. Ibidem.
I L " GAZAV A T - 1 tfAYREDDIN PA§A" 83
significativi di questi rapporti furono una ambascerìa algerina ricevuta da

Francesco I nel luglio 1533, cui fece riscontro l'incontro del catalano Antonio
Rinçon, al servizio dei Francesi, con il Barbarossa prima e poi col Gran Visir
Ibrâhîm Paga a Aleppo nel 1534, e la conclusione di un trattato di libero
commercio con Algeri per tre anni nello stesso anno 1534, e ancora l'ambasceria
di J. de la Forest (forêt), che, dopo la conquista di Tunisi del 1534, cercava di
allettare ìâyreddfn facendogli intravedere la costituzione della Sicilia e della
Sardegna, che egli avrebbe conquistato, in uno stato vassallo sotto un
governatore francese, l'esule napoletano Trailo Caracciolo. Le trattative condotte
dallo stesso La Forest a Istanbul furono interrotte a causa della morte del Gran
Visir (15 marzo 1536), che le favoriva. Quello che per lungo tempo è stato
considerato un trattato è molto verosimilmente soltanto un progetto rinvenuto
nel 1777 22 . Questo progetto è redatto nella forma di un trattato tra eguali, a
differenza degli altri trattati che nel testo turco si presentano soltanto quali atti
unilaterali del Sultano. La forma di trattato bilaterale, che avrebbe significato
l'ingresso dell'impero turco nella comunità internazionale di allora era come si è
detto a quel tempo impensabile.
Dopo alterne vicende e inutili tentativi del francese La Garde di indurre il

Sultano a far intervenire Barbarossa in Italia, quando nel 1542 riprese la guerra
franco-spagnola, infine il Grande Ammiraglio della flotta ottomana ricevette da
Solimano il Magnifico ordine di intervenire in aiuto dei Francesi e di unire le sue
110 navi alle 50 della flotta francese, comandata dal giovane duca d'Enghiem.
3.1 Presento ora il contenuto della Pars Secunda del óemvàt-i Hayreddìn
Pafa
Capitolo primo
Hayreddìn si trova nella fortezza di Tolone e riceve l'invito a partecipare a

una festa in suo onore a Marsiglia. Egli accetta e partecipa alla festa, durante la
quale è degnamente onorato23.
Intanto ritorna l'ambasciatore francese che venti giorni prima 24 , quando la

flotta era giunta a Antibes, era andato dal Re di Francia. Avendo questi intenzione
22
Ved. H. tnalcik, fmtiyâzât. In: £./. 2 e G. Zeller, Une légende qui dure, «Revue d'histoire
moderne et contemporaine», II, 1955, pp. 127-132; J.-P. Laurent, Deux écrits sujets à
controverse, I. Us célèbres articles franco-ottomans de février 1535, Il Le projet de traité
franco-portugais du 14 juillet 1536. In: Ordonnances des Rois de France, Règne de François 1er,
VIII, Paris 1972; M. E., Les capitulations de 1535 ne sont pas une légende, «Annales E S.C »,
19. 1964.
23
II 21 luglio 1543 fu a Marsiglia. Cfr. K.M. Setton, op. cit.. p. 471.
24
Dopo 15 giorni secondo il ms. edito da Laroche, art. cit.,p. 182.
84 Aldo G A L L O T T A
di assalire Nizza, affida a Hayreddìn le 24 navi e i barda e galeoni francesi 23 ; ma

bisogna attendere le truppe di terra per poter cingere d'assedio Nizza sia da terra
sia dal mare.
yayreddin ritiene opportuno consultare il Sultano, anche in previsione

dell'opportunità di svernare in Francia. Invia perciò il suo 'arz. Il Sultano di
rimando emette il suo hiikm-i ¡erìf.
Capitolo secondo (f. 7v)
Bu bàb hairet-i Pa§anun 'ari-i §erifi muqtezàsìnca gelen hukmiin suretin

beyàn eder.
Hayreddìn informa il Sultano che la flotta è arrivata in ritardo per le

avverse condizioni del tempo e che il 2 rebi' Ul-evvel 949/16.6.1542 ha assalito
Reggio nello stretto di Messina. Il 4 rebi' Ul-evvel/18.6.1542 è giunta a Antibes
e l'ambasciatore è andato dal re di Francia, impegnato nelle Fiandre; quindi la
flotta ha proseguito per Marsiglia, dove è giunto anche l'ambasciatore di Francia
con la richiesta di assalire Nizza sia da terra sia da mare 26 .
Il Sultano riassume una lettera del re di Francia, il quale lamenta il ritardo

dell'arrivo della flotta, la qual cosa ha consentito a Carlo di Spagna di passare
nelle Fiandre.
Anche l'ambasciatore di Francia ha comunicato che il ritardo della flotta è

stato causato dai venti contrari.
Il Sultano lamenta l'assenza di notizie circa lo svernamento della flotta, il

soldo e il vettovagliamento dei soldati e informa Hayreddìn che la flotta può
rimanere in Francia, solo se sarà assicurato tutto il necessario, altrimenti sarà
bene che vada a gettare l'ancora a Prevesa o a Modone. Ogni decisione è affidata a
Hayreddìn.
Capitolo terzo (f. llr)
Bu bàb hatret-i Pa§anun tonanma-i htimàyun ile Ni§e qal'esine vardugi'n

beyàn eder.
23 L e navi sono 18 galee in Laroche, ari. cit., p. 194 nota 27.

26 L e date che figurano nel nostro ms. non corrispondono a quelle delle fonti occidentali. Ved.
Setton, op. cit., p. 470 segg. Stranamente poi l'anno è il 949, che corrisponde al 1542, mentre è
risaputo che la flotta turca venne nel Mediterraneo Occidentale nel 1543.
IL "GAZAVAT-I HAYREDDÌN PA§A" 85
Qayreddìn va ad assediare Nizza 27 , abbandonata dal duca 28 che vi ha

lasciato un valente qapudan29. Su richiesta del capitano Paulin, hayreddìn invia
una delegazione di Turchi e Francesi a chiedere la resa; in seguito al rifiuto e al
tergiversare di Paulin i Turchi piazzano cinque cannoni e battono la fortezza per
un giorno e una notte; dalle brecce aperte i soldati franco-turchi entrano e
conquistano la fortezza esterna 30 . Mentre si apprestano all'assalto finale, gli
assediati trattano la resa con l'ambasciatore francese, chiedendo come condizione
l'allontanamento dei Turchi, ijayreddin acconsente malvolentieri, perché ritiene
che sia una mossa per prendere tempo; infatti, appena i Turchi smantellano le
batterie e si imbarcano sulle navi, gli assediati passano al contrattacco 31 .
Hayreddìn riprende l'assedio, ma la buona stagione se n'è andata, per cui diventa
necessario trovare un luogo sicuro per la flotta imperiale; perciò abbandona
l'assedio e si porta con la flotta nell'isola di Sant'Onorato32.
Nel frattempo il marchese di Vasto e il duca di Savoia hanno messo

assieme un esercito di alcune migliaia di soldati, ma nei quaranta giorni in cui la
fortezza di Nizza è stata assediata non si sono fatti vedere, anche perché la
popolazione dei paesi che si trovano lungo la strada che essi devono percorrere ha
fatto atto di sottomissione al re di Francia33.
La flotta turca resta nell'isola di Sant'Onorato venti giorni. Intanto una

flotta di venti navi e 1.200 uomini, inviata dal duca di Savoia, incappa nella
tempesta e si perde in mare34.
Hayreddìn invia Sài ih Re'Tscon 50 navi il 25 ciimàzi ulàhir!25.10.1543 a

conquistare una fortezza nei pressi di Nizza35; anche Villafranca è conquistata.
Il re di Spagna invia la flotta nel Magreb a conquistare il sultanato di

Tlemcen, quindi Mustaganem e altre fortezze musulmane. Interviene Basan Beg
che ha preso a Algeri il posto di Hayreddìn e riconquista quelle fortezze agli
infedeli, che si rifugiano a Orano. Andrea Dona con 42 galee e 18 barda va a
prelevarli e li porta parte a Barcellona (5.000 soldati) e parte nell'isola di Maiorca
27
II 10 agosto. Ved. Setton, op. cit., p. 471.
28
II duca era Carlo HI di Savoia.
29
Paolo Simeoni in Hammer, art. cit., p. 579; Le Sire de Montfort in J.-Ph. Fighiera, Les
incursions turques dans la région niçoise en 1543, «Cahieis de la Méditerranée», 28, 1984, pp.
77-87 (lavoro gentilmente segnalatomi dal collega prof. G. Veinstein).
3
®Ciò avvenne il 22 agosto. Ved. Setton, op. cit., p. 471.
31
•in in effetti arrivarono i rinforzi attesi. Ved. Hammer, p, 560; iSetton. o.
r 471
•'A Santa Margherita e a Rapallo in Laroche, p. 183.
Narrazione dei fatti diversa in Setton, p. 471.
34
-1CC f r . Setton, p. 471.
JJ
V e d . narrazione diversa in Laroche, p. 183.
86 Aldo GALLOTTA
(3.000 uomini). La presenza della flotta ottomana ha provocato la fuga della

popolazione dalle tre fortezze di Ibiza e di Minorca e dalle coste in generale.
Tutto ciò è rappresentato al Sultano.
Ricevute assicurazioni circa il sostentamento della flotta, £TayreddÌn si

appresta a trascorrere l'inverno in Francia e va a gettare l'ancora davanti alla
fortezza di Tolone.
Capitolo quarto (f. 20v)
Bu bàb tonanma-i humàyùnun Afranca vilàyetinde qi§lamaq lazi'm geliib

'ari etdiigin beyàn eder.
Hayreddin riferisce al Sultano con un 'ari-nàme inviato con Ramadàn,

favuf algerino. Il Sultano, che sta conquistando Usturgom, approva l'operato del
suo Qapudan Pa$a e gli manda un hiikm-i ¡erìf col dragomanno Hasan Beg.
Il Sultano informa Hayreddin che, conseguito l'intento della gaza, sta

facendo ritorno a Istanbul; chiede delucidazioni circa lo svernamento della flotta
in Francia; con apposito emr-i ¡erif lo mette a parte del felice esito della
spedizione ungherese.
[Sùret-i hiikm-i muidegàriì (ff. 25v-31r)] [... ]
All'arrivo di Hasan Beg, i Turchi fanno grandi feste. Da ogni parte

d'Europa viene gente a vendere le loro mercanzie, sì che i Turchi non hanno a
soffrire in alcun modo. Sàlih Re'is e Hiiseyin Qelebi escono in mare con 22
navi 36 , ma, investiti da venti contrari, fanno rotta per Algeri, dove si fermano.
Nel momento di abbandonare Nizza le navi gonullii decidono di prendere il

mare alla volta della Corsica e della Sardegna; ma l'infedele Giannantonio (Doria)
esce alla loro caccia con 20 navi; quando viene a sapere che Hayreddin vuole
catturarlo con 32 navi si rifugia a Genova.
Il Re di Spagna, volendo a ogni costo eliminare il Barbarossa, promette

16.000 monete d'oro, 5.000 subito e 11.000 ad azione compiuta, nonché la carica
di governatore (sancaq begligi) in una provincia del suo regno a chi lo avveleni.
Venutolo a sapere, il Pascià provvede di persona al suo cibo e alle sue bevande.
navi in Laroche, nota 36.

IL " GAZAVAT-I FfAYREDDIN PA§A" 87
Capitolo quinto (f. 35v)
I§bu bàb fasl-i behSri bildiinir.
Al giungere della buona stagione, yayreddin dà ordine di approntare le

navi e di seguire i movimenti della sua nave secondo lo schieramento solito.
Giungono anche le navi da Algeri.
Capitolo sesto (f. 37r)
Bu bàb hairet-i Pa$anun tonanma-i hiimàyfin Àsitàne-i se'Sdete 'azm

etdiigin beyàn eder.
Ai primi del mese di muharrem 951 /in. 25 marzo 1544 Hayreddin lascia
Tolone e raggiunge l'isola "Le tre isole" nel golfo di Genova37; dopo due mesi si
porta nell'isola di Margherita in attesa di istruzioni del Re di Francia, che non
arrivano; i soldati sono scontenti, perché non hanno ricevuto il soldo e solo
gallette vecchie per i sei mesi di servizio resi al Re di Francia38; la flotta francese
se ne è andata a Marsiglia, lasciando con quella turca solo 5 navi e
l'ambasciatore. Hayreddin invia allora un 'art al Sultano; dopo un po' arriva
l'hiikm di risposta.
Capitolo settimo (f. 38v)
Bu bàb tonanma-i humàyùn gelsiin deyii gònderilen hiikmun suretin beyàn

eder.
Nel 'art HayreddTn Pa§a Barbarossa ha fatto sapere che la situazione è

molto confusa, perché i francesi hanno proposto prima di assalire la Sardegna,
poi Tunisi, poi Napoli e Tunisi, ma di fatto hanno sempre impedito che fosse
recata offesa a quei luoghi; tra il Re di Francia e quello di Spagna c'è stato un
andirivieni, ma non si sa con precisione quali siano i loro negozi.
Solimano ordina al suo Qapudan-i deryà di far ritorno alla Sublime Porta
mantenendo sempre buoni rapporti col sovrano francese.
Barbarossa lascia l'isola di Margherita e intraprende il viaggio di ritorno.

Passa davanti Nizza, dove è in agguato il luogotenente di Andrea Dona con 20
navi, quindi attraversa il golfo tenendosi al largo da Genova. L'ambasciatore non
Identificate come le isole d'Hiäres da Laroche.

38
Sul)a questione ved. Setton, p. 472.
88 Aldo GALLOTTA
permette che quei luoghi siano non solo danneggiati, ma neppure molestati. A
Piombino il Pascià libera Hamza, figlio di Sinàn, Sàdi'q Re'ìs, Memi Re'ìs,
Mustafa Rets e anche Dorgutfa Re'ìs, per il quale era stato già fissato il prezzo
del riscatto in 4.000 monete d'oro, e tanti altri rels, prigionieri degli infedeli.
Cinquanta sue navi razziano Talamone, quindi Porto Ercole. SSlih Rets e
Hiiseyin £elebi investono l'isola del Giglio con 50 navi ed altre volontarie.
[lacuna] [... ]
Salih Re'ìs e Hiiseyin Qelebi con 40 navi razziano Fono di Ischia e fanno
2.000 prigionieri; è quindi la volta di Procida; non potendo occuparsi di Salerno
per i venti contrari, assalgono Policastro senza prendere prigionieri, perché ne
hanno già presi più di 4.000. Anche Lipari subisce la razzia; poiché nel porto di
Messina c'è Giannettino (Doria) con 30 navi, puntano su Reggio, che è
nuovamente devastata; quindi tocca a Cariati e a tutte le fortezze circostanti. La
flotta si dirige quindi su Corfù, Lepanto e il 27 receb 951/14 ottobre 1544
giunge a Istanbul, nelle acque di Galata.
Capitolo ottavo (f. 45r)
Bu bàb Hayreddìn Paânu n seferden geliib 'adet-i qadìme iizere el opdiigin

beyàn eder.
Hayreddìn, dopo aver baciato la sacra mano del Padiscià, toma a occuparsi
del suo ufficio. Intanto muore a Algeri Hasan Beg e una delegazione viene a
chiedere la designazione del figlio di Hayreddìn al Sultano, che si trova a Gdime.
Ritenuta conveniente la richiesta, Solimano emana il decreto (beràt), assegna
1.200.000 aqse, 10 galee e ordina a Sàlih Re'ìs di accompagnare Hasan, Beg di
Qocaeli, a Algeri.
Mentre Hayreddìn è a Be§ikta§ a ispezionare delle navi, alcuni infedeli con

un colpo di mano si impadroniscono della galeotta algerina e prendono il largo. Il
capo dei rivoltosi è un cieco di Creta di nome Yani, già capitano di nave catturato
da Saliti Rels. La galeotta giunge a Messina, dove è venduta e il ricavato diviso
tra i fuggitivi. Yani compra una nave per sé e si dà alla corsa; ma è presto
catturato e messo a morte.
Hasan Beg per Gallipoli e Modone, evitando un agguato di 60 navi,

giunge a Algeri il 13 ciimàii iil-evvel 951/3 agosto 1544.
IL "GAZAVAT-I HAYREDDIN PA$A 89
Capitolo nono (f. 47v)
Bu bab hairet-i Hayruddìn Pa§anun vefàtin beyàn eder.
Hayreddin ha soddisfatto tutte le sue aspirazioni. D figlio Hasan Beg a

Algeri ha pacificato la regione, togliendo di nuovo agli infedeli Tlemcen; Sài ih
Re'is è nominato sancaq begi di Rodi per eliminare i pirati che infestano la zona
di mare compresa tra l'Egitto, Salonicco, l'Eubea e le isole. Anche Andrea Dona
muore nel mese di safar 953/in. 3 aprile 1546 (sic!). Perciò Hayreddin si prepara
a affrontare il viaggio per l'altro mondo; distribuisce le sue ricchezze ai poveri,
alle moschee, alle zàviye di Mitilene, costruisce a Be§ikta§ una medrese; muore
la terza notte di ciimàiì iil-ewel 953/2 luglio 1546.
¡stitute Universitario Orientale, Naples

Colin HEYWOOD
AN UNSOLVED MURDER IN THE MARMARA

(Notes on Bodl. MS. Turk. d. 32)
I.
The island of Alonya, the ancient Halone, currently known as Paja

Limani, forms one of that chain of islands situated in the south-western comer of
that Sea of Marmara to which, since the later Middle Ages,1 Marmara Island, the
Proconnesos of antiquity and the principal island of the group, has given its
name. Alonya itself appears to have had two major functions which, in the
heyday of Ottoman rule, brought it to the notice of the outside world- In the first
place its anchorage, the so-called Pasha's Anchorage which under the Ottomans
gave to the island an alternative (and its current) name, provides on the western
side of the island a deep and safe refuge2 for vessels caught by adverse weather or
contrary winds on their usual trajects between the Dardanelles and the
Bosphorus. 3 Secondly, the island, apostrophised by the seventeenth-century
V W. Hasluck, Cyzicus, Cambridge, 1910, pp. 31, ff.

2
Pococke (.4 Description of the East, London, 1743, ii/2, 113) describes the anchorage as 'a
semicircular bay to the north-west of this island [scil. Alonya], opposite to which is a small
island [i.e. Koyun adasi], and the harbour being covered by Marmoia to the hoith and by the
island Aphsia [i.e. Av;a] to the west, it is an excellent port, and appears like a lake from the
town'. The early sixteenth century Ottoman maritime cosmographer Rri Re'is (Piri Reis, Kitabi
Bahriye, Istanbul, 193S) calls Alonya cezire-i Tavsan ('Hare Island': op. cit., map, p.856).
Within the clearly marked bay at the n.w. of the island is shown a settlement (unnamed) which
corresponds to the settlement described as 'karye-i Alonya' in the late-seventeenth century
sailing atlas ascribed to Seyyid Nfih (see H. J. Kissling (ed.), Der See-Atlas des Sejjid Ndh
(Mttnchen, 1966), plate 208.
3
Cf. Rri Re'is, Bahriyye (version 'A'), Bodl. MS. D'Orville 543, f. 140v. (copied Muharram 996 /
Dec. 1587, cf. Ethi [see n. 10 below) pp. 1178-9, no. 2079). Piri mentions in his text only the
main island of M a r m a r a : i}bu Marmara adasi kim vardt ol adada Ak Denhden htanbula gelen
gemilerlin yoh ugragidtr. This section of Piri's text does not appear in the [published] extended
version 'B' of his work (see n.l, above - although, as pointed out there, the map of the Marmara
Is. is presented there in the final pages, despite assertions to the contrary by S. Soucek in his
study in El2, vi (1989), 587-8, s.v. 'Marmara Deflizi'). Cf. also the descriptions of Alonya left
92 Colin HEY W O O D
traveller Aubrey de la Motraye as 'le magazin, o u le cellier, d e s Francs', w a s ,

like m u c h o f the adjoining c o a s t of A s i a Minor, f a m o u s f o r its w i n e - 'an
e x c e l l e n t dry white w i n e ' , in the words o f P o c o c k e ; white w i n e also, but in
contrast t o the reds o f the adjoining cote de Cyzique, according to de la Motraye -
a wine, therefore, w h i c h w a s both w e l l spoken of by travellers and m u c h prized
at European tables in Istanbul. 4
T h e history under Ottoman rule of A l o n y a and its sister islands in the

Marmara chain has attracted the attention o f f e w scholars s i n c e H a s l u c k ' s
pioneering studies early in the present century. 5 A t the time o f Hasluck's visit
the population o f the islands w a s mainly Greek, as it had a l w a y s been under
Ottoman rule; only after the exchange of populations by Greece and Turkey in
the 1920's did it take on its present predominantly Turkish character. 6 The status
o f the islands under Ottoman rule prior to the conquest o f Constantinople is
unclear; 7 certainly by the seventeenth century Marmara and its dependent islands,
together with a part o f the adjoining mainland, formed a niyabet within the kaza
the Elizabethan traveller Fynes Moryson. While on passage from Gallipoli to Istanbul (Itinerary
[1596], London, 1617, i, 258), he was driven off course after leaving Marmara Island and
between 1 and 13 January 1597 'passed some stormy daies' on Alonya, which he describes as 'a
Port on all sides compassed with Hands, and that very large and safe'. Moryson's French
contemporary, Jean Paleme (cf. his Peregrinations du S. lean Paterne Foresten, secretaire de
François de Valois duc d'Anjou [etc.], Lyon, 1606, pp. 371-2) was also obliged to spend some
days on Alonya when his ship was forced to drop anchor there by adverse winds.
^Pococke (op. cit., p. 113) observes that the wine of Alonya 'is commonly drank at
Constantinople, and a great quantity is imported from the neighbouring continent, especially
from the parts about Cyzicus, and is indeed a wine of much the same nature'. Motraye also
remarks (p. 472) on the strength and keeping qualities of the red wines of Cyzicus: these 'ne
cedent point en force à ceux de Portugal & sont de bonne garde'. 'J'en ai bu [he adds) qui avait
vingt ans, chez feu M. l'Amb(assadeu]r de Hollande'. Palerne (loc. cit), at the end of the previous
century, describes 'Alloina' as less hilly, less stony, and more fertile in corn, wines and fruits'
than Marmara. The wine of Alonya appears to have been produced mainly on the monastic
estates on the island, at this time (later 17th and 18th centuries) flourishing, but later (from the
beginning of the nineteenth century) falling into decline and becoming moitaged to certain of
the great monasteries of Mount Athos (Cf. de la Motraye, p. 472. Hasluck, Cyzicus (see n.5,
below), 38). The most recent study is by Demetrios I. Polemês, 'Vourôro kai Paradeísi: dyo
andriotika metokhia stin Halóne', Deltion Kentrou Mikrasialikon Spoudon, vi (1987), 31-154;
458-9 (Engl, résumé).
5
F. W. Hasluck, 'The Marmara Islands', Journal of Hellenic Studies, xxix (1909), 6-18 + Pl. I-IV,
largely repeated (with some omissions) in his Cyzicus, Cambridge, 1910, 31, ff. For the
ecclesiatical history of the islands Hasluck drew largely on the study by Manouil lo. Gedeon,
Proikonnesos, Constantinople. 1895 (on Alonya see Gedeon, pp. 9-57).
''Hasluck, op. cit., 33-4, 35, who quotes Palerne for the story of Alonya having been 'settled by
Albanians under a renegade pasha'.
7
Hasluck observes of Marmara (and by extension of the other islands) that 'no tradition has come
down to us of the capture of the island[s] by the Turks. Under their [scil. Ottoman] administration
it was tributary to the Voivode of Galata': but this must have been the situation in theory only
after 1453, in practice after the extension (for the kapudan pasa Hayreddtn Barbarossa) of the
eyàlet-i Cezâ'ir-i Bahr-i Sefid c.1533 (cf. n. 8, below) to include inter alia the sancak of Biga.
Originally the Marmara islands must have formed part of the beylik of Karasi, of which the sancak
of Biga represented a part (cf. El2, s.v. 'Bigha', by V. J. Parry).
AN U N S O L V E D MURDER IN T H E MARMARA 93
of Galata and had been incorporated into the 'vilayet' (scil. sancak) of Biga
within the extensive administrative jurisdiction of the Ottoman kapudan pa§a
which made up the 'vilayet of the Archipelago' (Ceza'ir-i Bahr-i Sefid).8
Few Ottoman documents concerning Alonya and its sister islands have
been published: neither the tahrir defters 9 nor other attested sources of a fiscal
nature 10 which would appear to be of relevance have attracted any extensive
study, and none, certainly, have been located in British archives and collections.
I offer here some brief and necessarily limited notes on a hitherto misattributed
Ottoman document from the Bodleian Library which relates an incident in the
history of the island in the late seventeenth century." It is a document which
for over sixty years was incorrectly catalogued as to both provenance and type,
but which I now restore to its proper context of an unsolved murder, an acquitted
(but unidentified) Englishman, and the wine-rich island of Alonya.
II.
The document in question is now classified under the rubric Bodl. MS.
Turk. d. 32. 1 2 When it was catalogued (presumably for the first time) by
Hermann Eth6 at the turn of the century, it formed part of MS. Turk. a. 1., a
'manuscript' no longer extant as such which while it still existed must have
comprised one of the more curious items of Turcica in the Bodleian Library. As
described by Eth6, MS. Turk. a. 1. consisted of
0
°H. G. Majer (ed.), Register der Beschwerden, 1675, Munchen, 1984, facsimile text pi. 108 b/3:
Galata kalâsi meiâfâtindan Marmara nàhiyesi mahallàlindan vilayet-i Anafohda Bika tabt 'i vakfi
According to Evliyi Çelebi (.Seyâhat-nâme, i, 432) Galata formed a mevleviyyet of 500 akçe: the
mollâ, based near the 'Arab Càmi', had jurisdiction over approximately 300 villages,
apportioned amongst 44 nâhiyes, each with its own nà'ib. Cf. R. Mantran, Istanbul, 130, ff„ and
144, ff„ and El2, s.v. 'Djezâ'ir-i Bahr-i Sefid' (C. F. Beckingham). As our document clearly
demonstrates, to Mantran's definition (op. cit., p. 134) of the jurisdiction of the cadi of Galata as
comprising 'les villages et bourgs situés sur la rive européenne du Bosphore, depuis Tophane
jusqu'à Rumeli Kavak, la rive nord de la Corne d'Or..., le presqu'île de Kapidagi ... et,
probablement, une partie de la côte européenne de la Marmara...' must be added the island of
Marmara and Us dependent islands.
9
See the incomplete but in part mutually complementary lists of tahrir defters supplied by Attilâ
Çetin, Bafbakmhk Arfivi Kilavuzu, Istanbul, 1979, 83-111, and Heath W. Lowry, 'The Ottoman
liva kanunnames contained in the Defter-i Hakani', Osmanh Araftirmalan, ii (1981), 43-74, s.w.
'Adalar', 'Biga', 'Cezair eyaleti', and 'Karesi'.
1
°Cf. the extensive collection of eighteenth-century Ottoman fiscal registers for the 'vilâyet of
the Archipelago' which now form MSS. Borg. Turchi 38-70 of the Vatican Libraiy (cf. Ettore
Rossi, Elenco dei manoscritti turchi délia Biblioteca Vaticana. Città del Vaticano 1953 351-
360).
1
'My grateful thanks are due to the authorities of the Bodleian Library for permission to publish
and make use of documents in their possession. I am particularly indebted to Miss Doris
Nicholson for her unfailing help and assistance on the occasion of my visits to the Library.
12
Bodleian Libraiy, [Typescript Handlist of Turkish Manuscripts],
94 Colin HEYWOOD
a box containing, stitched together, ten firm i n s or letters patent, either

granted to English merchants and to English tourists or addressed to Turkish
officials and towns, and two Imperial communications to Kings of England. 1 3
In his entry for MS. Turk. a. 1., Eth6 provided, in short form and, it must
be said, for the most part inaccurately, a description of the twelve miscellaneous
Turkish documents thus arbitrarily gathered together. Our particular interest is
with the tenth document in the 'roll', which was described by him as follows:
10 = VIII e . A firman, issued to the people of (i.e. Avldna [sic], a

seaport in the Turkish wilSyet of Janina, Sanjak BarSt), A.H. 1102, the 20th
of DhG-alhijjah = A.D. 1694, Sept. 14, with a seal of Mustafa bin al-TShir,
dated A.H. 1187 (A.D. 1773) [sic].
As a description of a document, it has to be said that Eth6's entry is

wrong in almost every particular.14 In the first place the document, as already
"Hermann Ethé, Catalogue of the Persian, Turkish, Hindustani and Pushtû Manuscripts in the
Bodleian Library, ii, Oxford, 1930, p. 1272, col. 2, no. 2288:
'Êxcept in its reference to the document's provenance. Ethé mentions that it belonged formerly
to Dr Thomas Hunt of Oxford. He may be identified as the Rev. Dr Thomas Hunt (1696-1744; cf.
DNB, s.v.). Hunt was educated at Hart Hall, Oxfoid; became a Senior Fellow of Hertford College
(as it became known at that time), MA 1721, BD 1743, DD 1744. In 1738 he was elected Laudian
Professor of Arabic; in 1747 Regius professor of Hebrew and a canon of Christ Church. He died in
Oxford 31. X. 1774, having bequeathed his manuscripts to the Bodleian Library. His principal
works (as listed in the DNB article) include 'De antiquitate, elegantia, militate linguae Arabicae',
his inaugural lecture for the chair of Arabic, 1739; and 'De usu dialectorum orientalium', a
prefatory discourse to his lectures as regius professor of Hebrew. Hunt's work and career appear to
have been little studied, but he forms a bridge between the 'old' oriental scholarship of such men
as Thomas Hyde, and the 'new' studies of Sir William Jones. Hunt published (in collaboration
with a Mr. Costard) a second edition of Hyde's Historia veterum Persarum (1760), and was closely
associated for some years with the Hull-born Gregory Sharpe, with whom he prepared an edition
of Hyde's Dissertationes. This was published in 1767, under Sharpe's name only, after the two
men apparently came to a disagreement. On the other hand, Jones defended Hunt in print in 1771
as a sound oriental scholar, against aspersions made in 1762 by the French scholar Anquetil
Duperron (DNB, loc. cit.; cf. [Sir William Jones], 'Lettre à Monsieur A**** du P " * * dans
laquelle est compris l'examen de sa traduction des livres attribués à Zoroastre', in: The Works of
Sir William Jones, with the Life of the Author by Lord Teignmouth, vol.x, London, 1807; rp.
Delhi, 1980, pp. 401-433, esp. pp. 419-427.
Two sets of Hunt's manuscripts came to the Bodleian (cf. Falconer Madan, A Summary
Catalogue of Western manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, iii (Oxford, 1895), 603. A
first batch was deposited within a week or two of his death; a second (and final) consignment of
what were described as 'Dr Hunt's Arabic &c MSS', 'two hundred or so MSS', forming a 'large and
mysterious collection' unmentioned by any cataloguer prior to Madan, who, rather more than a
century after their deposit, found himself obliged to confess his inability to identify more than a
few of them, 'chiefly owing to the extensive »binding of the series about the middle of the last
[scil. 19th.?] century. This statement Fits in well with what may be conjectured regarding the
history of Ms. turk. a. 1., the stitching together of the disparate elements of which may perhaps
be attributed to a fit of mid-Victorian tidy-mindedness. The circumstances in which Hunt came
into possession of our document unfortunately remain obscure, but cf. another seventeenth-
century Turkish document, which is described as 'apparently received in 1774 or 1775 from the
ex[ecut]ors of the Rev. Dr. Thomas Hunt' (Ethé no. 2290 = Ms. Turk. d. 4 ).
AN U N S O L V E D MURDER IN T H E M A R M A R A 95
indicated, is not a firmSn but a hiiccet. Secondly, it is not addressed 'to the
people of Avl5na', and in fact has no connection with Ottoman Avlonya, the
present-day Albanian port town of VlorS. Ethé's rendering of 'Avlñna' must be
corrected to 'Alonya', a place the existence of which he was presumably unaware.
Thirdly, Ethé's dating of the document is incorrect: it was issued by the na'ib of
the shari'a court on the adjoining island of Marmara, on 20 Dhü'1-Hijja 1102,
the equivalent date for which (14 September [New Style]) falls in 1691, and not,
as Ethé states, in 1694. Finally, the seal, an impression of which is stamped in
the upper part of the recto, is not of one 'Mustafa bin al-Táhir', but of Mustafa,
ná'ib of Marmara. The date of its engraving is to be read, not as '1187', but as
'87' - i.e., as the date of the document itself demands, A.H. [10]87 (beg. 16. III.
1676).
That this mass of contradictions in the above description of our document

should have escaped its cataloguer is excusable: Ethé, who was primarily a
Persianist and a literary scholar, appears to have completed this work on the
Bodleian catalogue at least a decade before the emergence of Ottoman diplomatics
as a recognisable field of study.15
Ethé's alleged Albanian firman is, however, a document of some interest

in its own right. Its misdescription conceals the tantalising story of a murder on
the island of Alonya, and the trial and acquittal, in the shar' court on Marmara, of
an obscure Englishman. Our hiiccet, therefore, preserves the evidence of a trial
hearing in one of the sub-jurisdictions of the cadi of Galata which was most
remote geographically from the capital and for which the court records (skills)
appear now to be lost. 16 Its publication may thus also serve further to illustrate
' ^Hermann Ethi (born Stralsund, 1844; d. Bristol, 1917), is described on the title-page of his
Bodleian catalogue as 'Professor of Oriental Languages in the University College of Wales'.
According to an admirably forthright obituary in 'The Times', 11 June 1917, Ethi left Germany
in the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian War 'on account of his rooted antagonism to the political
bias of Prussia'. After his departure from Germany Ethi found refyge in Britain. At Aberystwyth,
where he appears to have taught 'Hebrew, Arabic. Aramaic and Syriac, Persian, Turkish and
Sanskrit' (but to whom and with what resources one may only speculate): his major activity
seems to have been instructing undergraduates in German. Never having taken out naturalization
papers, at the age of seventy-one, in 1915, Ethi was forced to resign his post as a result of local
anti-German feeling. He died in retirement at Bristol two years later.
The date of 1930, which given on the title-page as the date of publication of part ii of
Ethi's Bodleian catalogue, is misleading in this context. Part i of the catalogue, which deals with
the Persian manuscripts, was published in 1889. Part ii began to go through the press in 1893
and was complete as it now stands at the time of his death in 1917 (cf. the 'Prefatory Note' to Part
ii). The terminus ad quem for Ethi's completion of his labours may be pushed back even further:
Ethi's compilation of the catalogue entry for our document, which is to be found close to the end
of Part ii, certainly predates the events of the First Balkan War (1912-13), during or immediately
after which Janina and the whole of Epirus was annexed to Greece, and Albania was set up as an
independent state.
ls
T h i s inference ¡ssupported by the summary catalogue of the 9870 surviving volumes of
Istanbul cadi court records tfer'iye Sicilleri. Mahiyel, toplu ¡catalogu ve se(me htikumler (voLi,
ed. Ahmed AkgiindOz; vol. ii ed. Titrk Diinyasi Aragtirmalari Vakfi Ilim Hey'eti), Istanbul, 1988,
96 Colin HEYWOOD
what Professor Ménage has often demonstrated by example: that the utility of
what one recent student of the newly-opened archives of the Istanbul muftilik has
termed 'scattered nodes of information supplemented by serendipity' 17 has still
not been entirely overtaken by more specific archive-based studies of Ottoman
society and its legal institutions.
III.
THE DOCUMENT
20 Dhu'l-Hijja 1102 (= 4/14 September 1691). Hiiccet issued by Mustafa, al-

muwalla khilàfatan of the Shar' court on Marmara. Ottoman Turkish with Arabic
elements.
Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Turk. d. 32. (R) (olim MS. Turk. a. 1. (10).).
2 3 c m x 4 3 c m , 18 + 3 lines.
Text [recto]: <y*>

(jAljlil l i » < LI f ti J . •» « / jJ ^jJLj^ìt ,_J J^JAIÌ i_I i i ii
V j L i « / ^xil ¿ j à j j ¿>£jt (jdjjI'XI..» <t_jjj fLj j-jIj dui

uîijjZj. ^ I j j »¡LjjiiljJ Jj cJjt-l «iUL»
<j>J<JÌL^/ Lj«JUJ.I jx tjjU j ^îi-i u-AIxiî
J ^ jî-J J (X) «jjSL. j •ji—jaiJjl

.< !••» a jl i Ì « ^ J j Ji-fc • j jjj! / (j" I -li * jjj-ÌJ
ò¿lut 4jùU> j j l i i l / ¿¿Lu. »¿La^ f l j <ijj> ¿xijil»-» <;<•> «
/ tsyti < Ì J j j j l t f j J j J _>-» t j j j l i m « djj-1 f l i • JjLa. i l j ».ùU (T)
c u i j fîa Ò^S J j tiJ^ VJî' f3** jiji*-*
jjjijl j j >»S ^ U j L l L / •U <Knil (i) » x l j j j t j j j j *
(fjJul (jiji fJ-Aj>Ì (jdjJjJ» lilljiiilj ¿>LI dLlijJ
i, 85-167. Court records appear to have survived (generally not in their entirety, and in some
cases only from the later nineteenth or early twentieth century) from twenty-seven mahkemes.
The scale of past losses through fire and neglect may be gauged from the fact that EvIiyS Celebi
lists (for the mid-seventeenth century) no fewer than 44 mahkemes under the jurisdiction of the
cadi of Galata alone. Cf., for Istanbul skill studies, the recent preliminary study by Yvonne J.
Seng, 'The Ser'iye Sicilleri of the Istanbul MliftiilligU as a source for the study of everyday life',
Turkish Studies Association Balleiin, xv/2 (September 1991), 307-25
17
Seng, op. cit., 325.
AN U N S O L V E D M U R D E R IN THE M A R M A R A 97
j jiiii o k i b
èjjjljA ».ijl» / J > f j j « (») J l ^ l u J I
»il» <JtJJ / ¿ ¿ U u <jj<^J>jÌ3 (jjjj JJjJj» ù,JJXié 1'll. lJ-ll <i«jj
/ taidlljl . ijK'i ¿^cu VJî' J-!** JM*' iiJ ijUjI »AÎjjJjl
ioU Jîfl (A) J j j l ÎtVI '¡jitll (V)JUi.
'i'i J »Jîj-" < 'i.»•»» / « j S ^ o ¿ J Ì j j I j I ^JLuJI j
jiljJI >â fr" Ò-» tsi LriirkìJ J j j ^ i ^ 5
¿FJ> ¿ > j j A * J I f>jJI ^ l^jjAj ^jòJjI .-i'i^ I,ilLlb
i_»J! j <jL <j> <1jjAJI
JUI - li,
tri^ J Ù^ ».'I '*' J Ù-f' j (jj u>j j ¿yà Lèi X i » l
» CRI I . JJM* ù-jl u i L I 4j]l X i t (\.)

>•¿»11 tîjU (\\)
<?>»>SJI ,> J
^JJ^J t/JLwUj ^ J i / ^ J <î> ^ j J j d J j o U * . l j jJjmyjjJu.1
òlj* JJj ilj m djaJ <1>jlUj >l>l>iu._p> jj^jS
Authentication (above text):
JJC. C j l JîiJI dJuJI <Lù Oi »jij I . .-.» J .VI
'J-J- ¿Ì5U ¿jJj-LI U «L.«.
Seul-impressi on:
m» IjÀ <»tiu)
<i_i>U>JI Jj<U>
[\.]AV
98 Colin HEYWOOD
[NOTES TO TEXT OF DOCUMENT]
1 olan inserted above the line.

2 text: mezkure.
3 text: ta'fesinden.
4 text: kurbunda.
5 text: ('L)SW'L.
6 sic.
7 text: half.
8 text:al-a'la W'NZ 'l-incil.
9 text: mu 'arttdan.
10 text: 'BRHM.
11 text unreadable.
Translation:
The cause of the setting down of the ger'iatic writing is as follows:

After the inheritance of Iskerlet veled-i Franko, an inhabitant of the
village of Alonya [which is] dependent on the judicial sub-district (nahiye) of
Marmara, [itself] one of the dependencies of the Well-Guarded Galata, [who had
been] violently slain and [was] lately deceased, had been [determined as] restricted
to his widow Istamira bint-i Agosti[n?], his full brother papa Kipiryano, his full
sister[s?] Dafni and $afyayu, [the latter being] absent from the court; each one of
them, in the [¡er'i] court manifesting nobility and adorned with luminance, in the
presense of £anda veled-i Canda, a Frank of the English people, resident in the
Santa Marka quarter of the aforementioned Well-Guarded [Galata?], laid a charge
against him and stated:
In the Iskele quarter in the vicinity of the aforementioned village [scil.

Alonya], at around noon one day previous to the date of deposition, he [scil.
'Qanda'] hit him [scil. Iskerlet veled-i Fr4nk6] with a bullet in the right side of
the head by means of a firearm (tiifenk) termed 'pistol' (tabanca), and killed
him. We request that he be questioned and that the legal requirements for it be
carried out.
After the questioning (su'al), when the aforementioned £anda responded

with a complete denial and rejection [of the allegation], and evidence conformable
to the statement was asked for from the plaintiffs, they showed inability to
present evidence. [Accordingly], when [an opportunity to take] the oath was
offered [to Qanda], he swore by God, the Exalted and the Most High, who
brought down the Gospel to Jesus, [that he was innocent of the charge].
Accordingly, with the prohibiting of the aforesaid plaintiff[s] Istamira and papa
AN UNSOLVED MURDER IN THE MARMARA 99
K i p i r y u n o [ s i c ] and D a f n i , f r o m [further] b a s e l e s s disputation, the p r o c e e d i n g s

were written d o w n at the request [of the defendant].
Written on t h e twentieth day o f Z i ' l - h i c c e the N o b l e anno [hijrce one]

thousand, [one] hundred [and] t w o [= 4 / 1 4 September 1691].
18
W i t n e s s e s to the case: A h m e d A g a [i]bn Ibrahim
and R e c e b be$e [i]bn 'Abdallah
and Hasan be§e ibn Mustafa
and Siileyman êlebi ibn Hasan, [court] clerk ( y a z i c i )
and Ibrahim ?elebi ibn M e h m e d , the [court] usher ( e l - m u h i i r )
and from the u n b e l i e v e r s 1 9 (?):

I s . . . ti veled-i K l r i k o 2 0
and Isbat (?) veled-i Hiristofolo 2 1
and Lir (?) veled-i Vlatar (?)
and Benaki veled-i Lacid (??)
and 'Anyali veled-i C u z u b 2 2 (??)
and K.ludiya (??) veled-i C o v a n 2 3 (?)
[Authentication]:
T h e c a s e is according to what is written d o w n herein:

T h e poor s l a v e [ o f G o d ] - to H i m b e Glory and Honour - Mustafa,
j u d g e depute in the sub-jurisdiction o f Marmara, wrote it.
[ G o d ' s ] pardon be on him.
1 ft
Two (?) words illegible: one would expect (probably: with the local police chief as the first
witness) iu-baji - which is barely possible on the basis of the ductus (but see F. W. Hasluck 'The
Marmara Islands', Journal of Hellenic Studies, xxix (1909), 6-18, with a reference to the
seventeenth-century Venetian topographer Coronelli's near-contemporary reference to the su-
bafi of Marmara as the local representative of the voivoda [scil, of Galata] - i.e. therefore as the
leading local administrative official). I must express my gratitude to Professor V. L. Ménage for
discussing with me on a former occasion the many problems which a study of this document
raises, some of which must remain for the present unelucidated.
"Reading, with considerable hesitation, min al-kafarat.
20
A discussion of the (mainly Greek?) names of the plaintiffs and victim in the body of the
document and of the names of the limmi witnesses lies outside my competence. Iskòni would
appear to be the reading of the first element of this witness's name. For a large selection of
limmi, mainly Greek, personal names see Barkan, Terek« defterleri, 383-386, 388-391, and
Balta, Egriboz, passim.
2I
F o r Isbat see Balta, Egriboz, 228/37, but possibly one should read Ist[v]àn.
22
Cf. Balta, Egriboz, 228/38: 'Anali' - but possibly one could read 'Anibali =Annibale veled-i
Cflzub < *Cuzep = Giuseppe.
23
F.lflviya / K.lOdiya? veled-i Hóvàn (Armenian) or Cóvàn (= Giovanni]) (Italian)?
100 Colin HEYWOOD
[Seal-impression (incomplete)]:
[The Servant (bende) of] God (Huda) Mustafa

The recipient of favours [from Him]
[A.H. 10]87
IV.
NOTES
Our document from Alonya is a hiiccet (< Ar. hujja: 'written [legal]
ruling'; 24 'acte, décision juridique', 'sentence légale du cadi' 2 5 i.e., one of the
two main categories of Ottoman legal document (the other being thefetvà).26
The subject-matter of a hiiccet may be of the most diverse, but (unlike the fetvà)
it will always lie within the domain of an identifiable human situation, from
marriage and divorce to death; from the sale or manumission of a slave to a legal
dispute over a horse; and from the repercussions of petty crime to, as in the
present case, murder: 27 in effect, a hiiccet might be issued as certification and
record of all matters falling within the competence of a shar' court.
Equally, the physical document itself, whether written in Arabic or

Turkish, will be identifiable by three of its formal elements in combination: the
introductory sabab tahrir / sebeb-i tahrir formula (with its variants); the list of
names of 'witnesses to the case' (shuhitd al-hâl) appended at the foot of the
document; and the authentication / 'formula of legalisation', with the signature
and seal-impression (miihr) of the legal functionary (kàtt'asker, cadi, nâ'ib)
responsible for issuing it. 28
24
Maitin Hinds and Victor Ménage, ßafr Ibrim in the Ottoman period: Turkish and further Arabic
documents, London, 1991, 108
25
R . Dozy, Supplément aux dictionnaires arabes, Leiden, 1881, i, 249a, cited by Hinds and
Ménage, loc. cit. Hüccets could also (apparently) be delivered by secular authorities: cf. a hiiccet
delivered by Hamza beg, sancakbegi of Hersek, to the Ragusans, A.M. 6980 [= 1472], Elezovit,
Turski spomenici, i/2, 40, ff.
2<
"On the fetvä in Ottoman practice see L. Fekete, Einführung in die osmanisch-tiirkische
Diplomatik der türkischen Botmässigkeit in Ungarn, Budapest, 1926, pp. lxiii-Wvi; cf. Uriel
Heyd, 'Some aspects of the Ottoman fetvä', BSOAS, xxxii/1 (1969), 35-56.
27
For a comparable case of an accusation of murder (in this instance brought by a former yasakci
against an 'acemi-oglan before the cadi of Sofia in 1029/1620) see Galab D. Galabov and Herbert
W. Duda, Die Protokollbüchern des Kadiamtes Sofia, München 1960, no. 1110.
os
'"'For studies on aspects of the Onoman hiiccet (with detailed references to the source literature)
see (further to Fekete, Einführung, pp. Ixii-lxiii): Klara Hegyi, 'The terminology of the Ottoman-
Turkish judicial documents on the basis of the sources from Hungary', AOH, xviii (1965), 191-
203; Vanco BoSkov, 'Die hüccet-Urkunde - diplomatische Analyse', Studio turcologica memoriae
Alexii Bombaci dicata (ed. Aldo Gallotta and Ugo Marazzi), Napoli, 1982, 81-90; V.
Demetriades, 'Some observations on the Ottoman-Turkish judicial documents (hüccets), Balkan
AN U N S O L V E D MURDER IN THE MARMARA 101
The present document conforms in large part in both its external and
internal elements to the norms for Ottoman hiiccets of the later 1 lth/early 12th
(later 17th/early 18th) centuries. It is written on a single sheet of paper
measuring approximately 43 cm high x 23 cm wide. The paper is laid, yellowish
in colour and of a heavy durable consistency, polished on the recto. It carries one
of the innumerable varieties of the well-known Ire lune watermark, and is of
European, most probably of north Italian provenance. The document has been
folded laterally from the bottom, originally forming (in all probability) twelve
sections, measuring respectively 1.5 + 3.5.+ 3.6 + 3.6+ 3.8 + 3.8 + 3.9 + 4.0
+ 4.1 + 4 . 1 + 4.3 + 3.8 cm in height. The congruence of the lateral folds with
the slightly 'scallopped' profile of the left edge of the paper would appear to
indicate that the document was trimmed (on both sides?) after having been
written and folded, removing in the process the final millimeter or so of the
triple curved flourish (representing, in stylised form, the final elements in the
shuhud al-hal formula) at the end of line 16.
Further trimming of the document has occurred subsequently. A part of its

top edge, approximately 6 mm deep, has been torn away along a later fold line
which, when observed in conjunction with the surviving needle-holes of what
clearly once formed a row of such holes on both sides of this later fold, testifies
to the document's nineteenth-century fate when it was stitched up as part of MS
Turk. 1 a. (R). This later mutilation has removed all but a trace (the 'tail' of the
letter waw') of the invocatio (scil. hu, 'He!, i.e. God), which had been written
slightly to the left of centre below the top edge of the document. Apart from
this vestige of the invocatio, the topmost section of the document, the so-called
'area of respect', is almost blank, being only slightly intruded on in the lower
left corner by the upward-curving flourish which ends line 1 of the n a ' i b ' s
'formula of legalisation'.
The main text of the document (lines 1-15) occupies most of the lower
half of the sheet. There is a wide, fairly regular margin, approximately 8 cm in
width, on the right side of the document; on the left, the text approaches without
meeting (except in the case of line 16, mentioned above) the edge of the
document, but more raggedly, lines 2-6 being noticeably shorter than the
following ones. The first line of the text, which contains the standard
i n t r o d u c t o r y f o r m u l a ( s e b e b - i tahrir-i kitab-i ¡er'i budurki),29 begins midway
Studies, xxvi/l (1985), 25-39; Asparouh Velkov, 'Signatures-formules des agents judiciaires
dans les documents ottomans à caractère financier et juridique', Turcica, xxiv (1992), 191-240;
Claudia Römer, 'Eine Freilassungserklärung Bail Paías von Ofen in arabischer Sprache aus dem
Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv zu Wien', W7.KM, lxxxii (1992), 309-324.
29
For an extensive discussion of the sabab tahrír / sebeb-i lahrír formula in the context of late-
seventeenth / early eighteenth century Ottoman usage see Hinds and Ménage, op. cit., 16-18.
102 C o l i n HEYWOOD
along the line and, after the first word, is 'skewed' upwards and to the left within
a 'bow' formed by a stylised final flourish of the initial word sebebP
After the introductory formula, there follows the text proper, or procès-
verbal of the court proceedings (lines 2 - 1 4 ) and the second formal element of
the hiiccet, the tabulation, under the rubric of shuhud al-hàl, 'witnesses to the
case' (1.15), of the names of the court witnesses to the legality of the
proceedings. In line 16 are provided the names of five Muslim witnesses, ranked
from right to left in order of status. Line 17, which is introduced by a formula
which may tentatively be read as min al-kafara, '[witnesses] from among the
unbelievers', supplies the names of six dhimml witnesses. Their names,
manifestly in certain cases not identifiably Greek, but possibly in some cases
either Armenian or Italian, present considerable problems in decipherment. Line
17 also, with its introductory formula taken into account, and following the
sequence of copulative wdw's, must be read from the left.
The third element of the hiiccet, the 'Legalisierungsformel' already alluded

to, stands (lines i - iii) above the text proper, and towards the left hand side of
the second 'fold' of the paper. It is written in the customary mode of a three-line
formula of legalisation, written in unpointed Arabic. 3 ' It is validated by the seal-
impression (in black ink) of Mustafa, the nd'ib of Marmara.32
The handwriting of the document is crabbed and clumsy and in places

defies easy decipherment, particularly in the Arabic formulae of the oath (see
below) and in the rendering on the non-Muslim personal names. There is a
haplography - tak<rir>tna - in 1.11. The language, in general typical of the
3
®For the physical evolution (marked by a progressive 'skewing') of the first line of.the text of
hüccet documents, from the late fifteenth to the early twentieth century see the discussion in
Demetriades, op. cit., 2S-27, with rich illustrative material (= pp. 28-39).
3
' F o r examples see especially Fr. Kraelitz, 'Legalisierungsformeln in Abschriften osmanischer
kaiserlicher Erlasse und Handschriften', (dealing only with cadis' authentications of copies), and
Fekete, Einführung, pp. lxii, ff„ together with the rich collection from Ottoman Hungary
published by Klara Hegyi, op. cit. For earlier, mainly mid to late-fifteenth century examples, see
Elezovii, i/2, 6 (cadi of Semendire, 867/1463), 10, 49, 70-72, 81, 82, 84, etc. For a near-exact
replication of the present formula see Hinds and Ménage, op. cit., p. 32, no. 68 (a document dated
1082/1672).
^Professor Demetriades' suggestion (op. cit., 26) that the practice of the cadi appending his
seal to the authentication formula dates from 96S I 1557 may be modified with reference to the
Arabic Ipttccet issued by the cadi of Buda - without his seal-impression - recently published by Dr
Claudia Römer (see n. 20 above), which provides a terminus a quo of 950 / 1543 for the
introduction of the practice; conversely, by 962 / 1555 (cf. Fekete, Einführung, doc. 9: hiiccet of
the cadis of Hatvan) the practice can be observed (in this case with one seal-impression above,
and the other below the respective authentication formula). For the reconstruction of the
incomplete seal-impression see the examples in Hinds and Ménage, Qafr ¡brim, pp. 36, n. 3, and
37, n.2, and the corresponding photograph on plate 3.
period, preserves a number of archaisms: ilen (for ile); kurfum (for kurfun), and
33
urmak (for vurmak) - all in Ì.9.
The Oath. Almost thirty years ago Professor Ménage observed that there
was at the time no study of the oath employed by Ottoman sultans in
confirmation of a treaty Cahd-nàme) or in a grant of aman. 34 Similarly, one
might remark that, the well-founded observations of the late Uriel Heyd apart,
there has been little serious examination of the less elaborate forms of oath taken
by witnesses in Shar' court proceedings.35 'In the name of God' (bi'llàh),
apparently the simplest form of oath taken by Muslims,36 admits of few
problems. In the case of oaths taken by non-Muslims (scil. either ¡immis or, as
in the present case, harbis or musta 'min), problems may be seen to arise. What
might be termed the 'official' form of the oath as taken by non-Muslims is
supplied by Ebu Su'ud in his Ma'rùiAV. in response to the question 'how is the
oath (and) to be administered to a iimmi ?', he replies 'according to the ¡ari'a: it
is administered in the name of God (Hakk) who brought down the Gospel to
Jesus', using in a non-Muslim context one of the 'alternative' names of Allah.37
Similarly, in the case of Jewish participants in court proceedings, the oath was
administered 'in the name of God, who brought down the Torah to Moses'.38
In the present case, the form of the oath - half bi'llàhi 'l-aliyyi 'ladi
anza[la] 'l-Incil l'ala] corresponds in broad terms
'Isa ( 'aleyhi 'l-salat ve 'l-salàm) -
both to the content of the oaths of (Christian) zimmis laid down in the mid-
sixteenth century by Èbu Su'ud, and the form of the oath employed (for a Jewish
jimmi) in an Istanbul far' court early in the seventeenth century. It is perhaps
worthy of note that the term employed for the act of taking the oath is half,
instead of the more usual yemin, which had already been employed in the
'¿¿ships were fanned out from an early period, despite edicts against the practice (H. Inalcik,
Efi, s.v. 'Mahkama', 2/i). For other possible reasons for the illiteracies or provincialisms in our
document see Mantran, Istanbul 141, ff.
34
Ménage, 'Seven Ottoman documents', p. 97 (and cf. ibid., nn. 11-17 for further references to
the published sources).
35
Uriel Heyd, Studies in old Ottoman Criminal Law (ed. V. L. Ménage), Oxford, 1973, pp. 242,
246, 250-252. Cf. Ronald C. Jennings, 'Zimmis (non-Muslims) in early 17th century Ottoman
judicial records: the Sharia court of Anatolian Kayseri', Journal of the Economic and Social
History of the Orient, xxi/3, 22.5-293, especially pp. 257. 260-1, 263-5, 271, ff.
36
Cf. H. Ongan, Ankara'mn /. numaralt ¡er'iye sicili. Ankara, 1958, p. 16, no. 163 (991/1583).
yemin-i billàh idiib.
17
F. Selle, Proiessrecht des 16. Jahrhunderts im osmanischen Reich, Wiesbaden, 1962, p. 57.
Cf. Mario Grignaschi, 'La valeur du témoignage des sujets non-musulmans (dhimmi) dans
l'empire ottoman', Recueils société Jean Bodin. xviii (1963), 211-236 (étude), 237-323 [fetvâ
texts], esp. pp. 245, 261 (zimmi witnesses' names may not be inserted in an act); 253 (harbis may
not give evidence against zimmis), and 265 (zimmi testimony is not to be accepted if it will
influence the judgement of the cadi - i.e. is not purely informative). On all counts our document
would appear not to conform to the rulings laid down by Ebu Su'ud.
3S
Cf. ¡eriye Sicilleri, (see n. 14 above) ii, 211 (an early seventeenth-century example from the
Istanbul sicills): yemin-i billàhi 'ladi anmla 'l-Tevràt 'alà Misa 'aleyhi 'l-saiâm edecek.
104 Colin HEYWOOD
previous line. According to the accepted authorities the testimony of a non-

Muslim subject (zimmi) was, with certain exceptions, only accepted against
another infidel, and that of a non-Muslim foreign resident only against another
musta'min, not against a ?immr.39 In the present case, however, the prohibition
against accepting the evidence of a non-Muslim foreign resident against a jimmi
seems not to have been heeded. 40
It may be permissible to speculate in what language an oath, recorded in

the cadi's record in Arabic, was taken by the English defendant in the putative
absence (in violation of the Capitulations) of a dragoman and an English consul?
Even if one assumes that our '£anda' at least spoke Turkish, it would have been
unusual (to put it mildly) had he been in a position to handle the Arab[c.
There are also implications of further breaches of the capitulations

regarding the trial of foreigners covered by them in the case of 'fètida veled-i
Qanda' who, under a strict interpretation of the law, should have been brought
before the Grand Vizier's Divan - in which the testimony of foreign residents was
accepted. Within the present limitations of space and time a more exhaustive
investigation into these legal matters, and into the identity of the Englishman
'Qànda veled-i £anda' and the circumstances surrounding the crime, cannot be
attempted here. By his patient and inspiring teaching, and by the example of his
own articles and critical reviews, Professor Ménage has constantly demonstrated
that Ottoman documents are often not as they may have been described by some
hapless past cataloguer or what they purport to be at first sight to the over-
enthusiastic student. As an utterly inadequate expression of gratitude for his
guidance and friendship during three decades, I offer him this unfinished study of
a hitherto misidentified document.41
University of London
39
l ) . Heyd, Ottoman criminal law (ed. V. L. Ménage), Oxford, 1973, 245. with references to the
literature.
40
S e e Heyd, op. cit., 223-4.
4
' l am grateful to Miss Sonia Anderson, of the National Register of Archives, who kindly
confirms, on the basis of her extensive prosopographic knowledge of the members of the
English Levant Company, my impression that the name, as we have it, does not seem to
correspond to any of the names of the Levant Company merchants resident at the Istanbul factory
in this period.
• ! (
4
*" ' •
P. M. HOLT
A NOTABLE IN AN AGE OF TRANSITION:

JÂNIM BEY AL-HAMZÀWÏ (d. 944/1538)
In Muharram 924/January 1518, a year after the Ottoman conquest of

Egypt, it was rumoured in Cairo that Qasim Bey had been captured on the fringes
of Barqa. Qasim Bey, a grandson of Bayezid II, had fled after the accession of
Selim, and was welcomed to Egypt by the Mamluk sultan, Qansawh al-Ghawri.
After the downfall of the Mamluk sultanate, he hid as a fugitive among the
bedouin until one of his servants betrayed him. Kha'ir Bey, Selim's viceroy in
Egypt, promptly sent two of his officers to bring in the captive, the chief of
police ( wait) of Cairo and "another person called Janim al-Hamzawi". 1 It is with
these words that Ibn Iyas introduces the subject of this article, to whom he refers
in a number of later passages, as do other Arabic writers of the tenth/sixteenth
century (see note on sources).
For the fullest account of Janim al-Hamzawi, his kin and his circle of
acquaintances we must turn to the contemporary biographer, Radi al-Din
Muhammad b. Ibrahim, known as Ibn al-Haiibali, and his biographical dictionary
of the notables of Aleppo, Durr al-habab fi la 'rikh a 'yan Halab. For Janim was a
native of Aleppo, and it was there that the foundations of his career were laid. He
was of Mamluk descent, his grandfather, Qurqmas, having been in the household
of Qani Bey al-Hamzawi, 2 who was governor of Aleppo between 843/1439 and
859/1455, and who died as governor of Damascus in 863/1459. Qurqmas left a
young son, Yflsuf, who was brought up by the governor's wife. He became very
rich, and resided in Aleppo, where he held the office of commander of the
Pilgrimage for three years at his own expense. Near the end of his life he moved
'ibn Iyas, Bada'r, V, 235 ; Journal, II, 225.

2S o in Ibn Taghribirdi, al-Nujum al mhira, XVI, 201-2 (a contemporary source). Ibn a)-Hanba]i,
Durr, Il/ii, 586, gives the name as Qayitbay.
108 P. M. HOLT
to Cairo, where he died in 902/1496-7 or later. 3 He had married the daughter of

another notable of Aleppo, Malbay b. 'Abdallah, who is described by Ibn al-
Hanbali as "a Circassian, but he was a Muslim, one of the traders in Circassian
Mamluks". 4 M&lbay presented his five sons to Sultan QSyitbSy, and, although
they were free-born Muslims, they were enrolled among his Royal Mamluks.
Two of them died early of plague, the third rose to be an amir of the first rank,
while the fourth, Qansawh al-Burji, served as governor of Aleppo and then of
Damascus before his death in 910/1504. The fifth son, Khalil, is better known as
Kha'ir Bey, the future viceroy of Egypt. 5
Yusuf b. Qurqmas had three sons; Yahya, Muhammad and Ibrahim 6 . It

was the second of these, who, under his Turkish nickname of Janim/Camm, was
to acquire a place in history, at first through the patronage of his maternal uncle,
Kha'ir Bey. Qansawh al-Ghawri appointed Kha'ir Bey governor of Aleppo in
910/1504, although he did not actually take office until a year later, owing to a
revolt by his predecessor. As governor, he held court in Aleppo almost like an
independent ruler. He maintained a Mamluk household, which included,
unusually, a troop of arquebusiers "as in the armies of the Ottoman realm" (kama
fi 'asakir al-mamlaka al-Rumiyya).7 At this provincial court Janim held the post
of third dawadar— not a major appointment but one of some dignity in the
official hierarchy. Kha'ir Bey retained his governorship until the Ottoman
conquest, although, according to Ibn al-Hanbali, Qansawh al-Ghawri feared him,
and endeavoured to have him poisoned by a Jewish physician. When the armies
of Qansawh and Selim the Grim confronted one another at Marj Dabiq on 25
Rajab 922/24 August 1516, Kha'ir Bey, who commanded the Mamluk left wing
went over to the Ottomans, thus ensuring the Mamluk defeat. He was said to
have been in secret communication with the enemy; certainly he was no stranger
to the Ottomans. He had been sent as ambassador to Bayezid II in 903/1498 to
announce the accession of al-Nasir Muhammad b. Qayitbay. Unfortunately the
young Mamluk sultan was assassinated while his embassy was still at Istanbul,
and when Bayezid heard of this, "he was troubled, and spoke harshly to Kha'ir
Bey". 8
^Biographical notice of Yusuf b. Qurqm&s: Ibn al-Hanbali, Durr, Il/ii, 586-7. Ibn ly&s, Bada'i, V,
352; Journal, H, 341, gives Arikmas for Qurqmas, perhaps reflecting Egyptian pronunciation.
4
Ibn al-Hanbali, Durr, I/ii, 604.
s
Ibn lyis, Bada'i, V, 203-4 (footnote); Journal, 11, 193-4. Biographical notice of Khi'ir Bey: Ibn
al-Hanbali, Durr, I/ii, 603-9; see also his obituary in Ibn lyis, Bada'i', V, 482-5; Journal, II, 464-7.
The name is given as Kha'ir Bey by Ibn lyis, and as Khayr Bey by Ibn al-Hanbali.
biographical notices: Yahya; Ibn al-Hanbali, Durr, 11/ii, 555-6. He was a religious man and a
bibliophile, who long survived the downfall of his brother and nephew, and died in Cairo in
»64/1556-7, aged 83. Muhammad (Janim); Ibn al-Hanbali, Durr, I/i, 450-5; also a
disappointingly brief notice in al-Ghazzi, Kawakib, II, 132. IbrShim; Ibn al-Hanbali, Durr, I/i,
101-3.
7
Ibn al-Hanbali, Durr, I/ii, 607.
8
For this embassy, see Ibn lyis, Bada'i', III, 377, 410-11; Hisioire, 418, 453.
A NOTABLE IN T H E AGE OF TRANSITION 109
Kha'ir Bey was rewarded for his treachery at Maij Dábiq when, on 13
Sha'bán 923/31 August 1517, Sultan Selim on leaving Cairo appointed him
viceroy of Egypt. Janim profited from his uncle's eminence to secure his own
position both in Egypt and at Istanbul. After the capture and execution of the
unfortunate Qásim Bey, Janim was sent to carry the good news and the victim's
head to Selim, who had by then reached Damascus on his return journey. He was
well received by the sultan, who sent him back with an Ottoman envoy and a
robe of honour for Kha'ir Bey in confirmation of his appointment. On Rabi' Í
924/13 March 1518 Kha'ir Bey received the envoy outside Cairo, was invested
with the robe of honour, and rode in procession through the city from Báb al-
Na$r to the Citadel. 9
Jánim paid a second visit to Selim two years later, apparently in

consequence of the disturbing mission of an Ottoman envoy, who brought a
number of instructions from the sultan to his viceroy. These insisted particularly
on the good behaviour of the Ottoman garrison troops, concerning whom ill
reports had reached the sultan. The qádis gratifyingly assured the envoy that
Kha'ir Bey was watching over the subjects' good, and that the people were
satisfied. When, however, the viceroy proceeded to ask for a written and signed
declaration that Egypt enjoyed the utmost justice, prosperity and serenity, the
judges refused point-blank to authorize a document that might become evidence
against them. 1 0
This unsatisfactory episode in Rabi' I 926/February 1520 may have

moved Kha'ir Bey to send Jánim off to Istanbul the next month with princely
gifts for the sultan. These included 50 first-rate horses, a mule that had cost 500
dinars, textiles of silk and muslin, 500 qinfárs of sugar flavoured with musk,
various syrups, jams, precious stones, porcelain, lapis-lazuli and other rare
treasures. The sultan was graciously pleased to accept the gifts, and to the general
astonishment gave Jánim leave to return. He was back in Egypt in Ramadan
926/September 1520, again bringing with him a robe in token of íKhá ? ir Bey's
confirmation in office. This once more involved a state reception and a
procession through Cairo on 29 Ramadan/12 September. 11 i
Only a few weeks later on 19 Dhu'l-Qa'da 926/31 October, an evoy

arrived from Istanbul with the news that Sultan Selim had died on 9 Shawwal/23
September, and that the throne had passed to his son, Süleymán. Another
mission to the capital was now necessary to ensure the favour of the new sultan.
On 2 Jumada II427/10 May 1521, therefore, Jánim set out with a present said to
be worth more than 200,000 dinars. When he returned to Cairo on 13 Safar
9
lbn lyâs, BadàT, V, 241-3; Journal, II¡ 231-4.
I0
Ibn lyâs. Bada ï \ V, 328-9; Journal, II, 316-17,
U
I b n lySs, fiada')", V, 330-1, 345, 351-2; Journal, H, 319, 335, 340-1.
110 P. M. HOLT
928/12 February 1522, he brought back Khá'ir Bey's wife and children, whom
Selim had taken as hostages. He was also accompanied by a number of Egyptian
notables, who had been held in Istanbul, and were now released by the new
sultan. As on previous occasions, Khá'ir Bey was invested with a robe of honour
to signify his continuation in office, and made a procession in state to the
Citadel. 12 But in fact his rule as viceroy was soon to end: he died on 14 Dhu'l-
Qa'da 928/5 October 1522.
Apart from his link with the sultan's court, which at some point in his
career Jánim secured by appointing his brother, Ibrahim, as his agent (kdhya) at
the Porte, he established and extended his power-base in Egypt itself during his
uncle's lifetime. In these years the old hierarchy of rank and office remained
virtually intact there, and it was within this framework that Jánim built up his
power. Although like his uncle he was never a Mamluk in the strict sense of
having started his career with an episode of servitude, he belonged by descent to
the Mamluk ruling elite, and occupied posts appropriate to arbáb al-suyüf, not to
the secretarial arbáb al-qalam. As dawádár to Khá'ir Bey in Aleppo, he was
technically a military officer serving as the channel of communication between
the governor and the provincial chancery. At the time when he assisted in the
capture of Qásim Bey, he was the controller of the state granaries (shádd al-
shuwan), again a military office involving the oversight of secretarial and
financial staff. On his return from his first mission to Selim, he had supposedly
been appointed governor (ná'ib) of Alexandria by the sultan. There is, however,
no further mention of this appointment, and if it was indeed made, Jánim no
doubt exercised his functions by deputy, since he remained in close contact with
K h á ' i r B e y a s the v i c e r o y ' s dawádár (dawádár malik al-umará'). This was a
curious and anomalous appointment as there was already a dawádár kabtr
appointed by Khá'ir Bey in 923/1517, and still in office. By 926/1520, according
to Ibn Iyás, Jánim had become the effective holder of power in Egypt,
comparable in status to the amir kabir, i.e. atábak al- 'asákir, under the old regime
(sára sáhib al-hall wa'l- 'aqd bi-Misr wa-sára fi maqám amir kabir bi-Misr)P
At the time of Khá'ir Bey's death, Jánim al-Hámzáwí was absent from
Egypt. Towards the end of Rajab 928/June 1522, the viceroy received orders from
the sultan to send an expeditionary force to participate in the campaign against
the Hospitallers in Rhodes. Two contingents were organized. One consisting of
Circassians, i.e. Mamluks, was placed under the dawádár kabir Qáyitbáy al-
Ramadani, while the other, an Ottoman formation with troops drawn from the
garrison regiments, was commanded by Jánim. 14 So at last, and by favour of his
uncle, he held a genuine military command. On three occasions during the
,2
Ibn Iyás, Badá'i', V, 360, 395, 432-4; Journal, II, 349, 380, 4)5-18.
13
lbn Iyás, Badá'i', V, 352.
,4
Ibn Iyás, Badá'i', V, 464; Journal, II, 446.
A NOTABLE IN T H E AGE OF T R A N S I T I O N 111
campaign he sent despatches reporting the situation. A despatch received in Cairo

on 2 Shawwal/25 August was apparently silent about his own contingent, but
reported the arrival of Qayitbay's contingent in Rhodes on 13 Ramadan/6
August, and their cordial reception by the sultan three days later. Stileyman, it
was said, "belittled the intelligence of his father, Selim Shah, who had killed the
Circassian Mamluks, saying, 'Were Mamluks such as these killed ?' " , s A
second despatch, received five days later, struck a more sombre note as it reported
the heavy casualties suffered in operations against the outer wall of the city. 16
Nor were the sultan's troops threatened only by the Franks. Janim's third
despatch, received on 24 Shawwal/16 September, reported the hardship caused by
the lack of provisions, especially wheat and flour. Thereupon Kha'ir Bey, carried
out a four-day inspection of the granaries of Cairo, and sent off to Rhodes
supplies amounting to 30,000 ardabbs of wheat, 500 loads of flour and 500
ardabbs of rice, as well as chick-peas and onions. 17 It was the old Mamluk
viceroy's last display of loyalty to his new Ottoman master before he died.
The death of Kha'ir Bey did not harm the ascendancy that Janim had
acquired in Egypt. On 23 Dhu'l-Hijja/5 October, when the new viceroy, the
former Grand Vezir Mustafa Pasha, made his state procession through Cairo,
Janim rode at his left hand. 18 Again on 18 Shawwal 929/30 August 1523 he rode
beside a viceroy on his entry into the Egyptian capital. On this occasion he
accompanied Ahmad Pasha, soon to be stigmatized as al-Kha'in, "the Traitor", a
veteran of Sultan Selim's household, who had recently been disappointed of the
grand vezirate by Suleyman. 19 Janim had been appointed as "an authoritative
adviser and pillar of the realm" (marji' wa-mustashar wa- 'umdafi'l-mamalaka) —
in other words, as a brake on Ahmad Pasha. Such a control was indeed necessary.
The new viceroy set to work to make himself an independent ruler. He
proclaimed himself sultan in Egypt, assumed the prerogatives of the khutba and
sikka, and recruited a military force of Circassians and others, with which he
captured the Citadel from its loyal janissary garrison. He financed his usurpation
by levies on the Jews, Christians and Maghribls, and by extortions from the
religious and civil notables, including Janim al-HamzSwi. Finally he was
overthrown by a military coup led by Janim and other loyalists, who caught him
unprepared while visiting a bath-house in the city on 17 Rabl' II 930/23
February 1524. He got away during the skirmish, and made his way in disguise
15
lbn Iyas, Bada'r, V, 474-5; Journal, I), 456.
16
lbn Iyis, Bada'i', V, 476; Journal, H, 457.
17
Ibn [y3s, BadS'i', V, 477; Journal, II, 458-9.
,8
Ibn Iyas, Bada'i', V, 489-90; Journal, II, 470-1.
» A derailed account of Ahmad Pasha's attempted usurpation in Egypt is given by al-Ghazzi,
Kawakib, I, 156-9. This may be based on information obtained from JSnim al-Hamziwi by his
friend, al-Ghazzi's father. See also the account in al-Nahrawili, Barq, 37-8.
112 P. M. HOLT
to seek support among the bedouin. Within a fortnight he had been captured and
hanged.
In the years that followed Janim was at the height of his power and
prosperity. In 931/1525 he was appointed amir al-hadji, perhaps as a reward for
his loyalty. 20 At some date he obtained the post of naiir al-amwal al-sulfaniyya
in Egypt and the H i j a z , 2 ' a title equivalent to the more usual defterdar,22
indicating that Janim was the chief financial official in the two provinces. Behind
his acquisition of this renumerative office lay a sinister episode recounted by al-
Nahrawali concerning the Qadi Sharaf al-Din al-Sughayyir. 2 3 Sharaf al-Din,
whose personal name is not mentioned in the sources, belonged to a family of
officials, and his career from 909/1503 to 928/1522 can be traced from frequent
references in Ibn Iyas. During the sultanate of Qansawh al-Ghawri, he held the
posts of naiir al-dawla and katib al-mamalik. The former placed him at the head
of the financial administration, while the latter gave him special responsibility
for the maintenance of the Royal Mamluks. After the Ottoman conquest and
under Kha'ir Bey, he was again appointed katib al-mamalik, and he was at
various times the financial inspector of Upper Egypt, the Sharqiyya and the
Gharbiyya. He ultimately obtained a position which al-Nahrawali describes as
"like that of defterddr" (bi-mathabat daftardar). Janim envied Sharaf al-Din because
of his position, and went to Istanbul, where he obtained a decree for his
destruction. Sharaf al-Din's suspicions were aroused, and he followed him to
rebut any accusations. The two met at Uskiidar as Janim was returning. He
greeted Sharaf al-Din with honeyed words, paid his expenses, and completely
deceived him, so that "they returned like one soul in two bodies". Once back in
Cairo, however, Janim produced the fatal decree, and Sharaf al-Din was handed
over to the police, who brought about his death.
As naiir al-amwal Janim collected by no gentle means great revenues for

the imperial treasury, and on one occasion at least (in 937/1530-1) he
commanded the convoy taking the tribute of Egypt to Istanbul. 24 The profits of
20
The same great office was held by his son, Jamil al-Din Yusuf, in 936/1530, and by YOsuf s
son, Sinan in 937/1531. I am obliged 10 Dr. Doris Behrens-Abouseif of Freiburg im Breisgau for
these data, derived from Ahmad al-Rashidi, Husn al-fafa wa'l-ibtihaj bi-dhikr man wala imaratal-
hajj (ed. LaylS 'Abdai al-Latif Ahmad), Cairo 1980, and 'Abd al-Q&dir b. Muhammed al-Jaziri, Durar
al-fawa'id al-munanamafiakhbar al-hajj wafariq Makka al-Mu'a&nma, Cairo 1384/1964-5. Sinan
b. Yusuf is not otherwise known to me.
21
Ibn al-Hanbali, Durr, I/i, 450
22
0 n the equivalence of the two terms, naiir al-amwal being used in the Qanunname of Egypt, see
Stanford J. Shaw, Thefinancialand administrative organization and development of Ottoman
Egypt 1517-1798, Princeton 1962, p. 17, n. 16.
23
Al-Nahrawali, Barq, 73-4. There are numerous references to Sharaf al-Din al-Sughayyir's career
from Jumada II909 to Dhu'l-Hiija 928 in Ibn Iyas, Bada'i', IV, V; Journal, I, II; for which consult
the respective indexes.
24
A1-Ghazzi, Kawakib, II, 132
A NOTABLE IN THE AGE OF T R A N S I T I O N 113
office enabled him to satisfy the demands of public piety on an ample scale.
Every Monday and Thursday (and daily in the three sacred months) he received the
'ulama' of Cairo to hear a disquisition on the Traditions of the Prophet. He used
to visit them with gifts on religious festivals and holy days. Every morning 500
loaves were distributed to the staff and students of al-Azhar at his expense, and
the prisoners in Cairo also received bread from him. A waqf provided for the
annual supply of 80 Egyptian mats of the largest size to the Umayyad Mosque in
Damascus. By a waqfiyya dated 936/1530 he provided for a sabil and maktab to
be added to the madrcwa-mausoleum of Khà'ir Bey.25
The sudden and complete downfall of Jànim came for reasons which are
not wholly clear, but seem to be connected with the expedition to India
commanded by Sulaymàn Pasha al-Khadim, twice viceroy of Egypt. According
to Ibn al-Hanbali, the project of the expedition had been suggested by Jànim
himself at the end of Sulaymàn Pasha's first viceroyalty in 941/1535, and it
received the sultan's approval. This early date seems improbable, as the
expedition was in reaction to the death of Bahadur Shah of Gujerat at the hands of
the Portuguese on 3 Ramadan 943/13 February 1537. The preparations for the
expedition were made during Sulaymàn Pasha's second period as viceroy, which
had begun on 11 Rajab 943/24 December 1536. Jànim, however, secretly
commissioned his brother Ibràhim in Istanbul to obtain his release fom
participation in the expedition. Unfortunately for him, at this juncture Ibrahim
died. The news reached Jànim on 'Id al-Fitr 944/6 March 1538, and with a
premonition of coming castrophe he exclaimed, "Now we are lost !" Sulaymàn
Pasha came to hear of Jànim's machinations, and thereupon reported to the sultan
that certain persons in Cairo were obstructing the expedition. He took care to
name no names, and was duly authorized to act as he wished. Thereupon he
summoned Jànim and Yusuf before him on 29 Dhu'l-Hijja 944/29 May 1538.
Their heads were struck off and hung on the Zuwayla Gate, while in due course
Sulaymàn Pasha set off on his unsuccessful mission to Diu.
Jànim's downfall is also described by al-Nahrawali as an episode in his

account of Sulaymàn Pasha's expedition 26 . He does not suggest that the
expedition had been proposed by Jànim, nor does he mention the viceroy's
discovery of Jànim's secret commission to his brother, but he ascribes Sulaymàn
Pasha's action as due simply to malevolence. Al-Nahrawali represents the viceroy
as telling the sultan, "I have smelt a reek of sedition from Jànim al-Hamzawi and
his son, and I fear that the troops will obey him because of his benefactions to
them", and receiving an order to put an end to the trouble. In contrast to Ibn al-
25
Khâ'ir Bey elected bis mausoleum in Cairo in 908/1502, i. e. before the Ottoman conquest. The
waqfiyya (Dit aJ-Wathâ'iq 294) is, howerer, dated Jumildà I 927/April-May 1521. 1 am again
obliged to Dr. Doris Behiens-Abouseif for this information.
26
Al-Nahrawali, Barq,lU5.
114 P. M. HOLT
Hanbali's bare statement of the beheading of J&nim and Yusuf, al-Nahrawali

expatiates like a journalist on their last hours. Yusuf was the first to arrive at the
Citadel, and he played chess with the viceroy's k&hya while awaiting his father.
Janim knew from the stars that something would befall him that day, and
secluded himself in his garden. The viceroy sent a sergeant to fetch him, and at
the end of the day he was brought to the Citadel. Seeing his son's horse there,
his presentiments increased, but there was no way out. Brought before
Sulayman, he sat awhile until the viceroy asked him, "Are you ready for the
journey ?" He answered "Yes", and was handed over to the executioner. After he
had prayed, he gave the executioner his own sword to use, as the executioner's
was blunt, and his head fell as he was uttering the profession of faith.
Meanwhile the kahya was imploring the viceroy to spare the life of
Yusuf, who was his friend, but he received only the grim reply, "Bring his head
at once or you'll join him !" Yusuf did not meet his end as submissively as his
father. When the executioner entered with two assistants, he received them
haughtily ; and when one of them grabbed his turban, he said "So you've
destroyed the old master!" There was a short struggle, and at the end his head
was taken to the viceroy. When the heads were displayed on the Zuwayla Gate,
there was a display of popular sympathy and the markets were closed. Their
remains were given to their family (al-Nahrawali grimly observes that no-one
could tell which head went with which body), and they were buried in al-Qarafa
by the tomb of the Imam al-Shafi'i. A holy spot, but not the resting-place which
Janim had intended when he built his tomb in Aleppo, and endowed a waqfior its
upkeep including accomodation, rations and pay for ten attendants headed by a
shaykh.
The character of Janim al-Hamzawi, or indeed the impression he made on

his contemporaries, is difficult to assess. Until the sudden catastrophe on the last
day of 944, he was a successful opportunist who passed from Mamluk to
Ottoman rule, acquiring in the transition both a higher status and increased
wealth. In return, despite the accusations of Sulayman Pasha, he seems to have
given continuing loyal service to the new rulers of Egypt. A man such as he,
originating on the fringe of the old Mamluk military society and deeply
experienced in the local affairs of Syria and Egypt, may have been particularly
valuable to the Ottoman authorities in the early years after the conquest, when
the peoples and institutions of a long-established state were being absorbed into a
wider empire. As a financial administrator for the new regime, his methods seem
to have been harsh, but he took care to conciliate public opinion and its makers
by pious charities and by cultivating the society of the 'ulama'. Al-Nahrawali
displays a certain ambivalence towards him, which he may have shared with
other contemporaries. "The Amir Janim", he says, "was among the principal
advisers in the service of the August Sultanate, a good administrator, a clear
thinker, doing good to small and great. He was one of the principal causes of the
A NOTABLE IN THE AGE OF TRANSITION 115
restoration of the realm in the days of Ahmad Pasha's sedition, ... and when
[Ahmad Pasha] rebelled, he brought Egypt back to the Ottoman sultanate."27 A
glowing obituary, but al-Nahrawali closes his account of the fate of J&nim and
his son with the words, "What befell the Amir Janim was due retribution for
what the Amir Janim did to the Qadi Sharaf al-Din al-Sughayyir", and goes on to
narrate J&nim's treachery.
Perhaps it would be charitable to close as Ibn al-Hanbali does, with a

vignette of Janim's unfulfilled dream of retirement: "I am informed concerning
the Amir Janim that in spite of his affluence, he knew no repose. He wanted to
be in his home-town of Aleppo, away from people, under the shade of a tree in
his home there. So he gave orders for the building of a bigger hall near his old
home, and sent precious coloured marble from Cairo. It was built but he never
obtained his wish for retirement there — God have mercy on him !"28
SOURCES
1. Ibn lyas, Bada'i' al-zuhurfi waqa'i' al-duhur (ed. Muhammad Mustafa), 2nd
edn., Ill, Wiesbaden 1963; IV, Wiesbaden 1960; V, Wiesbaden 1961. French trans.
Gaston Wiet, Histoire des Mamlouks circassiens, Cairo 1945; Journal d'un bourgeois
du Caire, 2 vols., Paris 1955, 1960. Ibn IySs was born in 852/1448 and ended his
chronicle in 928/1522. Short references: Ibn lyas, Bada'i', Histoire, Journal.
2. Radi al-Din Muhammad b. Ibrahim b. Yflsuf al-Hanbali, Durr al-habab fi

la'rikh a'yan Halab (edd. Mahmud Hamad al-Fakhuri and Yahya Zakariyya 'Abbara), 2
vols, in 4 pts., Damascus 1972-4. The relevant biographical notices are based at least
partly on family information; the author's grandfather was a friend of J a n i m al-
Hamzawi's father. The author lived from 908/1502-3 to 971/1563. Short reference:
Ibn al-Hanbali, Durr.
3. Qutb al-Din Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Nahrawali al-Makki, al-Barq al-Yamani

fi'l-fath al-'Uthmani (ed. Hamad al-Jasir), al-Riyad 1387/1967. The author lived from
917/1511-12 to 990/1582. Short reference: al-Nahrawali, Barq.
4. Najm al-Din al-Ghazzi, al-Kawakib al-sa'ira bi-a'yan al-mi'a al-'ashira (ed.

Jibra'il Sulayman Jabbur), 3 vols. Beirut 1945-59. The author lived from 977/1570 to
1061/1651. Short reference: al-Ghazzi, Kawakib.
Kirtlington, Oxford
Âl-Nahrawali, Barq, 71.

28
lbn al-Hanbali, Durr, I/i, 454. Ibn al-Hanbali also mentions (ibid., 453) that the killing of
JSnim and his son was said to be by the "management" (tadbir) of a certain Qasim al-Maghribi in
collaboration with Sulaymán Pasha. He repeats this in his biographical notice of Qasim (Durr,
Il/i, 32-5). QSsim b. 'Abd al-Karim al-Maghribi al-Fasi al-Awrasi was the son of a porter in
Damascus. He married a wealthy heiress, and went to Cairo where by 940/1533 he had succeeded
Ibn al-Hanball's uncle as a náitr of waqfs with the aid of janim al-lJamzSwi. His oppressive
behaviour led to the setting up of a tribunal of investigation, and he was hanged at the Zuwayla
Gate in 947/1540-1.
Colin IMBER
CANON AND APOCRYPHA IN

EARLY OTTOMAN HISTORY
Most accounts of the origins of the Ottoman Empire rely in the last
analysis on a group of late fifteenth- and early sixteenth-century Turkish texts:
the History of On»5 and the Anonymous Chronicles in their various recensions,
and the History of A$ikpa§azade. These texts form a distinctive family in that,
for events down to 1422, they share a common source, which no longer exists
independently, but was presumably once a separate chronicle, composed shortly
after 1422. The materials in these texts were the source for all subsequent
Ottoman accounts of the Empire's origins and the reign of Osman, and their
influence has remained strong in the twentieth century. Modern historians have
rejected much of what they narrate in detail, but have nevertheless usually
accepted the broad outlines of their stories. In particular, modern discussions of
whether Osman and his followers were tribal nomads or gazis, or of how to
explain their transition from tribesmen to Warriors of the Faith, rely ultimately
on themes in these texts. In this respect, this group of chronicles forms a
historian's "canon".
There are, however, differing versions of early Ottoman history in

languages other than Turkish, which historians have never considered using as
historical sources, and which they have regarded as of no value in determining
Ottoman origins. These are Spandugnino's On the Origins of the Ottoman
Emperors, which survives in several recensions, the last being the Italian version
of 1538; the Italian Historia Turchesca of 1514; the Serb Constantine
Mihailovitfs Memoirs, which survives in Czech and Polish recensions; and the
Arabic Inba' al-Ghumr of cl450 by the Egyptian Ibn Hajar al-'Askalani. These
texts form an Ottoman historian's "apocrypha".
There are, at first sight, excellent reasons for rejecting these "apocryphal"
histories. They are not in Turkish, and this alone raises doubts about their
118 Colin I M B ER
authenticity even as Turkish tradition, let alone as sources for Turkish history.
Their accounts of the Ottoman Sultans are apparently quite unhistorical; and even
their "king-lists", giving the succession and names of the rulers, are wrong.
However, examination of the texts shows that in certain details at least they do
in fact reflect Turkish tradition and in places even show an affiliation with the
"canon". The examples below examine the king-lists in the "apocrypha" and a
few details in the "apocryphal" accounts of the Empire's origins and the reign of
Osman, showing how these relate to the "canon".
The Apocryphal King Lists
(i) Spandugnino
Spandugnino was an Italo-Greek who composed a historical tableau of the

Ottoman Empire on his return to Italy after a residence in Istanbul between 1503
and 1509. His History went through several recensions and in the final version of
1538,1 its king-list corresponds exactly with the "canonical" succession of rulers:
Ottomano (Osman) - Orchano (Orhan) - Amurath, known as Caxi Condiciaro
(Murad I, Gazi Hiidavendgar) - Ildrim Baiasit (Yildirim Bayezid) - Sultan
Mehemeth (Mehmed I). Even here, however, the apocryphal influence appears in
the name "Sultan Mehemeth". In the first Italian recension of cl513, this
sovereign's name is simply Sultan and not yet Sultan Mehemeth. The meagre
details of Sultan's biography do, however, indicate an identification with the
canonical Mehmed I. Spandugnino describes him as the son of Bayezid I and
father of Murad II, and notes that he preserved the Empire after the "Emperor of
Chagatay" had defeated his father. The much longer recension of 1538 gives him
the canonical name Mehemeth, but combines it with the aprocryphal name
Sultan, and conflates the brief biography of Sultan in the earlier text with what
was obviously once a separate, albeit highly confused, biography of Mehmed I.
Spandugnino also includes a story of the ancestor of the dynasty, whom

he characterises as a humble shepherd of the Oguz nation. This is a clear
reflection of the canonical stories of the dynasty's Oguz genealogy and pastoral
origins. The 1538 recension names this ancestor as Pazzo, meaning "mad,
insane" and insists that "no Turkish writer gives him a name other than Pazzo."
This too reflects the canon. In his explanation of the term Caxi (gazi) as an
epithet for Murad I, Spandugnino defines it in the 1538 text as meaning
"courageous and bold" (valente et animoso). In the recension of c!513, however,
For the 1513 recension, see "La cronaca italiana di Teodoro Spandugino", in Christiane Villain-
Gandossi, La Méditerranée aux XlIe-XVIe Siècles, London (1983), 158-160.For a French
translation of this recension, see Théodore Spandouyn Cantacasin (ed. C. Schefer), Petit Traicté
de l'Origine des Turcqi, Paris (1896), 5-25. For the 1538 recension, see C. Sathas, Documents
inédits relatifs à l'Histoire de la Grèce au Moyen-Age, vol. IX, Paris (1890), 138-139.
CANON AND APOCRYPHA 119
he defines it differently as "courageous, reckless" (valente, sbardelato), and this in

turn appears in the French recension as "foolhardy, without reason" (bandy, sans
raison). All these translations obviously reflect the popular understanding of the
term gazi, with sbardelato, hardy, and sans raison corresponding in particular
with the Turkish deli which means both "mad, insane" and "foolhardy, recklessly
bold". The Turkish chronicles always refer to Osman as Osman Gazi, and it
would appear that Spandugnino understood this as meaning Osman [son of] Gazi.
His enquiries into the meaning of the word gazi elicited the reply that it meant
deli, which, in the final recension, he rendered as Pazzo. Thus, even the
anomolous Pazzo does reflect the canonical tradition, albeit in a disjointed form.
(ii) The Historia Turchesca
The history of the Ottoman Sultans which opens the Historia Turchesca
of 15142 states that the Ottoman House began in 13130 with a certain Zich,
whose son Ottomano made the first conquests.
Orcano succeeded Ottomano in 1328 and Marothei succeeded Orcano in

1350. He died in 1373, leaving two sons, Panzarte and Solimano. Panzarte
acquired the throne after killing Solimano, to be succeeded in 1381 by Calapino.
The texts adds as á note on Calapino that "others maintain that it was Eldrin
Baiasit." This Calapino (or Eldrin Baiasit) left two sons, Orcano and
Macometto. Orcano succeeded, but Macometto murdered him two years later.
This list of Ottoman rulers is confused, but largely explicable. Ottomano

is Clearly Osman. Some apocryphal traditions link him with the toponym
Osmancik, and this has happened here. The narrator of this version credits
Ottomano with the conquest of a town called otoman zich (=Osmanctk) and
explains the toponym as being a combination of the names of Ottomano
(Osman) and his father. Hence the name Zich, the founder of the dynasty, derives
from the last element of a place-name. The Orcano and Marothei who succeed
Ottomano are clearly Orhan and Murad I (here Murad Beg) of the canonical
tradition. However, Panzarte, unless a corruption of Bayezid, seems inexplicable.
His brother Solimano might also be a mystery, were it not for the following
Calapino. The prototype for both of these names is clearly the real son of
Bayezid I, Siileyman Qelebi. The element "Qelebi" (Turkish: prince) has become
detached to form the name of a separate person who> emerges in Italian as
Calapino. Siileyman Qelebi was indeed murdered by his brother. Eldrin Baiasit is
clearly Yildmm Bayezid. Bayezid had no son called Orcano (Orhan), but
Siileyman felebi did. Macometto is clearly Bayezid's son, Mehmed I, who in
2
Donado da Lezze (ed. I.Ursq), Historia Turchesca (¡300-1514), Bucharest (1910), 1-10.
120 C o l i n IMBER
1413 emerged as victor in the civil war after murdering not his nephew Orhan,
but his brother Musa.
The list of Sultans in the Historia Turchesca is, to say the least,
confused, and this may lead to the conclusion that it does not reflect an Ottoman
tradition. The fact that the editor has embellished it with obviously non-Turkish
material — for example an account of the Trojan origins of the Turks —
reinforces this impression. However, it almost certainly does derive from Turkish
tradition. It may be confused, but confusion is also the hall-mark of the
canonical chronicles and other Turkish "historical" materials. These, it is true,
agree on the succession of Ottoman rulers from Osman's father Ertugrul, and in
this they are undoubtedly accurate, but their accounts of Ottoman ancestors and
relatives of the Sultans are as chaotic as the Historia Turchesca's king-list. 3
Inaccuracy does not necessarily reflect lack of authenticity. There is however
another, more positive reason for accepting the Historia Turchesca's king-list as a
genuine Ottoman tradition. The major source of the Historia was the memoirs of
Italians, notably Giovan-Maria Angiolello, who had been in Ottoman service
between 1470 and the end of the first decade of the sixteenth century. The
Historia's "Turkish history " probably therefore reflects oral tradition which the
narrator had heard in Turkey, and which was perhaps current among the foreign
troops in the Janissaries or other kapikulu corps.
(Hi) The Memoirs of Constantine Mihailovic
Mihailovitfs account of the early Ottoman rulers 4 which he included in

his Memoirs must have had a similar origin, as he too served as a kapikulu
soldier, from perhaps shortly after 1450, until 1463. He lists the Sultans before
Murad II as follows; Otman son of Shih 5 - Mustaffa - Aladin - Morat - Sultan.
Of this list, only Otman (Osman) and Morat (Murad I) conform to the canon.
Hie name of Osman's father, Shih, is clearly the Zich of the Historia Turchesca
and derives from the last syllable of the place-name Osmancik. Mustaffa has no
obvious explanation. Aladin may pehaps be a variant on the canonical traditions.
These name a Seljuk Sultan, called Alaeddin, as the patron of Osman and his
3
For example, in the Turkish sources, the name Gttnduz Alp emerged first in the works of Ahmedi
(c!400) and of Yazicioglu Ali (c 1425) as a companion of Osman's father Ertugrul, alongside
another called Gttk Alp. The Dtistumame of Enveri (cI465), turns Giindilz Alp and Gtik Alp into
brothers, and Giindilz Alp into Ertugrut's father. The chronicle of Kai&manW Mehmed Pasha
(cl480) nuns GBk Alp into GUndilz Alp's father and Brtugrul's grandfather. In the Anonymous-
Oru? texts, Giindilz Alp is either Osman's brother or nephew. In A;ikpa$azade, he is Osman's
brother.
^Constantine Mihailovid, Memoirs of a Janissary, edition of Czech text with English translation
by Benjamin Stolz, historical commentary by Svat Soucek, Ann Arbor (1975), 30-38.
-"The name Shih does not seem to appear in all recensions of Mihailoviis Memoirs. Benjamin
Stolz and Svat Soucek, op.cit. xxviii
father, and the same figure appears in Spandugnino's On the Origins of the
Ottoman Emperors. The tradition which Mihailovid knew may have transposed
the name Alaeddin from a Seljuk Sultan to a fictitious grandson of Osman. The
apocryphal ruler whom Mihailovid calls Sultan also appears in Spandugnino's
first recension, although the two authors differ in their biographical details of
this sovereign.
The history of the Memoirs does not immediately inspire confidence in

the accuracy of its contents. Mihailovicfs king-list must derive from what he had
heard in Turkey, many years before committing it to paper, and one may assume
that he suffered lapses in memory. His text must also have undergone further
changes during its transmission from the, presumably, Serbian original to the
existing Czech and Polish recensions. However, there is no doubt that it is in
essence an accurate reflection of an Ottoman tradition. Certain episodes and
names have links with the canon and, more surprisingly, with Ottoman archival
materials.
The.latter are records of freeholdings and vakfo which appear in sixteenth-

century land-registers of the sancak of Bursa. For example, the register of 1521
notes two vakfs as having been in existence "From the time of Sultan Alaeddin"
and one as being "From Sultan Alaeddin". 6 These entries recall both the Seljuk
Sultan of the canonical tradition and Mihailovitfs Aladin, suggesting that the
records in question relate to vakfo "validated" by forged vakfiyes drawn up in the
name of a legendary Sultan and accepted by later land registrars as genuine. 7 The
same registers also record vakfo validated "By the nifan of Sultan", and a separate
entry under the heading "Vakfo of the deceased Sultan Han". They also record a
freeholding donated by the "deceased Sultan". 8 There was no real Ottoman ruler
called simply "Sultan". The name is known only from Mihailovid' and
Spandugnino's first recension. It obviously puzzled the compiler of the register,
who solved the problem in the same way as Spandugnino in his recension of
1538, by identifying "Sultan" with Mehmed I. To the "Vakfo of the deceased
6
L. Barkan and Enver Menfli, Hiidavendigar Livasi Tahrir Defterleri, Ankara (1988), nos. 1009
1010.
7
It is not really surprising to find vakfs of doubtful authenticity in the neighbourhood of Bursa.
In 1402 Timur's army sacked the city, and the region was the scene of further conflict between
1402 and 1406 during the early years of the Ottoman civil war. There was further fighting in the
district between October, 1422 and January, 1423, when Murad II's brother, Mustafa, briefly
established his rule in Iznik. One may assume the loss of all chancery records in Bursa when
Timur destroyed the city. Many documents which individuals held validating their claims to land,
must also have disappeared in the years of invasion and civil war. Furthermore, many people
must have used these years of anarchy to seize and occupy land. To prove their claims to land-
registry officials, these usurpers or even rightful occupants who had lost their title-deeds, would
have to foige the appropriate documents. Some of these would forge niffuis of rulers whom they
knew from oral tradition but who had never existed in reality.
®Barkan and Meri(li, op.cii.. nos 577, 601, 645, 647.
122 Colin IMBER
Sultan Han" 9 he has added the note: "Since the person called Sultan Han is
felebi Sultan Mehmed, they have been included here so that they may be
recognised". He obviously knew that, in the apocryphal tradition, Sultan preceded
Murad II, making it reasonable to identify him with Murad's real father, (Celebi)
Mehmed I. In these instances, the apocrypha help solve a puzzle in authentic
Ottoman documents. 10
(iv) ¡bn Hajar al- 'Askalani
An earlier genealogy of the Ottoman Sultans, dating perhaps from shortly

after 1400 and from before 1450, appears in the Inba' al-Ghumr of Ibn Hajar al-
'Askalani. 11 This work in fact contains several genealogies which Ibn Hajar
himself never attempted to harmonise and which obviously confused subsequent
copyists and annotators. He obviously knew the canonical genealogy, since it
appears, for example in his Obituary Notice for Mehmed I: Muhammad Jalabi
the Sultan, called Kirishi, son of Sultan Abu Yazid, son of Murad, son of
Urkhan son of 'Uthmanjik. 12 A confusion, however, becomes evident in two
notices on Bayezid I. The record of his death under the heading of Events for the
year 805 gives the canonical genealogy: Abu Yazid, son of Murad, son of
Adrakhan (= Orhan, misreading waw as dal) son of 'Uthman died in the captivity
of Timur. 13 However, the version of Bayezid's genealogy which appears under
Obituaries for 805 is non-canonical: Abu Yazid, son of Murad Bak, son of
Urkhan, son of Sulayman, son of 'Uthman. 14 The name Sulayman is an addition
to the canonical king-list. A note in the margin of the Hyderabad manuscript, 15
however, adds an alternative, expanded genealogy:"... there preceded in the year
(7)96 Murad son of Adrakhan Ardan, son of 'Ali, son of 'Uthman, son of
Sulayman, son of 'Uthman." A compromise between the two genealogies
appears in another manuscript: Abu Yazid, son of Murad Bak, son of Urkhan
Bak, son of 'Ali, son of Salman, son of 'Uthman. 16 This last genealogy appears
9
Barkan and Merifli, op.cit., nos. 171-173.
' °Prof.Beldiceanu-Steinherr has also encountered the name "Sultan" in cadastral registers of
Aydm. Here too she has identified the name with Mehmed I. 1 am grateful to Prof. Beldiceanu-
Steinherr for this observation.
"ibn Hajar al 'Askalani (ed. Hasan Habashi), Inba' al-ghumr bi-anba' al-'umr, Cairo (1969-
1972).
12
lbn Hajar, op.cit., vol. 3, 294
I3
lbn Hajar, op.cit, vol. 2, 226
14
lbn Hajar, op.cit, vol. 2, 255.
"The Cairo edition of Inba' al-Ghumr gives the dates neither of the manuscripts used nor of the
marginalia. It is therefore impossible to reconstruct the history of the text's transmission from
this source.
16
K6prlilll Library, Istanbul, no.1007, vol.1, 166a, Published in §. tnalcik, "Ibn Hacer'de
Osmanlilar'a dair haberler", Ankara Onivcrsitesi Dil ve Tarih-Cografya FakBllesi Dtrgisi, VI
(1948), 524.
CANON AND A P O C R Y P H A 123
to be a copyist's rationalisation of the same genealogy as the Hyderabad

annotator gives. He has simply removed the inexplicable name Ardan, and gives
the name 'Uthman only once.
This confusion arose from Ibn Hajar's lack of discrimination as an editor.

He knew the canonical genealogy, but he also knew an apocryphal genealogy
which appears in a brief Ottoman history, inserted as a single block under
Obituaries for the year 796, to serve as a death-notice for Murad I. 17 His careless
chronology indicates that he made no attempt to harmonise this obituary with
his main text. He gives 796 as the year of Murad's death, when references to his
successor Bayezid have already appeared under the headings of Events for 793 and
795. Nor does Murad's genealogy in the obituary correspond precisely with
Ottoman genealogies elsewhere in the Inba'. Most probably Ibn Hajar himself
included two genealogies, the canonical version and the apocryphal version which
appears under Obituaries for 7%. Subsequent copyists and annotators noticed the
discrepancy and made unsystematic emendations to the text in an attempt to
reconcile the two versions. The result is chaos.
The obituary "History" gives the Ottoman king-list as follows: Murad,

lord of Rum, son of Adrakhan, son of Ardan Ali, son of 'Uthman, son of
Salman, son of 'Uthman the Turcoman, and adds a very brief "history" of each
sovereign's reign. First impressions suggest that most of Ibn Hajar's "history" is
pure fantasy. However, closer examination suggests that not only was his
unknown source Turkish, but that it has affiliations with the canonical tradition.
Murad, Adrakhan (=Orhan) and 'Uthman are canonical rulers, although

'Uthman has become two persons instead of one. Ardan in the name Ardan 'Ali
seems inexplicable. However, Ibn Hajar's (Ardan) 'Ali, like Mihailoviifs Aladin
was to influence the canonical tradition.18 Salman clearly relates to Siileyman§ah
whom the canonical tradition records as Osman's grandfather, and whose name
appears in the Oxford Anonymous Chronicle as Salmanjah. 19 Furthermore, the
attributes which Ibn Hajar's obituary "History" gives to the first three sovereigns
all reflect canonical Turkish tradition. The description of the first 'Uthman as
The Turcoman represents the tradition which makes Osman the leader of a tribe.
Ibn Hajar states of his successor, Salman, that "He waged ghaza in the company
of one of the volunteers for the Holy War (mutatawwi'ah).20 He became famous
for his bravery and heroism and his following increased." Here, transposed to
Salman is the canonical tradition of Osman as a gazi, with a warrior-companion,
possibly (Kose) Mihal at his side. Of Salman's successor, 'Uthman, Ibn Hajar
"ibn Hajar, op.cit., vol.1, 484; $.lnalcik, loc.cil.

' 8 See below, under heading Alaeddin Pasha.
,9
Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS Marsh 313, 14v.
is Arabic term may represent a misunderstanding of the Turkish term toxica.
124 C o l i n IMBER
writes: "He conquered Bursa and made it his residence in around the (7)30s." This
is a reference to the historical conquest of Bursa, the credit for which the canon
divides between Osman and Orhan.
What has clearly happened is that the author of the obituary "History"
which Ibn Hajar has incorporated into the Inba' knew three separate traditions of
the early Ottoman rulers: as tribesmen, as gazis, and as conquerors of Bursa. The
canonical chronicles incorporate all three traditions into their portrayal of Osman.
Ibn Hajar's source has kept the traditions separate and attributed each to a separate
ruler.
Apocryphal persons and apocryphal events
An examination of the apocryphal king-lists shows that they are Turkish

in origin. An examination of some of the apocryphal stories of the origins of the
Ottoman Empire and its first rulers shows that these too are Turkish and often
have much in common with the canon, which they have occasionally influenced
directly.
(i) Alaeddin Pasha
The clearest link between the canon and the apocrypha emerges in the
story of Alaeddin Pasha, whom historians depict as the brother of the second
Ottoman ruler, Orhan. However, since the name Alaeddin does not appear
alongside those of Osman's other offspring in Orhan's vakfiye of 1324,21 it
seems unlikely that he ever existed.
This fictitious prince appears first in the Anonymous-Orug texts, not as

Alaeddin Pasha, but as Ali Pasha, and in connection with two anecdotes. The
first of these tells how, on Osman's death, Ali Pasha renounced his claim to the
throne in favour of his brother Orhan and became a dervish. The second tells how
he advised Orhan to dress his troops in red caps (btirk), and to make white caps
the distinctive uniform of his retinue of slaves. The second story is obviously an
attempt to explain the origins of the distinctive red and white caps of the two
Ottoman infantry corps, the "free" azabs and the "slave" Janissaries.22
Both stories are interpolations by a redactor. This is clear from an earlier

episode in the text, describing how Osman distributed lands among his relatives
and companions. The passage begins with the sentence: "[Osman] gave the
21
I.H.Uzun?ar$ili, "Oazi O t t a Bey Vakfiyesi", Belleten, V/19 (1941), 277-288.
22
Cf. Oro? b.Adii el-Kazm (cd. F.Babinger), Tevarih-i al-i Osman, Hanover (1925), 15-16.
sancak pf Karahisar to his son Orhan", and continues by enumerating the lands
which fie apportioned to his other followers. It ends with the statement: "Now
Osman had another son whom he called Ali Pasha. He did not let him leave his
side." 2 3 Ali Pasha was evidently missing from the original version of this
passage. However, since the redactor has later inserted two stories which inform
his audience that Osman had a son called Ali Pasha, he had to explain why this
son was not a beneficiary of Osman's distribution of land. He assumed that Ali
Pasha must have remained with his father, and added the final statement to his
original text. The stoiy of the Janissaries' white caps was also a problem, since
the Anonymous-Orui texts have a second story attributing the foundation of the
Janissaries and their distinctive headgear, not to Ali Pasha, but to Murad I. The
redactors solved this problem rather unsatisfactorily by removing any direct
reference to Janissaries in the Ali Pasha episode, and by concluding the passage
with the statement: "Levying yayas in Anatolia dates from Orhan's time,"
thereby implying that the troops in white headgear were yayas. It is nonetheless
certain that in the unemended text they had been Janissaries. This is clear from
Orus's description of them as "slaves" attached to Orhan, and from a reference in
the Anonymous-Orui to Hacci Bekta$, the "patron saint" of the Janissaries.
Furthermore, in one Anonymous text, something close to the unemended version
survives. Following the sentence: "wearing white caps dates from that time", the
redactor has added the incomplete sentence: "became Janissaries (yenigeriler ol-)".
This text concludes with a sentence attributing the levy of the yayas not to
Orhan, but to Bayezid I. 2 4
The source of these interpolations was the apocrypha. According to Ibn

Hajar's apocryphal king-list Osman's successor was not Orhan but (Ardan) Ali,
and this figure is obviously the source for Ali Pasha. The redactor clearly knew
both the canonical and the apocryphal king-lists. He accepted the canonical list as
representing the true sucession of Sultans, presumably in acordance with his base
text, but tried to harmonise it with the apocrypha. He did this by changing the
Ali of the apocrypha from Orhan's father to Orhan's brother. Having made this
adjustment, he evidently concluded from the stories attached to the figure of Ali
that he must have continued alive during his brother's reign, and hence the
deduction that he must have renounced the succession in favour of Orhan. The
renunciation story thus arose from the redactor's need to harmonise two
conflicting king-lists.
Having created the story, he used it to point a moral for his own times.
He concluded the tales of Ali Pasha with the words: "In those days Padishahs and
Lords took counsel with their brothers. They respected and honoured one another
(1922)07*C b AdU
' 0PC 1
'' '2; FGieSe (ed ) Die
' M,mmanischen
Anonymen Chroniken, Breslau
24
l.H.Ertaylan (ed.), Tevarih-i ali Osman, Istanbul (1946), 22-23.
126 Colin IMBER
and did not kill one another ..." The story, in fact, is an exemplary one,
criticising the practice of royal fratricide by showing how the Ottoman Sultans
managed the succession in "the good old days". This motif was particularly
relevant to the redactor's own time. The Ali Pasha material belongs to the
common source which the Anonymous-Oru? texts share with A§ikpa§azade and
which ends with the execution of Murad D's uncle "Diizme" Mustafa early in
1422. The redactor was presumably at work shortly after this date. In August-
September, 1422, Murad II's brother, "Kiifuk" Mustafa, laid siege to Bursa,
initiating a civil war which lasted until his defeat and execution early in 1423. It
was perhaps disgust at this latest fratricide which inspired the redactor to concoct
his tale of Ali Pasha.
The story of Ali Pasha's designating the azabs' and Janissaries' headgear is
presumably an adaptation of an apocryphal story which attributed the foundation
of these military corps to the apocryphal Sultan, Ali. The redactor may have
derived the story of how Ali Pasha became a dervish from the same source as Ibn
Hajar, who says of Ardan Ali: "He exceeded his father in jihad; and he drew close
to 'ulama and pious men, and built khankahs and zawiyahs." Ibn Hajar does not
describe Orhan at all. The redactor of 1422/3 may have known a tradition similar
to Ibn Hajar's, and adapted it by transferring the merit of jihad from Ali to Orhan,
but retaining the original story of Ali as a pious founder of dervish
establishments, which was to become fixed in the canon.
Later in the fifteenth century, the story changed. In A§ikpa§azade's

version,25 Ali Pasha has become Alaeddin Pasha; the story of his renunciation of
rulership has become more elaborate; and his advice on military headgear has
changed. He no longer tells Orhan to dress his army in red caps and his "slaves"
in white ones. Instead he advises as follows: "The caps of the lords around you
are red. Let yours be white ..." There follows a story of the first levy of yayas,
whom Orhan dressed in white caps. To this, A§ikpa§azade adds a story explaining
the origins of the military term eniik yaya. He has thus adapted the emended
version of the Ali Pasha story, changing the name Ali Pasha to Alaeddin Pasha,
and introducing the term eniik yaya.
The source of these changes was the apocrypha. In Mihailovicfs king-list,

the second Ottoman ruler is Aladin — clearly Alaeddin; he founds an infantry
called genikehage — clearly eniik yaya; and he dresses them in white caps.
A§ikpa;azade identified this apocryphal Alaeddin with the Ali Pasha of the
Anonymous-Oru9, and makes him Orhan's brother rather than an independent
ruler. However, he accepts the new name and other details of the apocrypha and
modifies the Anonymous-Oru? accordingly.
25
Asikp«$azade (ed Ali), Tevarìh-i al-i Osman, Istanbul (1913/14), 39-40.
In choosing to identify Orhan's brother as Alaeddin rather than as Ali,

A§ikpa§azade was probably following the toponymy and local traditions of
fifteenth-century Bursa. Alaeddin Beg was the name of a district in the city, 26 and
records of 1521 show two villages as vakfs of a certain Alaeddin Beg with
revenues dedicated in part to the upkeep of his mausoleum. 2 7 Furthermore,
A§ikpa$azade himself noted that Alaeddin Pasha founded a tekke at Kiikiirtlu ami
a mosque in the citadel of Bursa, and that his descendants were still living in the
city. 2 8 Whatever the real origins of these names and toponyms, they clearly
became associated in popular tradition with a legendary Sultan or Sultan's brother
called Alaeddin, and it was perhaps these associations which led A$ikpa§azade to
adopt the "Alaeddin tradition" known to Mihailovid
Nevertheless, the discrepancy between the names Ali Pasha and Alaeddin
Pasha, still puzzled the chronicler Ne§ri. Despite using A§ikpa§azade as a main
source,, and despite being a resident of Bursa and even adding to A$ikpa§azade's
topographical details, he uses both names for Orhan's brother. 29 Eventually, it
was the name Alaeddin Pasha that became fixed in Ottoman tradition, and
twentieth-century historians have usually followed suit.
(it) The apocryphal origins of the dynasty
Canonical Ottoman tradition makes Osman the leader of a pastoral tribe.

This theme is already present in the Anonymous-Orug texts, in the episode where
the Seljuk Sultan Alaeddin grants Osman's father lands for summer and winter
pasture. A§ikpa§azade adopted this tribal motif, working it skilfully into several
episodes of his chronicle. The most notable example is perhaps where Osman
leaves his goods for safekeeping in the fortress of Bilecik when he goes to the
summer pastures and, on his return in the autumn, recompenses its infidel lord
with gifts of cheese, carpets, kilims and Iambs. 30 This presents a vivid and
perhaps realistic portrayal of relations between tribesmen and townsmen. Later
Ottoman historiography continued to present Osman as the leader of a tribe.
The apocrypha, however, have alternative versions of Ottoman "origins",

of which traces remain in the canon. To his Ottoman king-list, Ibn Hajar
26
Barkan and Meriçli, op.cit., p.7, no. 126.
27
Barkan and Meriçli, op.cit., nos. 233. 241.
28
T h i s is confirmed by a record of 1521, noting that the revenues of a village in the sancak of
Bursa belonged to a v a * / i n favour of a certain Mehmed Çelebi "a descendant of Hizir, who is a
descendant of Alaeddin Beg b. Osman". (See l.H.UzunçarçUi, "Alaeddin Paja" in islam
Ansiklopedisi.) Such a claim, if accepted, would presumably bring tax-exemptions and other
privileges.
29
Mehmed Nc$ri (ed. F.R.Unat and M.A.KSymen), Kitab-i Cihamtima, 146-8, 152-4.
•")A$ikpa$azade, op.cit., 5.
128 Colin IMBER
appends the comment: "It is said that their origin is from the Arabs of the
Hijaz", and this tradition does emerge in one Turkish source. Enveri's
Diisturname (cl465) names the Ottoman dynasty's male ancestor as a
Companion of the Prophet called 'Iyad, living in the Hijaz. 31 However, the Hijaz
tradition appears nowhere else. The Historia Turchesca and Mihailovi«? preserve
another tradition which was presumably current among the kapikulu troops.
The Historia Turchesca describes Osman's father, Zich, as "a peasant,

ploughman and tiller of the soil". So too does Mihailovid who calls Otman "a
peasant, a man of humble birth, but an excellent cultivator", and goes on to
describe his estates and workers. This version has disappeared from the canon,
but not entirely without trace. Oruij has the passage: "Ertugrul had three sons,
one called Giindiiz, one called Saru Yati, and one called Osman. Osman was bom
in the land of Rum. He was the youngest. When Osman was small, Ertugrul
made him plough32. Good fortune alighted upon Osman ..." The inconsequential
sentence: "Ertugrul made [Osman] plough" appears to be a relic of the "peasant"
tradition. While most redactors have removed it from the text, as it is clearly
irrelevant to the rest of the story, the redactor here has retained what is obviously
an emended version. In a later passage in the same text, Sultan Alaeddin grants
Ertugrul summer and winter pastures, thus depicting him and his sons as
pastoralists and not as ploughmen. The redactor has therefore added the phrase:
"When Osman was small..." indicating that he had to plough only when he was
a child, before Alaeddin's grant of the pasturelands. In this version, Osman and
his father made a transition from peasant to pastoral nomads.
This single sentence, however, is no more than a fragment of a tradition.
(Hi) The conquests of Osmancik and Bilecik
There is, however, another instance where the tradition of Osman's

peasant origins has influenced the canon, but the material is adapted so skilfully
as to obscure its source. This is A$ikpa;azade's story of how Osman captured
Bilecik. 33 In this tale, the lord of Bilecik plots to kill Osman after inviting him
to a wedding feast. Osman learns of the plot through his Greek companion, Kose
Mihal. He outwits the lord by asking permission to bring his goods to the town
for safe keeping, as was his custom when he went to the summer pastures, and
by persuading the lord, through Kose Mihal, to hold the feast outside the town.
31
Enveri (ed. M.H.Yinanj), DUslurname-yi Emen, Istanbul (1928), 73-74.
3
^This translation is an emendation of this sentence as it appears in the Bodleian and Cambridge
University Library manuscripts transcribed by Babinger. The Bodleian manuscript (Babinger,
p.6) has: Erlugrula Osman käfäcäk ¡ken (¡ft särdürdä. The Cambridge University Library
manuscript (Babinger, p.82) has: Ertugrul Osman ktftik ¡ken (¡ft sürdUrdü.
33
A5ikpa$azade, op.cil., 15-16
Osman hides warriors in the felt wrappings on the oxen bringing his goods into
Bilecik. These men leap out and capture the town. He disguises other warriors as
women coming to the wedding-feast, and lures the lord of Bilecik to his
destruction.
As a commentator has noted, 34 Mihailovicfs account of the fall of

Osmancik has echoes of this tale. In this story, Osman goes in the company of
"another man" to a castle belonging to a widow called Karawida (Kara: Turkish,
"black") or Czernawida (Czema: Slavonic, "black"). This lady humiliated him by
pouring slops over him, and he departed, to return later carrying sacks of grain
for sale. The lady ordered the purchase of the grain, and he commanded fifty
youths to carry it into the castle, with weapons hidden in the sacks. As they
entered the castle, the lady insulted him, calling him "Little Osman"
(Osmancik). On Osman's orders, his servants took the weapons from the sacks,
captured the castle and threw the lady from the tower. From that time, the city
has been called Osmancik.
The purpose of the story is to explain the place-name Osmancik by

giving it a derivation from the personal name Osman. The same motif occurs in
the Historic Turchesca and Spandugnino, although their tales linking Osmancik
with Osman are quite different from Mihailovicfs. The tradition which
Mihailovici draws upon, has understood the final syllable of Osmancik as a
diminutive, and constructed the story accordingly. The lady's insult obviously
reflects the essence of the original anecdote of the fall of Osmancik. However, it
is probable that Mihailovid has conflated this original with what were once
separate anecdotes.
In his account of Osman's reign, Mihailovici links the two main sections,
the first describing Osman's excellence as a cultivator and the second describing
the fall of Osmancik, with the following passage: "That region is called Akyazy,
which means 'White letter' (Czech: Bile Pismo). Not far away there is another
region called 'Black' (Czech: Czema). In that region is a castle. In that castle was
a lady named Karawida..." The "region called 'Black'" must, as the commentator
has noted, correspond to the fortified town called Kara(ca)hisar ("Black fortress"),
whose conquest by Osman has an important place in the canon. Mihailovici
seems to have changed Kara(ca)hisar from a fortress to a district, and probably
confused the story of its capture with the fall of Osmancik. He has also
assimilated elements from the Bilecik story which appears in A§ikpa§azade.
It is not difficult to see how Mihailovici lost Bilecik as a separate name.

He confused the final syllable -cik, which he probably understood as a
diminutive, with the final syllable of Osmancik, while his bilingualism caused
34
S.Soucek in Introduction to Constantine Mihailovii, op.cit.
130 C o l i n IMBER
him to confuse the first element in the name: Bile-. A feature of the story is the
repetition of place- and personal names containing the element "Black" and
"White",35 two of which he gives in both Turkish and Slavonic forms. Bile- in
Bilecik is in form identical to the Czech Bile ("white"), which would be similar
in any Slavonic language. Mihailovid probably therefore assimilated this element
in Bilecik to the element "White" in Bile Pismo/Akyazy, causing the name to
disappear in the process. Having thus lost the name, Mihailovid transferred
elements of the Bilecik story to the the fall of Osmancik.
Lapse of memory may explain the loss of the name Bilecik from
Mihailovitfs narrative, but it does not account for all the divergences between his
tale and A§ikpa§azade's. They have the same central element: the capture of a
fortress after Osman has smuggled in weapons and warriors, and the assassination
of the castellan. But the details of the two stories are very different.
They are, however, related and Mihailovicfs is obviously the older

version. A§ikpa§azade knew the same traditions as Mihailovici and, as his story
of Alaeddin Pasha and the eniik yayas shows, he altered Mihailovkf s apocryphal
material to harmonise with the canon. He evidently did this in his account of the
fall of Bilecik. In Mihailovicfs story, Osman is a peasant who hides weapons in
sacks of grain; but the dominant tradition in the canon, and the one which
A§ikpa§azade followed, was that Osman was a tribesman. Since a nomad would
not bring agricultural produce into Bilecik, A$ikpa$azade adapted the narrative and
made him bring his tribal goods instead. He simply altered the story which
Mihailovid had heard, to make it harmonise with the canon.
It seems, in fact, that Mihailovid combined two stories into a single

narrative. The tale of Karawida and her insulting Osman belongs to the original
Osmancik story. The fact that she was a lady would have magnified the insult,
and so one may assume that she featured in the original anecdote. The details of
how Osman took her castle have, however, been transposed from an originally
separate story of the fall of Bilecik. A$ikpa$azade knew this tale, and adapted it
for his own chronicle, changing Osman from peasant to nomad so as to conform
with the canonical tradition of Ertugrul and Osman as tribesmen.
This feature of Mihailovitfs tale may reflect the Greek toponymy of the Sakarya valey, where
the two neaiby towns of Melagina and Levkai (Turkish: Lefke) correspond closely to the Greek
words melaina (f.sing. "Black") and levkai (f.plur. "white"). The Turkish Karacahisar may be a
caique of Melagina.
(iv) Kifse Mihal
One other detail in Mihailovici may conceivably have its counterpart in

A§ikpa$azade. Mihailovid describes Osman as going to Karawida's castle "with
another man". This detail, as it appears* is quite inconsequential, giving the
impression that Mihailovid knew that Osman had a companion but had forgotten
his name and his part in events. In A§ikpa$azade's story, Osman's companion is
the Greek lord, KSse Mihal, and his role in the story is to act as intermediary
between Osman and the infidels. It is quite likely that Mihailovitfs "other man"
had some such function, which was subsequently lost in the confusion of
narratives, and that A$ikpa§azade adapted the story by identifying him with Kose
Mihal.
Kose Mihal came into A§ikpa§azade via Oru£. These texts, however,
restrict his role to the story — evidently an interpolation in the base text — of
his conversion after the Prophet had appeared to him in a dream and directed him
to join Osman; 36 and to his participation in the siege of Bursa. A§ikpa§azade
adopts the conversion story but transposes it to a different point in the narrative
and also names him in connection with the siege of Bursa. In A§ikpa§azade,
however, Kfise Mihal is far more prominent and receives an identity as the Greek
lord of Harmankaya.
It is likely that Ajikpa§azade invented most of the tales of K6se Mihal

himself. As in the Bilecik story, he frequenly appears in the role of intermediary
between Muslims and infidels, or as a guide on Osman's raids into infidel
territory. A§ikpa§azade probably created this role because the structure of his
narrative required such a figure, and also because it would have sounded realistic
to the akincis who would have formed the audience for his History when he was
in Skoplje in the 1440s and 1450s. They too may have made alliances with
Christians who, like A$ikpa$azade's KSse Mihal, subsequently converted to
Islam.
However, the description of Kose Mihal as lord of Harmankaya was

probably a late addition to A$ikpa$azade's chronicle. All the texts present Mihal
as the ancestor of the Mihaloglu dynasty of Rumelia. The 1521 cadastral register
of the sancak of Bursa notes that a member of this family, Mihaloglu Ah, had
36
For the recensions of this story, see V.L.Ménage, "On the recensions of 'Uraj's History of the
Ottomans", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, XXX, (1967), 314-322.
Several facts point to a Rumelian origin for this story. Oruç himself was a native of Edirne;
Ajikpajazade pursued a career as an akwci in Rumelia; and the MihaloguIJari, of whom KOse
Mihal was the legendary ancestor, were a Rumelian family. The conversion story, where the
Prophet tells Mihal that his descendants "will raise the standard of Islam as far as Hungary"
legitimises the family's role as leaders of the akmcis and suggests that the tradition originated in
abnci circles.
132 Colin IMBER
bought the village of Harmankaya and that Ali's son, Mehmed, possessed it as a
freeholding. 3 7 It does not give the date of the purchase, but it was probably in
Agikpagazade's lifetime. It is tempting to suppose that A§ikpa$azade knew
Mihaloglu Ali personally, as he assigns him a major role in his account of the
Ottoman expedition against Uzun Hasan in 1473, leading to the possible
conclusion that it was from Ali that A§ikpa§azade learned the details of the
c a m p a i g n . 3 8 It is possible, therefore, that he knew of Ali's purchase of
Harmankaya and, in celebration of this acquisition, presented Mihaloglu Ali's
"ancestor", K&se Mihal, as lord of Harmankaya.
(v) Place-names and personal names
The Historia Turchesca and Mihailovid both have stories which make
Osman the eponym of Osmancik. Spandugnino inverts this etymology, to derive
the personal name from the place. In his narrative, the (Seljuk) Sultan Aladim
(=Alaeddin) gives the town of Ottomanzich to the dynastic ancestor, Pazzo, as a
reward for heroism in combat against a Greek enemy. From this town "his
descendants have taken the cognomen of the House of Ottomani". To this story,
Spandugnino adds two further anecdotes. After receiving Ottomanzich, Pazzo
went on to conquer Christian towns, "among which the first was called in Greek
Dimbos, which means in Turkish change in Faith". To this, Spandugnino adds
the comment, "and in truth, his descendants have brought this omen into effect".
He then captures a place called Sar, and keeps the prisoners, "from which the
name Janissary derives, which means in Turkish 'the new ones from Sar' (li
Novi di Sar)".
Here, the Osmancik story provides an etymology for the dynastic name.
The Dimbos story also gives a popular etymology of the place-name, Dinboz,
and from it infers a historical event. It presents the name as deriving from
Turkish din boz- ("to destroy faith"), and creates the story of its conquest in order
to explain the name. The place-name Sar probably never existed, but was inferred
from an element in the term Janissary in an attempt to explain the origin of this
military Corps.
None of these stories appears in the canon. They are nevertheless typical
of the canonical tradition which also creates eponyms and events out of place-
names. In fact, in the passage recounting Osman's distribution of lands to his
family and companions, the canonical texts specifically relate personal names to
toponymy. To the names of Hasan Alp and Turgud Alp, the texts add the
comment: "The names of these gazis are still remembered nowadays", with some
• ^ B a l k a n a n d M e r i n i , op.cii., nos. 540, 556.

38
A5ikpa$azade, op.cit., 176-181.
adding the further gloss that the villages in question are called Turgudeli, after
Turgud Alp.39 The fifteenth- and sixteenth-century cadastral registers confirm that
both Hasan and Turgud were indeed common elements in the (dace-names of the
region which tradition asociates with Osman. There were villages called Hasan
(in the kaza of Gdl), Hasan, Hasanlar, Hasanoglu (in the kaza of G6yniik), Hacci
Hasan (in the kaza of Tarakh Yenicesi) and Hasan Kavagi (in the kaza of
Beypazan); and villages called Turgudca (in the kaza of Tarakli Yenicesi),
Turgudlar (in the kaza of Akyazi), Turgudlar and turgud (in the kaza of
Gftyniik).40 Thus the names Hasan Alp and Turgud, Alf» appear to be eponyms,
as also does the name of another of Osman's warriors, Konur Alp. The
Anonymous-Orus attributes the conquest of Konurpa to this gazi,41 and the
cadastral surveys also record two villages called Konurlar in the kazas of tnegol
and G61 respectively.42 Similarly, the figure of Akfa Koca must have emerged
as an eponym for the sancak of Kocaeli.43
The canon, like the apocrypha, not only created fictitious heroes out of
place-names, but also fictitious events. In A§ikpa§azade's chronicle, the name
Ta§akyazusu ("Testicle Plain") provides the inspiration and setting for the story
of how Sultan Alaeddin castrated the defeated Tatars;44 the village name lte§eni
("Scratched up by dogs") inspired the story of the ignominious burial of the
infidel who killed Osman's brother, Sara Yati.45
In these cases, it is the names of the places rather than their exact
locations which have inspired the creation of persons or incidents. The canon
also has a series of stories, of which one sequence recounts the deaths of Osman's
relatives, which reflect specific sites rather than their names. The Anonymous-
Oru? records the death of Osman's brother (or nephew) Giindiiz, in a battle with
the infidels at Koyunhisar. It adds: "He was buried on the road to Karaca$ehir.
Stones have been piled up around his tomb. Whenever a horse in that district has
colic, they take it round the tomb for three days. With the grace of God Most
in
•"Cf.Oru9b.Adil, op.cil., 12; A§ikpasazade, op.cit.. 20-21.
40
Barkan and Merifli, op.cit., nos. 529, 573/1, 581/3, 581/4, 661/2, 779/6, 785/1, 812/3
817/5, 817/9, 822/9, 836.
4I
C f . Oras b.Adil, op.cil.. 14.
42
Barkan and Merifli, op.cil.. nos. 179, 528.
43
T h e most readily explicable of these toponyms are Durgut/Turgut and Durguteli/Turguteli.
Apart from a reference in Ptolemy (Geography, Book V, chapter 2, paragraph 14) to a place or
people called Dagouta, Constantine Poiphyrogenitus (ed. Niebuhr, Bonn, 1811, Vol. Ill, De
Thematibus, p.25) refers in his description of the Opsikion Theme to a people or district called
Dagotthenoi which, to a Turkish ear, is close to Durgudeli ("Durgut's land"). It is probably these
Greek names which underly Turkish toponyms in the same district, which have Turgud as an
element. The element "Konur" in Turkish toponyms might conceivably reflect the name of the
Byzantine ecclesiastical province of Honorias.
Âjikpajazade, op.cil., 9.
45
Ajikpa$azade, op.cit., 8.
134 Colin IM B ER
High, it recovers. Nowadays, it is called 'the Turk's Grave"1.46 A§ikpa$azade

repeats the story of the battle at Koyunhisar which, however, he places at Dinboz
(in fact, near Koyunhisar). In his version, it is not Giindiiz, but Giindttz's son
Aydogdu who dies. 47 He also relates the story of the death of Bayhoca, son of
Osman's brother Saru Yati, at Ermeni Beli, in a battle against the the infidels of
tnegol. He locates the site of the battle from the site of the tomb: "It is near to
Hamza Bey village, at the place where the Ermeni Beli comes to an end. There is
a ruined caravansaray by his tomb." 48 Saru Yati himself died in a battle near
Ikizce, whose site A§ikpa$azade also identifies: "There is a pine-tree at that site
called Kandillii Qam. It sometimes happens that people see a flame there." 49 It
seems that in all these cases, popular legend had associated local shrines with the
early Ottomans, and stories had grown up to explain the association.50
In the apocrypha it is only the names of places that matter, and not their
location. Stories in the canon indicate a much more precise sense of geography.
Spandugnino, for example, knew a story which derived from the name Dinboz,
but he obviously had no idea where Dinboz actually was. A§ikpa$azade has a
different story about the same place, which he locates accurately. The better
geography of the canon probably reflects the fact that its authors and redactors
were native Turks, who knew both the traditions of the early Ottomans and the
real settings of their supposed exploits, whereas the authors of the apocrypha
were foreigners who heard the traditions, but knew nothing of geography. This
might explain the absence of the Osmancik tradition from the canon. The
canonical writers probably knew these tales, since the association between place
and personal names is typical of their style, but excluded them from their
histories simply because they knew that, geographically, Osmancik is in the
wrong place.
CONCLUSIONS
The canonical and apocryphal accounts of the origins of the Ottoman

Empire share common material, and even where they differ in substance there are
still similarities in form. This suggests that the apocrypha are authentically
Ottoman and appear to have drawn on the same body of originally oral traditions
46
C f . Oni{ b.Adil, op.cit., 13.
Âjikpajazade, op.cit., 21.
48
A;ikpa;azade, op.cit., 5.
49
A;ikpa;azade, op.cit., 8.
'"These legends were clearly very fluid. A§ikpa$azade makes Bay Hoca die at Ermeni Beli and
Aydogdu die at Dinboz, having substituted Aydogdu for the Giindiiz in the Anonymous-Oru{. In a
later incident, however, he sends Orhan on a punitive expedition to avenge the death at Dinboz
not of Aydogdu, but of Bayhoca. This seems to indicate that there were different versions of these
stories which A$ikpa$azade did not completely harmonise.
as the canon. It seems resonable to assume that the ffistoria Turchesca and
Mihailovid represent recollections of these traditions in a form which circulated
among kapiladu troops between cl450 and cl500. Spandugnino appears to have
been more eclectic, using both oral and written sources available to him between
cl500 and 1538. Ibn Hajar's source remains obscure.
Given the authenticity of the apocryphal materials, it is clear that any

study of Turkish tradition concerning the early Ottomans must take them into
account. So too must any historical study which seeks to use Ottoman material
as a source for the early history of the Empire. Historians of Ottoman origins,
for example, should not simply consider the question of whether Osman was a
nomad or gazi, or both, but also the equally plausible possibility that he was a
peasant, as the "kapikulu tradition" asserts or even, on the authority of Ibn
Hajar, a descendant of an Arab from the Hijaz.
However, a more fruitful approach to the materials, both canonical and

apocryphal, might be to admit that their accounts of Osman's "origins" are as
unreliable as their manifestly unhistorical accounts, of his career, and to admit
that they shed no light whatsoever on the origins of the Empire. Instead one
should seek to identify each separate tradition which the authors and redactors
have incorporated into their texts, and to establish when, where, and why each
tradition emerged. Here are some preliminary suggestions:
(1) The picture of Osman as a tribal leader probably arose, as Wittek

claimed, in conjunction with the Oguz genealogy, which justified Ottoman
claims to rulership in terms of the dynasty's senior descent from Oguz Khan.
There is no textual evidence for this claim from before Yazicizade Ali (cl425),
who drew his Oguz "history" from the Persian of Rashid al-Din. Several different
versions of the genealogy emerged during the fifteenth century, and probably
reflect different versions of the Oguz epic, which provided the genealogical
material. All present Osman as the senior descendant of Oguz Khan. 51 The epics
depict Oguz and his descendants as tribal leaders, and so it followed that Osman,
as a descendant of Oguz, had to lead a tribe. The tradition had emerged by the first
quarter of the fifteenth century.
(2) The tradition of Osman as leader of a gazi "coiporation" and of the

gazi origins of the Ottoman state is the formulation of Paul Wittek and dates
from the 1930s. It does not, strictly speaking, derive from the canonical
chronicles, although these do present Osman as a gazi, and this, as Wittek and
others noticed, is at odds with their picture of him as a tribesman. Wittek's proof
text was Ahmedi's History of the Ottoman Kings which may, in an original
version, date from the 1390s. This opens with a discourse on gaza and goes on to
51
Colin Imber, "The Ottoman Dynastic Myth", Turcica, XIX (1987), 7-27.
136 Colin IMBER
depict Osman and his successors as gazis. Ahmedi, however, was not a historian
but a moralist and in any case, his History if anything disproves the theory of
gazi origins. A crucial line runs: "Those servants of religion flowed (aktilar)
against the infidels/ so they gave gaza the name akin".52 This suggests that the
words which Ahmedi heard in everyday usewere actually akin ("raid") and akinci
("raider"), and that he had himself sanctified the terms by giving them the Arabic
forms gaza and gazi, with their implications of "Holy War" and "Holy Warrior".
Warfare was continuous in the fourteenth century and Ahmedi, on behalf of an
Ottoman patron, was simply giving it a pious gloss. His text has no relevance
to the "origins" of the Empire.
The realisation that gazi is a caique on akinci does, however, suggest a

possible source for the gazi element in the canon. A prominent incident in Oru?
is the conversion of (Kose) Mihal and his joining Osman. 5 3 This tradition
presents Mihal as the eponymous ancestor of the Mihaloglu dynasty of Rumelia
which, from the late fourteenth-century or even earlier, provided leaders of the
akmcis on the Rumelian frontier. The prominence of Mihal in the texts suggests
that at least some of the material in them originated among the Rumelian akmcis
who wished to give a prominent place in history to the "ancestor" of their own
leaders. They would also wish to present Osman, Mihal and other heroes in a
guise familiar from their own life as aktncis - or gazis - on the Muslim frontier.
The akinci theme in the Oruij texts would clearly appeal to A§ikpa§azade who, by
his own admission, served as an akinci in the mid-fifteenth century, and must
have developed the stories in his chronicle by telling them to his warrior-
companions. In these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that Osman should
emerge in the guise of a frontier gazi. The theme does not reflect any historical
reality about Osman. It reflects the milieu in which the tradition developed.
The disharmony in the texts between Osman as a gazi and Osman as a

tribesman obviously arose because the redactors have conflated two separate
traditions. The tribal theme emerged with the official promulgation of the Oguz
genealogy during the first quarter of the fifteenth century. The gazi theme
emerged possibly among the Rumelian akincis, probably at about the same time.
Both themes are apparent in Ibn Hajar's "Ottoman history", but with each role
attributed to different Ottoman rulers.
(3) The tradition that Osman or his father were peasants is strongest in the
two "kapikulu texts", and it is conceivable that it arose from the direct experience
of the devfirme men who served in the kapikulu corps. Most of these had
52
Ahmedi (ed. Ismail Dover), tskendername, Ankara (1983), 66a.
" T h i s tradition appears in the Oruf texts, but not in the texts which Giese conflated as Die
Altosmanischen Anonymen Chroniken. The difference may be that the Giese texts reflect
Anatolian, and the Onif texts Rumelian tradition. The Mihaloglu were a Rumelian family.
themselves been peasant boys, and even if not, their first experience of life
training for the Sultan's service, would have been as farm labourers in Anatolia.
They may have imagined the dynasty which they served as rising from a
similarly humble background.
(4) Ibn Hajar reports a tradition that the Ottomans were descended from the
Arabs of the Hijaz. This must reflect the tradition which appears in Enveri, that
the Ottomans were descendants of a Companion of the Prophet.
The only things that are absolutely clear are that no account of Ottoman
origins is historically accurate, and that the Ottoman traditions surrounding the
person of Osman Gazi should be treated with extreme scepticism.
University of Manchester
Halil 1NALCIK
HOW TO READ 'ASHIK PASHA-ZADES HISTORY
I. Notes on 'Ashik Pasha-zade's Life and Work
In his chronicle'Ashik Pasha-zade (hereafter A$kpz.) gives his genealogy

as "Dervish Ahmed 'Ashiki, son of Yahya, son of Selman, son of Bali, son of
'Ashik Pasha, son of Mukhlis Pasha, son of Baba Ilyas, who was one of the
khalifas of Abu' 1-Wafa'" 1
We have A§pz.'s signature at the bottom of the mulkname of Hadji Beg

dated 1 Rabi' 1,891/12 January 14912 as "Fakhr al-mashayikh Ahmed b. 'Ashik
Pasha." In the document, before his name we find the name of Seyyid Welayet
rendered as '"umdat al-Awlad al-Rasul Mawlana Seyyid Welayet bn Al-Seyyid
Ahmad b. Al-Seyyid Abu'l al-Wafa' al-Baghdadi." The name of the kMVasker
Mawlana Wildan Efendi precedes their names. This document is a definitive proof
that A§pz. was still alive on that date. A§pz. says that members of his family are
all called 'Ashiki, and were all born and lived in the territory under the Ottoman
sultans, and the Ottoman dynasty always extended their favors to them.
' l am using ^¡ftfioglu N. Atsiz' edition in his collection of early Ottoman chronicle?, Osmanli
Tarihleri, Istanbul : Tiirkiye Yaymevi 1949, 91 ff„ 188 ; in his edition Atsiz combined earlier
editions by 'All, 'A}ik Paga-zSde Tarihi, Istanbul 1332 H„ and F. Oiese. Die altosmanische
Chrnnik des 'Aliq paSazdde. Leipzig 1929 ; cf. idem, "Die verschiedenen Textrezensionen des
ASiq paSaz&de bei seinen Nachfolgeni und Ausschreibem," Abh. der Preuss. Ak. der Wiss., Phil.-
Hisi. Klasse, Nr. 4; since none of the editions is satisfactory a new critical edition with
appropriate emendations is absolutely necessary (here tire some examples of misreadings:
"Gerekdtir ySr u hemdem ii miinasib" (p. 98) (munasib>mu;dhiby, "Bunun iistadini buldumdu
hakdan" (buldimdi>bildimdi)\ "Osman Gazi yerlii yeriniie kondi" (p.105) (hondi>kndi)\ "Bu Tatar'a
gerfe and verdfik" (p.108), editions skipped over the phrase "anuria Tatar and bekler tii'fe olmaz"
(cf. Neshri, Unat-K6ymen ed. 124). M.F. KOpriiltt, "Ajik Paja-zade," Islam Ansiklopedisi. I,
summarized what was known by his time about Agpz.'s life. On the other hand, the verses,
undoubtedly composed all by A$pz. himself, should be studied independently as they reflect his
own beliefs and views. The main theme in them, however, appears to be the exaltation of the
dynasty.
The fine original roll with Bayezid IPs gold tughra is now in my possession. 1 purchased it from
Cahit Oztelli about twenty-five years ago. I am preparing it for publication; see the photos of the
beginning and the end of the document in the Appendix:.
140 Hal i 1 I N A L C I K
The zaviye of Elvan Qelebi 3 at Mecid&zii near Qorum, where apparently

A§pz. was born and lived in his youth, was located in the area of Mehmed
Qelebi's headquarters in his struggle against his brothers for the Ottoman throne
in the years 1402-1413. Mehmed I's success in gaining the support of the local
Turcoman begs and dervishes in the area seems to have been a key factor for his
final victory over his brothers for the sultanate. In this region, densely populated
by Turcomans since the Danishmendids, babai dervishes including Elvan £elebi
must have had a particularly strong influence. When, in his final confrontation
with his brother Musa, Mehmed I left Bursa in 1413, A§pz. was not able to
accompany him because of his illness. On his way from the Elvan f e l e b i
convent to Bursa A§pz. fell ill at Geyve and stayed in the house of Yakhshi Faki
(Fakih) son of Ishak Faki, the imam of Sultan Orkhan. There, Yakhshi Fakih
gave A§pz. his Menakib-i Al-i 'Osman, an Ottoman history down to Bayezid I
(1389-1402). A$pz. states that "he transmitted (nakl)" the Ottoman history down
to the reign of Bayezid I from this source. 4 After his victory, Mehmed I put
Mikhal-oghlu Mehmed in prison at Tokat. Mikhal-oghlu had supported Musa as
the leader of the udj forces in Rumili against Mehmed £elebi. When in 1422, in
his crucial struggle for the Ottoman throne against his uncle Mustafa, Murad II
sought the support of the well known spiritual leaders of the time, he obtained
the support of Emir Sultan in Bursa. Also he released Mikhal-oghlu Mehmed
from his prison in Tokat. On his way to Murad II's camp on the Ulubad river
Mikhal-oghlu visited the convent of Elvan Qelebi at Mecidozii koyii (also known
as Elvan (Jelebi Koyii) near (Jorum and took A§pz. with him. Elvan was
venerated as one of the leading walls in Anatolia. 5 Evidently A§pz.'s presence in
the young Sultan's army was believed to be a support for his cause. This may
indicate the special favor A§pz. was going to enjoy with the dynasty from that
time on.
Ôn Elvan (Jelebi and his zàviye see Isiàm Ansiklopedisi (hereafter I 701-708; Semavi Eyice,
"Conim'un Mecidòzii'nde Àjik Pa§a-oglu Elvan Celebi Zàviyesi," Turkiyat Mecmuasi, XV (1969).
219-226; for Mehmed I see "Mehmed 1, " (H lnalcik). Encyclopaedia of Islam, second edition
(hereafter EI2).
4
S e e Ajpz., Atsiz ed., 91, 106. 148; on Yakhshi Faki (Fakih)'s family see H.N. Orkun, "Yah$i
Fakih ... " Derg&h, VII, 107, and MOG, II, 320 ; V. L. Ménage, "The Menàqib Yakhshi Fakih,"
BSOAS, XXVI (1963) Yakhshi's family were favored by Ottoman Sultans since Orkhan's time; an
offical record published by Barkan, 1st. Oniv. iktisat FakUItesi Mecmuasi, II-2, 243, shows that
Yakhshi Fakih inherited from his grandfather a w o t / l a n d originally granted by Sultan Orkhan, at
Geyve; approved by Biyezid 1 and Mehmed I the waif is confirmed later on for Yakhshi Fakih's son
Mehmed by the diplomas of Mehmed II and Bayezid II. Yakhshi Fakih's menakibnàme must have had
the characteristics of the popular epic style, which combined genuine historical information with
folk stories from various origins, Turcoman or Greek. Instead of dismissing menakibnames as
pure legends efforts should be made to sift the historical message and information from them.
Shikari's dynastic history of the Karamanids is another example of the genre.
5
Eyice, art.cil., 212; see now A Y. Ocak's introduction to Elvan's Menàkib mentioned in note 38
below.
HOW TO READ ' A S HI K PASHA-ZÄDE 141
A$pz. was bom in 795/1392-1393, apparently at Elvan Qelebi village,

and lived there among the dervishes until in 1422 Mihal-oghlu took him to join
Sultan Murad II. A§pz.'s detailed reports on the events which occured in the zone
of Amasya and £orum and on Yorgiic Pasha's activities in the area as governor
of Amasya in the period 825-828/1422-1424 suggest 6 that A§pz. returned and
lived in the convent of Elvan £elebi in this period. Ajpz. states that he
participated in all of Murad l i s campaigns and whatever he writes about the
Sultan comes from his personal observations. He went to Mecca to fulfill his
religious duty as a Pilgrim in 840/1436 and on his return home next year we find
him in Uskiib with the famous udj beyi Ishak, participating in ghaza raids.
Apparently he was present at the siege of Constantinople, although there is no
clear evidence about being settled there afterwards. After the conquest of Istanbul
Sultan Mehmed must have been particularly content to host the descendant of
•Ashik Pasha in his capital since the bitter rival of his house, the Karamanids
were associated with Baba Ilyas' descendants from the beginning.7
In 861/1457, according to the wakfiyya of the Conqueror's mosque 8

A§pz.'s home was located at the Unkapani Qarjisi, adjacent to the house of the
famous scholar and first kadi of Istanbul, Khodja-zade. He is referred to in this
document as '"Ashik Pasha-oghlu al-Hadj Ahmed." The evidently large house of
his in the quarter of Unkapani passed later into the possession of the Kurkdju-
Bashi, who used to pay a rent (mukata 'a) to the treasury at an annual rate of 48
akga. This detail can be taken as a proof that the house was originally a
Byzantine structure. A$pz. had another house in the quarter of the Uskiibi
Mescidi near Unkapani. He owned another house in the quarter of Saru-Demirci,
which came into the possession of the Grand Vizir Piri Pasha, by 926/1519-20
and was endowed as a wakf by him.9
According to another wakf record dated 1473, 10 A§pz. owned depots and
shops in the business district of Galata. He had to pay, for example, a rent
(mukata'a) to the Sultan's treasury for a shop in the Al-Hadj Hamza quarter in
6
A$pz„ Atsiz ed. 166-171 ; cf H. Hiisameddin, Amasya Tarihi, HI, Istanbul (1927), 198-201.
7
See Ocak, Menäkib. (The text; Ajpz. visited Zeyniyye shaykh 'Abd al-Latif-i Makdisi in Konya on
his ways back from Mecca in 841/1437. On the Conqueror A§pz. (p. 195) wrote: "'Äshiki, you
should write the menäkib of this Khan; he has given to you so much of gold and silver." On the
Zeyniyye see H. J. Kissling, "Einiges über den Zeintje-Orden im osmanischen Reiche," Der
Islam, 39 (1964), 154-179.
®On this wakfiyya's various versions see, "Istanbul" (H. Inalcik) El2, IV, 244; for references to
A$pz. in a sixteenth century Turkish version of the wakfiyya see, Fatih Mehmed Vakftyeleri,
Ankara: Vakiflar Genel Müd. 1938, 79-81, 127, 232.
9
S e e Ayasofya Evkäfi Defteri, dated 926 H„ Belediye Library, Istanbul, Muallim Cevdet Kitaplan,
no 64, 227; for the quarters of Unkapani, Üskiibi (Üsküblii), Mimar Sinan and Sara Demirci, (Saru
Timurcu) around 1480, see the map in E.H. Ayverdi, Istanbul Mahalleleri, fehrin Iskäm ve
Nttfusu, Istanbul 1958.
" V o r this particular wakfiyya see note 8.
142 Halil INALCIK
Galata, which had been state property since the conquest. What is clear from
these documents is that the A$pz. possessed several properties in Istanbul and
Galata and paid mukafa'a (rent) for them to the treasury.
According to an official register of the wakjs of Istanbul, 11 a mosque and

a convent called 'Ashik Pasha mesdjidi ve Zaviyesi were built by the eunuch
HUseyin Agha of the Old Palace (Saray-i 'Atik) in the quarter of Mi'mar Sinan
the Elder already under Mehmed II.
In the year 908 /1502 Huseyin Agha added new endowments, consisting
of houses and shops in Istanbul and Galata. The supervision of the awkafwas
given to the Shaykh of the convent.
In view of the last event in the A§pz. chronicle occuring in the year
908/1502 and of the new endowements made in November in the same year, it
may be supposed that A$pz. died in 1502.
The author of an anonymous chronicle, when speaking about its source

on Ede-Bali says: 12 "The source of this information is a very old dervish by the
name of Ahmed 'Ashiki, a hundred years old. He survived down to the time of
our Sultan (Bayezid II). His family line included such illustrious figures as Baba
Ilyas, Mukhli? Pasha, 'Ashik Pasha and Elvan Qelebi". A§pz. was the shaykh of
the 'Ashik Pasha Zaviyesi in the quarter of Mi'mar Sinan. By 876/1471 however
Ashik Pasha Zaviyesi was called Baba Saltuk Zaviyesi (or Mescidi) bearing the
name of the famous Turcoman Baba Saltuk who had migrated with a group of
Turcoman clans to Dobruja in the 1260's. It is interesting that A§pz. chose this
place to settle with his dervishes, who occupied the rooms around the convent.'^
The Shaykh of the zaviye received a daily stipend of five akga by 963/1555.
The large convent (khanikah) belonging to Seyyid Welayet, the son-in-

law of A§pz„ was located in the same quarter. A register of Istanbul awkaf6,
contains a wakf made by the daughter of A§pz. and wife of Seyyid Welayet, dated
Djumada II, 934/March 1528. She built eight rooms in the inner court of the
convent of 'Ashik Pasha for the use of "able" madrasa students in need. Rich
endowments were made to it and the khaniluih by several people including Fatma
u
Istanbul Vakiflan Tahrir Defteri, 953/1546 Tarihli, eds. Û.L.Barkan and E.H. Ayverdi, Istanbul
1920, nos. 1434, 1480, 1626-1645, 1713, 2510.
12
MS, Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, Supplément turc 1047, 6 b - 7 a.
13
For an official reference to the 'Ashik Pasha Zaviyesi in 1012/1603, see Barkan and Ayverdi
176; for a description of the zàviye see R. E. Koçu, Istanbul Ansiklopedisi; for the relation of
Bâbà Saltuk to Kalenderi/Abdal shaykhs and Bibâis, see A.Y. Ocak, Kalenderiler, XIV-XVII.
YUzyiliar, Ankara: TTK 1992, 69-74.
]4
Istanbul Vakiflan Tahrir Defteri, mentioned at note 11, p. 278, no 1644. The editors' reading
mûslefldin may be corrected to musla'idin, "those showing ability".
HOW TO READ 'ÀSHIK PAS H A-ZÀDE 143
Sultan, also Iqiown as Sufi Sultan Khàtun.' 5 In her wakftyya, dated Djumàda II,
907/November 1501, she stipulated that on Friday nights the readers of the
Qur'an and dervishes (zakir) assemble in the presence of Seyyid Welàyet and pray.
TTie supervision (neiaret) of the mosque is given to the Shaykh himself. In 1546
his function belonged to Mustafa Qelebi son of Seyyid Welàyet. 16
Seyyid Welàyet is known in the sultan's court as "dàmàd-i veled-i 'Àshik

Pasha." 17
From the references to A§pz. in the archival documents 18 we also learn

that "Veled-i 'Àshik Pasha" was a member of the "djamà'at of miiteferrika and
zawàyid-khóràn" of the awkàf of the Conqueror's 'imàret. He had a daily stipend
of seven okâ in 6 Rabì' II, 897/ 6 February 1492 (in other words, in his own
time A$pz. was known as either Ahmed 'Àshiki, used rather as pen-name, or
Veled-i 'Àfik Pa}a). The group known as miiteferrika in thè Palace included "the
distinguished ones", accompanying the Sultan at the ceremonies, such as the
sons of vassal princes, pashas and famous ulema',
In 909/1503-1504 Sultan Bàyezid II gave a sadaka (alms and gifts) to

Dervish Ilyàs son of Àshik Pasha [zade] among the venerable religious people of
Istanbul" and to "Seyyid son-in-law of Veled-i 'Àshik Pasha".19
A;pz.'s Menàkib-i Al-i 'Osman
A§pz. is the author of a Menàkib-i Al-i 'Osmàn. Such menàkìbnàmes

were designed to be read and listened by groups during military campaigns, in
toza-houses or in other meeting places. 20 In one place A§pz. addresses himself to
the ghazis, saying:21 "O ghazis, all these menakibs which I composed are based,
I swear on God, on the knowledge and sources which I personally reached; do not
think I have written from nothing." On several occasions he asserts that he
examined and "summarized" books of mendkib or reported events which he
personally observed or heard. "When people," he says, "read or listen to the deeds
of the Ottoman sultans, they make their prayers on their souls." 22 Begun in the
lS
!bid„ p. 275, no. 1629, 1630 and 1631.
i6
lbid„ p. 275, no. 1631, on Seyyid Welayetee note 61 below.
i7
Defter-i MUsewedat-i In'am, ed. t>,L. Balkan, Belgeler IX -13 (1979). 329-350.
18
"Fatih Cami ve lmareti Tesislerinin 1489-1490 Yillanna Sit Muhasabe Bilanfolan, "O.L.
Barkan, Iktisal FakUltesi Mecmuasi (Istanbul), XXIH, 319; for the date see the facsimile.
19
O.L. Barkan, "Istanbul Saraylanna dair Muhasebe Defterlen," Belgeler, X, 329-350.
20
F. Kdpriilii, "MenSkibnimeler," Tiirkiyat Mecmuasi. The word menkiba in the Turkish of the
fifteenth century stands for "deeds" both in religious and lay meanings.
2
''All ed. 35.
22
Atsiz ed, 200.
144 Hal i 1 INALCIK
year of 881/1476 when Mehmed II left Istanbul for his campaigin against Bogdan
(Moldavia)23, Ajpz. wrote Ottoman history down to the surrender of Iskenderiye
in Albania in 883. 24
As noted above, A§pz. tells us that his source on early Ottoman history
was a chronicle written by Yakhshi Faki son of Ishak Faki. Ishak Faki was an
imam to Sultan Orkhan. Yakhshi Faki's lost work on Ottoman history, A$pz.
tells us, comprises events down to the reign of Bayezid I (1389-1402), but,
A§pz. says, he added the things which came to his knowledge through personal
experience in seeing and hearing (biliip ifitdiigiimden, ban hallerinden ve
makallerindenj.25
Those who asked A§pz. to write the history of the Ottoman dynasty were
a group of 'azlz. The word 'auz is generally used in the Turkish of that time as a
term for dervishes. Thus, the audience which he had in mind in writing his book
must have been in the first place the dervishes, primarily those belonging to the
Wafa'iyya order.
He says his purpose was to tell about Ottoman family's origins (neseb wa
nesl, afl), their original country, migration and conquests. But also one of his
main purposes, we shall see later, was to demonstrate how the Wafa'i khalifa
Ede-Bali and his own family played a crucial role in the establishment and rise of
the Ottoman dynasty.
Ajpz.'s work is deeply influenced by and reflects the violent conflicts

between the elite and the state, which arose as a result of the Conqueror's radical
measures in taxation and landholding during his reign. It can be said that these
disputes in which A$pz. himself was personally involved, lend his history a
strong polemical character. When disputing he did not hesitate to present the
facts in the direction of his arguments, and in order to criticize the Conqueror's
policies he chose the Sultan's forefathers as examples, praising emphatically
their good acts and policies. To be able to sift historical facts and original
statements from his sources we have to ascertain clearly these controversial
issues in his book.
^ I b i d . , 114 : writing under Mehmed II (1451-1481) Ajpz. 192, repeated in his work stories
against Qandarli Khalil whereas Neshri, writing under Bayezid II (1481-1512), when the fandarli
family was rehabilitated, omitted them, see V.L. Minage, NeshrVs History of the Ottomans, The
Sources and Development of the Text, London: OUP, 1964.
24
A t s n ed. 230.
Âpparently, Ajpz.'s history which he said (p. 254) consisted of 160 chapters comes to the
year 883/1478 and was completed in 885/1480 before the expeditions of Rhodes and Otranto (p.
230). Then he added the section on biographies, (230-249) in 886/1481 when Mehmed II died.
Being a dervish himself he added a section on the origin of the "sufis of Ardabil" in 908/1502
(252, 254) when Shah Isma'il captured Tabriz and became a threat to the Ottomans; then a final
chapter on various calenders is added.
HOW TO R E A D ' ÀS HI K P A S H A - Z À D E 145
The background to these issues is the radical changes in state policy under
the Conqueror. 26 For his imperial policy, the Conqueror wanted to increase his
military forces and expand his revenues: while in order to create his centralist
autocracy he attempted to reduce the power of those groups capable of offering
resistance, principally the ulema and the old "aristocratic" families. Trusting in
his great charisma as Abü'1-Fath, or the Conqueror of Kostantiniyya al-Kubrá,
Mehmed could eliminate first the powerful £andarli family from the government.
Also, he succeeded in reducing to a closer dependence the old frontier beg families
of Rumili. In order to establish his full control in state affairs, the Conqueror
brought to the most important positions his palace kuls, and favored the
members of the old Byzantine aristocratic families in state finances. As tax
farmers of the principal state revenues 27 the latter were to become the target of
bitter attacks by A$pz,
One of the delicate issues in connection with the Conqueror's efforts to

find new sources of revenue was the mukáta'a, or rent imposed upon the
Byzantine houses and plots acquired by the treasury after the conquest of
Istanbul. 2 8 The contemporary historian Tursun Beg informs us how the
conflicting decisions of the Sultan on the matter caused widespread discontent and
confusion among the elite and people at large. 29 We have seen earlier that A$pz.
owned such properties, for which he had to pay rent to the Treasury. A§pz.
accused Rum Mehmed Pasha of the re-introduction of the rent on such
properties,30 and said:
he was the son of an infidel and became very intimate with the Sultan,
and one of his viziers. The infidels from the old [Byzantine] families were
his father's friends. They warned him saying: 'look these Turks have
succeeded in reconstructing this city [of ours] and populating it; you have
to do something. They took our country and possess it in front of us.
Since you are now a favourite of the Sultan, you can do something which
would prevent this people from the reconstruction and settlement so that
the city will remain in our hands as before'. The Vezir replied: 'Let us
bring back the muk.ata'a which was imposed previously, so that this
people will give up building their miilk properties and the city will
remain in ruins and eventually in our hands. One day, on an occasion, the
26
I n general, see "Meljmed II," (H. Inalcik), M , Fasc 75 (1969) 531-535.
27
H . Inalok, "Notes on N. Bcidiceanus Translation of the Kànûnnàme, fonds turc ancien 39,
Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris," Der Islam, vol. 43/1-2 (1967), 154-157; Idem, "The Greek
Merchants, 1453-1500," Festschrift Speros Vryonis (forthcoming).
28
H . tnalcik, "The Policy of Mehmed II Toward the Greek Population of Istanbul and the
Byzantine Buildings of the City," Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 23-25 (1969-1970), 231-240.
29
T u r s u n Beg, The History of Mehmed The Conqueror, eds. H. Inalcik and R. Murphey,
Minneapolis: Bibliotheca Islamica 1, 1978, 53b-54b.
30
A$pz., ed Atsiz, 193.
146 Hal i 1 1NALCIK
Vezir was able to put this idea into the Sultan's head and made him to
bring back the mukata'a [on the plots and old houses]. They sent one of
the deceiving infidels [as surveyor] together with a deceiving kul whose
new name was a Muslim name. Whatever that infidel said, the kul
followed it and registered it [in the mukata'a register]. Now, tell us who
was this Vezir. It was Rum Mehmed who was responsible for the re-
imposition of the mukata'a which is still in force. Because of this
mukata 'a people gave up the reconstruction and began to leave the city.
In his history, on every occasion, A&pz. displays his hostility to Rum

Mehmed pasha, 31 who actually did good services for the Sultan, particularly in
the conquest of the Greek island of Agriboz (Euboea), and also built a beautiful
mosque at Uskiidar. Rum Mehmed, A§pz. claims, was also responsible for the
discontinuation of the Sultan's gifts to the state notables, ulema and shaykhs.
A§pz. ends his remarks about him in the a most revengeful words, saying: "In
the end they strangled him as a dog."
In the last years of his sultanate, especially following his great victory
over Uzun Hasan in 1473, the Conqueror did not hesitate to carry out radical
reforms in landholding by subjecting to a revision throughout his empire all the
miilk and wakf lands in the hands of the old Turkish families and religious
groups, including hundreds of the zaviye wakfs belonging to the old shaykhly
families. Tursun Beg, who was personally involved in the revision and
abrogation (naskh) operation as a director in the finance department, testifies that
over twenty thousand villages, 32 mezra'as and giftliks were confiscated for the
state Treasury and distributed as timars to the military. Given the size of the
operation this was a revolutionary measure and shook Ottoman society as a
whole. Affecting Ottoman politics deeply, it became the principal issue for the
following decades. One can see the significance of the operation in Ottoman
society through the tahrir registers of Bayezid II where hundreds of wakf and
miilk lands were returned to their former owners. In fact, Bayezid's reign
constituted a total reaction to the Conqueror's policies in all state affairs, in
particular in landholding. In contemporary works Bayezid was greeted as "the
restorer of the Shari'a," or actually as one who restored the means of support to
the ulema and shaykhs. People made him a wall A§pz. underlines Bayezid II's
act of justice in returning the wakf and miilk villages to their former
possessors. 3 3 By this act, he points out, Bayezid put an end to the old
innovations and illegal (batil) dispositions.
31
A$pz; ed, 216-218, 243.
32
T h e History mentioned in note 29, 28 a; but in another place, p. 169 a, the number of the
abrogated miilk and wakfs was given as only one thousand. The second figure may stand for
villages only.
33
S e e "Mehmed II." (H. Inalcik), M, VII, 533.
HOW TO R E A D ' ÁS HIK PASHA-ZÁDE 147
The discontent and protest was particularly strong among the shaykhs and
dervishes who had lost their means of subsistence and wakfs for their convents.
The following story in A§pz. should be interpreted in this context.
A§pz. describes 'Osmán Beg as a simple man comparable to a shepherd or

dervish, telling us that at his death 'Osmán Ghazi left no silver or gold, but only
a caftan (tekele), a shouldersack (yancuk), containers of salt and spoons and a
pair of boots, several horses and herds of sheep. 34 Mehmed the Conqueror's harsh
financial measures to fill up his treasury for the continuous campaigns and
reconstruction of his new capital had put the country under such a strain (and
affected A§pz.'s life) that it is easy to see why our dervish historian gives such a
description of 'Osmán Beg. What is surprising is that modern historians took it
at its face value and built up theories on the beginings of the Ottoman state.
II. Ede-Bali and Osman Ghazi
Another story which has confused modem historians concerns the

relationship between 'Osman and Shaykh Ede-Bali.
In a special chapter {Bab 4) A§pz. relates 'Osmán Gházi's dream in

Shaykh Ede-Bali's home and the Shaykh's interpretation that 'Osmán's offspring
are destined to rule over the world. This is a topos of medieval literature for the
legitimation of the origin of dynasties. But what is historically true and
important is that A§pz. gives this role to a well-known khalifa of his own
Wafa'iyya order, who actually lived in 'Osmán's time. Revealing God's favor for
'Osmán, Ede-Bali said "my son 'Osman, be it good news that God granted you
and your descendants the pádisháhhk. Congratulations, now my daughter
Malkhatun has become a lawful wife for you."
Actually, the belief that God favors a man for sovereignty and reveals it
through a holy man, a shaman or saint, goes back to a Central Asiatic Turco-
Mongol tradition. The Ottoman Sultans, challenged by rival dynasties—the
Timurids, Kadi Burhán al-Din and the Karamanids in particular—felt compelled
to assert the divine origin of their authority as the tradition required. A$pz.
endeavours to demonstrate that such a function was fulfilled by Ede-Bali. But,
who was Ede-Bali ?
Here is a full translation of A§pz. biographical note about Ede-Bali. 35
34
Atsiz ed., 115. Ajpz, 232-234, 247, argues against a ruler's amassing a large treasury with
gold and silver.
35
Ats>z ed. 96, 105 ; cf. Tashkopriilii-zade. Shakii'ik, see note 61 below.
148 Hal i 1 1NALCIK
Ede-Bali lived for one hundred and twenty five years. He married
two women, one in his youth, the other in his old age. He gave his
daughter from his first wife to 'Osman. His second wife, whom he
married in his old age, was the daughter of Tadj al-Din Kurdi. Since the
other daughter of Tadj al-Din was given in marriage to [Qandarli] Khalll,
Ede-Bali and [£andarli] Khayr al-Din became bacanaks. I heard this news
from Mahmud Pasha, son of Ede-Bali, who lived under Sultan Meluned
son of Sultan Murad. This Mahmud Pasha lived for over one hundred
years. Later, when 'Osman captured Bilecik, he bestowed on his father-in-
law the revenue of the town as timdr.
According to the Ottoman archival records 36 there was indeed a Shaykh

named 'Ede' in 'Osman's time who received favors from him.
Here are translations of the records of the awkaf of the zjaviye (convent) of
'Ede' in Bilecik.
I. The record, dated 892/1487, reads:
The village Koz-Agaci is a wakf given by ' O s m a n Beg ;

previously in the possession of Mahmud Pa§a son of Ede, it is now in the
possession of Shaykh Mehmed : Households 17 (8 fifts). Also [among
the wakfe) there are three unbelievers [slaves] living at Sogiid, again given
by 'Osman Beg: 4 households (3 gifts).
Revenues are as follows :
Mud Value [in akçaj

Wheat 20 1000
Barley 15 450
Chick-peas 30
fi/r-tax and sheep
tax 60
Tithes from cotton 100
Poll-tax 40
TOTAL 1680
(one mud equals 512 kg)
36
HOdavendigâr Lìvasi Tahrir Deflerleri, I, eds. Ö. L. Bukan and E. Meriçli, Ankara: TTK 1988.
282.
HOW TO R E A D ' AS HI K PASHA-ZADE 149
II. The record in the survey of 1521 reads:
The village of Koz-aga; is a wakf given by Orkhan Beg to the

convent of Ede Shaykh ; in the record taken from the survey book
prepared for Kirmasti it was found in the possession of Mehmed son of
Ede Shaykh. It is stated in the early survey book that he is holding the
confirmation diploma from the Sultan. It states that the aforesaid Mehmed
should be the shaykh of the aforesaid convent, hold the aforesaid village as
a wakf and fulfill the provisions of the wakf deed, serving the travellers
coming to and going from the convent. Hie offspring of the endowed
unbeliever slaves were found still keeping their Christian faith in the wakf
village, paying 200 akfe for poll-tax.
The mezra'a of Kozca was also a wakf property of the convent of Ede
from 'Osman Beg with a revenue, toward the end of the fifteenth century, of 298
[akga]. It was transformed into a village when the villagers of Koz-aga? came and
settled there.
We learn from the above records that Shaykh Mehmed, grandson of Ede
was alive under Mehmed II, and that the trust of the waif then passed to a certain
Mu'min Dede (or Pakih). Apparently Ede's descendants had expired by 1521. By
1573 the village population abandoned the village to settle in a mezra'a. The
deserted land of Koz-Aga? is then cultivated by a group of piyade (yaya) militia.
In the official records we have only the name of 'Ede', not Ede-Bali. That
Ede and Ede-Bali37 are the same person is clear from the fact that Shaykh
Mahmud is mentioned by A§pz. as the son Ede-Bali who, he said, lived in the
reign of Mehmed I (1402-1421). In his youth A§pz. met Mahmud and collected
information about Ede-Bali and his relatives.
Thus, the family tree of Ede-Bali can be established as follows.
Shaykh Ede-Baii or Ede Shaykh (living under 'Osman and Orkhan)

Shaykh Mahmud Pasha (living under Orkhan through Mehmed I's time)
Shaykh Mehmed (living under Mehmed II and Bayazid II)
In brief, the official records confirm that Ede-Bali, also known as Ede
Shaykh, had a zaviye in Bilecik, for which he received as wakf from 'Osman Beg
the village of Koz-agaci (or Koz-aga^) and the mezra'a of Kozca in the kada of
Sogiid. In these records, however, there is nothing particular which confirms his
'Ece, from Mongol, means an elderly person, chief, master, notable. In fifteenth century
Ottoman Turkish it is rendered in the forms of ece and ede with the same connotations. Bali is a
personal name widely used in the Ottoman Turkish of the period.
150 Halil 1NALCIK
being father-in-law of 'Osman Beg, and, the wakf revenues are quite modest,
altogether only 1680 akfa in the early records. 38
Completed in 700/1300, Elvan £elebi's Mendkibname39, telling us the

deeds and silsile of the Babai Shaykhs, mentions Shaykh 'Bali' or 'Ede-Bali' as
one of the well known khalifas of Baba Ilyas, the founder of the Babai order.
Elvan mentions him as leading the atheists and unbelievers to salvation

by his penitence. Elvan adds that Ede-Bali and Hadji Bektash were both the
followers of Baba Resul, and that Ede-Bali learned from Hadji Bektash not to
covet worldly power. Until then, Babai shaykhs, Baba Ilyas, and Mukhlis Pasha
had openly claimed to control both the spiritual and material worlds, as the sufi
doctrine of kutb-i 'alem in Babaiyye and Kalandariyye preaches. This note on
Ede-Bali fits well Ajpz's description of him as a holy man supporting 'Osman's
sovereign power. The Wafa'i shaykh Seyyid Weiayet under Mehmet II embodied
this close cooperation between shaykh and sultan with growing sunni accent
while in the same period an authentic abdall kalandari shaykh, Otman Baba,
openly claimed dominion of both the material and spiritual worlds 40 . The change
can perhaps be explained by the fact that by the lime of Mehmed the Conqueror
the Ottoman sultans were coming increasingly under the influence of urban sunni
ulema' and were no more like those Turcoman Begs who had venerated the abdal-
type dervishes and were little differentiated from their Turcoman frontier ghazis.
However, from the beginning, unlike the shaman-like abdals, the Wafa'i
dervishes were known as faithful observers of the Shari'a. This can clearly be
seen in 'Ashtk Pasha's Gharibname.41 Also, speaking of the khalifas of the
Babai Shaykhs Elvan underlines that they were both "knowledgeable in and
observers of the Shari'a and gnostic in mystical perception and practice."
Ahmed Y. Ocak has shown that the militant shaykh Baba Ilyas, also
known as Baba Resul, was one of the shaykhs in Anatolia of the Wafd'iyya order
founded by Seyyid Abu'l-Wafa' of Baghdad (died in 1107).42 Although after Baba
38
0 n the historical authenticity of Osman Beg's relationship with Ede-Bali see I. Mélikoff, Sur
les traces du soufisme turc. Recherches sur l'Islam populaire en Anatolie, Istanbul. Éditions Isis,
1992, 134.
19
Menâkibuï -Kudsiyye fi Menâsib'l Onsiyye, eds. I.E. Eriinsal and A.Y. Ocak Istanbul 1984,
168-169.
^ H . Inalcik, "Dervish and Sultan : An Analysis of the Otman Baba Vilâyetnâmesi " The Middle
East and the Balkans under the Ottoman Empire, Bloomington 1993; in A Y. Ocak who devotes a
whole chapter (Ch. 2, 141-174) to the doctrine of kalenderis in his Kalendetiler (see note 13) does
not deal with this central doctrine of qufbiyya in their belief system. On the sunni character of the
wafà 'iyya see Krupp, mentioned in note 61, 54-55. On conformism and anti-conformism with the
tarifas in general see I. Mélikoff, op. cit., 139-150, 122-124.
41
S e e M. F. Kôprillfl, "Âsik Paja," M, 704-706.
4
*ia révolte de Baba Resul ou la formation de l'hétérodoxie musulmane en Anatolie au XIII '
siècle, Ankara 1989, see in particular, 53-57, 75-131; also Eriinsal and Ocak, Menâkib, LXXIV;
HOW TO READ 'ASHIK PASHA-ZADE 151
Ilyas a Babai tarika appears to have been in the way of formation the family
down to A§pz. was known as belonging, primarily, to Wafa'iyya order.
By contrast, combining Central Asiatic shamanistic beliefs with

popularized pantheistic formulas, originally expounded by such great Sufis as
Muhyi al-Din ibn al-Arabi. Djemal al-Din Sawi and Djelal al-Din Rumi,
Turcoman abdal babas, believed that "the Pole of the Age" ( K u t b - i Zaman)
possessed an absolute control over the things and events in this world and in the
heavens. 4 3 They claimed to embody welayat we nubuwwet, sainthood and
prophethood, in their person. It is believed that in a continuous state of ecstasy
(djazba) they were in constant communication with God. To use Max Weber's
term the "mystagogue", challenging temporal authority, became the refuge and
hope of the unprivileged and oppressed members of society. They professed that
the time would come when "The Pole of the Age" would decide to take direct
control of the worldly sultanate, as attempted in the uprisings of Baba Ilyas,
Mukhlis Pasha, Shayk Badr al-Din and Shah Isma'il. 44 It was only through Shah
Isma'il that the ambition was finally accomplished in Iran, with the support of
the heterodox Turcomans. The Sultans became permanently suspicious of the
popular shaykhs who gathered large groups of followers around them. The
Ottoman sultans tried either to eliminate, or to attract and make dependent,
through grants of wakfs, such popular shaykhs. 45 In 1492 a dervish of the ftshitk
type attempted to kill Bayezid II during his campaign in Albania, which
precipitated a mass execution and deportation of this type of dervish in Rumili,
who found refuge and support with the frontier (udj) begs.
Conversely, conformist dervishes gave their full support to the Ottoman

dynasty by claiming sainthood for the sultan himself. A§pz. presents Murad I as
a true wall favored by God an adds saying "this Ottoman dynasty is such a family
that their miraculous deeds are apparent" 4 6 It was not just a literary expression
that the Ottoman Sultans Murad I, Bayezid II, Suleyman I and Murad III were
elevated to the stature of a wall. The poet Ta$licali Yahya, following the
tradition, wrote these verses for Suleyman the Magnificent: "He is the sahib-
kiran of this world; he is exalted with miracles; he is the ruler over people and
the shadow of God; in fact he is the absolute wali".47
on Kalandariyya in Anatolia now see A.Y. Ocak, Kaknderiler 61-137; Ilyas could not be a khalifa
of A b u ' l - W a f a ' as A§pz. claimed, see Krup, op. cit., 8-10. M.F. Kopriilii, "Abdal," Turk Halk
Edebiyallt Ansiklopedisi, 1, Istanbul 1935, 23-56.
43
S e e H. Inalcik "Dervish and Sultan" mentioned in note 39.
"^Shah Isma'il (Khatayi) wrote: 'Iki 'alemde sultandir kalender," cited by Ocak, Kalenderiler, 158.
45
S e e "Murad II" (H. Inalcik), M , Fasc. 86, 611.
46
A t s i z ed. 132, 246.
4
ÔI ki sahib-kirin-i 'alemdir
Her keramiit ile miikerremdir
Vali-yi halk u siye-yi hakdir
152 Halil 1NALCIK
In other sections of his history A$pz. further tries to demonstrate that Ede-
Bali played a key role in the establishmet of the Ottoman dynasty and state. He
notes that under 'Osman Beg he was consulted on various crucial matters
concerning Islamic law. 48 For example, upon the conquest of Karaca Hisar
Tursun Fakih consulted Ede-Bali whether it was necessarry to obtain the Seljukid
Sultan's approval to read the khutba in the name of 'Osman and appoint a kadi,
since in Islamic tradition it was the exclusive right of the Imam-Sultan to
appoint a khatib and a katfi as his representatives, over the community.
Thereupon, 'Osman, A§pz. adds, interfered arguing that he alone had the right to
make the appointments himself since, he said, he conquered the town with his
own sword and that God who gave the Seljukid ruler the sultanate granted
Osman khanship through leadership in ghaza (ghamyile khanlifk). If, he said, the
Sultan claims that he made 'Osman a beg by conferring him a sancak (the
symbol of political authority), 'Osman says: "I myself carried the sancak of
ghazd and fought against the unbelievers. And, if the sultan says that he is of
[the imperial] house of the Seljukids I say I am a descendent of Gok Alp. If the
sultan says that they came into this country before them, I say that my great
grandfather Suleymanshah arrived before them."
Imperial ancestry and ghaza were the two principal claims to dynastic
legitimation and recognition for the Ottomans. But obviously, all these claims
were not voiced in the time of 'Osman, as A§pz. writes, but later, when the
dynasty grew in power through conquests in the Balkans, they asserted the
dynasty's primacy in the Islamic world, particularly in the face of the ruling
houses in Iran. Bayezid I wanted to assert his claim to the Sultanate of Rum in
succession to the Seljukid sultans in Asia Minor in the face of Timur's
challenge, and asked the 'Abbasid Caliph in Cairo to send a formal manshur
affirming the title.49
Evidently, all these ideas were circulating among the Ottoman elite when
A$pz. was writing his history. In fact, in his letter to the Mamluk sultan after
the Conquest of Istanbul the Conqueror claimed that he was chosen by God to be
leader of Muslims in ghazd. Then, Selim I and Siileyman I employed the same
argument of being the sole leader of ghazd and protector of Muslims in the world
to legitimize their claim to "the Caliphate over all Muslims in the world."50
Fi'l-hakika veliy-yi mutlakdir.

48Atsized. 103.
49See "BSyazid I" (H. Inalcik), El2.
50See "P6di$8h," (H. Inalcik) M.

HOW TO R E A D ' À S HI K P A S H A - Z À D E 153
In the elaboration of the early Ottoman traditions by such authors as

Ruhi, Ibn Kemal and Idris, all writing under Bayezid II, 51 it was claimed that the
Ottoman Sultans superseded all Muslim rulers except the first righteous
Caliphs. 52
Ede-Bali's advice on crucial state affairs with legal consequences, A§pz.

claims, was sought under Orkhan, too. When Orkhan decided to increase and re-
organize his soldiery, his brother 'Ala al -Din said he had to consult the kcufis on
the issue. Orkhan asked the opinion of fandarlu (or Djenderelu) Karadja Khalil,
then the kadi of Bilecik and Ede-Bali on the matter.53
Also it should be remembered that Agpz.'s attempt at magnifying Ede-

Bali's place in 'Osman's time is seen in his statement that 'Osman bestowed the
whole revenue of Bilecik by way of timar on his father-in-law. 54 This is
obviously a distortion of the fact that 'Osman granted Ede-Bali as wakfthe
village of Koz-Agaci and the mezra'a of Kozca for his zdviye in Bilecik. A$pz.
also emphasizes that the Ottoman sultans descended from the marriage of 'Osman
with Ede-Bali's daughter. "The mother of Orkhan Ghazi," he says "passed away
and one or two months later his grand-father Edebali, too, found God's mercy." 55
He adds that this occurred in the year of the conquest of Bursa in 1326. 'Osman
buried them in the fort of Bilecik. 56 Three months later 'Osman himself died in
Sogiid. 57 The wakfiyya of Orkhan beg, dated March 1324 testifies that Mal-
Khatun was actually the daughter of Omer Beg. 58 Thus, the Ottoman sultans
may not have descended from Ede-Bali's daughter Mal-Khatun as A§pz. claims.
5
' T h e changing image over time of the Ottoman Sultans about themselves as their power grew is
reflected in their titles and in the new versions of their history; this point is dealt with in my
article "PSdisâh" mentioned in note 50.
S9
J
''See "PSdi$Sh" mentioned in note 50, and "Mehmed II" in note 33.
53
Atsized. 117-118.
5
" W , 105.
55
Ibid, 114.
56
Atsized. 115.
57
•"'Osmân was alive in September 1323 as the wakfiyye of Asporça Khâtûn corroborates see, 1.
Beldiceanu, Recherches sur les actes des premiers Sultans, Munich 1967, 78-82; Orkhan beg must
have been on the Ottoman throne in 1324 (see the vakfiyye mentioned in note 56); he minted a
silver coin dated 727/1326-1327. see I. H. UzunçarjiU, "Orhan Beg'in hiikflmdar oldugu Tarih ve
ilk sikkesi" Belleten, 207-211 ; in fact, by 727/1327 the Ilkhanids of Iran had lost control in
Anatolia as a result of Timuitash's rebellion.
The text of the wakfiyye is published by I. H. Uzunçarçili: "Gazi Orhan Bey Vakfiyyesi,"
Belleten, V (1941); Ede-Bali's daughter is given in Ajpz. as Màlhùn, Mâl-Khâtùn or Bala-Khàtin\ I.
H. UzuDfargib (Otmaah Tarihi, 2nd ed„ Ankara 1961, 105, note 3) suggests that Mâl-KhâtSn was
the mother of 'Ala ai-Din, brother of Orkhan; in some Anonymous Chronicles, for example MS
Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, supplément turc 1047, 6b, Ede-Bali's daughter is named RSbi'a.
154 H a l ¡1 1NALCIK
In view of Ede-Bali's association with his family and the Wafa'iyya order
A§pz.'s concern in inserting in the traditions the stories about Ede-Bali's crucial
role in the foundation of the dynasty is understandable.
The archival evidence proves that in fact Ede-Bali actually received favors
from 'Osman Beg as the khalifa of the Wafa'iyya order and had a zaviye in
Bilecik. As Aflaki's authentic stories show, the leaders or khalifas of the
religious orders from Konya and Karaman used to visit the flourishing udj
emirates and were warmly welcomed. 59 It is apparent that Ede-Bali, a khalifa of
the Wafa'iyya shaykhs, arrived and settled in the udj area, definitely before 1300,
perhaps already under Ertughrul, 'Osman's father.
In addition to the Ede-Baii story, A§pz. makes another reference to the role
of the Wafa'i babas in connection with the rise of the Ottoman dynasty. A§pz.
describes Geyikli Baba as the disciple (murid) of Baba Ilyas and of the tarika of
Abu'l Wafa'.60
This statement provides further evidence that Baba Ilyas belonged to the
Wafa'iyya order and his murids included the heterdox abdal babas. A group of
them, Ajpz. said, had come and settled in the appanage of Turgud (or Durgut)
Alp in the tnegol district. Orkhan beg showed interest in obtaining the blessing
of Geyikli Baba. The baba planted a "sacred" poplar tree in Orkhan's palace, a
vestige of the shamanistic tree cult among the Turcoman babas,. Official records
testify that there was indeed a village called Geyiklti Baba or Babailer in the Kada
of Inegol. 61 Evidently, the village was settled by the Babai dervishes as
mentioned by A§pz.
T h e t r a n s l a t i o n of the Menakib-i Tadj'ul-'Arifin Abu'l Wafa' contains

interesting details on A§pz.'s association with the Wafa'iyya order. The
translation was made on the suggestion of Seyyid Welayet himself, the Wafa'i
shaykh and son-in-law of A§pz. Seyyid Welayet was alive in the time the
translation was completed, but A$pz. was already dead. The author gives
59
Shams al-Din Ahmed al-Afläki, Manäkib ul- Ärifm. II: Text, 2d ed. Ankara, (1962), 924, 947,
950.
60
Atsiz ed. 122; on Geyikli Bäbä, see M. Köbach, "vom Asketen zum Glaubens Kämpfer.
Geyiklü Baba," Journal of Olloman Studies, III (1982), 45-51, A.Y. Ocak, Kalendertler, 90-91,
195. Ajpz. (Atsiz ed. 116) also claims that Orkhan received 'Äshik Pasha's blessing. According
to Kissling, "Zeinije", 176-176, A$pz., Yarkhshi Fakih and Seyyid Welayet belonged to the
Zeyniyye order, hence their close relationship.
61
Hüdavtndigär, mentioned in the note 36,110, no. 178; A?pz., Atsiz ed. 105, tells us that
Osman had bestowed Inegöl district to Durkut Alp, later called Durkut (or TurguO-Eli; here, once
again the authentic character of Ajpz.'s source is confirmed by archival record.
HOW TO READ 'ASHIK PASHA-ZADE 155
intresting details on Seyyid Welayet's life noting that he was born in Bursa in
855/1451 and married Ahmed 'Ashiki's daughter in 874/1469.62
In the introduction added to the translation on Seyyid Welayet, 'Osman

Beg's relation with "the Shaykh's noble silsile" is told.
Reproducing A§pz.'s story of Ede-Bali, the author says: "'OsmSn Khan

reached the throne of the sultanate and the crow, of sainthood through the divine
favor at the (Shaykh's) sublime dergah," thus underlining the role of the
Wafa'iyya in the rise of the Ottoman dynasty. Confirming Elvan Qelebi our
author identified Ede-Bali as one of the khalifas of Shaykh Seyyid Muhammad
Abu'l Wafa' of Baghdad. In this version of the story on Ede-Bali's spiritual
guidance to 'Osman Ghazi he asserted that 'Osman's first ghaza success, the
capture of a fort near Inegbl in 684/1285, was due to Ede-Bali's spiritual support.
All the subsequent ghaza successes were accomplished "with the help of the
awliya". Basically the story is based on A§pz. but it stresses that the rise of the
dynasty was due to the Wafa'iyya shaykhs.
A§pz. confirms the continuation of the Wafa'i shaykhs' influence with

'Osman's successor. It attributes an outstanding influence with Orkhan to Akhi
In Tashlc8prulil-zide, Medjdi's trans. Hadd'ik al-Shaka ik, Istanbul, 1969 H„ 251, Seyyid
WelSyet's full name is given as Mustafa son of Ahmed al-Sadri al Konevi; he is better known as Ibn
WefS; Tashkdpriilfl-zade, obviously using the translation of the Manahb of Abu'l WafS'i Baghdad!,
expanded with additions on Seyyid Welayet. We learn from the additions that Seyyid Welayet's
shaykhs were Mu$lih al-Din and then 'AM al-Latif-l Mukaddasi; in the silsile the latter was shown
also the shaykh of 'Ashik Pasha-zSde; the Ottoman Sultans Mehmed II and Biyezid II showed a
profound veneration for Seyyid Welayet, granting him special favors. His expert knowledge in
Islamic law, tefeired to by Tashkopriilii-zade, must have been particularly appreciated by Mehmed
the Conqueror. B&yezld II personally attended Seyyid Welayet's funeral. This special interest in
Seyyid Weliyet and Aspz. himself evidently originated from the close connection of the dynasty
with the Wafi'iyya order, starting from 'Osm&n Begs time; on Seyyid Wel&yet also see M. Lami'i
Celebi, Terdjiime-i Nafahat al-Ons, Istanbul 1270 H„ 559-60; also see H. J. Kissling, "Schejch
Sejjid Vilayet (1451-1522) und sein angebliches Menaqybname," ZDMG 113 (1963). 62-68; A.
Krupp, Studien zum Menaqybname desAbu l-Wafa' Tag al-'Arifin, Munich: R. Trofenik, 1976. The
son-in-law of A$pz„ Seyyid Welayet asserted his descent from the Prophet and parentage to the
founder of the wafi'iyya order, thereby receiving an unusual veneration and support from the
Ottoman Sultans throughout his lifetime. Seyyid Weliyet must have had a special interest and
motivation in disseminating in Ottoman society a Turkish translation of the Menikibname of
Abu'l-v/afa' al-Baghdadi (for the original Arabic Ms, see Krupp, 19-25). In the section added to the
original Manakibname, the translator who was a disciple of Seyyid Welayet and made the
translation on his directive, claimed, albeit in equivocal terms, Seyyid VelSyet's parentage to
Muhammad Abu'l-WafT Tadj al-'Arifin (for the lattet's origin and siyada see Krupp, 28-28). In the
Ottoman society the radical babas of the Abdal Kalenderi sect, for example Otman Baba,
vehemently denounced and accused with hypocrisy those shaykhs who sought, for worldly ends,
the favots of the ruler. The Veldyeiname of Otman Baba, written in the same period, describes his'
attacks against the Seyyid VelSyet or Ajpz. type of dervishes and the popular response they
received (see H. tnalcik, "Dervish and Sultan" mentioned in note 40 above. For Ajpz.'s criticism
of such dervishes see Atsiz, ed. p. 153-154: "Kimi der jeyhimiz sultan oltsar.")
156 Hal i 1 1 N A L C I K
Hasan, Ede-Bali's nephew. He tells us 6 3 that in 1326, in a campaign against

Atranos (Adranoz) and Bursa Orkhan wanted to have Ede-Bali's son Shaykh
Mahmud and Akhi Hasan with him. In general, army commanders believed that
the presence of such popular dervishes in the army heightened the ghazà zeal
among their men. 64 A$pz. tells us that when the Tekvur of Bursa surrendered the
city, Akhi Hasan was the first to climb on top of the main tower on the walls.
Upon 'Osman Beg's death Akhi Hasan is shown to have played a crucial role at
the succession. 65 'Osmàn's two sons, Orkhan and his brother 'Alà al-Din,
coming together in Hasan's convent, deliberated, in the presence of the dervishes
('azizler), on the matter. Orkhan had the advantage of having led the ghàzïs in
various campaigns under 'Osman and of being the patron of the Wafà'ï dervishes.
Later, upon the surrender of Nicaea "Hadji (Akhi ?) Hasan whose grand father was
a disciple of Ede-Bali" was appointed as the shaykh of the first 'imàret founded in
the city by Orkhan. A$pz. testifies 66 that down to his time Hasan's descendants
kept the trust of this hospice in their possession. In all this, A§pz. takes pains to
underline that after Ede-Bali it was Akhi Hasan, his nephew and disciple, who
possessed an out-standing position vis-à-vis the Ottoman ruler.
The 'Àshik Pasha tradition remained paramount with the Ottoman Sultans
in the following centuries. According to Topçular Kàtibi 67 , during the campaign
of 1630 the standard of 'Àshik Pasha was taken along with that of Ayyub Ansàri
to the field of action.
Bilkent University, Ankara
63
A t s i z ed. 110.
M
S e e H. lnalcik, "Istanbul: An Islamic City," Journal of Islamic Studies, I (1990) 1-4.
65
A t s i z e d . 115.
66
Ibid., 119, 120
67
M S , Staatsbibliothek, Vienna, 338 b.
Cemal KAFADAR
c
OSMÄN BEG AND HIS UNCLE:
MURDER IN THE FAMILY?'
While the Ottoman chronicler tradition should be treated with extreme

caution, we cannot overlook the fact that it contains some of the precious few
things we have on early Ottoman history. Rather than dismissing it, we ought to
venture boldly into the wrinkled space of its textual^ intricacies, compare variants
in detail, focus on choice of stories, words, and even of Spelling if promising,
and try to ascertain what if anything these may reveal of early Ottoman realities.
This is a road filled with traps and there are bound to be a few deadends or some
wrong paths taken. And most of what one can say in the end will remain
hypothetical, but is it not even less rewarding to give up on this task? One does
at least have the guidance of a scholars' scholar like V! L. Manage through the
maze of early Ottoman historiography.
Take the fascinating case o f ' O s m a n ' s (d. 1324) competition with his
uncle Dundar, for instance. It is related in Negri's Cihanntima (first recension
completed before 1493), but missing in all of the known earlier chronicles, that
*
The following abbreviations are used in the article and in the notes:
Apz 'Äîkpajazäde (Ahmed 'Ägiki).

Apz/GieseApz, Die altosmanische Chronik des 'Àjikpaiazàde, ed F. Giese (Leipzig
1929).
Apz/AtsizApz, Tevärih-f Àl-i Osman, ed. C- N. Atsiz (Istanbul, 1947).
Ne/Mz Nejri, Gihämiimä: Die altosmanische Chronik des Mevlänä Mehemmed Neschri
(=codex Menzel), fees. pub. Fr. Taeschner (Leipzig, 1951).
Ne/KU Nejri, Kitäb-i Cihan-nämä, eds. M.A. Köymen and F.R. Unat, 2 vols. (Ankara
1949-57).
YF-Apz Those parts of the chronicle of Apz that rely on the Menäkib of Yah$i Fakih (See
V.L. Ménage, "The Menaqib of Yakhshi Faqih," Bulletin of the School of Oriental
and African Studies 26 (1963): 50-54 ; E. Zachariadou. "Yahshi Fakih and Menakib,"
forthcoming in the Proceedings of the Turkish Historical Association Congress of
1987; and the forthcoming edition of the YF-Apz text by this author).
158 C e m a 1 KAFADAR
after Ertugrul's death, some wanted 'Osman and others Diindar to be the new
beg. Realizing that c Osmân had strong support, the uncle gave up and accepted
his nephew's chieftainship. 1 Hie reconciliation seems to have been superficial
because in a later episode we read that c Osmàn, annoyed by the patronizing
attitude of the (Christian) lord of Bilecik, wanted to seize him, but Diindar argued
that they already had enough enemies and could not weather any more. The
young man interpreted this response, Ne$ri writes, as his uncle's wish to
undermine his political bid (literally: his coming out/huruc). So he shot Diindar
down with an arrow and killed him.2 The young warrior was destined to be the
eponym of the eventual world empire of the Ottomans, of course.
Where did Ne§ri garner these pieces of information about c Osmàn and
Diindar which are not to be found in any of the earlier sources known to us?
Could he have made them up ? To make the post-Mehmed II practice of fratricide
seem more palatable? This is not impossible, but a much more likely
explanation is that Ne§ri had access to some early traditions which the
chroniclers chose to edit out of their text. 3 Besides, why would Neçri, if he were
fictionalizing to legitimize fratricide, not have 'Osman kill his brother Giindiiz,
especially in the episode when the two disagree, just like 'Osman and Diindar, on
the course of action to be taken vis-à-vis their neighbors?4 Furthermore, writing
slightly later than Neçrî and using his chronicle, Ibn Kemàl not only refers to
Negri's version of this story but also relates another one with the same ending.5
There were clearly "Osman and Diindar" stories that did not make it into
the tightly interrelated texts of Apz, Uruç, and the anonymous chroniclers — the
first substantial layer of Ottoman historiography that wais rendered into writing
mostly ca. 1484-85 but based on various earlier, and largely oral, traditions.
'Ne/Mz, 25 ; Ne/KU, 78-79.

2
Ne/Mz, 29; Ne/KU, 92-95.
one of Negri's known sources, the Oxford Anonymous [=OA], there is a passage on 'Osraàn's
election "evidently taken from Yaziji-oghlu." (V.L. Ménage, Neshri's History of the Ottomans,
London, 1964, p. 13). While relating some interesting and seemingly authentic tribal traditions
concerning the electoral process, Yazicizade does not mention Diindar or any other rivals. As for
the OA, the whole section on 'Osman following his election, where his rivalries with family
members may have been recorded, is missing in the extant ms. If there is a family fight in this
source, it is unlikely to have been with Diindar since the OA does not mention any brothers of
Ertugrol. This source is now published, but its editors (who have not used Ménage's work) have
maintained the older mistaken identification with Ruhi-i Edrenevi: "RBht TSrìhì," eds. H.E.
Cengiz and Y. Yiicel, Belgeler 14(1989-92):359-472. Thus the editors have also "completed" the
text by filling in the missing section on 'OsmSn from a copy of the real chronicle of Ruhi.
4
Ne/Mi, 27; Ne/KU, 86-89. But in this particular case, 'OsmSn is for maintaining peaceful co-
existence (miidari) with Christian neighbors while his brother proposes an aggressive policy.
Nejri's source for this episode is clearly the YF-Apz narrative (Apz/Giese, 14; Apz/Atsiz, 98-99)
which lacks the traditions concerning Diindar.
5
lbn Kemàl, Tevarilj-i Àl-i Vsmàn, 1. Defter, ed. 5 Turan (Ankara, 1970); see pp. 65-66 and 129-
130. Ne$ri himself briefly refers to this alternative version.
MURDER IN THE FAMILY? 159
Whether those stories were true or not, it is not surprising that the author-editors
of these particular texts would choose to censor episodes concerning dynastic
strife resolved through murder in the famliy (deflected parricide?)- To sustain the
logic of their argument, or the moral of their tale, Apz, Urug, and the compilers
of the anonymous chronicles would simply need to omit Diindar's case because
their narratives are structured around a rupture in the moral uprightness of the
Ottoman enteiprise in the reign of BSyezid I (1389-1402): all evil deviations
from the purity and sincerity of early frontier years are to be located after that
juncture, all those nasty developments toward the construction of an imperial
political technology and its ideology. Similarly with fratricide, which the
anonymous chronicles and Urui explicitly cite as an evil that was not practiced,
so they claim, in the early generations. Just after reporting Organ's peaceful
agreement with his brother 'Ala'iiddin upon their father's death, these sources add:
"brothers consulted each other then and got together ; they did not kill one
another."6
Curiously, this passage is omitted in the YF-Apz narrative, which also

omits reports, found in some other chronicles, about the murder of Haci tlbegi,
one of the leaders in the conquest of Thrace. 7 It is unlikely that Yah$i Fakih, the
son of Orhan's imam, whose Menakib is embedded in the chronicle of Apz, had
not heard of these stories whether they were true or not. He may have found them
unbelievable or chosen not to write them down, or perhaps Apz excluded such
passages from his edition. 8 It must be the latter's choice, for instance, to omit
the anti-fratricide editorial recorded in the anonymous chronicles and Uruf because
it is from the common source he shared with them. Did Apz omit this passage
because he knew better, namely because he had read about 'Osman and Diindar"
in the Menakib of Yafeji Fakih? In any case, the anonymous chroniclers and
Urui are in general more consistent in erasing all memory of familial strife in
01 zamända begler kanndajjlanyla danijik idiib bilece olurlardi, birarada tururlardi, ve biibirin
öldürmezlerdi. Tâ Yildinm Hän zamamna degin" Anonymous, Tevârih-i Âl-i Vsmän, ed. F. Giese,
Die altosmanischen anonymen Chroniken (Breslau, 1922), 14. Also see Uruç bin 'Ädil, Tevärih-i
Âl-i 'Osmän, ed. Fr.Babinger, Die frühosmanischen Jahrbücher des Urudsch (Hannover, 1925),
16. The episode is set in the context of 'Osmân's death. Orhan offers the chieftainship to his
brother 'Alâ'ttddîn who prefers a life of piety after suggesting a few useful administrative
innovations. The peaceful resolution of 'Osmän's legacy and the resigned brother's administrative
suggestions are recorded in many other eariy sources (e.g., see Apz/Giese, 34-37, Ne/KU, 148-49
and 152-55, Ibn Kemäl, 1:195-96 and 11:54) but the editorializing comment about brothers not
killing each othef appears only in Uraç and the anonymous chronicles.
7
Anon, ed. Giese, 23-24. For more detail on the "tales of Hâci llbegi" and their relevance for
understanding early Ottoman history, see chapter two of this author's forthcoming At the Edge of
the World of Islam: Thé Construction of the Ottoman State.
8
It is even conceivable, as argued once by Wittek and seconded by Inalcik, that there was a fuller
version of Apz than the redactions, editions, and copies we now have; see Inalcik, "The Rise of
Ottoman Historiography," p.154 in B. Lewis and P. M. Holt, eds., The Historians of the Middle
East (London, 1962). The two articles on early Ottoman historiography in this volume, the one
by Inalcik and the other by Ménage ("The Beginnings of Ottoman Historiography"), constitute
the best introduction to the subject and to the complex interrelationships of the relevant texts.
160 Cemal KAFADAR
the early generations before Bayezid. They also omit the above-mentioned
passage, related by Apz and preserved by Ne§ri, of'Osman's disagreement with
his brother Giindiiz. Urn; is in fact so cautious that he makes 'Osman's two
brothers die before Ertugrul's demise, namely before 'Osman has any political
claims, so that no rivalries can even be imagined. 9 In the anonymous texts, the
brothers are named but nothing is said of their passing away.
As for Diindar, he is mentioned before Ne$ri only in Hasan bin Mahmud

Bayati's pithy Cam-i Cem-Ayin (first recension in 1481-82).10 Bayati writes that
Ertugrul's father had four sons: two of them took their clans eastward when their
father drowned in the Euphrates; the other two, Ertugrul and Diindar, moved west
into Anatolia. Diindar is not mentioned again in this work which leaves some
room for speculation but no more than that. How could that vile deed be imputed
on the glorious founding father in a work written for Prince Cem, the loser of a
violent struggle for the throne and the prime target of fratricidal designs
entertained by the victorious brother? Apz, Uru? and the authors of the
anonymous chronicles assign only three sons to Ertugrul's father; none of them
is named Diindar. [Ahmedi (ca.1405), §iikrullah (1459) and Karamanh Mehmed
(1480) simply do not refer to any brother of Ertugrul's in their brief coverage of
the Ottomans.]11
Is it coincidental that the policy defended by Diindar is the very one

Ertugrul is claimed in some sources to have maintained during his chieftainship?
There is in fact a pattern here which must be related to conscious editorial
adjustments. In the narratives that have traces of disagreement within the family,
very strongly in Nc§ri and faintly in Apz, the political orientation of the little
principality or tribe changes dramatically with c Osman: under Ertugrul,
coexistence with the Christian neighbors and tension with the Germiyanids;
under Osman, strife continues with the Germiyanids but the main thrust of the
raids eventually turn against Christian neighbors. In the chronicles that erase
Diindar, the anonymous ones and Uru? in particular, gaza activity starts already
under Ertugrul only to he intensified under c Osman. No change of policy, no
conflict, no rivalry.
®Uni{, ed. Babinger, 6.

'"Trans. Kirzioglu, in Osmanh Tarihleri, ed., Atsiz, 394. This translation (into modern Turkish)
is based on an ms. that is superior to the one used by 'Ali Emiri for his edition of 1331 A.H.
(Istanbul).
" T h e s e three works (the latter two in Turkish translation) are to be foundin N. Atsiz, ed.
Osmanh Tarihleri, I (Istanbul, 1949). The one by Karamanh Mehmed Pa$a is translated from
Arabic by t. H. Konyali. For the most recent and reliable edition of Ahmedi's history of the
Ottomans, see K. Silay, ed., "Ahmedi's History of the Ottoman Dynasty,"jQurifal of Turkish
Studies 16(1992): 145-158 For the original Persian and the German translation (»(,$* chapter on
the Ottomans in giikrallah's history, see Th. Seif, ed. and tr„ "Der Abschnitt liber die Osmanen in
Sükrüllfth's persischer Universalgeschichte," Mitteilungen zur Osmantschen Geschichte 2 (1925):
63-128.
Namely it is well worth looking for consistency in the editorial policies

of these texts. They are not haphazard aggregations of data that are somehow
lumped together because the compiler happened to have access to them. The
author-editors chose what they should include and exclude, and such choices were
determined by a certain logic since there is a moral or an argument of each tale
that varies, even if only subtly, according to the editor.
There is an episode concerning c Osman's disagreement with family

members also in the hagiography of HacI Bekta$, the earliest version of which
may have been composed in the first half of the fifteenth century. 12 Here, Diindar
and Giindiiz are collapsed into one character. Giindiiz appears as c Osman's uncle
who becomes the beg of the sanjak of SultanofSi upon Ertugrul's death. He
arrests his nephew in the name of the Seljuk sultan since 'Osmiui, after coming
of age, undertakes expeditions against Bithynian Christians despite the sultan's
ban on raiding activity due to a treaty with Byzantium. 13 On the way to prison,
c
Osman is received by Haci Bektaj, given the good news of future rulership, later
released and appointed beg of the same sanjak. Gundiiz is not mentioned again.
There is an echo of a historical tradition concerning familial conflict here, and of
the same policy differences between the two generations as mentioned above, but
no murder.
If c Osman had an uncle, then, and a violent conflict with him due to
incompatible ambitions and differences of political orientation, this was by and
large suppressed in the known examples of early Ottoman historiography. Until
the grand synthesis of Ne§ri, only the author of the vita of Haci Bekta§ mentions
an uncle who survived Ertugrul. He also describes a policy difference between the
uncle and the nephew that leads to friction, but it is apparently resolved without
any act of violence by c Osman. Why should he need to resort to murder if he
already had the blessings of Haci Bekta§, the Superveli? Some other sources like
Uru$ and the anonymous chronicles, on the other hand, composed in the second
half of the fifteenth century when fratricide along with several other imperial
policies was codified but still opposed in some vocal circles, not only erase all
memories of friction within the family in the early generations, even the
presence of an uncle or potentially rival brothers, but also explicitly absolve
c
Osman of such "evil" action.
11
Manzum Haci Be.ktai Veli Viliyelaamesi, ed. Bedri Noyan (Aydin, 1986), In light of (he
information provided by Noyan, it seems that the objections of both A. Gdlpinarli and, for
different reasons, E. Co$an with respect to the authorship of Musa are not definitive. Golpinarh's
identification of Firdevsi as the author of the versified version may still be accurate, however.
13
Such conflicts between the dictates of interstate relations (Byzantine, Mongol, Seljuk) and
local conditions of the frontiers were apparently common. For a known case having to do with a
neighbor of 'Osman's who chose to carry on with raids into Byzantine territory while the
hinterland states maintained a peace policy, see E. Zachariadou, "Pachymeres on the 'Amourioi'
of Kastamonu," BUGS 3(!977):57-70.
162 Cernai KAFADAR
For Negri and Ibn Kemal, fratricide was not an absolute evil any more but
an accepted part of political life for its perceived relative merit over the
alternative of protracted civil war and/or fragmentation. These two historians
therefore not only were uninhibited about recording 'Osman's execution of his
own uncle, but they also knew better than editorialize against fratricide. Ibn
Kemal in fact goes further and attributes to 'Osman the same reasoning that is
advanced in Mehmed Us code to legitimize the legislation of fratricide: "saying
that damage to an individual is preferable to damage to the public, he shot and
killed ... his uncle Dundar who entertained ambitions to chieftainship." 14 In
short, the stubborn old man got what he deserved; why the fuss?
Given all this, one is tempted to conclude that the later authors may well
be telling the truth that is suppressed by earlier authors due to their inhibitions.
With respect to the historicity of Dundar, there seems to be further confirmation
in a piece of "hard" evidence found in the archives. In the land survey of the
district of Hiidavendigar (including SOgiit) from 928 A.H./1521 A.D., a mezreca
is identified as an endowment once made by a certain Dundar Beg. 15 There is
certainly room for caution here since no information is given about this person
other than his name and title. But then, the plot of land happens to be in the
village of Koprihisar in the vicinity of which, Ne§ri specifically points out,
'Osman's uncle was buried.
Obviously, later sources cannot be treated as mere derivatives. There is

first the issue of how a later compiler edits, what he (or she?) chooses to
maintain, omit, or change of the material available to him. A careful scrutiny of
these matters reveals a good deal about the literary, political, ideological
proclivities of the "editor" and.hopefully glimpses of the sources at his disposal.
Furthermore, later sources may provide information from earlier ones now lost to
us. It is clear that Ne$ri, Leunclavius, Miineccimba$i, to take a few examples
from different periods, had access to works that we have not yet been able to
locate or to as yet unidentified manuscript versions of works we know from
other, variant copies. Until the discovery of one of his sources, namely the
Menakibii 'l-kudsiyye containing the vitae of Baba Ilyas and descendants, Uru?
was our only source for some fascinating information on the Babai revolt that
took place more than two centuries before he wrote. 16 Ne§ri may likewise have
read Dundar's story in some written source which may or may not eventually be
14
tbr KemJl, p. 129:"... ba'ii ravi eydiir cOsm8n Beg 'ammusi Dundar1!, ki baginda serd&ritk sevdasi
vsr idi, bu seferde helik itdi... iarar-i 'Smmdan ise terar-i yegdlir... diyil urdi dldtirdi."
,5
Ba$bakanlik Ar$ivi, Tahrir Defteri 453, f.258b. See Hiidavendigar Livasi Tahrir Defterleri,
vol.1, eds., O.L. Barkan and E. Meri(li (Ankara, 1988), p.255. Previously cited in Uzun(ar$ili
Osmanh Tarihi. I (Ankara, 1947), 104, fn.2, who takes it for certain that this Dundar Beg is
'Osmill's uncle.
16
The vita is now published. Elvan Celebi, MenSkibu'l-kudsiyyefimenisibi'l-Unsiyye, eds.,
Ismail Eriinsal and Ahmed Y. Ocak (Istanbul, 1984).
discovered. Or perhaps he heard it told by a raconteur. In either case, his account

of it two centuries after the fact seems to relate a reliable report about a crucial
incident in 'Osmàn's political career.
The "realism" of this investigation, the primary purpose of which has

been to see whether certain stories about the generations of Ertugrul and 'Osman
may have been partially based on "real events," is not meant to preclude a
symbolic reading of the same historical traditions. As Marshall Sahlins, points
out, "it is not significant that the exploit be 'merely symbolic,' since it is
symbolic even when it is 'real'." 1 7 Thus, readers of Dumézil, like this very
author, shall possibly leave all this wondering whether we are not faced with the
ancient motif of tripartitism when we read in most family chronicles that both
Ertugrul and 'Osman, leaders of two successive generations of state builders, had
two brothers each. The murder of an uncle, moreover, may be just the kind of
sinful act those readers have come to expect as a punctuation mark in narratives
tracing the destinies of kings. 18
Harvard University
17
Islands of History (Chicago, 1985), 79.
18
See part three of G. Dumézil, Mythe et épopée, voi. 2: Types épiques indo-européens: un héros,
un sorcier, un roi (Paris, 1971), trans, into English by Alf Hiltebeitel, The Destiny of a Kins
(Chicago, 1973).
Machiel KIEL
MEVLANA NE§Rl AND THE TOWNS

OF MEDIEVAL BULGARIA
Historical and Topographical Notes*
The only source which gives any details on such an important historical
event as the downfall of the medieval Bulgarian state, is the chroniclè of Mevlana
Nejri, with which Victor Ménage has occupied himself so intensely.' In Negri's
late 15th century compilation is included a detailed and well informed account of
the events just before the Battle of Kosovo (1389). This account, which is now
lost, must have been written by an eye-witness, or at least have been told to the
writer by an eye-witness, perhaps at the beginning of the 15th century. The other
chronicler who also describes the conquest of medieval Bulgaria, the tskrdom of
Ivan Sisman, is Ruhi-i Edirnevi, who wrote a few years after Ne§ri. Ruhi's
account is an independent version of the now lost early 15th century account,
which is also Negri's basis. Yet it is a much shortened and simplified version,
leaving out the details which make the account of Ne$ri so interesting.
There are no local Bulgarian chroniclers relating the downfall of the old
Bulgarian state with such a wealth of details as Ne§ri's source did. Old Bulgarian
historiography, or what has come down to us, is almost non-existent. The work
which in Bulgaria was long cherished as "The Anonymus Bulgarian Chronicle"
and which deals with the period around 1400, is in fact an old-Bulgarian
translation of the Byzantine-Greek chronicle of John Chortasmenos. 2 This
The fieldwork, which constitutes the basis of this article, was sponsored by the Netherlands
Organisition for the Advancement of Scientific Resarch (ZWO/NWO), The Hague. The
topography of Bulgaria could be studied in the context of a research program of the University of
Munich, aiming at a concordance of place-names in Bulgaria, a program sponsored by the
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG, Bonn.
' V.L. Ménage, Neshrì's History of the Ottomans: the Sources and Development of the Text,
London: Oxford University Press, 1964.
2
'•See: D. Nästase, "Une chronique bizantine perdue et sa version slavo-roumaine..." in:
CyriUomethodianum, IV, Thessaloniki 1977, p. 100-171 (especially 125, 45). The eminent
specialist on Byzantine literature, Herbert Hunger, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der
166 Machiel KIEL
explains largely why this chronicle has almost nothing to say on the event. It
was simply uninteresting for a Constantinople-based author. The only real
Bulgarian work touching our subject is not a history but a hagiography on the
last Patriarch of medieval Bulgaria and great man of letters, Euthymius of
Tirnovo, written by Gregory Czamblak, a cleric from Tirnovo who was no eye-
witness to the event. Czamblak wrote towards the end of his life, in the exalted
dignity of Metropolitan of Kiev (1414-1418), whither he had migrated. 3 Nicolae
Jorga characterised this panegyric as a "fanatisch gefarbte Heiligenlegende."4 In
spite of this, the account of Czamblak, relating the second Ottoman siege and
conquest of the old Bulgarian capital of Tirnovo in 1393 in a highly bombastic
and pathetic style, full of legendary elements, has deeply influenced Bulgarian
historiography. The account of the violent conquest of this single town, which
ended with the executions of 110 noblemen, the deportation of an important part
of the population, and the banishment of the Patriarch to a monastery in
Ottoman-controlled Thrace, has been taken as a passepartout for how to imagine
the conquest of all other Bulgarian towns, for which no information was
available. It should be added, in this context, that most of Negri's story could
have been found in Leunclavius' Latin translation from 1591, but this important
work remained unused in Bulgaria until recent times, when the historiographical
cliché of how the country was conquered was already coined. Besides Ne§ri and
Czamblak there is the brief account of the Byzantine historian Chalkocondylas,
who wrote three-quarters of a century after the events. His account was already
rejected by Leunclavius, as being too confused. In the Russian and Serbian
Chroniclers there are also some scattered remarks on the fall of Tirnovo, 1393,
but here again the much more important campaign of 1388 is left out. The
Ottoman chroniclers as a whole, on the other hand, entirely omit the conquest of
1393 and concentrate on the final elimination of the last remains of medieval
Bulgaria after the Battle of Rovine (1395) and the Crusade of Nikopol (1396),
when the last remaining Bulgarian vassal of the Sultan, Sratsimir of Vidin, who
had become compromised, was removed.
For a better understanding of the events we summarise them here briefly.

In the course of the 14th century an independent Christian principality emerged
on what is now the Bulgarian and Rumanian Dobrudja. The founders of this state
were Turkish-speaking Christians, the Gagauz, the descendants of the Seljuk
Byzantiner, vol I. München 1978, p. 482 also accepted the attribution of this "Bulgarian" source
to John Chortasmenos.
3For the life and works of Czamblak see: Emil Kaluiniacki, Aus der panegyrischen Literatur der
Sudslaven, Wien 1901; P. RuSev, Iv. Gäläbov, Pockvaino slovo za patriarch Evtimii ot Grigori
Camblak, Sofia 1971; partial German translation in: Donka Petkanova, Quellen Reinen Wassers,
Eine Anthologie bulgarischer mittelalterlicher Literatur, Berlin 1979, p. 81-95. See also: Muriel
Heppell, The Ecclesiastical Career of Gregory Camblak. London, 1979.
^Nicolae Jorga, Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches, Gotha 1908,1, p. 274.
THE TOWNS OF M E D I E V A L BULGARIA 167
colonists under the deposed Sultan Izz ed-Din Kaykavus (=Gagauz) in 1261. 5
Their rulers were Balik, his son (or brother?) Dobrotid and Dobrotufs son
Ivanko. They freed themselves from the control of the Tsars of Timovo, and
placed their state ecclesiastically under the control of the Patriarch of
Constantinople. Their state included most of the Black Sea coast and a part of its
barely inhabited and waterless steppe hinterland, later known as Dobrudja, and the
towns of Varna, Kaliakra and Kavarna, as well as a string of castles along the
coast up to perhaps the modern Rumanian port of Mangalia, and for some years
also the coastal strip to the south of Varna, with the castles of Kozyak and
Emona. 6 After the death of the art-loving Tsar, Ivan Alexander, 7 in 1371, his
sons, the half-brothers Ivan Sisman and Sratsimir, split the Tsardom of Tirnovo,
Sisman keeping the larger part, Sratsimir setting himself up as in independent
ruler in Vidin. Half of the principality of Vidin was situated in what is today
north-western Bulgaria, the other half, with the castles of Soko-Banja and
Svirlig, has belonged since the early 19th century to Serbia. It is perhaps
interesting to remark that the members of the last dynasty of medieval Bulgaria,
the SiSmanids, were of Qipsak-Turkic origin, elsewhere better known as
Cumans, as was the dynasty ruling before them, the Terterids, and a part of their
most important nobles, such as Eltemir and Kudelin. 8 In the same year that Ivan
Alexander died, Ottoman forces destroyed a large Serbian army in the Battle of
the Maritsa in Thrace. After this event the Byzantine emperor, the three rulers of
the divided Bulgaria and a number of Serbian lords in Macedonia recognised
Sultan Murad as their suzereign and had to support Murad in case of war. Ivan
Sisman's sister Kera Tamara was married to Murad, in which manner he became
Sultan's brother-in-law. This might be the reason that the core of the Bulgarian
state, behind the protective wall of the Balkan Mountains, was free of Turkish
strife for a decade and a half. This situation changed dramatically when Murad, in
trouble with his Serbian vassals, and suffering a heavy defeat of his troops in the
Battle of PloCnik, (1388), called his Bulgarian vassals to support him. Two of
them, Sisman, in the Ottoman sources subsequently called "Sosmanos" and
Ivanko, the son of Dobrotid, broke their alliance and sided with a Christian
coalition, which was being formed under leadership of the Serbian king Lazar. In
5
For the origin of the Gagauz see: Paul Wittek, "Les Gagaouzes = Les Gens de Kaykaus": Rocznik
Orientalisticzny, XVII, Warszwa, 1952, p. 12-24; Wittek, "Yazijioglu Ali on the Christian Turks
of the Dobrudja" in: Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, XIV, London, 1952,
p. 639-688. In Bulgaria these fundamental studies are simply ignored and complicated theories
are constructed on the basis of sources which, as Wittek has convincingly shown, should not be
used. Thus the Gagauz are either regarded as "Bulgarians who lost their language" or as a mixture
of Turkic peoples coming from the North-East, by way of the Russian steppes, and other groups,
including linguistically Turkified Bulgarians.
® See in detail: Alexander Kuzev, "Zwei Notizen zur historischen Geographie der Dobrudla", in:
Studio Balkanica, 10, Sofia 1975, p. 124-136.
7
A splendid example of the art under this ruler is the so-called Ivan Alexander Gospel, exhibited
in the British Museum, London.
o
See the article "Kumani" in the Entsiklopedija Bdlgarija, III, Sofia 1982, p. 650.
168 M a c h i el KIEL
the winter of 1388/89 Murad dispatched a force under his Grand Vezir Candarh
Ali Pasha, to punish the two rebellious vassals, as he saw it, and conquer and
plunder their lands. Halil tnalcik has suggested that this action was undertaken to
cover the flank of the planned action against Serbia. 9 This sounds logical. Murad
was certainly in a hurry, otherwise he would not have send an army through the
Balkan passes in the snow of the winter.
It is Ne§ri alone who gives a relatively detailed account of this

expedition. Before his actual account of the actions, he briefly describes Sisman's
state, as an extremely well cultivated land from where butter, honey and sheep
were sent to many places, and then gives a very valuable list of the principal
towns and castles of the land. He says "there are more than thirty" but lists only
twenty four. This list of towns and castles has long been a problem for
historians working with the text of Ne§ri. Joseph von H a m m e r had great
difficulties with it, as had Bratutti before h i m . 1 0 The editors of the modern
Turkish edition, Unat and Koymen, also had great difficulties identifying the
places. 1 1 Colin Imber, in his admirable recent work The Ottoman Empire 1300-
1481, leaves the list entirely out, evidently as being too difficult. 1 2 The only
scholars who have tried to interpret the names with more detail are the Bulgarian
historian-archeologists Alexander Kuzev and Ara Margos, both well acquainted
with' the area in which the towns of Ne$ri have to b e l o c a l i s e d . 1 3 T h e
monumental and lavishly illustrated newest 'official' "History of Bulgaria" leaves
the Turkish Ne§ri edition of 1949 entirely out and only used the story as told by
Peter Nikov in 1928, supplemented by Sa'deddin in the Italian version of 1649
and Leunclavius' Latin rendering. 1 4 This might be part of the reason why the list
of names as given by Ne§ri is not used. There are, however, other reasons for the
omission of Ne§ri's story. The whole representative "History of B u l g a r i a "
follows the historical perceptions of the Party: on one hand "patriotic" locals,
who fought till the very end, against all-destroying, barbarous "enslavers" on the
other. This is the reason why the central point in Negri's account, namely that
almost all castles and towns of Sisman's state surrendered without any fight, or
even brought the keys of strongholds far in advance, is almost glossed over. In
the new "History" Sratsimir of Vidin, moreover, is presented as an inactive
9
Halil Inalcik, article "Bulgaria" in E.l. 2 , I, p. 1302/03.
1
®Joseph 1 von Hammer, Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches, Vol I, Pest 1827, p. 205. V.
Brattuti, Chronica dell'Origine e ProgressI delta Casa Oliomana, Vienna 1649,1, p. 138-139.
1
'Faik Rejit Unat - Mehmed A Köymen, Kitäb-t Cihän-Nümä, Nefri Turihi, Ankara 1949 p. 244-
257.
12
Colin Imber, The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1481, Istanbul 1990, p. 30-31.
13
Kuzev, Zwei Notizen (= Note 6); Ara Margos, "Käde se namiral srednovekovnijat grad
Hräsgrad?" in: Istoriieski Pregled, XL1V, Sofia 1988, p 57-62.
14
D i m i t ä r Kosev, Christo Christov (editors), Istorija na Mlgarija Vol lit, Sofia 1982, p. 358-
367. PetSr Nikov, "Turskoto zavladjavane na Bälgarija i s&dbina na posledite Siämanovtsi", in:
Izvestija na Bälg. istonCeskn Drutestvo, 7-8, Sofia 1928, p. 41-112.
person, leaving the events as they ran, only occasionally becoming active when
he could enlarge his state at the expense of that of his half-brother, when the
latter was actively engaged against the Turks. 15 Not to mention that a long list
of towns, including the capital city surrendered voluntarily is no real falsification
of history but just a tendentious selection of sources, one of main evils of
Bulgarian historiography. Not to say that Sratsimir was perhaps the most loyal
vassal of ¡the Sultan, who accompanied him with his army on all his campaigns,
including the vital one at Kosovo (1389), as has been made very clear by
Alexander Kuzev, is simply distorting the truth. Kuzev wrote in 1971, in a well
known? Bulgarian periodical, Volume III of the new "History" appeared in 1982
and the author of the section, Dimitir Angelov, even cited Kuzev's study.16
Whether or not well identified, the list of Ne§ri, and the shortened version
of Sa'deddin, was used by others to prove the existence of the town of Razgrad
(Hezargrad in the Ottoman sources) as a flourishing medieval Bulgarian town,
which was then destroyed during the invasion of Ali Pasha in 1388 and not
rebuilt before a century later. The story of Razgrad/Hezargrad is by itself an
interesting case because it shows how opinions on certain aspects of history are
formed. Perhaps starting in 1930 with the work of the local historian Ananie
JavaSov, it was thought that Razgrad had existed in the Bulgarian Middle Ages
and was identical with the ruins of an ancient city, which is situated just south of
the present town. 17 The Ottomans had, according to JavaSov, captured this
medieval town at the end of the 14th century, burned it down, destroyed it and
killed its inhabitants. The survivors fled to other places and the site remained
uninhabited for a century. In 1939, in his Geographical Dictionary of Bulgaria,
2eéo Cankov embellished the story further, writing that: "During the First and
the Second Bulgarian Empire (7th-14th centuries) it was one of the largest
Bulgarian strongholds, which was taken by the Turks after obstinate fighting,
and then destroyed." 18 He, like JavaSov, believed that the ruins of the Roman
town south of the present Razgrad was the real site of the medieval town. The
same was still maintained by StraStmir LlSev in 1970, one of the best specialists
on medieval Bulgarian towns. He stated that medieval Razgrad was situated on
the ruins of the ancient town of Abrittus. 19 That the old ruins were indeed
Abrittus had meanwile been established through archeological research and the
discovery of some important Latin inscriptions. In 1970 Bistra Cvetkova wrote
in the article "Hezargrad" in the E.I.2 that the "Slavo-Bulgar township was
probably occupied in the course of Candarli Ali Pasha's campaign of 1388" and
1 •'htorija na Bälgarija HI (previous note), p. 355.

" * A . Kuzev, "Die Beziehungen des Königs von Vidin Ivan Sratsimir zu den Osmanischen
Herrscher", in: Etudes Balkaniques, VII, Sofia 1971, p. 121-124.
1 7 Javaiov, Razgrad, negovo arheol. i istoriCeski minalo, Sofia 1930, p.79-80, 83/84.
18
Z. Öankov, Geografski Reinik na Bälgarija, Sofia 1939, p. 139.
l 9 S t . LiSev, Bdlgarskijat srednovekoven grad, Sofia 1970, p. 82, 92.
170 Machiel KIEL
then, that "it begins to be mentioned only towards the middle of the 10th/16th
century as a village." The descriptions of medieval Razgrad culminated in 1972
with Christo Gandev's remark that it was" an important centre of crafts during
the entire Bulgarian middle ages and it was destroyed by the Turks at the end of
the 14th century." 20 Until 1490, according to Gandev, the town did not exist.
Yet these authors altogether ignored what Bulgarian archeology had revealed,
namely that there had indeed been a medieval Slavic settlement on top of the
ruins of the ancient Abrittus but that life in this settlement ended totally and for
ever in the first half of the 11th century. This point was taken up by the local
historian and archeologist Ara Margos from Varna, who connected the final end
of the town with the sustained incursions of the PeCenegs from the steppes of the
Volga and the Don. 2 1 For archaeologists it is known that at almost all early
medieval sites in north-eastern Bulgaria (Deli Orman, Dobrudja) life ceased
around the year 1000-1050. It is also thought that these PeCeneg invasions led to
a complete re-shuffling of the settlement pattern in the north-east, from the open
plains to more sheltered places in river gorges and valleys, and farther south, to
the green foothills of the Balkan chain. Yet Ara Margos too wanted a pre-
Ottoman Razgrad, the historiographic tradition evidently being too strong, even
for this independent thinker. He placed it inside the present town and thought that
it was identical with the place called "Kayacik" in an undated fragment of an
Ottoman register, preserved in Sofia, which describes the property of the Vakf of
Ibrahim Pasha. 22 This document, which we have to place before 1542, mentions
a new town called: "Yenice, nam-i dijer Hezargrad-i Cedid, ve nam-i diger
Kayacik." Margos concluded that Kayacik was the site where after the 11th.
century destruction of the medieval town, its surviving inhabitants must have
settled. Kayacik is identical, according to Margos, with the present BaSbunarska
Mahalle in Razgrad, a place where there are indeed rocks and a spring, as the full
name of the presumed forerunner of Razgrad was called (Kayacik Pinan). Yet this
theory is also very unlikely because the oldest Ottoman population and taxation
registers show that Kayacik was not a village of any importance but a minuscule
hamlet. In 1479 it had one Muslim household, in 1516 five households,
Muslims, and in 1525 six households, also Muslims. Then, in the fragment
from c. 1535-1540 and later in the complete censuses of 1550 and 1580 we find
the same place as property of the Vakf of Ibrahim Pasha, having hundreds of
Christian households, besides a few Muslims (in 1550, 208 Christian
20
Chr. Gandev, Bdlgarskala narodnost prez 15-i vek, Sofia, 197?, p. 61.
2
'Ara Margos. Kdde se namirul (note 13)
22
This document: OAK 217/8, fol. 11a, published in Bulgarian translation and with practically
unreadable facsimile in: B. Cvetkova, A. Razbojnikov (edit.) Turski Izyori za Bdlgarskala
Istorija, HI, Sofia 1972, p. 441-449. A good readable facsimile and an English translation was
offered in my: "HrSzgrad - Hez&rgrad - Razgrad, The vicissitudes of a Turkish town in Bulgaria,"
in: Turcica. XXI-XXII (Festschrift lrtne Milikoff), 1991, p. 524-526.
THE TOWNS OF MEDIEVAL BULGARIA 171
and 7 Muslim households). 23 This census material, being stored in Istanbul and
Ankara, was not accessible for our Bulgarian researcher. What had in fact
happened was the Grand Vezir Ibrahim Pasha (1523-1536) had acquired a vast but
almost uninhabited area around the present town of Razgrad, where some hamlets
were situated, and made it vakf property for a mosque, medrese, imaret, bath and
school in a brand new town (Yenice) two kilometers north of the ruins of the old
Roman Abrittus. He settled a hundred Muslim families, mostly craftsmen, in
this new town, which at first was exclusively Muslim. At a short distance from
it, but definitely separated from the new Muslim town, was the hamlet of
Kayacik, where Ibrahim settled over 200 Christian families, presumably
Bulgarians. He did the same with the hamlet of Dobrova, also nearby, and with
the Muslim hamlet of Duymu§lar, where he settled a sizeable group of
Albanians. This particular village developed rapidly, at first known as
"Duymujlar, nam-i diger Arnaud," later exclusively known as Arnaud. Centuries
after 1535 the new Ottoman town came to incorporate Kayacik Pmari and
Dobrova and so acquired a partially Christian aspect. Its name Hezargrad
evidently comes from the Bulgarian name of the deserted ruins of Abrittus: Hraz-
grad, "Town of HrSz" I have dealt with the emergence of Razgrad and the
various aspects of its history, as well as the reason why a new town had to be
founded, in a previous study, 24 and cited its story here only as an example of
how certain historiographic mechanisms work. A medieval, 13th-14th century
Razgrad never existed. Hence it cannot have been taken and destroyed by Candarli
Ali Pasha in 1388. No medieval source mentions any sort of "Hrazgrad" and the
few places where Ottoman sources seem to have the name, are simple
misreadings, as we shall see further on. It existed only in the historiography,
with each new author embellishing the story with new elements
Ara Margos partly wrote his study on medieval Razgrad as an answer to a

proposal of Jordan Andreev and Ivan Lazarov in their work Asimilatorskata
politika na osmanskite zavoevatelite v Ludogorieto, one of the many
historiographic swamp flowers of the late Zivkov area. 25 Andreev and Lazarov
had identified the place-name "KiraStavCa" in Ne§ri with Hrazgrad, which in their
I,
The 1479 register is preserved in Sofia and has been published in the series Turski Izvori m
Bdlgarskata Istorija, vol II, Sofia 1966, p. 160-333. The 1516 register is preserved in
Bajbakanlik Arjivi, Istanbul, as: Maliyeden Miidewer N° 11. This mufassal (detailed) register is
not entirely preserved. The section containing the eastern parts of the Sancak of Nikopol are
missing. Yet the principal information from it was reproduced in the so-called Tgpu Defter 370
from the first decade of the rule of Sultan Siileyman the Magnificent (p. 549-562) as can be seen
by comparing the entries from the preserved part of MM 11 with TD 370. Our information for
1516 is thus taken from TD 370, reflecting a situation which is older than the year of its
compilation. For 1525 I used TD 126, a Mufassal. The data from 1550 are taken from the
Mufassal Defter TD 382. 1579/80.
2i
Sec note 22.
i. Andreev, I. Lazarov, "Asimilalorska politika na osmanskite zavoevatelite v Ludogorieto
Deli Orman]", in: Materia// za minaloto na Razgradskija kraj, Razgrad 1985.
172 Machiel KIEL
opinion derived from some form like Kràstà-grat. Margos rejected this on good
ground and proposed to identify "Kirastavòa" with Krestevets, which sounds very
likely. Today there is no such place but an Ottoman celep-kefan register of 1573
mentions a village of "Krestevi" in the Kaza of Pravadi' (Provadia), and three
Ottoman Cizye Defters from 1622, 1630 and 1635 also mention it, as does a
Sursat Defter for barley from the year 1676. These sources are preserved in the
National Library of Sofia. Other Ottoman sources, preserved in Ankara and
Istanbul and not accessible to Margos, also mention "Krestevi" in the Kaza of
Pravadi. The Mufassal Tahrir Defter of the Liva of Silistra for 1597/98 has it
with 47 Christian households.26 The Avarii Defter from 1642, which gives the
number of real households (families) as well as the number of Avariz-Hane, has
six Muslim households and 17 Christian households The village disappeared in
an unknown year. The Mufassal Avariz Defter of 1751 does not mention it any
more. The site of this village is still known locally. It is situated two kilometers
to the west of the former Turkish village of Kar Yagdi, which since 1934 has
been known as Sneiina. The site is still called "Krestevi". The village must have
been situated on a low and flat elevation, the castle a bit higher up the rocks. We
visited the site in 1990. There are indeed some vestiges of very old fortification.
Amateur archeologists told us that occasionally they found Roman coins. We
found fragments of the coarse ceramic belonging to the 8th-9th century.
Alexander Kuzev found some fragments of 13th- 14th century coloured sgrafitto
ceramic.27 Archeological investigations have never been carried out at this site.
This lonely site is indeed a serious candidate for the Kira$tav;a of Nesri.
Let us now give the list of Ne§ri in its entirety, in the form it appears in
the Codex Menzel, which acording to Ménage, and those who worked on it
before, is the oldest of fourteen known manuscripts.28 After each name we shall
add the correct Bulgarian form of the names, as far as can be established:
Cenge (Cenge, since 1934: (Asparuhovo) êmoz/Qervena (Cerven)

Pravadi (Provadija) Magluc (MägliC)
Madara(Madara) Eymonoz (Emona)
Venfen (Venèan) Kosova (Kosovo)
D.ric (Cod. Man.: D.rpicX?) Yürgova (Giurgiu)
Me^ka (Metka) Deraavi/Tirnavi (Tämovo/Tirnovo)
Eflaka (= Valachia, or:Vlachovo) Nigaboli (Nikopol)
Gözka (Kozyak) Tun Birgoz (Pirgovo)
Krebse (CodMan: Kreppe) (Krepta) ZiStova (SvlStov)
26
S e e "Defter-i Mufassal-i Liva-yi Silistra, Ankara TKGM. Kuyudu Kadime No 86, fol. 9 5 v
27
K u z e v in a letter to the author, dated 16.4.1991,
2
*Franz Taeschner, Gihanniima, Die altosmanische Chronik des Mevlänä Mehemmed Neschrì,
Band I, Einleitung und Text des Cod. Menzel, Leipzig, Harrassowitz 1951. Ménage, op. cit, p.
XIII.
Kra$dav;e/Kira§dav9e (KrSstcivitsa) Nevkesri (Neonkastron= Nograd)

Eski Istanbulluk (Preslav) Diraka/Tiraka (Tutrakan)
§umni (Sumen) Silistra (Silitra)
Most places seem to be identified more or less satisfactorily. Their

localization is another problem. There also remain problems of identification
Besides "Dric" there are questions about the identity of Me?ka, Eflaka and
Kra§davge. Difficult too are the accounts of Sa'deddin and Miineccimbagi, where
we find that Ali Pasha, after having been back to Yambol, to see the Sultan,
resumed the campaign and took the castle of "Uzunca Kale" and, in exchange for
captives taken at Kosovo took the castle of "£etr Hezar" and afterwards also that
of "Hirvatiye." Ismet Parmaksizoglu, in his the modern Turkish edition of
Sa'deddin, 29 identified "Cetre Hezar" as "Hezargrad", the Razgrad of today, which
in the 14th century did not exist, as we showed. Parmaksizoglu was perhaps
inspired by Joseph von Hammer who, wrote: "Tschete Hesar, the real name of
this place, which today is still called Hesargrad or Rasgrad" and then adds that the
meaning of the name is "Thousand tents," 3 0 This terrible distortion in turn
inspired the present day Turkish community of Razgrad to the story that the
town originated from a group of Turkish colonists, who had come with a
thousand tents. Hammer has more unbelievable things. He identified the castle of
"Kosova" between Tirnovo and Rousse with the well known Kosova Polje,
between Bosnia, Serbia and Albania, which is 500 km. further to the west. He
also turned "Hirvatiye" into Hirsovo in the Rumanian Dobrudja, 250 km. to the
north-east and far outside the area of the operations. That Krepfe became
"Kerpidsche" pales to nothing after such mis-identifications. The list also gave
the editors of the Ankara edition of Ne§ri, Unat and Koymen, ground for strange
identifications. They place Kosovo on the Timok, in eastern Serbia, and made
Dric, "Deprive" in their (later) manuscript original, into "Dobris" which in their
opinion was Hacioglu Pazarcik. In fact Hacioglu Pazarcik did not exist in the
14th and 15th centuries. It appears for the first time at the end of the 15th
century 31 and rapidly grew into a town of local importance. Archeology revealed
that the first layer, on top of the late antique ruins, is from the 15th or 16th
?9
Hoca Sa'deddin Efendi, Tacu't Tevarih. Modern Turkish version by tsmet Parmaksizoglu, vol I,
Istanbul 1974, pp. 173, 350.
30
Hammer, op. cit, vol I, p. 105' and note on p. 602/03.
31
StraSimir Dimitrov, Ljubka BobCeva (edit.) Istorija na Grad Tolbuhm. Sofia 1968 p. 9-17,
where the authors cite an Ottoman register of the sancak of Silistra, preserved in the collections
of the Sofia library, mentioning Hacioglu as a village of the kaza of Varna. The document is from
the 1490's. The next mention should be in the Tapu Defter 370 in Istanbul, BBA which for
northern Bulgaria is based on the 1516 census under Selim I. However, some folios of TD 370,
containing about half the Varna villages, are missing. The second oldest register with a reference
to our place is the i anal defter TD 215, where we find the place mentioned as a small town "nefs-i
kasaba-i Pazarcik-i Hacioglu", still belonging to the kaza of Vama. In the second half of the 16th
century it became a kaza of its own, reflecting its increased importance.
174 M a c h i el KIEL
century! In between the site was uninhabited. Moreover, "Hacioglu Pazan" (or
Pazarcik) was the name of the town from the 16th century onward until after
Bulgaria became independent It was changed into "Dobri5" by government order
of 1882, then to Tolbuhin in 1949, to celebrate the Russian Marshal Fedor
Ivanovil Tolbuhin, who liberated Bulgaria in the Fall of 1944 As in recent years
people think differently about this event, the name of the town was changed back
to Dobrii in 1990. To identify Negri's "Dric" or "Depri$e" as DobriC goes a bit
too far. Unat and Koymen, however, corrected at least one of the mistakes of
Hammer, stating that Eski Istanbulluk was not the ancient city of Marcianopolis
but in fact Preslav. We could add that Preslav was the splendid capital of the
short-lived Christian Bulgarian empire of the late 9th and early 10th century. In
the 13th-14th centuries it continued to exist as a half-destroyed and depopulated
ruin of its former splendor. The whole problem of identification and localization
of the twenty-four most important towns and castles of SiSmanid Bulgaria can,
in my opinion, only be solved in an acceptable manner when we first put them
on the map, then try to reconstruct the itinerary of the 1388 campaign, and
finally by making sure that these towns really existed in 1388. Here archaeology
can help.
According to Ne§ri, Ali Pasha started out from Edirne and took the road
via Aydos, in Ottoman hands since 1370, and then crossed the Balkans and the
Kamci river. They camped below the castle of Cenge, which controls the entrance
of the defile leading to Pravadi (Provadia). They must have taken Cenge, but this
is not explicitly menioned in the text. Since 1934 this place has been called
Asparuhovo. The next town was Pravadi, which taken by surprise and a garrison
installed in it. It is the Provaton of the Greek sources, in the Middle Ages the
seat of a bishop of the Patriarchate of Tirnovo and a very strong castle, situated
high above the town, on almost unassailable cliffs. The Ottomans called this
castle Ta§ Hisar They took it by surprise under Timurta§oglu Yahji Bey,
commander of the vanguard. The castle was not destroyed but got a Muslim
garrison. It was still defended during the Crusade of Varna, 1444, when a
Crusader detachment besieged and took it. 32
After that it slowly lost its importance. The Ottoman register of 1516
still mentions a dizdar and a few mustahfizanThe ruins of this castle can still
be seen and have been the object of some conservation works. The next place on
the list is VenCan, nine km. north-west, commanding the valley of the Pravadi
'^See Th.G.v. Karajan, Zehn Gedichte Michael Behaim's zur Geschichte Österreichs und Ungarns
(= the eye witness account of Hans Mägast) in: Quellen und Forschungen zur vaterländischen
Geschichte, Litteratur und Kunst, /, Wien 1849, p. 40/41. Mägast calls Provadia by its Turkish
name "Tajhisar" and knew that this meant "Stone Castle" (Steinplirk).
3 3 t D 370, p. 443/44, where also list is given of the provisions and weaponry stored in the
castle. For its defence an auxiliary force of 73 heads of Muslim households was nominated. They
served in return for tax exemptions (p. 434).
Dere, or Provadijska Reka. From Pravadi down to the Plain of Pliska this small
river forms a beautiful defile, a natural way of communication, today followed by
the road as well as by the railway. VenCan surrendered without fight. From
VenCan the army marched to Madara, 23 km further north-west. It is a small well
built castle, situated on the edge of the vertical cliffs which form the end of the
Madara Plateau. This position is also very strong. The people of Madaracame to
bring the keys of the castle to Ali Pasha. Madara was still intact and garrisoned
when in 1444 a Crusader force besieged and captured it. Ne§ri next mentions the
town of §umni (Shoumen), where the inhabitants likewise brought the keys.
The ruins of medieval Shoumen are situated high above the modern town, on the
edge of a plateau. With its double circuit of very strong walls Shoumen could
have offered obstinate resistence. It did not. Shoumen remained on its hill top
position until the Crusade of 1444, when it was utterly destroyed by the
besieging Christian army, and the Muslim garrison perished in fire and smoke as
is described vividly by an Ottoman, as well as a Christian source. 34 After this
event the town was rebuilt in the plain below. The old site remained deserted
until the 1960's, when Bulgarian archeologists uncovered the entire settlement.
At the time Ali Pasha was busy in Bulgaria Sultan Murad with his army crossed
over from Anatolia to Rumeli as part of his planned campaign against the Serbs.
Ali Pasha, with some of his forces, wanted to meet the Sultan. On his way back
his foraging soldiers were killed by the inhabitants of VenCan. Thereupon this
castle was captured with violence and destroyed. Its inhabitants were carried off in
slavery. The Ottoman tahrirs of the 16th century mention VenCan as a
predominantly Christian village, which it still is today. The site of the former
castle, situated on a hill above the village, is still recognisable. It is covered with
fragments of early-Slavic pottery and sgrafitto ceramics of the 13th and 14th
centuries as well as the foundations of a small church 35 . Ali Pasha then hurried
southward to meet the Sultan, whom he encountered in Yambol. During the
events around VenCan a deputation of citizens of Varna had come to the Pasha's
camp and offered to surrender the important Black Sea town, the capital of the
small state of Ivanko, the successor of Dobrotic. Troops were dispatched to take
the castle, but before they could do so the inhabitants changed their mind (or an
other party in the town came to power) and held their town 36 . Because of the'lack
of time no further actions were taken against Varna. Meanwhile Tsar Sisman got
anxious, losing so many strong places, and went to Yambol to see Sultan
Murad. Sisman promished to give Murad the best of his towns, Silistra on the
Danube, facing Wallachia. Ali Pasha, with his troops went back to northern
Bulgaria, and Sisman went too. As soon as he was back the unfaithful man did
34
Compare the Gazmât-nâme-i Sultan Murâd b. Mehemmed Hân, edited by H. tnalcik and Mevlûd
Oguz, Ankara 1978, p. 52/53, and Hans Mâgast's acconnl Th. G. v. Karajan op cit., p. 40.
Ôbservation of my colleague Zara Kostova, who visited the site in September 1992.
36
Colin Imber, op cit., p. 30, writes that Varna capitulated. Certainly a slip of the pen, as Nejri
is clear enough on this point.
176 Machiel KIEL
not keep his word, whereupon Ali Pasha resumed his campaign. While having
the strong Shoumen as his base, Ali Pasha received a deputation from the small
Danubian town of Tutrakan, "Taraka" in the Manisa Manuscript of Ne$ri.
Bolozlu Murad, with a few hundred men, was dispatched to that town and after
some incidents actually entered the town and settled in it. The oldest preserved
Ottoman tahrir of northern Bulgaria, from 1479, mentions a relatively large
Christian force in charge of the defence of this castle in exchange for freedom
from poll tax, ispenge and avariz-i divcmiyeP The 16th century tahrirs also have
this arrangement.
Until now identification gives no problems. The next section of Ne§ri,

and the other, shorter, versions of the tale of conquest, of Sa'deddin and
Miineccimba§i, do give troubles. Miineccimba$i seems to have used Ruhi as his
principal source. According to Ne§ri Ali Pasha left Shoumen after having
remained there some time, and went to a castle, which in the Unat-Koymen
edition is called "Dobnca". The Menzel manuscript gives here "D.ric" but the
Manisa Codex which usually gives the place-names more accurately, writes: "D.
rpic." Sa'deddin, in Ismet Parmaksizoglu's edition, gives here "Dentine kalesi"
whereby he takes the dative suffix -ye for a part of the name of the castle. As in
the Manisa Codex the letters vav and ra are written almost similar, the simplest
solution for the identification of this unknown place (which Unat and Koymen
turned into Dobrii/Tolbuhin) is to read it as "Virpi?". V&rbitsa is indeed a town
of some importance. It is the centre of the historical landscape of Gerlovo, the
basin sandwiched between the Balkan Mountains in the south and the Preslav
Balkan in the north. Since the earliest Ottoman times it was a nahiye of the kaza
of Shoumen and only since the reforms of the Tanzimat did it become a part of
the enlarged kaza of Osman Pazar (now: Omurtag). 38 VSrbitsa does have the
ruins of a medieval castle. It is mentioned in the Byzantine sources because it
controlled a road over the mountains to the plains of Thrace. 39 The Ottoman
Turski Izvori II, pp. 325, 333 This source mentions a Muslim diidar and five Muslim soldiers,
assisted by 16 Christian soldiers. The civil population, all Christian, was 82 households. The
castle of Tutrakan was very small, about 40 x 50 m. For more details see: Alexander Kuzev, Vasil
Gjuzelev, Bilgarski srednovekovni gradove i kreposti, Varna 1981, p. 174.
38
T h e Ottoman register Maliyeden MUdevver 11 from 1516 is the oldest to mention VSrbitsa.
The editors of the 1479 register, in Turski Izvori II, p. 195 mis-identified the district of Gerilets
as Gerlovo and the village of Palamaritsa as VSrbitsa. In fact Gerilets was a separate district, with
Palamaritsa (west of Razgrad) as its centre. The two districts were first identified correctly by
Rumen KovaCev. See his map of the administrative division of northern Bulgaria in Siidosi
Forschungen bd LI, 1992, p. 244.
The 1516 register has Virbitsa under the name Ayvacik. The 1550 register, TD 382 has it as
"Ayvacik, also known as Virtue" (p. 442). After that date the name of Ayvacik slowly fell into
disuse, the older name being the bener known.
39
Felix Kanitz, Donau-Bulgarien und der Balkan, vol HI, Leipzig 1882, p. 81, mentions the
Byzantine chronicles of Kedtenos, Theophanes and Nikiphoras Pair, who apparently mention
VSrbitsa in the course of the Byzantine-Bulgarian wars of the 8th and 9th centurits. This might
be a mis-identification. The town is apparently mentioned in the poem of Manuel Philes about
the exploits of Michael Glavas Tarhaniotes in the 13th century. This might also be a mis-
sources call it either Ayvacik or Virpife. It remained far and away the largest
settlement of Gerlovo and a predominantly Christian place in this otherwise
heavily Turkish-settled area. 40 VSrbltsa is about SO km south-west of Shoumen.
The distortion from Virpic to Dirpic, Diric etc. must have taken place rather
early because Leunclavius (1591) has it as "Deritze." The minimal difference
between Dirpic and Vnpic in the Codex Manisa, as well as the simple logic that
the place must have been somewhere not too far from Shoumen and must have
been of some importance, makes VSrbitsa the only suitable candidate. Alexander
Kuzev suggested PetriC, which was a medieval castle near the village of Gebedie
(since 1882, Beloslav) near the Gebedie Lake west of Varna. 41 As to the way of
writing Petri? one would need one "dif more, in front of the dal, more dots and
another interpretation of the dots in the last letters of the name. This requires
considerably more changes and is therefore less likely. PetriC would also be rather
out of the way for an army starting from Shoumen and marching in a westerly
direction, as is indicated by the next places on Negri's list. PetriC, furthermore, is
about 70 km on the road, due eastward. We should add that our "Dirpic".
"Virpice" Kale was transformed by Miineccimba§i (or his editor) into "Uzunca
Kale" by reading the first letter of the name as a vav and putting an a/if in front
of it, and moving slightly the dots of the last letters. In this way the Slavic
toponym "place of willows," "place where willows grow" has been Turkified to
become the "longish castle."
On their way from Shoumen to to VSrbitsa the Ottoman army must have
passed the ruins of the old-Bulgarian capital of Preslav (9th-10 centuries), which
must have vegetated as a village within the much too large circuit of walls. They
called them "Eski Istanbulluk", as they also did the ruins of the still older
Bulgarian capital of Pliska, once the seat of the pagan Turko-Bulgar khans of the
identification, as Alexander Kuzev tried to show ("Urvitsion bei Manuel Philes ist UrviC" in
"Zwei Notizen über einige mittelalterliche Festungen in Nordost Bulgarien", in: Studio Balcanica.
Recherches de Géographie Historique, Sofia 1970, p. 135-139). A more sure proof of its
existence in the middle ages are the numerous coins of the Byzantine emperors Manuel I
Comnenos, Andronikos Comnenos and Alexius Angelos 111, found in the ruins of the castle of
Gerilgrad rising above the present day village of VSrbitsa. The village was by far and away the
largest settlement of the Ottoman nahiye of Gerlovo (the name derived from Gerilgrad, or
Gerilovo GradiSte) and kept this position throughout the ages (in 1516, 1 Muslim household,
141 Christian households; in 1579/80 (KuK 4 2 ' f o l 177 v 178') no Muslims but 307 Christian
households, in 1873 (Saíname Tuna) 85 Muslim and 193 Christian households. For the coins see:
Ivan Jordanov, Moneti i mortetno obreSenie v srednovekmna Bilgaria, Sofia 1984, p. 153, with
further literature.
40
T h e Ottoman registeis from 1516, 1525, 1550 and 1579/80 give a mass of details on the
population structure of Gerlovo and the success of Turkish colonization, which evidently took
place in the f u s t half of the 16th centuty and not, as is often stated in the older literature (based
on suppositions) in the 18th century. I am currently working on these sources. The result will be
published in the byestija w Narodenija Uuiej Varna.
41
I n a letter to the author, of 16.4.1991.
178 Machiel KIEL
7th-9th century. 42 Pliska was deserted after the early 11th century Peieneg
invasions. Preslav survived. The 1516 Ottoman tahrir has 39 Christian
households in Preslav but adds that the place had suffered very much from
robbers and had to be made a derbend village.43 This apparently worked. In 1580
it had 120 households, all Christian, and remained a predominantly Christian
place. 44 It seems that the Ottoman forces of 1388 did not need to besiege it. The
walls must have been ruined by the Russian and the Byzantine armies, who
utterly wrecked the town during the subjugation of old Bulgaria in the third
quarter of the 10th century. The subsequent Peieneg and Kuman invasions did the
rest. 45 Hence no military actions are mentioned around Preslav. Its name is,
however, mentioned in Negri's list of important places in Soman's state.
After the subjugation of the towns of the Balkan foreland the Ottoman
army must have shifted its actions to the second cluster of fortified places of
Sisman's state; the table land to the south of Rousse (Rusijuk) which is cut by
the four branches of the river Lom, which have carved deep canyons through the
plateau, creating a number of ideally defendable places. The first place mentioned
is KrepCe on the Black Lom, which Unat and Koymen turned into "Girpige" and
Hammer to "Kerpidsche"46 but which in the Codex Manisa is correctly written as
KrepCe." KrepCa is an old settlement. Near the village of today are some small
rock-cut churches in the cliffs of the Lom, one having an old-Bulgarian
inscription from A.M. 6430 = 922 A.D. 47 To the south of the village at the
point where the Kolokod Dere and the Ba§ Bunar Dere flow into the Cerni Lom,
42
T h e r e is an extensive literature on these two sites. I mention only Nikola Mavrodinov,
Starobdlgarsko Izkustvo, Sofia 1959; D Dimitrov, J Jordanov, (ed.) Kratka Istorija na
Bdlgarskata Arhitektura. Sofia 1965; Krtstju Mijatev, Die miltelalterliche Baukunst in Bulgarien,
Sofia, 1974; Pejo Berbenliev, Arhitektunwto nasledstvn po Bdlgarskite zemi, Sofia 1987
4
ÂS said previously the content of the 1516 register, which is not entirely preserved, forms the
basis of the well preserved TD 370, composed in the 1520's. As this is an icmal defter t h e
descriptive notes of the 1516 mufassal defter are not always copied. We find, however, the
content of this note in the 1550 register (TD 382, p. 402), where it is written explicitly that the
status of the village was changed because of frequent robbery and murder, which caused the
inhabitants to disperse, The note continues that the status was changed at the time of the
"previous registration".
44
A n k a r a , Tapu Kad. Gen.Mild. KuK 42, fol, 172 2 -173 v . Another sign of the restored prosperity
of Preslav is the note in the same register: "Monastery of the Virgin Mary (Maria Anne), not in
the previous register, in the hands of the Metropolitan (Vladika)" For its property in the form of
gardens, vineyards, forest and grazing land this newly instituted, or reconstructed, monastery
paid a yearly tax of 150 a i p e . According to the existing Bulgarian literature on the status of the
Christian church in Ottoman times it was strictly forbidden to build churches or erect
monasteries. The Ottoman lahrirs, however, sources not accessible to Bulgarian scholarship,
abound with this kind of references.
45
I n 1873 (Salnáme-i Tuna Vilayeli) Preslav/Gski lstambulluk had 88 households of Muslims and
280 of Christians, cf.: Vera Ivanova in hveslija na Arheologiieskija Instituí, XX, Sofia 1955, p.
486.
46
G . O . R . I, p. 603.
47
S e e : Kazimir Konstantinov, "Dva starobilgarski nadpisa ot skalnija manastir pri selo KrepCa,
TárgoviSki Okrág", Arheologija, 1977, 3, p. 19-29.
at an excellently defendable place, we still see the ruins of the so-called Krepia
Kale, at which site a number of Byzantine coins have been found. 48 After KrepCa
was taken a messenger was sent to the castle of Kosova (=Kosovo) inviting him
to surrender. The Tekfur of Kosovo resisted, leading to the partial looting of his
lands. Thereafter the Christian commander, who in the Ottoman source is
described as"stupid and blinded by the devil", agreed to surrender the castle in
exchange for the liberation of the Christian captives. This time Ali Pasha broke
his promise, took the castle and kept the prisonners as slaves. Leunclavius, in
his version of the story, which very closely follows the account of Ne$ri, felt
induced to excuse the Pasha by pointing to the treacherous behaviour of Tsar
Sisman. This Kosovo can be identified with Kosov on the Batinski Lom, a few
km. above the point where it meets the White (Ak) Lom. This identification has
two flaws. First of all no site of a castle is known near Kosov, secondly the
place lies beyond the once important town of Cerven, which covers the road to
Kosov, and further down stream to Rusguk. Alexander Kuzev suggested a site
near the present village of Polski Kosovo on the river Yantra, roughly 40 km to
the west of KrepCa. Across the Yantra, on the east side, is indeed the site of a
medieval castle, with remains of old walls. The site saw ne real archeological
research. 4 9 From Kosovo Nesri makes Ali Pasha and his troops move to
Tirnovo, Sisman's capital. The list of towns in the Menzel Codex gives it as
"Dernavi" but in the description of the actual events "Tirnavi" is written. Here
too the Unbelievers brought the keys of the town, which is also very strong and
surrounded on all sides by unassailable cliffs. From Tirnovo the army turned
north again and passed the same open land along the Yantra, where no old castles
are known. They came to Cerven, one of the most important towns of medieval
Bulgaria and the seat of a bishopric. 50 Like most medieval Bulgarian towns
Cerven was very, very small, but equally strong. Negri's list calls it "£ernoz" as
do Unat and Koymen. Further on in the story of the conquest Ne§ri writes the
correct form "£ervena": both Codex Menzel and Codex Manisa have it this way.
After this town was taken the army went on to Nevke§ri and then to "Kra§dav$a
(Unat and Koymen: Kiri^davife), where the keys of Yurgova were brought to
them. At this place, between the conquest of Kosovo and Cerven the story as
given by Sa'deddin and Muneccimba§i differs greatly from Negri's account. Both
the later compilers changed the order of events. According to their story the army
captured Pravadi, then went to Tirnovo and after Tirnovo to Shoumen. From
there Ali Pasha went back to Thrace, to see the Sultan, and met him in Edirne.
After seeing the Sultan he went directly to Nikopol, where SiSman surrendered to
48
S e e : Zeio. Cankov, Geografski ReCnik na Bilgarija, Sofia 1939, p. 219/20.
"Înformation from Alexander Kuzev in a letter to the author dated 16.4.1991.
^ A l l historical references to medieval Cerven, and the results of the extensive archeological
excavations of the site are described in great detail by Violeta Dimova and Sonja Georgieva,
Srednovekovnijat Cerven, 1, Sofia 1985 ed. Stamen Mihailov. Every chapter ends with a French
résumé.
180 M a c h i e l KIEL
him. Ne§ri has the Nikopol story at the very end of his account, which from the
point of view of traveling is the most logical. Furthermore, it is impossible to
go from Pravadi to Tirnovo and from there to Shoumen. They would hardly have
traveled with helicopters. Thus the order of towns as given by the two later
authors is wrong. They also leave out the castles between Pravadi and Shoumen
(VenCan and Madara). In their defective account they send Ali Pasha from
Shoumen to "Deriîne", which as we saw, can hardly be anything other than
Värbitsa, and from there to Kosovo. Then they also have the story that Yarali
Dogan was sent to destroy the land around Kosovo, after which the Tekur of
Kosovo offered to surrender the castle of "Qetrhezar", which was taken,
whereafter the castle of "Hirvatiye" was also taken. 51 These places do not exist
and never did exist. Although Parmaksizoglu turned "Cetrhezar" into Hezargrad
and Hammer made Hirvatiye into Hirsovo on the Danube, it is nothing more
than simple mis-reading and mis-spelling of the name of Cerven. In my opinion
the mistake has to be traced to the Menzel Codex (p. 70), which writes: andan
Qervena'ya geliib am dahi aldi Qervena'ya Nevkesri ve Krafdavga'ya geliib anlan
dahi altb.. but crossed out the second Qervena'ya, it being a slip of the pen.
Sa'deddin/Müneccimbajt turned the first fervena'ya into Qetrhezar by placing a ta
between the gim and the ra, which can be done easily when one does not know
the meaning of the place-name, and added an alif. When a defectively written
"Cernoz" (as in the list of names) is taken as model the mistake is even easier to
make. In much the same manner the second, crossed out, Qervena'ya was misread
as "Hirvatiye. One almost only needs to change the dots. Leunclavius, or better
the "Vorlage" of Murat Dragoman, his source, was of better quality. It does not
have either Qetrhezar or Hirvatiye and simply gives the story as follows:
"Demnach Kosova erobert ist Ali weiter in die Bulgarey fortgeruckt und bey
Tirnaw, so dess Fürsten Sasmenos Hauptstadt und Hoflager war, sich gelagert.
Da wurde ihm als bald die Schlüssel von den Bürgern Überantwort. Ist folgends
zu der Bürgt Tzirnevi kommen, und hat sie eyngenommen. Darnach haben die
Türcken auch Novakesri und Kirastoza in iren Gewalt bracht. Allda sind auch
dem Basscha die Schlüssel der Bürgt Jurgova genannt, entgegen geschickt
worden." 52 No trace of £etrhezar and Hirvatiye. The account of Ruh! also has no
trace of these phantom places, which only "exist" because of bad philology and
worse knowledge of the local geography.
From the account of Nejri u can be seen that the army of Ali Pasha
remained in the area of the important Cerven, the second cluster of old-Bulgarian
towns. Sa'deddin/Müneccimba$i paraphrase this section of the story, just
mentioning that Ali Pasha took "all the castles" (M.: "the lands on the bank of
the Danube ") and then describe in some detail the capture of Nikopol and the
5I
Miineccimba$i Ahmed Dede, Müneccimbafi Tarihi, Turkish translation of Ismail Eriinsal,
(TercUman 1001 Temel Eser, Istanbul no date), 1, p. 122. Sa'deddin Tacü't-Tevärih 1,173.
'^Johannes Löwenklau, Neuer Musulmantscher Hislnri. Frankfurt 1595, p. 166.
THE TOWNS OF MEDIEVAL BULGARIA 181
surrender of Sisman. Ne§ri has more. Immediately after Cerven the castle
Nevkesri (Nukesri?) was taken. This is ca. 32 km west of Cerven, over the
plateau and then across the river Yantra. The Ottoman version of the name
doubtlessly conceals the Greek "Neokastro" and this is the meaning of the
Bulgarian name too: Novgrad. Just outside Novgrad, on the west bank of the
Yantra, is a longish hill still locally called "Kalebair." No traces of walls can be
seen anymore but a multitude of kitchen pottery and coloured sgrafitto ceramic
from the 13 th and 14th centuries has been found at the site, as well as some
Byzantine coins of the 12th century. The small castle no doubt was built in the
time of the second Byzantine rule over Bulgaria (971 -1186). 53 In the order Ne$ri
gives the story, the army then took Kirajdavge The identification of this place-
name caused some troubles, as said previously. Andreev and Lazarov wanted to
identify it with Razgrad, the original name of which was KrSsti-grad, as they
supposed. This solution was already rejected by Ara Margos, as we saw. Margos
suggested instead the site of Krestevi near the village of Kar Yagdi, now Snefcina,
in the Pravadi district. This would indeed have been a possible candidate if there
were no other places of that name. The principal flaw is that it is too far away
from the area where the operations took place, more than 100 km to the south
east of Cerven. The army would not have flown back all that way and then
resumed its actions again in the Cerven area. A better candidate for Kira$davije
was suggested to me by Alexander Kuzev, who pointed out that there was the
site of an old castle only 12 km. south west of Cerven. This site is a hilltop
overlooking the confluence of the BaniSki Lom and the Kara Lom, two and half
km. due south of the village of Sirokovo and two km. west of Ostritsa. This site
was studied by Karel Skorpil at the beginning of our century and is said to be
early Byzantine. Whether there are medieval remains has not yet been established.
The highly detailed German Army Map 100.000, (Berlin 1940, Blatt "Russe")
however, gives the old name of the site, which is "Kristere Tepesi". This is close
enough to identify it with Negri's Kirajdavê. It simply became more corrupted
in the course of time.
The most likely identification of Kira^davje with the Bulgarian

KrSstovitsa near Sirokovo suggests that the account of Ne§ri has changed the
order of places. From Cerven first Kira^davê was taken and there the deputation
from Russe came to surrender the keys. Over the plateau this is about 35 km.;
through the meandering canyon of the Lom it is more. We must add that the
"Yurgova" of Ne§ri is indeed the modern town of Russe/Rusiuk. There were two
towns called Yurgova/Giurgiu. Beginning with the Ottoman defter from 1479,
and in all the subsequent 16th century tahrirs these towns are called: Yergogii
berii Yaka (Giurgiu of this Side) and Yergogii ote Yaka (Giurgiu of the opposite
53
Kuzev, Gjuzelev, Kreposti (Note36) p. 155/56.
182 M a c h i e l KIEL
side). The Turkification of the name by Unat and Koyraen, into "YUriik-Ova is
simple ignorance.
On the way to take the castle of Giurgiu/Russe in possession the army

must have passed other fortified placed. Negri writes they followed the Danube
and took all the towers (Burgaz/Pirgos) and castles there were, and placed
garrisons in them. 54 One of them must have been the tower of the village of
Pirgovo, 25 km. north of the site of Krfistovitsa and 14 south-west of Russe,
indeed situated on the Danube. The Ottoman tahrirs of the 16th century know
this place as "Despot Pirgoz". Immediately east of the village, on a hill on the
Danube, called "the Kale" are the foundations of this tower. Coloured sgrafitto
ceramic and the find of 75 gold coins of the Byzantine emperor John II
Comnenos (1118-1143), as well as 68 silver coins of the Bulgarian Tsar Ivan
Alexander (1331-1371) pin down this tower in time. 55 The gold coins and the
Greek name suggest that it is a work of the 11th century Byzantine
administration in these lands. It is highly probable that this tower is the "Tower
on the Danube" (Tun Birgoz) of Nejri's list of Tsar Sisman's towns. It is also
possibly that there was a tower in the nearby village of MeCka, four km.
downstream from Pirgovo. Meika is mentioned on Negri's list but a
transposition with Pirgovo remains possible. MeCka did exist in the 14th
century. Coins from Michael Sisman (1323-1330) and Ivan Alexander, found in
the village, prove it. 56
From the Russe-Pirgovo area onward the itinerary leaves no problems.

They went westward along the river. It is most likely that on the way they came
to Nevkesri/Novgrad, because this blocks the road along the river going
westward. Twenty km. to the west of Novgrad is the next town mentioned:
"Zi§tovo",57 the modern SviStov, where the local commander capitulated after a
few days of resistance. The castle of SviStov was very small and the "town" at its
foot likewise. In 1479 it had 200 Christian households and only five Muslim
households, besides a garrison which in 1516 numbered six men under a Dizdar.
54
Codex Mcnzel (see Note 28) p. 70 "içine er koydi". Kuzev-Gjuzelev, Kreposti, p. 156,
suggested that the Ottomans tn 1388 destroyed Novgrad. The cited passage in Ne$ri, however,
makes it more likely that they kept them intact. If the castle was not destroyed by the Ottomans
it could have been finished off by the Crusaders' army, during their destructive campaign of 1444.
This, however, is not mentioned in the sources. The best candidate for the destruction of Novgrad
and the nearby Pirgos/Pirgovo, as well as a number of other north Bulgarian places, is the
destructive raid of the Wallachian Voyvode Vlad the Impaler in 1462, the historical prototype of
Count Dracula. In the report of this campaign, written by Vlad himself, he boasts to have killed
384 Turks and Bulgare in Pirgos, Batin and Novgrad. The three places lie close to each other and
the whole description of the raid looks veiy logical and reliable.
55
Kuzev, Gjuzelev, Kreposti, p 156.
56
These coins are now preserved in the Museum of Rousse (communication from Kuzev,
16.4.1991.)
57
Clearly written in this form in the Codex Menzel, p. 70. Codex Manisa and Unat-K6ymen
write ZiStova, which is farther away from the Bulgarian prototype.
The name Sviltov is a corruption of the Greek Sevastokastro. Idrisi, in his

Geography, called it "Supestkastro," the Ottoman tahrirs "Zijtovi." This castle
was destroyed by the Russians in 1810. Its ruins are still preserved and have been
the object of some archeological research.
Along the 40km. stretch of lowland between SviStov and the last town
mentioned in the account of Ne§ri, Nikopol, no castles or other fortified
structures are known. It is highly probable that the army crossed the Danube at
SviStov because this is one of the easiest places to ford the great river, a ford
used in a number of military conflicts in this area. Good armies know such
things in advance. Ne$ri gives no itinerary, but on the Wallachian side there are
very few settlements anyhow. He does mention the crossing of the river,
however, immediately after the "Tekür" of Zi§tovo has surrendered, and writes:
"andan yüriidiTun kenárinda58 Eflak gegüb aldigi birkozlart alé halkini esir idiib
andan siiriib Nigeboli iizerine dü¡dü." Where they crossed over the Danube is not
said but the only likely (possible) places are at SviStov and at Nikopol itself. On
the low and very swampy Wallachian bank, all the way between Calafat
(opposite Vidin) and Giurgiu opposite Russe, no castles or fortified places are
known to have existed except Holávnik. Holávnik is situated two km. to the
north of Nikopol, on the bank of the Danube on the Wallachian side. In the
Middle Ages is was the Bulgarian bridgehead of Nikopol. Holávnik consisted of
one solid round tower, surrounded by three defensive walls.
The name is old Bulgarian and indicates "trousers" "pants". Kuzev

identified Holávnik with the "Ton Birgoz" of Ne§ri, because "ton" or "don" also
means "trousers" in Turkish. This is indeed a good argument. However, we prefer
to stay with the itinerary of the conquest as given above and identify "Tun
Birgoz" as "Tower on the Danube", the Despot Pirgoz/Pirgovo near Rousse,
because this makes more sense geographically. The Menzel Codex frequently
calls the Danube/Tuna simply "Ton", "Tun", without the alif at the end.
From Holávnik the army went over directly to Nikopol, perhaps the
largest city of old Bulgaria. In 1479 it had a Muslim population of 308
households, 446 Christian households and another 318 households of Christian
miisellems, who did not pay ispenge and cizye because of their military function.
Altogether ca 5000 inhabitants, on top of which came a Muslim garrison of
about 70 men. 59
5
®Code* Manisa and Unat-K6ymen have "Tuna" and "Eflaka" (= Eflak'a).
59
S e e the Ottoman register OAK 45/29, published in Tvrski Izvori za Bilgarskata Islorija \\,
Sofia 1966, p. 165 and 298-321. After publication of this highly important source it became
possible lo establish its date: 1479.
184 Machiel KIEL
After the capture of Nikopol the Pasha again brought Tsar SiSman to
Sultan Murad, and again he was forgiven, very probably because he was Murad's
brother-in-law. Here Negri's story of the conquest of medieval Bulgaria ends.
According to the list at the beginning of the story there were "more than thirty"
towns in SiSman's lands. Until now we have indentified 23 of them. The
missing one is the seventh of the list: "Eflakfi". Kuzev, in a letter to me,
suggested that it could be the site of "Vlakovo" or "Vakovo" 2.5 km. south west
of the present village of Pisanets. The Ottoman registers beginning with 1516,
mention this place as Kumanov Brod ("Ford of the Cumans") but later add
"Kumanov Brod, also known as Pisance." After the 17th century the old name
was dropped and only Pisanets Femained. A Vlakovo is not known to the tahrirs.
At the site of Vlakovo some 13-14th century ceramics have been found, as well
as a silver coin of Tsar Ivan Aleksander. This would be a candidate for our Eflaka
in the list (Menzel p. 67). It is however, very unlikely that, after having been
active along the bank of the Danube west of Rousse, the army would have gone
almost 30 km. inland again, in a direction counter to the main line of operations.
The words of Negri give no hint of such action. It is much more likely that the
eye-witness had the country of Wallachia (Eflak) in mind. After SviStov they
indeed crossed over to the Wallachian bank and took the castle of HolSvnik. The
castle is not mentioned by name. That the account writes "castles" on the
Wallachian site does not mean very much. Kuzev identified "Tun(a) Birgoz" with
Holivnik, as we saw. So for him Eflak and Eflaka in the list and in the
descriptive account had to be seen as the name of a town or a castle. Because we
identified Tuna Birgoz as the present village of Pirgovo west of Russe, the
possibility remains open that Eflak/Eflaka is indeed the country, and not any
special town.
Besides the places which we identified and described there are another three
places in the list left over. On close examination of the list it can be seen that
there is not any order in it. A structured and logical order is only to be found in
the description of the events themselves. Number eight on the list is Gdzka,
which has been identified with Kozyak, a small castle on the shore of the Black
Sea. 6 0 It is slightly more than 50 km. east of the starting point of the 1388
campaign, Aytos, and must have been taken by a small detachment while the
bulk of the army marched on Pravadi. Number 15 in the list, Eymonoz, is just
14 km. south of Kozyak, at the place where the Balkan Mountains end. The
toponym Emona perpetuated the antique name of the Balkans, Haemus. At both
places some ruins remain and 14th century coins have been found. The name of
Kozyak was given to the village near the ruins in 1934. Previously it was called
Gozeken, the Turkish corruption of the medieval Kozyak. Both places are
®%ee: Kuzev, Gjuzelev, Kreposli, p. 396-324.

mentioned in the poem of the 13th century Byzantine poet Manuel Philes
describing the exploits of Michael Glace Tarchaniotes. 61
The only place left over from the list is Magluc, which has been identified
with M&gliz Kale, a deserted hill top ruin just of the village of Acemler (after
1934: Aksakovo), about twelve km. north-west of Varna. At the site 14th
century ceramics have been found and a number of Byzantine coins, as well as an
inscription in Greek, giving the name Balik, the Gagauz ruler of the 14th century
principality of Dobrudja. Next to the castle existed the village of MSgliz,
inhabited by Gagauzes. 62 The Ottoman tahrirs from the 16the century, as well as
the detailed avariz defters from 1642 and 1751 mention several Christian
inhabitants in this village still having Turkic names like Kurt, Giindogdu or
Aydin. 63 The settlement has been deserted since the Russian wars of the early
19th century. The Ottomans in 1388 could have taken it on their way to Varna,
they could also have passed it and just heard its name.
The problem of which towns or castles could have been the six or eight
others, which our list says belonged to Tsar Si&man, but which are not
mentioned by name cannot be solved in a adequate manner. We have to assume
that Rahovitsa, just eight km. down from Tirnovo, was among them.
"Rahautsch" is mentioned in the account of Hans Magest about the Crusade of
Varna, 1444, together with "Mihelitsch", Shoumen ("Schemle") and other
castles, which were all well defendable and occupied by Turkish forces. The
Crusaders captured them and all destroyed them as is vividly described by
Magest. 6 4 This account corroborates Negri's story that most of the Bulgarian
towns surrendered to the Turks, and were not destroyed. They must have been
intact at least until 1444. It is also possible to suggest that among the
unmentioned towns was Pleven, a small castle, perhaps having a suburbium.
Pleven is 40 km. south-west of Nikopol, easily accessible through flat land
along the river Osum. Thirty km. further south was the small town of LoveC,
Lof$a in the later Ottoman sources. It may also be one of the "more than thirty",
as may be the castle of HutaliC, five km. south-east of Sevlievo (Selvi), between
LoveC and Tirnovo. A last possibility is the castle of Elena, the small mountain
6
' F o r a Bulgarian translation of the poem on the exploits of 1279 see: Petär Petrov, Vasil
Gjuzelev, Hrestomatija po islorija na Bdlgarija, vol 2, Sofia 1978 (Kozyak on p. 356). More
details on the poet himself and his work in: W. Buchwald. A.Hohlweg, 0 . Brinz, Tusculum
Lexikon Griechischer und Lateinischer Autaren des Altertums und des Mittelalters, München
1982 (third edit.), 630/31.
62
See:Alexander Kuzev, "Die mittelalterliche Festung "MägliS bei Vania," Studio Balcanica,
Recherches de Géographie Historique, Sofia 1970, p. 129/35.
^ W e spoke about these registers at the congress "Ukraine and the Ottoman Empire" Kiev 20-26
October 1991. The paper called "The Dobrudja, a Borderzone between the Balkans, Anatolia and
the Ukraine" is scheduled to be printed at the Harvard Ukrainian Studies Center in 1993/94.
^ S e e note 32.
186 Machiel KIEL
town south-east of Tirnovo, which controlled an important pass road to the

Thracian plain. We can also assume that the "more than thirty" towns and castles
were not all taken in 1388 but just mentioned as existing. We don't know. What
is certain at least is that Ne;ri's account of the 1388 campaign is an
extraordinarily rich source for the little known history of the Ottoman conquest
of Bulgaria. That this conquest was very different in nature from the usual
Bulgarian horror stories, is also clear. Half the places mentioned were not
destroyed by the Ottomans but by the Crusaders of 1444. Those that survived and
were rebuilt, Nikopol, SviStov, Rousse, Silitra and those along the Black Sea
coast, were blown up by the Russian army in 1810. For the reconstruction of the
real situation in Bulgaria, and for the attitude and expectations of its inhabitants,
the oldest manuscripts of Ne$ri, not his later copyists or modern translators, are
our best source.
University of Munich
Reconstruction of the Itinerary of the Campaign of Candarli-zade Ali Pasha
against the Bulgarian Tsardom of Ivan Sisman, 1388/89.
1. Metin KUNT
THE WAQF AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PUBLIC

POLICY: NOTES ON THE KOPRULU
FAMILY ENDOWMENTS
There was at best a blurred distinction between state and sultan in the
Ottoman polity during its early development. As in other Islamic states the term
devlet implied both state and dynasty, as one. The Ottoman sultan did not
proclaim that he was the state, as did the Sun King, Louis XIV; in the Ottoman
world that was a self-evident fact. The central institutions of the state, the
standing army and the bureaucracy, emerged as extensions of the ruler's
household, serving the sovereign while administering his realm. The principal
officials, whatever their origin, were the servants (kuh) of the sultan so long as
they received their pay from him and were dependent upon his benevolence.
It is not surprising, then, that officials were also identified with the state.
The state allocated them revenue not only for their own necessities, but also to
allow them to maintain extensive households and numerous retainers to better
serve the sovereign, for, as an early seventeenth-century grand vizier reminded the
sultan in so many words, what was good for the servants of the sultan was good
for the state. 1 It is because of this close identification of officials with the
sovereign and state that Ottomans extended the connotation of the term imara:
while earlier Islamic thinkers like Ibn Khaldun used the term to connote the
political power of the sovereign, Ottoman writers such as Kmalizade Ali and
Nairn! included that of officials in its implication.2 Ottoman officials, because
Yemijçi Hasan Pasha, grand vizier in 1601-1603, in a memorandum (telhis) to Mehmed III:
"kullarunuzda mâl ve kuvvel ve kudrel ohcak asla yabana gitmeyiip ol mâlun menfaali cânib-i din
û devlete râci olmak mukarrerdir" in Cengiz Orhonlu, Telhisler (Istanbul 1970), p. 18, no. 18.
2
Ahlâk-i Alâi (Bulak 1248), 11:8; Tarih-i Naîmâ (Istanbul 1281), VI:26-27. For an example of
changes effected by the Ottomans in the signification of earlier Islamic political ideas, see 1.
Metin Kunt, "Dervij Mehmed Paja, Vezir and Entrepreneur: A Study in Ottoman Political-
Economic Theory and Practice." Turcica, Vol. 9, no. 1 (1977), pp. 197-214.
190 1. Meti n KUNT
they received remuneration from the state and directly served its interests, were
seen to share in the political authority of the sultan, or at least to represent it in
the realm.
With this political conception in mind Barkan has argued that waqfs
established by sultans and high-level officials should indeed be considered state
institutions, for they were founded by the state through its representatives, funded
by state allocations, and provided public services considered among the basic
duties of modern states. 3 The following discussion about endowments made by
members of the Kopriilii family of vezirs in the second half of the seventeenth
century will illustrate the use of the waqf institution in implementing public
policy. To prepare the background for the analysis of the awq&f, however, a
digression reviewing the political activities of the Kopriilii vezirs is necessary.
Kopriilii Mehmed Pasha, the first and most illustrious member of the
family, is one of the most famous vezirs in Ottoman history. He came to power
in 1656 at an especially difficult point in the early, turbulent reign of the child-
sultan Mehmed IV. The war with Venice over Crete had been dragging on since
1645. The Ottomans, their spirits high after the reconquest of Baghdad on the
eastern front, had hoped to find the conquest of Crete a relatively easy task. The
Venetians, however, took advantage of their naval superiority and turned the
struggle into a war on the seas. They first cut off Ottoman communications with
the invading force on the island and later attempted a blockade of the Aegean,
disrupting supplies from Egypt to Istanbul and from Anatolian ports to Crete.
Several Ottoman fleets had been destroyed since the war started, and it was
growing unbearably costly to construct and fit out yet another one which, many
Ottomans pessimistically felt, would fall prey to the Venetians in due course. In
the summer of 1656 the Ottomans suffered their worst setback. Not only was
their fleet destroyed, but the Venetians invaded Limni (Lemnos) and Bozcaada
(Tenedos), islands just outside the Dardanelles. With these two islands in their
possession the Venetians became a permanently established threat to the very
safety of Istanbul. That summer there was real fear in the Ottoman capital that
the Venetians would move against the city itself and many Istanbulites fled to
Anatolia.
Kopriilii Mehmed Pasha was elevated to power that fall, after the sultan
agreed to allow him the full freedom of action and personal support grand viziers
traditionally expected. 4 His career had not been particularly illustrious until then,
•'For a concise statement of this argument, to be seen in some of his earlier publications as well,
see 6mer Lutfi Balkan and Ekrem Hakki Ay verdi, Istanbul Vakiflari Tahrir Defteri. 953 (1546)
Tarihli (Istanbul 1970), pp. XVI-XIX.
4
1. Metin Kunt, "Naimfl, K6prUlil, and the Grand Vezirate," Bogazifi Universry Journal-
Humanities 1 (1973), pp. 57-64; see also T. G&icbilgin, "K6prtil(iler," Islam Ansiklopedisi.
THE KÛPRÛLO FAMILY ENDOWMENTS 191
although he had served in almost every important office of the empire in both the
central and the provincial administration. That summer he had a circle of
supporters in Istanbul who were close to the sultan and, more important, to the
dowager, who hoped that his long-standing career as an official would enable him
to solve the immediate problems that had defeated so many vezirs in the previous
decade. The news of his appointment caused some surprise in Ottoman political
circles; Evliya (elebi reports that one man sneered at the news, commenting that
a penniless and bankrupt old fogey who had not been able to help himself could
not be expected to help the state. 5
Kopnilu Mehmed Pasha indeed succeeded fairly well. Although he did not
solve any major problems, he took the offensive on the battlefield, and the sultan
was happy to leave the worries of state in the old veziVs hands while he himself
took to the hunt. After mobilizing all the empire's resources during his first
winter in office, Kdpriilii Mehmed Pasha succeeded in the summer of 1657 in
recapturing Limni and Bozcaada and thus defusing the Venetian offensive in the
Aegean Sea. He spent the following winter in Edirne with the sultan and the
imperial army, preparing for a direct overland assault on Venice itself. It had
become evident that the Ottomans would not be able to deal with the Venetian
navy in the short run, but pressure on the Republic's land frontier in the form of
a grand imperial land campaign might bring Venice to her knees and provide a
swift solution to the problem of Crete. 6
However, a newly developing situation on the empire's northwestern

frontier, in the form of a bid for independence in the vassal Danubian
principalities, took precendence over Venice and Crete. The trouble was
instigated by Transyivania, the strongest and westernmost vassal, which was
encouraged by Austria and seconded by Wallachia and Moldavia. Preserving the
status quo along the central European frontier by bringing the vassals to heel was
more important than conquering a Mediterranean island, especially since Venice
was no longer an imminent threat. Therefore, the objective of the campaign of
1658 was shifted to Transylvania. The vassals were defeated on the battlefield,
but before the old vezir was able to establish stability in the troubled area,
developments elsewhere once again claimed his attention. The new problem was
a major revolt in southern Anatolia led by dozens of Ottoman officials against
the heavy-handed rule of the vezir. The bulk of the army had to leave the Balkans
and cross into Anatolia to deal with the rebellion. By the end of the next
campaign season the revolt had been suppressed, but in its wake Kdpriilii had to
concern himself with internal reorganization instead of turning either to Venice,
•'Evliya ÇeJebi, Seyahomame (Istanbul 1315), Vol. 5. p. 93.

6
l Metin Kum, "The Kfipriiltt Years: 1656-1661," unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, (Princeton
1971), Chapter 4.
192 I. Met in KUNT
still unconquered, or to Transylvania, still festering. Both of these foreign

problems remained unresolved at his death in 1661.
The sultan had been so pleased with the old Kopriilii's capable rule that in
addition to leaving him in office for more than five years until his death, he
appointed his elder son Ahmed Pasha, a young man of thirty, as his replacement.
Kopriiluzade FSzil Ahmed Pasha occupied the office of grand vizier until his
death, of natural causes, fifteen years later. Building on the policies of his father,
he began to deal with outstanding problems one by one, at a more deliberate
pace, now that they no longer constituted immediate threats, thanks to the older
Kopriilii's successes: In 1664 the former status quo on the Central European
border was achieved after bringing Transylvania to heel and carrying the war onto
Austrian territory. Furthermore, to punish the defeated vassal and to check its
future communications1 with the Hapsburgs, western Transylvania was brought
under direct Ottoman rule. Next the energies of the empire were turned again to
Crete, with Venice finally capitulating in 1669. The Ottoman war machine,
well-oiled and evoking memories of the victorious armies of Suleyman the
Magnificent, then turned to new conquests in the north: in 1672 Podolia was
annexed from Poland and in the following years the western Ukraine was brought
under Ottoman suzerainty.7
Fazil Ahmed Pasha was replaced by another family member, his brother-
in-law Kara Mustafa Pasha. 8 By then the empire was so self-confident that in
1683 Mustafa Pasha attempted what had eluded Sultan Suleyman himself, the
conquest of Vienna. The unsuccessful siege of the Hapsburg capital and the
ensuing rout cost the grand vizier his life but, much more important, proved that
Ottoman resurgence under the Kopruliis lacked a solid basis. The aftermath of the
siege was a long and disastrous war which ended only in 1699 when the
Ottomans gave up Hungary to Austria, Morea to Venice, and the area around the
Azov Sea to Russia.
In pursuing our present purpose, however, we are concerned not with

Ottoman defeat but with Ottoman conquest. We have digressed to retrace the
footsteps of the Kopriiliis to their various far-flung battlefields, for these areas
figure prominently in the family's awqaf, to which we can now turn.
7
I. Metin Kunt, "Onyedinci Yiizyil Osmanh Kuzey Politikasi," Bogaziçi University Journal-
Humanities IV (1976-1977). pp 111-116.
8
Six members of the family served in the office of grand vizier in the seventeenth century:
KfipriilO Mehmed Pasha, 1656-1661; his elder son FSzil Ahmed Pasha, 1661-1676; his protégé
and son-in-law Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa Pasha, 1676-1683; his slave, protégé, and son-in-law
SiySvuj Pasha, 1687-1688; his younger son FSzil Mustafa Pasha, 1689-1691; his nephew
Amcazâde Httseyin Pasha, 1697-1702. The list continues into the the eighteeenth century.
"Family" here is taken to mean "household" rather than the natural family, as is appropriate in
the Ottoman socio-political context.
THE KOPROLC FAMILY ENDOWMENTS 193
T w o waqf deeds will be discussed, both of which are preserved in the

Kopriilii Library in Istanbul (MSS 1 and 4). The first was drawn up in the name
TABLE 1: BUILDINGS IN THE

KÖPRÜLÜ MEHMED PASHA ENDOWMENT
Mosque Mescid School Han Shop Mill Miscellaneous
Bozcaada 1 1 1 1 84 9 5a
Yanova 1 - 2 - 30 9
Rujnik 1 - 1 - - - -
Amasya 1 - 1 2 - - 2b
Karaoglan Beli 1 - 1 1 - - -
Tarakliborlu 1 - 1 - -
Cisr-i Sugur 1 1 1 1 - - Ie
TOTAL 7 2 8 5 114 18 8
"bathhouse, coffeehouse, stable, waterwheel (dolab), bakery

b
fountain, prayer area (namazg&h)
c
fort
TABLE 2: RURAL REVENUE SOURCES THROUGH IMPERIAL

GRANTS (TEMUK)
Village Mezra'a Nomad Dues Estate Pasture Market Dues
Limni 2 - _ _
Yanova 1 1 _
Amasya 6 - - - 1 1
Hiidâvendigâr 3 2 - - 3 -
Sultanönü 7 4 - 4 1
Bolu 3 . _ _
Haleb 15 12 4 - - -
TOTAL 37 19 4 4 4 2
of Kopriilii Mehmed Pasha on 18 Receb 1070/31 March 1660 (MS 1, p. 82).

The second waqfiyya, dated 25 Safer 1089/18 April 1679 (MS 4, f. 63a),
contains endowments of both Fazil Ahmed Pasha and of his younger brother
194 t. Metin KUNT
Fazil Mustafa Pasha (then Bey). It is explained in the document that Ahmed
Pasha built many public and charitable works but died (in 1676) before he had
endowed them with sources of revenue. Mustafa Bey then added the library in
tstanbul that he himself had built and furnished with books, 9 and endowed both
his own property and property he inherited from Ahmed Pasha (granted to him by
the sultan) for the support of the library and the charitable works his eld«- brother
had built. This waqfiyya, then, should be considered the joint endowment of the
two brothers.
First let us consider the endowments of Kopriilii Mehmed Pasha. The

waqfiyya studied here concerns the pasha's second waqf. Earlier, in less
prosperous times and apparently before he was appointed grand vizier, he had
made another endowment. We learn of the earlier waqf through reference to it in
the deed under review. The references indicate that this first endowment was quite
modest, comprising two hans and a water conduit in Turhal in the sancak of
Amasya, named among the beneficiaries of any surplus in the present waqfiyya
(p. 73). 10 The pasha's later waqf was much more extensive. In various parts of
the empire he built a total of 6 mosques, 1 mescid, 1 bathhouse, 7 schools
(mekteb), 4 inns (han), 114 shops, 18 mills, a prayer platform (namazg&h), a
public fountain, a coffeehouse, a stable, a bakery, a waterwheel, and a large
complex including a fort, a han, a mosque, a school, and a mescid (see Table 1).
Some of these buildings, namely the shops, the bathhouse, the

coffeehouse, the inns and the mills, generated revenue. All the rest of the revenue
for the endowment came from rural sources, again in various parts of the empire:
37 villages, 18 uninhabited villages (mezra'a), 4 summer pastures, 2 markets
(ibac ve baz&r) and 4 estates (fiftlik), all of which were state revenues granted to
the pasha (see Table 2).
Of particular interest in the present context, i.e., the role of the waqf in
the implementation of public policy, is the distribution of the endowed buildings
throughout the lands of the empire. The buildings enumerated above were
concentrated in several centers: two hans, one mosque, one school, and one
prayer platform were located in the towns of Turhal, Koprii, and Hacikoy, all in
the Amasya district where the pasha had served for many years and settled before
'The document leaves no room for doubt that it was Mustafa Bey who built the library (MS 4, f.
20a). A plaque on the outside wall of the building bears the date 1661, on the mistaken
assumption that it was among the endowments of the father.
l0
The other reference (p. 46) is to cauldrons the pasha had endowed earlier, which were to be used
in cooking festival meals at the prayer platform in Ktiprtl in Amasya sancak.
THE KÖPRÜLÜ FAMILY ENDOWMENTS 195
TABLE 3: EXPENDITURES OF KÖPRÜLÜ MEHMED PASHA'S ENDOWMENTS

I (daily) II (annual) TOTAL(I+ID
aifes/day x355=afcfes/year aifes/year akfesiyeax %
On Charitable Works
Bozcaada 150 53,250 2,520 55,770
Yanova 145 51,275 2,880 54,155
Rujnik 36 12,780 2,160 14,940
Amasya 111 39,405 2,880 42,285
Karaoglan Beli 132 46,860 1,800 48,660
Tarakliborlu 98 34,790 1,800 36,590
Cisr-i Sugur 407 144,485 2,880 147,365
Subtotal 1,079 382,845 16,920 399,765 43.5
Management and Family

Näzir (overseer) 40 14,200 14,200
Kàtìb (scribe) 30 10,650 - 10,650
Mutevelli (manager) 120 42,600 - 42,600
Wife. Ay$e Hatun 120 42,600 -- 42,600
Daughter, Fatma Hatun 50 17,750 - 17,750
Subtotal 360 127,800 -- 127,800 15.4
Alms to Mecca and Medina

1,000 gold pieces x 300 aipes 300,000 41.1
TOTAL 827.565 100.0
returning to public life in 16S6. A han, two mosques and two schools were
located in northwest Anatolia, at Tarakliborlu (Bolu sancak) and at Karaoglan
Beli (near Sogut, in Sultanonii sancak). I cannot offer any reason why the pasha
chose to build in these locations but only note that Tarakliborlu, at least, was an
important station on the northern Anatolian route to Istanbul. The pasha also
built a mosque and school in Rujnik, Albania, which he specified as his
birthplace (p. 42: "benim vatan-i aslim"). The bulk of the buildings, however,
were concentrated in three locations: Bozcaada, recovered from the Venetians in
1657, Yanova (Ineu) in western Transylvania, captured in the 1658 campaign and
severed from the rebellious vassal principality, and Cisr-i Sugur in Syria.
The complex at Cisr-i Sugur, with a fort, mosque, mescid, han, and
school, formed one of the stations on the main route from Cilicia to
196 1. M e t i n KUNT
D a m a s c u s . " The purpose of the fort was to provide protection to caravans of

merchants and pilgrims from the marauding bedouins. As can be seen in Table 3,
showing the expenditures of the pasha's endowments, the complex at Cisr-i
Sugur constituted the single largest item, its expenses totalling almost three
times that of any building groups in other locations and 37.5 percent of all
expenditures on charitable works (Table 3, first subtotal). The waqf employed 65
persons in the Cisr-i Sugur complex, more than three times as many as at any
other single location. 12 Of this number 40 were personnel for the fort, including
a commander (mustahftz agasi), a steward (kethiida), two troop leaders
(bolukbafi), a pursuivant ( f a v « j ) , a gatekeeper (kapici), and 34 guards
(mustahfiz). While building and endowing caravanserais is an old tradition,
supplying a way station with a fort and a company of guards whose pay came
from the endowment seems to be a new and much more direct use, at least in
Ottoman practice, of the waqf system in encouraging economic activity in the
realm. 1 3 Here the waqf is used not only for the convenience, but also for the
safety and protection of travellers, a duty of the state in modern times as well as
in the Ottoman political conception.
It may be noted, by comparing Tables 1 and 2, that an effort was made to

provide revenue sources near each group of charitable buildings. For example,
Anatolian and Syrian mosques and schools were supported by rural revenues
collected in their vicinity. However, there were few rural revenue sources in the
newly conquered areas of Bozcaada and Yanova: only two villages on the island
of Limni, near Bozcaada, and two in Yanova, one uninhabited, are listed in the
" T h e complex has been described by J. Sauvaget, "Les Caravansérails Syriens du Hadjdj de
Constantinople," Ars Islamica IV (1937), pp. 98-121. See also the review of Sauvaget's article
by M. Fuad KOpriilii, Vakiflar Dergisi 2 (1942), pp. 468-472.
12
The number of persons employed in each location was as follows: Bozcaada 18, Yanova 15,
Rujnik 6, Amasya 14, Karaoglan Beli 15, Tarakhborlu 20.
I3
Kflprtilfl Mehmed Pasha's example was followed son afterwards by Eni$te Hasan Pasha, an early
eighteenth-centuiy grand vizier, who built another complex at a way station on the same route
including a fort and guards. See Sauvaget, " Caravansérails Syriens."
THE K O P R O L O F A M I L Y ENDOWMENTS 197
TABLE 4: CHARITABLE WORKS OF THE KÖPRÜLÜ BROTHERS
Mosque College School Houses for Fountain Miscellaneous

Employees
Uyvar 1 - - - - -
Kandiye 1 - 1 2 1 -
Kamaniçe 1 - 1 9 - -
Belgrade - 1 - - 3 1 han
Köprii - 1 - - - -
Istanbul - - - - - 1 library
Izmir - - - - 55 -
TOTAL 3 2 2 U 59 2
TABLE 5: REVENUE SUPPORT FOR THE KÖPRÜLÜ BROTHERS' CHARITIES
Shop & Store House Rooming Mill Plot Boston Workshop

Market & Han House
Uyvar 175 - 16 2 15 2 - Ia
Belgrade 2 1 1 2 - 1 - -
Kandiye 85 44 13 8 3 2 2
Kamaniçe - 1 3 1 26 1 5 lb
Izmir 93 6 4 2 - 1 - 3C
TOTAL 355 52 37 15 44 7 7 5
Slaughterhouse
''unidentified workshop (kârhane)
c
2 candle factories, 1 bakery
waqfiyya. The charitable buildings in Bozcaada and Yanova were to be supported

by the income of shops, mills and some other commercial buildings. Should
such revenue be insufficient additional funds would be available from the rural
resources in the interior. This policy may have been due to a desire not to press
the peasants of the war-ravaged areas. Furthermore, the construction of shops and
other commercial establishments in Bozcaada and Yanova encouraged economic
development there. The underlying policy was clearly to establish Ottoman
presence and culture in these frontier areas as strongly as possible.
198 1 . M et i n KUNT
The same resolve to encourage economic activity and provide facilities for
the establishment of Ottoman culture in newly conquered towns is the dominant
feature in the endowments of the old vezir's sons. The ¡information on their
endowments summarized in Tables 4 and 5 shows this policy very clearly. The
Kfipriilii brothers established a medrese (college) in K6prii, their hometown
("vatan-i aslileri" f. 5b), a lending library 14 in Istanbul, and many fountains in
Izmir, which had grown rapidly in the course of the seventeenth century as
Anatolian exports became a major element in the Levant trade. All other
charitable works were in Uyvar in Hungary; in Kandiye, the chief town of Crete;
and in Kamanife, the seat of Podolia—all conquered during Fazil Ahmed Pasha's
fifteen years as grand vizier. Belgrade, the main center for the operations of the
Ottoman army in the west, was also given new buildings. The interesting feature
of this waqfiyya is that very few rural revenue sources were supplied; only some
estates and villages in Estergon sancagi in Hungary are entered among the
endowments. A great part of the endowment was supplied by the income of
shops, stores, hans, houses, and other urban sources in the same towns where the
charitable works were located. The only exception is that many urban resources
in Izmir were provided for the new fountains in the city and, presumably, for the
public buildings in the newly conquered areas. As a result of this building
activity, the new Ottoman towns of Uyvar, Kandiye and Kamaniije would, it was
hoped, prosper through sharing in Ottoman culture.
The K6priilii endowments provide a striking illustration of the use of the

waqf institution in the service of state policy. Ottoman officials like the
Kopriilus were not only servants of the state but a part of it. As such, through
their charitable works they provided security and protection to long-distance
travellers, as witnessed by Kopriilii Mehmed Pasha's complex at Cisr-i Sugur,
and, above all, they tried to provide prosperity and Ottoman culture to towns
they themselves had conquered for the glory of the sultan and the state.
University of Cambridge
'^The terms were quite liberal. Books were to be lent out for up to six months. The librarian,
however, was instructed to seek guarantees from borrowers (f. 52a).
Rudi Paul LINDNER
BEGINNING OTTOMAN HISTORY1
Das Studium der ältesten Osmanischen

Geschichtsquellen ist bis auf den heutigen Tag noch
nicht energisch in Angriff genommen.
Friedrich Giese (1921)
The publication of Hammer's grand Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches

established many precedents, indeed models, for interpreting the early chronicles
of the rise of the Ottomans, and his appeal is still strong, since reprints of the
original German edition and of a French translation may be purchased today, well
towards the second centennial of their first publication. 2 The great power of
Hammer's work rested upon his amalgamation of both Ottoman Turkish and
Byzantine Greek sources in order to construct a full and chronologically ordered
account. 3 Hammer appreciated the complementary advantages these disparate
sources afforded the scholar: the Ottoman chronicles provided a fairly complete
recounting of appealing tales, and while the Byzantine authors were largely
ignorant of the internal history of the Ottoman enterprise, their chronicles set
forth a coherent chronology within which to place the heroic foundation
' l wrote this as a Fulbright Senior Research Fellow in Rome, and I would like to thank the
Commissione per gli scambi culturali tra l'Italia e gii State Uniti for their generosity and
hospitality. I also thank the staff of the Tabula Imperii Bywntini project in Vienna for allowing
me to consult their card file of source references to place names, as well as the staffs of the
Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, the Accademia dei Lincei, and the Pontificio Istituto Orientale.
^Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall, Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches, vol. 1 (first edition. Pest,
1827; second edition. Pest, 1834). The 1963 reprint is still listed in the Verzeichnis lieferbar
BUcher. Histoire de l'empire Ottoman, transl. J.-J. Hellert, vol. 1 (Paris, 1835); transl. M.
Douchez from the second German edition, Paris, 1844). The Isis Press of Istanbul is in the
process of republishing the Hellert edition.
^Hammer was not the first to discuss the Ottoman and Byzantine sources in the same context, but
neither Leunclavius nor de Guigness nor Gibbon had as many of the sources at their disposal.
When fiabinger prepared his account of the growth of Ottoman studies in Europe, he clearly
marked oat Hammer's career as the watershed dividing two quite different eras.
200 Rudi Paul LINDNER
episodes.4 There were scholars (Iorga in particular) who placed less credence in
the Ottoman accounts than had Hammer, but even they depended upon the
Ottoman literary sources to fill out their narratives.5 Until recently the basic
assumption behind this approach, that the two sets of sources were discussing
the same events and places, remained intact and unquestioned. It is worth taking a
look at that assumption.
How did it happen that two groups of writings, so dissimilar in style and
purpose, appeared for so long to be discussing so many of the same events? Two
possible reasons come immediately to mind: first, the growth of Turcology as a
specialization, and second, the staying power of an attractive explanatory model.
The twentieth century growth of separate and increasingly distant disciplines
whose practitioners received their training in university seminars founded upon
the ideal of depth rather than breadth led to a separation between Byzantinists and
Turcologists in which the major research language of the one field did not enter
into the training of students in the other. Only if a Turcologist had studied the
classics would (s)he be competent to examine the Byzantine sources, and the
number of such scholars has dwindled, especially in the U.S.A., which has
produced so many Byzantinists and Turcologists. There arose, then, a willingness
on both sides to concentrate upon one group of sources and to ignore the others
or consult them at second or third hand, a procedure that tended to gloss over
some of the difficulties of context and intent.
Another reason for the continued use of Hammer's model was the ease
with which the Islamic sources could be used by themselves,' without continued
reference to the Byzantine chronicles, to devise simple and elegant explanations
for Ottoman success. The first of these was probably Friedrich Giese's attempt to
associate the early Ottomans with the akhi brotherhoods who, so it seemed,
provided an organizational framework, contacts with many of the Anatolian
towns, a religious appeal both austere and popular, and economic power to boot.
The notion that one cause might explain the Ottoman rise to greatness was, and
probably still is, exceedingly attractive: it is clean, direct, and easily taught. An
attractive and attractively put monocausal work has always had the potential to
become the "terminal paper" in the field, "giving the impression that the subject
is mastered and hence discourage further work in that field."6 The willingness to
take a procedural step beyond Hammer, or perhaps the realization that it lay
4
This is not quite true. Some of the fifteenth century Byzantine authors had teamed something of
the Ottomans' past from Turkish sources, and Kantakouzenos' account of the Ottoman tactics at
Pelekanon may owe something to later conversations with Orkhan.
5
Iorga felt great hesitation about the historicity of the early tales, and he recounted some of them
separately from his main narrative.
6
Jack E. Oliver, The Incomplete Guide to the Art of Discovery (New York, 1991), p. 94. Friedrich
Meinecke perhaps put it more personally when he recalled Burckhardt's warnings against
"terribles simplificateurs".
BEGINNING OTTOMAN HISTORY 201
before scholars to take, came in the aftermath of the shocks given to just such a
long-standing and widely-accepted proposal, often called "the Wittek thesis", that
early Ottoman success resulted from espousal of the ideology of the holy war.7
Although muted criticism of Wittek's proposal had begun already in the mid-
1930s, the catastrophe of the Second World War prevented scholars from
publishing full reviews of his most forceful and widely-circulated presentation,
The Rise of the Ottoman Empire, which remained in print from 1938 until a few
years ago. 8 Thus zeal for the struggle against infidels remained for many student
generations the primary explanation for Ottoman success.
Suspicions of the soundness of this explanation arose again in print

beginning in the 1970s with an article (which did not, however, mention
Wittek) by Kaldy-Nagy.9 Much of the criticism rested upon a reconsideration of
the material in the chronicles themselves, and this reconsideration seems to have
allowed scholars the freedom to doubt the worth of the early passages in the
fifteenth century Ottoman chronicles. Rejecting as tendentious, at best, the early
sections of the Ottoman chronicles has turned us back to the more contemporary
Byzantine chronicles of Pachymeres, Gregoras, and Kantakouzenos (which offer,
of course, their own problems), and has shortened the most recent accounts of the
generation of Osman to a very few pages. 10 No doubt a thorough evaluation of
the documents retained or copied in the Turkish archives will help immensely —
some day. Further, the role of field study and historical geography is now
n
'The origin — probably American — of the phrase "Wittek thesis" is worth further exploration,
implying, as it does, comparison with such grand ideas as "the Pirenne thesis" and "the Weber-
Tawney thesis".
o
"Paul Wittek, The Rise of the Ottoman Empire (London, 1938). Just when this book went out of
print, a work criticized in it, Fuad Köpriilü's Les Origines de !'Empire Ottoman, became again
available in reprint and English translation (by Gary Leiser, Albany, 1992, also in paperback)
and will become widely read. The first published critical review of Wittek's proposal was by
Friedrich Giese (of Wittek's Das Fürstentum Mentesche), for reference to which I owe thanks to
Colin Heywood. I have never seen a printed citation or discussion of this review, which reflected
not only scholarly doubts but also scholarly animosity, given the differences between Wittek
and Giese oVer the text of Ashikpashazade's chronicle. For other early criticism of Wittek's Rise,
see the references in "Stimulus and Justification in Early Ottoman History," The Greek Orthodox
Theological Review 27 (1982), pp. 207-224.
9
Gyula Kaldy-Nagy, "The holy war (jihad) in the first centuries of the Ottoman Empire," Harvard
Ukrainian Studies 3-4 (1979-1980), pp. 467-473.
10
Appeal to the Byzantine chronicles will increase once the current translation projects
involving Pachymeres, Gregoras, and Kantakouzenos are complete. For an example of the
problems raised in these sources, it has been suggested that there was a gap of nearly ten yean,
from 1307 to 1317, during which Osman ceased his conquests, perhaps due to Mongol pressure
brought about through Byzantine diplomacy. Angeliki E. Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins,
the Foreign Policy of Andronicus II1282-1328 (Cambridge, 1972), p. 247, and of Amakis, Hoi
Protoi Othomanoi, p. 185. It is much easier to see this "gap" as resulting from the differences
between the concerns of Pachymeres, who had a special interest in Bithynia and whose work ends
with events of 1307, compared with his successor, Nicephorus Gregoras, who treats Anatolian
events in much less detail.
receiving appropriate emphasis from expert hands. 11 For the moment, however,
it appears that the Ottoman sources are to be handled gingerly, if at all, and
accounts of the enterprise of Osman and Orkhan will rest upon the words of
those watching from across the frontier. 12
One may wonder whether the pendulum is not being allowed to swing too
far. To be sure, there are reasons to entertain grave doubts about the early
Ottoman accounts, but they are not, after all, tales cut from the same cloth as
those of Romulus and Remus: the earliest Ottoman sources are closer to the past
they recount than we are to the era of George Washington. Some of the material
is false, but it is not so far removed from the events that we have no hope of
recovering the circumstances from which they arose. And some of the remaining
material goes so much against the grain of the author or last redactor's overt
intentions that there is reason to see some truth in it. Nonetheless, before there
can be modified rapture over reconstructions that again use the early Ottoman
chronicles, there is much underbrush to be removed, and among the strongest
roots to be excavated is the assumption that the Byzantine and Ottoman authors
wrote about the same topics or even on occasion the same places.
The first scholar to voice doubts about the utility of melding the source
traditions was George Arnakis, whose monograph on Osman and the early years
of Orkhan is the finest unread book on Ottoman history. 13 After some
interesting introductory remarks about the sources available to him, the previous
scholarly literature, and the nature of the historical problems, Arnakis proceeded
to reconsider both the chronology of events and the process of conquest and
governance. He analyzed the Ottoman and Byzantine chronicles available to him
in Athens, pointing out discrepancies and occasionally suggesting how to
explain them away. He did not take the next logical step, which would have been
to consider the results of an admission that some of the discrepancies could not
be resolved.
Let us watch Arnakis at work on two problems, the fall of Bilecik (1299)
and the battle of Bapheus (1302). Bilecik \yas an important fort, guarding the
lower Kara Su and thus a way to the Sangarios, and it towers above routes west
11
See the forthcoming study of the Ottoman homelands by Clive Foss, who corrects many
misperceptions, including my own, that arise from the use of map and armchair alone.
12
T h i s is more true for the English-language literature, and in particular The Ottoman Empire
(Istanbul, 1991) by Colin Imber, a very impressive sifting and synthesis of the sources up to
1481; the recent collaborative history of the Ottomans edited by Robert Mantran, whose early
section is the work of Irène Beldiceanu-Steinhenr, contains a judicious use of the Ottoman
chronicles.
'•^George G. Arnakis, Hoi f'rotoi Othomanot (Athens, 1947). To my knowledge no Ottoman
specialist has ever reviewed this book, and citations to it are disturbingly rare and normally
limited to Byzantinists. The only serious review known to me is by R.L. Wolff, in Speculum 26
(1951), 483-488, still well worth reading.
and northwest to Bursa and Nicaea. 14 The battle of Bapheus marks the first
unequivocal appearance of the Ottomans in the Byzantine sources and the
Byzantines themselves, before the end of the decade, considered it to have been
pivotal.15 The tradition of the early Ottoman chronicles placed the fall of Bilecik
in 699 H./1299-1300 C.E. 16 But since Hammer, Bilecik is understood to have
been the same place as Belokome, a fort mentioned only in the contemporary
chronicle of Pachymeres. 17 Hammer remarked in an end-note that Pachymeres
put the fall of Belokome somewhat later than 699 but commented no further. 18
Arnakis found the difference between the sources more bothersome, especially
because Pachymeres' Belokome fell after the battle of Bapheus, and there was no
strategic or geographical sense in this order of events, since Bilecik is
substantially to the rear of any operation in the environs of Nicomedia. He
therefore decided that while Osman was active in the area of Belokome/Bilecik
around the turn of the fourteenth century, he cannot have possessed the fort at
that time, for Pachymeres would have mentioned an event of such importance;
and so Arnakis rejected the date given in the Ottoman chronicles.19 What Amakis
did not do was to question the identification of Belokome and Bilecik. 20 Yet that
would have been entirely proper, in part because of the divergence of the sources,
and also because there are strong phonological grounds for rejecting the
' 4 lis strategic importance is immediately apparent to anybody who meditates upon the enormous
destruction visited upon it during the Greco-Turkish war.
l5
Laiou. p 91
'^Consider, first, the source upon which Ahmedi, Shiikrullah, and Karamam Mehmed Pasha based
their chronicles. Ahmedi provides no date but places the conquest of Bilecik among Osman's first
important deeds (see Q. N. Atsiz, Osmanli Tarihleri [Istanbul, 1949], p. 9). Shfflkriillah gives 699
H.: Theodor Seif, "Der Abschnitt iiber die Osmanen in Slikriillah's persischer
Universalgeschichte," Miueiliingen zur Osmanischen Geschichte 2 (1923-1926), pp. 78-81; in
Atsiz, Osmanli Tarihleri, pp. 52-53. Karamani Mehmed Pasha, transl. by Ibrahim Hakkt Konyali
in Atsiz, Osmanli Tarihleri, pp. 344-345, also gives 699 H. The Anonymous Chronicles and
Uruj, on the other hand, date the fall of Bilecik to 687 H./1288-1289: here I can only refer the
reader to my lengthier discussion of this tradition in "The Forging of Ottoman Independence"
(forthcoming). The account of Ashikpashazade, which here follows his informant Yakhshi
Fakih, gives the 699 H. date: Die altosmanischen Chronik des Asikpasazade, ed. Friedrich Giese
(Leipzig, 1929), pp. 18-19.
17
Hammer, 1827 edition, voi. I, pp. 45, 59-60, without providing a reason for the
identification.
18
Hammer, p. 575.
Ârnakis, pp. 142-143, n. 31. Cf. Raymond Janin, "La Bithynie sous 1'empirc byz&ntin,"
Echos d'Orienl 20 (1921), p. 315.
20
•'"After all, the two place-names do bear a superficial resemblance when viewed in print. In
Nomads and Ottomans in Medieval Anatolia, p. 46 n. 128, I attempted to solve the dating
problem by suggesting that Osman obtained suzerainty over Bilecik some years before he took
absolute sovereignty — a suggestion, along with the identification, which 1 now recant.
equivalence of the two place-names.21 It would be much better to detach the two
accounts from each other and to seek Belokome elsewhere.
In fact, there is reason to review the entire series of place-name

correlations; one example must suffice here. Ramsay first identified the Ottoman
homeland at Sdgiid with a Sagoudaous found in the chronicle of Anna
Comnena. 22 Later scholars, myself among'them, accepted this identification,
although the text of Anna Comnena places Sagoudaous far from the highlands
above the Sangarios, as Clive Foss points out. 23
Arnakis was not only aware of the problem of reconciling the two
traditions. While he normally attempted a reconciliation, he was willing on
occasion to decouple the accounts. Perhaps the most important of these is the
battle of Bapheus in July 27, 1302, the first unquestionably dated event in
Ottoman history. 24 It was also the first Byzantine-Ottoman encounter to engage
the full attention of the chronicler George Pachymeres, who devoted much space
to its background. 25 Because this battle also marks the sole appearance of
Bapheus in the sources. Pachymeres' parenthetical remark that it is a place in the
country around Nicomedia is crucial 2 6 Any attempt to identify Bapheus with the
location of a particular battle in the Ottoman chronicles must agree with this
notice of Pachymeres.
"It would have been most surprising if there had been no mention in the
Ottoman sources of this event which induced Pachymeres to mention Osman in
2
' C l i v e Foss demonstrates this in his forthcoming monograph on the early Ottoman homelands
The argument from the appearance of two printed words is often weak. Hammer, for example,
argued (vol. 1, p. 578) that Kouboukleia was easily transformed into Lebleci through a copyist's
error. It is in fact Giibekler, visited by Hasluck nearly a century ago. For a discussion of
phonological (and other) approaches to Anatolian toponyms, see Louis and Jeanne Robert, "La
persistance de la toponymie antique dans l'Anatolie," in La toponymie antique (Strasbourg,
1977), pp. 11-63
22
A n n a Comnena, Alexiad. ed and tr B. Leib, vol. 3, p. 192.
--Îrène Beldiceanu-Steinherr, Recherches sur les actes des règnes des sultans Osman. Orkhan et
Murad I (Munich, 1967). p 60: my Nomads and Ottomans in Medieval Anatolia (Bloomington.
1983), p 44, n. 86. Cf. Amakis, pp 60, 73-74. with some interesting comparative remarks
24
T h e r e may be two accounts of an earlier Byzantine-Ottoman encounter, in 1298, during the
abortive Anatolian campaign of John Tarchaneiotes: F. Tinnefeld, "Pachymeres und Philes als
Zeugen für ein frühes Unternehmen gegen die Osmanen," Byzantinische Zeitschrift 64 (1971),
pp. 46-54. It does appear, however, that Tarchaneiotes directed his efforts against Turks to the
south of the Ottomans: see A.E. Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, the foreign policy of
Andronicus II 1282 1328 (Cambridge, 1972), pp. 87-89.
25
Pachytneres, ed. Bonn, vol. 2, pp. 327-335. Pachymeres organized his account as follows: (a)
the date and location of the battle, p. 327, 11. 6-10; ( b ) t h e Paphlagonian background, p. 327, 1.
10 - p. 330, I. 12 [cf. E.A. Zachariadou, "Pachymeres on the Amourioi of Kastamoni," Byzantine
and Modem Greek Studies 3 (1977), pp. 57-70]; (c) the flooding of the Sangarios, p. 330, 1. 12 -
p. 332, 1. 2 [see "Springtide on the Sangarios, 1302", forthcoming] (d) the battle proper, p.
332, 1. 2 - p. 335, I . 7 [see "Bapheus, Pelekanon, and the dog in the night", forthcoming).
26
Pachymercs, vol. 2, p. 327, 11. 7-8.
his history for the first time." 27 Hammer, for his part, claimed that Bapheus was
Koyunhisar, the site of an early battle in the Ottoman traditions. 28 We know
from the work of Professor Ménage about the various strands out of which later
Ottoman stylists wove their accounts, and three of them are relevant here. In the
source used by Ahmedi, Shukriillah, and Karamani Mehmed Pasha, Koyunhisar
is absent, but the battle is in the Anonymous Chronicles/Uruj and, based upon,
the Anonymous, in Ashikpashazade as well. The Anonymous Chronicles state
that the commander of Bursa and some of his colleagues combined against
Osman, who met them in a ferocious battle. Among the dead were Osman's
nephew Aydogdu and the Byzantine commanders of Kestel and Dinboz. 29
Aydogdu's grave lies on the road to Koyunhisar from Dinboz. 30 The various
versions of Uruj are in general accord with this outline, and they place the battle
at Koyunhisar, adding the lords of Kite and Edrenos to the Byzantine
leadership. 31 Ashikpashazade adds to this account a date, 702 H., and a name:
this battle was known as the "Dinboz ghaza". 32
Amakis compared the accounts of Pachymeres and Ashikpashazade and

found no coincidence. First, Pachymeres does not mention the lords of the Bursa
plain: his Byzantine protagonists are the grand hetairiarch Mouzalon and some
Alan auxiliaries. Second, Koyunhisar is nowhere near Nicomedia, since it "lies
between Nicaea and Kios, south of the lake". 33 In fact, all the sites involved in
Ashikpashazade's account lie along a main east-west route across the Bursa plain
and its extensions: beginning at Yenishehir, where Osman settled, the route
passes Koyunhisar, a rise at Dinboz, then Kestel, Bursa, Kite/Katoikia, and the
refuge at Koubouklia/Giibekler. 34 Arnakis, then, proved that Bapheus and
Koyunhisar were not the same, and his demonstration implied that the two
source traditions should not automatically be fit into a procrustean bed. His
reward was to be ignored.
27
H . tnalcik, "The rise of Ottoman historiography," in Bernard Lewis and P.M. Holts, eds.,
Historians of the Middle East (London, 1962), p. 153.
2
®Hammer, vol. 1, pp. 67-68, without explanation.
29
0 n Dinboz see J.H. Moidtmann in Der Islam 13 (1923), p. 165 n. 1.
3(1
"Die altosmanischen Anonymen Chroniken, ed. F. Giese (Breslau, 1922), p. 12; tr. Giese
(Leipzig, 1925: Abhandlungen far die Kunde des Morgenlandes XVII:1), p. 19; cf. MS Val. Ture
78, f. 5r.
3
' Die frühosmanischen Jahrbücher des llrudsch, ed. F. Babinger (Hannover, 1925), pp. 12-13
[O], p. 88 rC]; cf. MS Dresden Or. I l l , ff. 8v-9v, whose relationship to these texts I shall
discuss elsewhere. See for the moment V.L. Ménage, "On the recensions of Uruj's 'History of the
Ottomans'," Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African studies 30 (1967), pp. 314-322.
32
Ashikpashazade, ed. Giese, pp. 22-23.
33
Amakis, pp. 129-130, n. 154.
34
F o r Kite and Koubouklia, see F.W. Hasluck, "Bithynica", Annual of the British School at
Athens 13 (1906-1907), pp. 300-301. Both fell to Osman after 1302, according to Pachymeres.
206 Rudi Paul L I N D N E R
This is not to say that others found no difficulties with the

Bapheus/Koyunhisar identification. In search of a battle that better Tit the
description in Pachymeres, Inalcik found one in the Anonymous Chronicles.
This encounter took place near a stronghold not far east of Yalova. 3 5 In this
account, a Byzantine force landed at Yalak Ova with the intent of relieving
Nicaea. Informed by an agent, the Ottomans fell upon them (àSid, soon after their
victory, seized [!] Nicaea).* 6 This account has the advantage of involving an
imperial force, and it is possible to see the reference to Nicaea as a slip in place
of Nicomedia. However, we must trust Pachymeres' explicit statement that
Bapheus was in the vicinity of Nicomedia. Yalak Ova is substantially to the
west of Nicomedia; if it is to be considered round about Nicomedia, then so is,
for example, Nicaea. This suggestion, then, also falls apart on geographical
grounds. 37
We are left, then, with the absence of a significant event in

Ottoman/Byzantine relations from the Ottoman literary record — and not the
only interesting absence, for the battle of Pelekanon (1329) is also found only in
the Byzantine sources, and in some detail in the chronicles of Gregoras and
Kantakouzenos as well as one of the Short Chronicles. Is this, then, yet further
proof of the worthlessness of the early Ottoman traditions?
I think not — or, rather, not right away. The first task is to follow up on
such analyses as Professor Ménage's brilliant reconstruction of the ordering of
the Uruj texts. By watching the authors and copyists mould and reshape their
past, we should be able to sort out some of the more tendentious passages. In
addition, those passages that do not fit the overall pattern deserve the closest
scrutiny, in case they reflect a view closer to the actual events, a view the editors
failed to homogenize completely. 38 It is even possible to understand some of the
reasons why events prominent in Byzantine memory could not find a suitable
place in the Ottoman success story. Pachymeres' preamble to the struggle at
Bapheus gives us pause to think about two interesting problems, first, the
relationship between Osman and his Paphlagonian ally, and, second, the events
upstream that led to the flooding of the Sangarios in 1302. Only a few years
later, the tables had turned and the land watered by the Sangarios east of
Nicomedia was seen as a potential refuge from the Ilkhanids by the Paphlagonian
' 5 Inalcik, "The rise of Ottoman historiography," p. 153; "l'Empire ottoman," in Actes du
premier congrès international des études balkaniques et sud-est européennes (Sofia, 1966), vol. 3
(Sofia, 1969), p. 76.
36
AÀônymen Chroniken, text pp. 8-9, translation pp. 14-16.
37
I should note that there is. in Ashikpashazade, ed. Giese, p. 36, another Koyunhisar (and,
indeed, there are a number of places with that name in Turkey) near Yalak Ova, but it is no closer
to Nicomedia.
3
" l t was by such a procedure that, using the same materials as had been used to sustain it, the
"Wittek thesis" could be questioned.
beys, sought from the Byzantines without reference to Osman. 39 And the spring
rains that brought the Sangarios to change its course and raised the silt up to the
level of the earlier Palaeologan fortifications reflect an epizootic disaster at the
roost dangerous point in the herding cycle, the lambing season. Osman's actions
that summer — far from lands under his direct control — may have been very
much more a foraging expedition that another conquest. Further, Pelekanon was
rather more a Byzantine defeat than an Ottoman victory, and, given the failure of
nomad tactics displayed over the two days of fighting, it is tied to developments
in Ottoman strategy during the 1330s.
A "concordance of discordant sources" that sets the various accounts side

by side without attempting to meld them would be a great help, if for no other
reason than to display that we deal not with one historical perception here but
many. It is already clearly understood that, for example, Ashikpashazade and the
Anonymous Chronicles do not share the same outlook on events, but their views
need to be explicitly disentangled, an especially interesting task thanks to
Ashikpashazade's use of the Anonymous as well as the memories of Yakhshi
Fakih. This may result in two parallel compilations, one a series of events drawn
from the Byzantine sources, the other (with fewer events that hitherto allowed)
from the Ottoman chronicles, with few points of fit. No doubt this will be an
untidy and distressing state of affairs, all too reminiscent of certain other eras in
the history of the Near East. There is no question that, for instance, we will end
up knowing more about Ashikpashazade than about Osman.
Such a contrasting exposition of the source traditions, one that

emphasizes their gaps, coincidences, and different emphases, will permit a look
at many facets of early Ottoman history ( j u s t as ' ' ' s doing in Umayyad and early
Abbasid studies). When we reject the identification of Bilecik with Beiokome and
no longer have to place Bilecik's fall after 1302, we may explore further the
reasons why 699 H. was so important to the Ottoman chroniclers, for it included
not only the seizure of Bilecik but also of two more castles on routes to the
Bursa plain and, in addition, is the canonical year in which Osman became
"independent" of the Seljuks of Rum. Focusing upon that year, we may inquire
whether there was reason to give it pride of place, and as a start I suggest two
interesting occurrences, one well-known, the other not: the revolt of Siilemish
and the momentary spike in the number of locations minting silver coins in
Anatolia. It is probable that more mints struck dirhems in Anatolia during that
year than ever before or after. 40 Now whatever occurred in 699 H„ the appeal to
external sources (the Arabic and Persian accounts of Stilemish's revolt and the
Seljuk and Ilkhanid coinages) again reveals an insufficiency in the Ottoman
'^Pachymeres, vol. 2, pp. 459-460.

40
I discuss these occurrences in "Forging Ottoman independence."
accounts, but it is those accounts that led to the search for more generalized
Anatolian upheaval.
It may seem ironic if not quixotic, this interest in revealing still more of
the uncertainties and disagreements in the early Ottoman accounts of their
origins. It is, after all, attempting two difficult tasks at the same time,
disentangling the development of the Ottoman enterprise from the development
of Ottoman attitudes towards that past, paths along which Professor Ménage had
led the way. And, I should add, they are pleasant paths as well.
The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Anthony LUTTRELL
TIMUR'S DOMINICAN ENVOY1
During the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries the Roman Church launched
extensive missionary endeavours which centred on Persia, Armenia and Georgia
but extended also into Southern Russia, China and other lands in which the
papacy appointed bishops and where the Dominican and Franciscan friars
established convents. This enormous continental area of Christian activity,
which corresponded approximately to the extension of Mongol rule, was reduced
by the virtual suppression of Christianity in China after 1368 and, towards the
end of the fourteenth century, by the universal persecutions and destructions
which accompanied the conquests of the great Turco-Mongol ruler Timur who
inflicted great damage on many Christian communities. There remained a number
of Christians, European and Asiatic, who spoke both Eastern and Western
languages and were available as agents when Timur needed to make contacts in
the West. The identity of these intermediaries was confused in Western minds by
the Latin habit of appointing suffragan bishops who actually worked in a
Western diocese to a titular post in partibus infidelium, by elections which
lapsed because they were not subsequently confirmed by the pope, by conflicting
multiple nominations made by rival schismatic popes after 1378, and by Western
'This study grew out of a forthcoming monograph on Timur's Anatolian campaign of 1402/3
which was prepared with generous and extensive help from Victor Minage. Johannes of
Sultaniyah's two treatises are not fully analyzed here. That on Timur in French is in H.
Moranvillé, "Mémoire sur Tamerlan et sa Cour par un Dominicain, en 1403," Bibliothèque de
l'École des Chartes, Iv (1894), 441-464, with its Latin translation in Chronographia Regum
Francorum, ed. H. Moranvillé, iii (Paris, 1897), 206-223, The early printed version is discussed
in Moranvillé, "Mémoire," 433-436. Excerpts from the Libellas are in A. Kein, "Der Libellus de
Notitia Orbis lohannes' III. (De Galonifontibus ?) O. P. Erzbischofs von Sulthanyeh," Archivum
Fratrum Praedimtorum, viii (1938), 95-123. See also idem, "Miszellen aus einen Text vom Jahre
1404," Frühgeschichte und Sprachwissenschaft (Vienna, 1948), 146-154. A complete edition of
the Libellus is an evident desideratum. (I am extremely grateful to Dieter Girgensohn who
generously provided much infoimation on a variety of points.)
2
J. Richard, La Papauté et les Missions d'Orient au Moyen Âge (XHIe-XVe siècles) (Rome, 1977);
G. Fedalto, La Chiesa Latina in Oriente, i (2nd ed: Verona, 1981), ii (Verona, 1976).
210 A n t h o n y LUTTRELL
misunderstandings of Oriental place names. One example lay in the scribes'

difficulty in distinguishing between the Diocese of Soldayensis, Soldaia or Sudak
in the Crimea, and that of Soltaniensis, Sultaniyah between Baghdad and the
Caspian Sea. 3
Sultaniyah, which developed greatly under the Ilkhanids in the early

fourteenth century, became an important centre for Western missionary activity.4
Its Latin archbishop had a vast jurisdiction. The enormous Oriental missionary
zone was divided between the Franciscans, who were predominant in Southern
Russia and the Crimea, in the Kipchak Khanate of the Golden Horde and in
China, and the Dominicans, based at Sultaniyah, who had jurisdiction over
Armenia, Persia, Transoxania and, in theory, India and Ethiopia. The Archbishop
of Sultaniyah, who exaggeratedly described his province as the "whole Orient",
had to deal not only with infidels but also with Eastern liturgies and languages,
with Uniate Christians such as the Armenian Dominican unitores who
recognized the Roman pope, and with other Christian churches which did not.
Between 1373 and 1375 Pope Gregory XI revived the Dominican Societas
Peregrinantium and the mission to Armenia which was centred in particular on
Tabriz, and from 1387 to 1396 the register of the Dominican General, Raimondo
de Vineis of Capua, showed a sustained interest in contacts with Caffa in the
Crimea and with a small group of Armenian Dominicans.5
Timur employed a number of emissaries to Christian powers. Early in

1402, for example, he sent a certain Isaac to Constantinople. 6 Following his
crushing defeat of the Ottoman Turks near Ankara on 28 July 1402 Timur
despatched various envoys, including a tartarus, to Constantinople and to the
Genoese nearby at Pera,7 while Mahomad alcagi, who was perhaps really named
^Numerous errors have been repeated and compounded even by recent authors whose mistakes are
not catalogued here. Johannes of Sultaniyah is frequently confused with the English Franciscan
John Greenlaw, eg. in M.-M. Alexandrescu-Dersca, La Campagne de Timur en Anatolie: 1402
(London, 1977), p. x, and J, Barker, Manuel II Palaeologus 1391-1425: a Study in late Byzantine
Statemanship (New Brunswick, 1969), 506-509. Greenlaw was nominated as Bishop of Soldaia
(Soltaniensis) by Pope Boniface IX at Rome on 20 September 1400, was consecrated at London
on 8 September 1401 and was made suffragan of Bath on 9 September 1401: texts in T. Holmes,
The Registers of Walter Giffard, Bishop of Bath and Wells, 1265-6 and of Henry Bowett, Bishop
of Bath and Wells, 1401-7 (London, 1899), 17-19. Boniface IX replaced Greenlaw as Bishop of
Soldaia with Nicolaus Roberti on 24 January 1401, and on 5 February 1403 he appointed the
English Dominican William Belcts or Bellers: Fedalto, i. 563; ii. 210-211.
4
Cf. S. Blair, "The Mongol Capital of Sultâniyya, 'The Imperial'," Iran, xxiv (1986).
5
Registrum LiUerarum Fr. Raymundi de Vineii Capuani Magislri Ordinis: 1380-1399, ed. T.
Kaeppeli (Rome, 1937), 220-225.
6
Text in Alexandrescu-Dersca, 123-124.
7
Texts ibid., 135-137, and N. lorga, Noies et Extraits pour servir à l'Histoire des Croisades au
XVe Siècle, i (Paris, 1899), 57-60. A document dated at Venice on 22 March 1401 mentioned a
message sent to Trebizond with the Genoese Giuliano Maiocho who was rediens ambaxiator a
fllio Timerbey. Venice, Archivio di Stato, Misti, xlv, f. 65. Some time before 1400 the Venetian
Andrea Giustiniani, consul at Tana, had been sent as an envoy to Timur: lorga, i. 96-97, 106.
TIMUR'S DOMINICAN ENVOY 211
Muhammed al-Hajji, travelled with several Mongols and Ttoks to the King of
Castile.8 Timur did not use Latins for his contacts with the Ottomans and the
Mamluks or for those with the Russians, Poles, Lithuanians, Mongols of the
Golden Horde or other powers in Eastern European lands.9 For the Latin West,
however, Timur's most important envoys were two Dominicans whose dioceses
were at Sultaniyah and at Nakhichevan.
The Dominican Johannes of Sultaniyah was probably at Rome on 20 Juiy

1398 when Pope Boniface IX translated him from the Bishopric of Nakhichevan
to the Archbishopric of Sultaniyah.10 Johannes was apparently European rather
than Oriental. In 1409 he was described as Johannes de Padua and a Master of
Theology, and very probably he was an Italian from Padua who became a
Dominican and studied theology in the Paduan sludium.n His memoir on Timur
was written in France during 1403 in French, but the prefatory comment to its
Latin translation included in the Chronographia Regum Francorum, which was
composed in or soon after 1415, stated that the archbishop himself had said that
he was an Italian; the author of the Chronographia also remembered his great
white beard in the Greek style.12 The beard provided no indication of origin since
the rules for clerical tonsures permitted missionaries to adapt themselves to local
8
Texts in Embajada a Tamorlán, ed. F. López de Estrada (Madrid, 1943), pp. lii-liv, 5-6.
9
Zeki Velidi Togan, "Timurs Osteuropapolitik," Zeilschrift der Deutschen Morgenlclndischén
Gesellschaft, cviii (1958).
. Loenertz, "Evéques dominicains des Deux Arménies," Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, x
(1940), 258-260, 264; Loenertz collects much more information on Johannes (III) of Sultaniyah
and shows that he was not, as is still frequently supposed, Jean de Galonifontibus or
Gaillefontaine in Normandy who was provided to Nakhichevan in 1377. In replacing Franciscus
Bishop of Nakhichevan on 20 October 1400, Boniface IX's provision stated that Johannes had
been named to Sultaniyah on 26 August 1398: text in A. TSutu, Pontificia Commissio ad
Redigendum Codkem luris Canonici Orientalis: Fontes, series 3, xiii parts 1-2 (Rome, 1970-
1971),
part 1, 193-195. This date was erroneous, the scribe having confused Johannes' provision
with that of Franciscus on 26 (not 27) August 1398. A papal letter had already described
Johannes as Archbishop of Sultaniyah on 23 August 1398: text in Loenertz (1940), 264-265. In
1409 Johannes himself gave the correct date of 20 July 1398; infra, 15... It is confirmed by a
note of Cardinal Garampi (Archivio Vaticano, Fondo Garampi, Collezione, Cassetta XI) taken
from a register now apparently lost and unknown to subsequent scholars: on 20 July 1398
Boniface IX translated Johannes to Sultaniyah which was vacant through the death of Franciscus;
informed his new suffragans of the appointment; and ordered Johannes to go personally to reside
in his see. Franciscus was probably the Dominican Franciscus Archhishop of Saltarensem (sic)
who was deprived of all gratie of the Sacíelas Peregrinantium on 28 March 1389: text in
Registrum ... Raymundi, 221.
11
Infra, 16 Johannes cannot have been the Dominican Giovanni Bañista da Teolo di Padova, a
Master of Theology, at Padua at least between 1365 and 1395: L. Gargan, Lo Studio Teologice e
la biblioteca del Domenicani a Padova nel Tre e Quattrocento (Padua, 1971), 41, He was not the
Dominican Johannes de Padua elected but then replaced by Boniface IX as episcopus of
Cimbalien. (Cembalo) shortly before 22 December 1404: Archivio Vaticano, Reg. Lat. 119, f.
78-7«v. Nor was fie the otherwise unknown episcopus Johannes mentioned in a letter of Gregory
XII as Bishop of Soltonien., possibly Soldaia, on 23 May 1408: Reg. Lat. 131, f. 144 v,
12
Chronographia, iii. 205.
212 Anthony LUTTRELL
practice. 13 Except in 1409, the documents gave Johannes no second name or

place of origin, but his nomination during a time of schism by the Roman rather
than by the Avignonese pope may have reflected an Italian rather than a French
background. The Latin of his Libellus de Notitia Orbis was rather crude, and it is
not impossible that originally he came from the East. Johannes himself told of a
noble Circassian who was sold as a slave at Genoa and eventually, after receiving
an education and becoming a Dominican, returned to his own country where he
served for many years as an archbishop and made numerous converts.14
In 1404 Johannes wrote his Libellus de Notitia Orbis which surveyed the
state of Christendom in Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe. His two treatises
displayed a considerable familiarity with the East and with Timur whose origins,
family, habits and conquests he described with some accuracy. Johannes was
named Bishop of Nakhichevan at some time before 1398.15 Before 1404 he had
been in Circassia and also at Caffa in the Crimea where he counted thirty-five
languages spoken. 16 In 1410 the papal official Dietrich of Niem wrote a detailed
description of Timur's appearance and stated that his "special friend", a Catholic
bishop, had shown him a picture of Timur with whom his friend the bishop had
spent more than twelve years; Dietrich added that he had read letters Timur had
written about his victories six years earlier. 17 These were evidently the
translations of letters issued in 1402 by Timur and his son Miran Shah which
Johannes later carried around Europe. They showed that Miran Shah had earlier
sent Johannes to Genoa and Venice, that Johannes had taken back to Timur
messages from certain Franci, who included Henry IV of England and possibly
the Genoese and Venetians, and that the Dominican Franciscus Ssathru had taken
Timur letters from the French king. 18 If Johannes had indeed been with Timur
13
Dictionnaire de Droit canonique, vii (Paris, 1965), 1292.
14
Libellus, 111. Kern, 111 n. 41, and M. Bihl, "Excerpta de Missionibus Frairum Minorum e
Libelle de notitia orbis a Fr lohanne de Galonifontibus, O. P., archiepiscopo Soltaniensi, an.
1404 scripto," Archivant Franciscanum Historicum, xxxi (1938), 542, 547, suggest that this was
not a Dominican bot a Franciscan named Johannes who was Archbishop of Matrega from 1349 to
1377 circa and a native of thai place: Fedalto, i. 557-558. However a Dominican alternative is
Johannes Armenus, Bishop of Varhartensis (possibly Marago or Maragaensis, a suffragan of
Sultaniyah) who was appointed Vicar of the Dominican Uniates in Armenia, Georgia and Persia
on 28 March 1389: text in Registrum ... Raymundi, 220-221.
^ I n 1387 Clement Vll provided the Benedictine Johannes de Oonessia to the Bishopric of
Nassovensis on the death of a Johannes: Fedalto, ii. 162. That was an Avignonese appointment
and it is not clear that it was to Nakhichevan; it does not indicate either that the dead prelate was
Johannes de Galonifontibus or that Johannes of Sultaniyah was provided to Nakhichevan at that
time.
l6
Libellus, 107, 111.
17
Theodoricus de Nyem, De Scismate libri très. ed. G. Ehrler (Leipzig, 1890), 305-306.
1
"Texts in S. de Sacy, "Mémoire sur une Correspondance inédite de Tamerlan avec Charles VI, "
Mémoires de l'Institut royal de France: Académie des Inscriptions et Selles-Lettres, vi (1822),
473.474, 478-480; on an English visit, infra, 13 Timur's letter to Charles VI is one of only five
original documents of Timur to survive; it is also published in Muhammad Qazvini, "NSme-yi Amir
Tîmur Gurttân bi Sharl-i Shishum, Pâdishàh-i Farânse," Kâve, ii (1921/1339), 3-6.
for over twelve years when he left him in 1402, he would have been in Asia, and
sometimes with Timur, at least since 1390 during a period which Timur himself
spent partly in Turkestan, in the lands of the Golden Horde, and in Southern
Russia, Georgia, Persia and Mesopotamia. Johannes was apparently in Rome on
20 July 1398 when the pope there translated him to Sultaniyah, and he may well
have been there between 23 September, when at his request Boniface IX issued
bulls against those who had usurped many liturgical items from the church of
Sultaniyah, 19 and 11 December, when letters issued by Boniface stated that he
was sending a number of Dominicans to convert the infidel in Armenia and
authorized Johannes to allow twenty Armenian Catholics to choose their
confessor. 2 0 At this time Boniface IX responded to other troubles in Armenia.
On 19 August 1398 he granted indulgences for the repair of churches in Georgia
and Armenia ruined by Timur; on 28 April 1399 he ordered the Archbishop of
Sultaniyah and the Bishops of Tana and Caffa to prevent the Dominicans abusing
their powers of visitation over the Dominican Uniates in Armenia and at Caffa. 21
Since Johannes was in the West, he cannot have accompanied Timur on his
Indian campaign of 1398 to Kabul and Delhi. He apparently visited England
where he saw Henry IV who became king in September 1399. Sometime
thereafter the new archbishop returned to Asia where he probably faced
difficulties; in fact, on 31 December 1401 Boniface IX empowered him to
exercize his archiepiscopal office outside his own diócesis. 22
According to Johannes, he and his Dominican colleague Franciscus had

together mitigated Timur's hostility towards the Christians and had persuaded
him to reduce his persecution of them so that he had allowed the Latins, and
especially their merchants, both to trade and to build churches and practise their
faith within his domains. 23 Franciscus named Ssathru, who reached Timur with
letters from the French king probably in 1399 or 1400, had been provided to the
Bishopric of Nakhichevan on 26 August 1398. 24 Franciscus and an anonymous
saracenus reached Pera from Trebizond on 19 August 1401 as envoys sent from
Timur to Constantinople and nearby Pera to exhort the Greeks and Genoese there
not to ally with the Ottomans; thereafter the envoys set out again for
T r e b i z o n d . 2 5 On 15 May 1402 Timur wrote to the Emperor John VII at
Constantinople announcing the arrival from that emperor of Timur's envoys
" T e x t in TSutu, part 1, 120-121

20
Text in Loeneitz (1940), 264-266. J. Delaville le Roulx, la France en Orient au XiVe Siècle, i
(Paris, 1886), 391, considered that Johannes, whom he mistook to be Greenlaw, made his earlier
journey in 1402, but that is impossible.
2
'Texts in TSutu, part 1, 118-119, 142-149.
22
Archivio Vaticano, Reg. Lat. 100, f. 108-108v.
^"Mémoire," 462.
24
Text h T&ata, part I, 193-195.
25
Text in G. Dennis, "Three Reports from Crete on the Situation in Romania: 1401-1402," Studi
Veneziani, xii (1970), 244-246.
Frate Francesco and a certain Sadron, and making it clear that Franciscus had
previously returned to Timur from at least one earlier mission 2 6 Franciscus had
in fact visited England in or after 1399, since a letter of about 1406 from Henry
IV, who became king in September 1399, mentioned that Henry had earlier sent
messages concerning his kingdom to Timur through the Dominican Franciscus
Schaderu.21 The saracenus of 1401 was presumably the Sadron of 1402; the
Dominican Franciscus Ssalhru of 1402 was someone else who was apparently
the Franciscus of 1401, the Frate Francesco of 1402 and the Dominican
Franciscus Schaderu mentioned by Henry IV. 28
This Dominican envoy was evidently the Franciscus of Taurisio or

Tabriz, probably an Eastern Christian, whom Boniface IX provided to the
Bishopric of Nakhichevan on 26 August 1398, just over a month after Johannes
of Sultaniyah had been translated from Nakhichevan to Sultaniyah. However on
20 October 1400 Boniface named the Franciscan Stephanus Petri in place of
Franciscus of Tabriz who, following his papal nomination, had been consecrated
according to a non-Roman rite and without the necessary papal letters which he
had failed to procure from the pope within the limit of one year. 29 Normally a
papal provision would not be delivered to the candidate or his proctor until he had
petitioned for letters of confirmation and had bound himself to pay the necessary
taxes or services to the pope. 30 Franciscus evidently failed to do this, and so
Boniface provided a new bishop in October 1400, and indeed made provisions of
that bishopric to further candidates on 1 May 1401, 26 July 1402 and 2 March
1403;31 on 1 May 1401 Bishop Fredericus Pauchnect was permitted to exercize
his episcopal functions outside his Diócesis of Nakhichevan in which he could
2
^Text in Alexandrescu-Dersca, 123-124; Sadron was possibly a diminutive of Alexander.
Alexandrescu-Dersca, 39-40, misinterprets this text as showing that it was Manuel II who several
times sent Franciscus to Timur to sound out the latter's intentions, to persuade Timur to attack
Bayezid through exaggerated stories of successes (as reported in Timur's letter to Charles VI), and
that Franciscus went on a second embassy in the name of the emperor and of the Genoese of Pera
with promises to pay Timur the annual tribute they were then paying Bayezid; she holds that in
order to give the embassy greater weight Franciscus also carried letters from Genoa's overlord
Charles VI (as reported in Timur's letter to Charles). It seems clear though, that Franciscus was
essentially the envoy of Timur.
21
Infra, 13.
Âlexandrescu-Dersca, 19 n. 2, conflates Ssalhru with Saracenus; the original of the corrupt
surviving text of IS May 1402 conceivably read Sadron, ie. Ssalhru or Schaderu, but in that text
Francesco and Sadron were different people.
29
Text in TSutu, part I, 193-195. On 21 April 1390 the Dominican Franciscus Gaspe de Taurisio
(Tabriz) — conceivably the same Franciscus — was confirmed in possession of a cell in the
convent at Caffa and made lector principalis in the convent on Negroponte: text in Regislrum...
Raimundi, 223.
3
®No payments of services from a Bishop of Nakhichevan were recorded before 1423: H. Hoberg,
Taxae pro Communibus Servitiis ex Libris Obligationum ab anno 1295 usque ad annum 1455
confectis (Vatican, 1949), 83.
31
Fedalto, i. 580; ii. 162.
not reside since it was, so the papal letter claimed, in infidel hands. 3 2 Boniface
IX appeared to be more concerned to secure payments from titular bishops in the
West than to further the care of Asiatic dioceses. Franciscus, who was apparently
in the West during part of 1398 and 1399, must have returned to the East;
though deprived of his bishopric in 1400, he retained the confidence of Timur
who, while possibly puzzled by Franciscus 1 problems with the Roman curia,
sent him to Constantinople in 1401. 3 3 Possibly Franciscus was also the
episcopus Christians at whose entreaty Timur was said to have offered to spare
the castle at Smyrna in December 1402 if the Hospitallers who were defending it
would raise his banner. 34
Johannes Archbishop of Sultaniyah was with Timur in the area of

Karabagh west of the Caspian during the winter of 1401/2 and was present when
the Ottoman envoys came to offer Timur an annual tribute of 100,000 slaves. 35
After the Ottoman sultan Bayezid had been defeated and captured on 28 July 1402
Timur made friendly gestures to Western rulers, freeing various Christians and
proposing commercial interchanges and favourable treatment for any of his
subjects who might come to trade in the West and for Western traders in his
domains. 3 6 Archbishop Johannes was with or near Timur at the time of the
battle near Ankara and his treatise on Timur contained details about the conflict
and its immediate aftermath. Following the battle Johannes set out with letters
from both Timur and his son Miran Shah to various Latin leaders. Once in
France Johannes wrote his memoir on Timur, giving the date of the battle
correctly but reporting that Timur had burnt the Jews of Bursa in their
synagogue. 3 7 Though later reported elsewhere, 38 that story was probably an
invention and the fact that Johannes recorded it in his memoir suggests that his
departure from Anatolia had come very soon after the battle and that he was to
some extent repeating rumours about the confusing events which followed
Timur's victory which had reached him in the West, perhaps while he was in
Venice early in 1403.
32
T i u t u , paît 1, 223.
-"Barker, 506, seems unlikely to be coiTect in suggesting that Franciscus was "originally sent"
from the French court with the connivance, or partly on the initiative, of Manuel II.
34
« Theodoricus de Nyem, 173.
•'•'Ubellus, 104; date in Alexandrescu-Deisca, 50.
JO
Chronograpkia, iii. 205-206; mentioned also in Chronique du Religieux de Saint-Denys, ed. L.
Bellaguet, iii (Paris, 1841), 136.
" " M é m o i r e , " 456, 458-459. Chronographia, iii. 200-202, 205, 210, 223, gave details of the
battle and its aftermath both in the chronicler's introduction to the Latin text of the memoir and
in the translation itself. The story of Timur placing Bayezid in gold chains was not in the
memoir but appeared later in the translation: Ckronographia, iii. 211.
Âlexandrescu-Dersca, 81 n. 7,
Timur had written briefly, and somewhat condescendingly, to Charles VI

of France, addressing him with the title Malik Ray du Faransa and suggesting
commercial exchanges with the Latins. These letters were apparently composed
before the bade of 28 July. Archbishop Johannes left in Paris a Persian text of
fourteen lines written on paper, together with its tendentious Latin translation on
parchment and also a Latin translation of a letter to Western rulers in general
from Timur's son Miran Shah, who was present at the battle; preserved with
them at Paris was Charles VI's reply to Timur dated 15 June 1403. 39 The official
historian Sharaf al-Din Yazdi, who had access to Timur's records, stated that
Timur despatched many zafar-nama or victory letters to the Muslim world before
leaving the Ankara area, 40 but that may not have been where the Paris letters
were initially written. The Persian original of Timur's letter was dated 1 August,
just after the battle to which, however, it made no reference; Timur's seal was
attached to it. 41 That letter mentioned that while Johannes was on his mission to
Genoa and Venice, presumably during his Western journey of 1398 and probably
1399, the Dominican Franciscus, who had apparently also been in the West in
1398 and 1399, reached Timur with Charles VI's letters and with news that the
king had set out with a numerous army and had defeated the mutual enemy of
Charles and Timur. This seems unlikely to have been a delayed and garbled
reference to the Latin crusade to Nikopolis of 1396, in which Charles had not
participated in person and which had concluded with a decisive Ottoman victory;
the allusion could have been to the naval expedition of the French Marshal Jean
de Boucicault whose forces were scarcely numerous but who did go to
Constantinople in 1399 and win minor victories against the Ottomans. 42
The Latin translation of Timur's letter differed from its Persian original;
the translation of Miran Shah's text probably also varied from its lost Persian
original. Timur's original letter, dated 1 August 1402, indicated no place of issue
but the Latin translation gave it,as dated circa Sebastum, that is near Sivas which
was over 300 kilometres from the battle fought near Ankara on 28 July. It was
only the translation of Timur's letter which mentioned that Johannes himself had
earlier been sent to Timur from the West — ab aliquibus Francis. Timur's
scribes may well have been left behind in the rapid manoeuvrings which followed
Timur's departure from Sivas and which preceded the battle. The letter, possibly
written at Johannes' instance to increase his standing in the West, was
" T e x t s in De Sacy, 473-474, 478-480, 521-522; De Sacy, 476-477, discerns the Syriac mar
Imsya for bishop.
40
Sharaf al-Din, Zafarnamdh, ed. Mawlawi Muhammed tlahdad, ii (Calcutta, 1888), 447-448 =
Cherefeddin Ali, Histoire de Timur-Bec, trans. F. Pitit de la Croix, 4 vols. (Paris, 1722), iv. 21-
22.
41
On the seal, De Sacy, 516-519
42
0 n the two expeditions, K, Setton, The Papacy and the Levant: 1204-1571, i (Philadelphia,
1976), 344-371. De Sacy, 499, assumes that Franciscus' report to Timur referred to Ankara and
concludes that the letters of 1402 were falsely dated.
presumably composed before detailed news of the battle reached Sivas and thus
stated that Johannes would report to Charles VI whatever had happened at die
battle: Vobis exponet quecumque evenerunt. During his journey westwards
Johannes evidently heard details and rumours of what had occurred which he
inserted into the treatise on Timur he wrote in 1403.43 In the West he reported
on the course of the battle; Bayezid's capture and the flight of his sons, "nude"
and without armour, at night; the chase to Bursa and die capture of the castle and
treasure there; the escape of Suleyman and Mehemmed; the destruction of much
of Anatolia, except for certain provinces whose former pre-Ottoman rulers had
fought for Timur; and the apparently mythical holocaust of Jews in the
synagogue at Bursa. These events followed closely on the battle, but more than
that Johannes did not know: Qui s'ensuivra Dieu le sacheM
The letter from Miran Shah was dated in the translation prope Sebastum,
near Sivas, in the month of zucarnan, presumably Dhulkada which ran from 2
June to 1 July 1402. At the end of the letter it was dated mense ut supra but
erroneously gave the year as 805 which would have placed it in 1403. This letter
stated that Miran Shah had earlier sent Johannes to Genoa and Venice, while
Franciscus Ssathru had come to Miran Shah from the French king. 45 Miran
Shah's letter, which was dated well before the battle of 28 July 1402, spoke of
Bayezid as having been defeated and destroyed by Timur's forces. The reference
could have been to the capture of Sivas in August 1400, to Shah Rukh's defeat
of Bayezid's son Suleyman in summer 1401 or to Ottoman defeats at the hands
of Timur's forces later in 1401.46 Miran Shah's letter was quite possibly drafted
during the month of 2 June to 1 July while Timur was at Sivas 4 7 The two
translations placed Charles VI in a more flattering light than did Timur's Persian
original. Johannes evidently gave them to the king while keeping the original of
Miran Shah's letter which was a general one which he needed to show to other
rulers. There must have been further letters from Timur which Johannes later
gave or showed to other Western rulers.
Johannes' message was that Timur was interested in commercial

exchanges with Western Europe, especially with the French, and the archbishop's
memoir listed commodities which would be pleasing to Timur; 48 Timur's
43
Text in De Sacy, 473-474, 478-479. It has been stated, eg. in Moranvillé, "Mémoire," 433,
that Timur's letter reported the victory at Ankara.
44
T h e "Mémoire," 456, 458-459, is a source for Ottoman affairs in the confused months
following the Ankara battle.
45
Text in De Sacy, 479-480.
46
Dennis, 262, 264.
47
Alexandrescu-Dersca, 57 n. 7, suggests circa 4-5 April 1402 for Timur at Sivas, while Dennis,
259/60 n. 32, proposes March; but the account in Sharaf al-Din, ...-.../ iii. 405-421, implies
June.
48
"Mémoire," 463-464.
proposal was noted in the contemporary French chronicle of Saint Denys. 49

Johannes hoped to recruit Western support for the missionary work in Asia
which Timur had seriously disrupted,50 and it may have been that the archbishop
took the initiative in seeking letters from Timur and his son in order to secure
official status designed to assist his mission to Western courts.51 Timur's letter
of 20 August 1402 to Enrique III of Castile, which was written after the battle of
28 July and did describe it, was more respectful and fulsome than that addressed
to the King of France, partly perhaps because it was composed in reply to a
Castilian embassy which Enrique had sent to Timur.52 Merchant colonies and
mission stations were founded largely along the same long-distance routes, so
that the encouragement of Western commerce in Asia was a natural objective for
Christian missionaries. Archbishop Johannes wanted to revive the missions and
his Libellus of 1404 complained of papal indifference to his requests for help 53
while his friend Dietrich of Niem blamed the papal schism for the depressed state
of Christianity in Asia and Africa. 54 The Roman pope Boniface IX did issue
bulls for the Oriental missions, and in 1401 he even granted indulgences in
support of the schemes of the Genoese Antonio Reccana to launch a crusading
fleet on the Caspian Sea to resist the Mongols there.55 Christian pockets
remained. For example, in 1404 when the Castilian envoy Ruy Gonzalez de
Clavijo reached Maku, a centre of Catholicism north-east of Nakhichevan, he
found Armenian Christians who spoke Persian and Tatar and who recognized the
pope. The Lord of Maku claimed that his younger son could speak Clavijo's
language, which may have meant Latin, and he wanted Clavijo to ask the King
of Castile to recommend to the pope the appointment of his son as Bishop of
Maku. 56 Johannes probably placed his hopes on Miran Shah, judging that he
would succeed Timur and portraying him as a protector of Christians, "Franks"
or Latins, and of Western merchants.57 In 1404 Johannes claimed that he would
have visited Ethiopia long before had he not been prevented by other "services to
God and the faith" carried out for one of Timur's sons, presumably Miran
Shah.58 Miran Shah was, in fact, governing at Sultaniyah in 1404. 59
^Religieux de Sainl-Denys, iii 136

50
Libellus, 119-121.
51
As suggested by De Sacy, 519-521.
52
T e x t s in Castilian translation in Embajada a Tamorlân, pp. liii-liv, 254-255; this letter
deserves further study.
53
Libellus, 119-121.
54
Theodoricus de Nyem, 307.
5S
J . Richard, Les Relations entre l'Orient et l'Occident au Moyen Âge (London, 1977), XVII 608.
5
**Clavijo, in Embajada a Tamorlân, 101-103.
'^"Mémoire," 446; Chronographia, iii. 211.
5i
Libellus. 121.
59
Clavijo, in Embajada a Tamorlân, 111; on Miran Shah, J. Woods, "Turco-lranica 11: Notes on a
Timurid Decree of 1396/798," Journal of Near Eastern Studies, xliii (1984), 333-335.
Johannes' Ubellus of 1404 contained a peculiar "prophecy" concerning a

man named Asman, from the Persian asman said to mean heaven or sky, who
had been sent by the Oriental conqueror, presumably to be understood as Timur,
when he came to the unidentified land of Chanaan. The conqueror sent nuncii so
that where he could not attack, as was evidently the case for Timur in Europe, he
might have peace; the reference was clearly to Johannes' own mission of about
1398 and to at least one other nuncius, presumably the Dominican Franciscus of
Tabriz who went to the West in about 1398. Asman negotiated at length with
the Christian princes of the West on behalf of the faith, and then returned to the
East, as Johannes had in about 1399, and there converted some of his
"neighbours" to Catholicism, as Johannes may well have done. The rest of the
prophecy departed from reality, becoming exalted and confusing. The princeps
christianissimus, the King of France, came from the West with a great army
bearing the cross, that is as crusaders, and occupied various Christian and other
lands; this passage may have reflected the same curious delusion about a royal
French crusade as that found in Timur's original letter of 1 August 1402 which
Johannes had translated for the French king. The prophecy then continued with
talk of a great Latin attack, launched along three separate routes, in which
Western and Eastern Christians liberated Jerusalem. 60 Johannes evidently saw
himself both as a missionary and as the instrument of an anti-Ottoman alliance
between Timur and the Latins in which the French king would lead a crusade; the
Libellus even claimed that Timur had attacked the Ottomans "out of love for the
Christians who were in league with him."61 Timur had made contacts both with
Constantinople and with the West from which he may have hoped for Latin
assistance, conceivably in providing shipping which might have allowed him to
invade the Balkans or to advance even further, 62 but by 1404 Johannes must have
known that there had been no such league and no crusade. The maintenance of
such hopes was, none the less, central to the archbishop's Western promotion
tour.
Archbishop Johannes possibly travelled from Sivas by way of

Constantinople and Pera, places he must have known. He knew, as he wrote in
1404 without naming him, of a Greek scholar, evidently Demetrios Kydones,
who had been taught Latin by a Spanish Dominican and had then translated
Thomas Aquinas' Contra Gentiles into Greek; Kydones was in fact taught Latin
by a Dominican from Pera and he also had a Spanish Dominican friend named
Garcias, possibly the Garcias who became Archbishop of Thebes in 1387.63
60
Libellus, 99, publishes only part of this passage.
6,
/Wrf„ 104.
^References in Alexandrescu-Dersca, 39-40, and Barker, 504-508, but these works require
amendment and the point awaits further consideration.
^Libellus, 101; cf. R.-J. Loenertz, Bymlina el Franco-Graecm series altera (Rome. 1978), 26/1
n. 3, 386.
Johannes reached Venice from Byzantium by the end of December 1402 or early
in January 1403; He stayed there "many days", presumably at the Dominican
convent. Once there he wrote to Cosimo dei Migliorati, Cardinal of Bologna,
concerning the penitential movement then flourishing in the more devout and
spiritual Dominican circles and especially in Venice. Shortly before 10 January
Johannes also wrote to the Dominican Vicar in Italy, Bartolomeo de Acerbis, and
to the order's procurator, Uberto degli Albizzi, seeking papal confirmation of a
rule or vivendi formula for the penitentiaries or tertiaries. Johannes was still in
Venice on 27 February when he again wrote to the cardinal on behalf of the
Dominicans and of the Dominican penitentiaries, whom he wished to encourage
in the East as well as in the West; he wanted the cardinal to intervene with the
pope. While the archbishop may have had a special interest in harnessing the
penitential movement to his Asiatic projects, he was also being involved in a
long-running conflict between the reformers or strict observants and the
reactionary Dominicans, a dispute temporarily settled by Cosimo dje Migliorati
who, as Pope Innocent VII, confirmed the observants' rule in 1405. Johannes'
letter of 27 February 1403. in which he styled himself archiepiscopus
Soltaniensis sive totius Orientis, Ordinis Predicatorum, stated that he had to
leave for Genoa as soon as possible and would travel to the papal curia to provide
the pope with detailed information on Oriental affairs. 64
Johannes and those rulers who wrote in his favour frequently styled him
"Archbishop of the whole Orient." No papal chancery ever gave him this title,
though officials at the Council of Pisa did so in 1408.65 In 1404 Johannes wrote
of Sultaniyah as an "imperial city" and as the metropolis totius Orientis,
mentioning its ecclesiastical jurisdiction over India and Ethiopia. 66 In March and
April 1403 Johannes left Venice and he may have visited Pope Boniface IX in
Rome. 67 He acted as Timur's envoy to Genoa and Milan as well as to Venice; in
Milan he found that the ruler Giangaleazzo Visconti had died but he reported
news of Timur's victory.68 Johannes reached Paris in May 1403 and presented the
letters and translations from Timur and Miran Shah; he spoke, perhaps in Latin,
before the king and five dukes in the presence of court and council. He talked of
Timur's victory at Ankara, and of his liberation of all Bayezid's Christian
captives; he reported Timur's interest in the most famous of Western rulers, the
King of France, and Timur's favour for Western merchants; he pressed on many
people the advantages of the commercial exchanges between Latins and Mongols
6<
^Texts in Tractatus de Ordine FF. de Paenitentia S. Dominici di F. Tommaso da Siena
"Caffarini," ed. M.-H. Laurent (Siena, 1938), 61, 64-66; on the observants in this period, R.
Creytens - A. D'Amato, "Les Actes Capitulaires de la Congrégation Dominicaine de Lombardie:
1482-1531," Archivum Fralrum Praedicatorum, xxxi (1961), 214-222.
65
Infra, 15.
66
Libellus, 116-117.
67
There are no known papal documents to confirm this possibility.
68
B . Cono, Storia di Milano, ed. A. Moriso Gueira, ii (Milan, 1978), 967.
which Timur had proposed. 69 He also wrote a treatise on Timur and his empire
which was later translated from French into Latin. The king sent him back to
Timur with a letter dated 15 June 1403 70 and with presents. 71 In fact Johannes
continued his Western tour and on 1 April 1404 King Martin of Aragon replied
from Valencia to the letters from Timur and Miran Shah offering him trade and
friendship which had been brought to him by Johannes. 72 Johannes subsequently
went to Germany and Bohemia; it was in 1404 that he composed his Libellus of
which fifteenth-century manuscripts survived in Central Europe, two at Sankt
Pölten near Vienna, two at Basel, one at Klosterneuburg near Vienna, one at
Regensberg and another, copied in 1412, at the Dominican convent in Leipzig. 73
On 5 July 1405 at Heidelberg Ruprecht III named Johannes a Count Palatinate of
the Lateran which empowered him to legitimate individuals, to grant coats-of-
arms and so forth' even in Byzantium and lands beyond the seas: in terris et
paribus Grecieet ultramarinis,74
It was most probably in February 1406 that the archbishop visited Henry
IV in London and perhaps also at Hertford. In reply to the letters Johannes
carried, Henry thanked Timur for his messages, which were evidently similar to
those sent to the French king; he stated that Johannes had been sent to him on
another occasion by Timur's son, presumably Miran Shah, on a mission
concerning peace and unity and had then returned to Timur, while there had also
been a visit fom the Dominican Franciscus Schaderu who had taken news from
England to Timur. Henry expressed his readiness for friendly relations and
recommended Johannes to Timur, but a passage hoping that Timur would be
converted to Christianity and would give assistance against the infidel was deleted
from the original draft. Miran Shah was thanked for his support for Western
Christians, and specifically for merchants, and he was told that Johannes would
explain the king's attitude circa divinum cultum and treat with him about the
requests Miran Shah had made which were said to be ad honorem Dei. The
69
Chronographia, iii. 205-206, 211.
70
Text in De Sacy, 521-522.
''Mentioned only in Religieux de Saint-Denys, iii. 136.
72
Texts in A. Rubi« i Lluch, Diplomatari de ¡'Orient catalä: 1301-1409 (Barcelona, 1947), 700-
701,
73
Basel, Universitätsbibliothek, A V 25, f. I20-I57v, and E 1H 17, f. 92-I16v: Graz,
Universitätsbibliothek, 1221, f. 41-127; Klosterneuburg, Stiftsbibliothek, 1099, f. 175-242v;
Leipzig, Universitätsbibliothek, Lat. 1225, f. 182-221v; Sankt Pölten, Diozesanarchiv, 214, f.
1-113: T. Kaeppeli, Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum Medii Aevii, iii (Rome, 1980), 19. An
apparently lost version of 55 folios was at Regensberg in about 1610: P. Fuchs, Bildung und
Wissenschaft in Regensburg: Neue Forschungen und Texte aus St. Mang in Statdamhof
(Sigmaringen, 1989), 59. According to Leoneitz (1940), 263-264, the Graz Ms. came ftom Sankt
Pölten. Kern used mid described the Graz and Leipzig Mss. A transcript of one Sankt Pölten text
made by Cardinal Garampi is in Archivio Vaticano, Fondo Garampi, Collezione, Cassetta XI.
I^Regesta Chronologico-Diplomatica Ruperti Regis Romanorum, ed. J. Chmel (Frankfuit-am-
Main, 1834), 121; Regelten der Pfalzgrafen am Rhein: 1214-1508, ii part 4, ed. L. von
Obemdorf (Innsbruck; 1917), 290.
archbishop also had other interests. A letter from Henry IV to the King of
Cyprus requested him to invite the Armenians in his kingdom to discuss with
Johannes the union of their Church with Rome. The ruler of Ethiopia was
congratulated on his intention of rescuing the holy places and Johannes was
recommended to him as Archiepiscopus Orientis et Ethiopie. There were letters
to the Doge of Venice and the rulers of Trebizond and Georgia, and one to
Manuel II at Constantinople complaining that the Greeks were molesting the
Dominicans and other Latins. There was also a general recommendation for the
archbishop given under the royal signet. 75
Johannes' peregrinations may have had something of a fund-raising

character, since it is not clear what incomes he had. He spent at least part of
January 1407 staying in the Herberge or hostel of the Teutonic Order at
Marienburg in Prussia, where the order paid for his lodging and where on 23
January he also received 600 Bohemian GroschenP6 He persuaded the Master of
the order, Konrad von Jungingen, to write another series of letters on his behalf.
One of these gave him the title Soltaniensis sive tocius Orientis primas. The
preface to the copies of these letters in the Master's register described him as
telling many stories about Eastern affairs, as wearing Dominican dress and as
being bearded but celebrating mass in the usual way:
Anno domini MCCCCVII" venit ad Prussiam quidam archiepiscopus de

partibus orientalibus dominus Johannes Zoltaniensis seu tocius orientis et
habuit habitum et ordinem predicatorum, sed barbatus fuit, et celebravit
divina more aliorum presbiterorum plurima et diversa narravit de dictis
partibus orientalibus, de variis sectis et eciam de christianis et visitavit
multos reges, principes et dominos peciitque a magistro generali
consimiles litteras ut infra sequitur, et date fuerunt iuxta modum
inlirascriptum.
"'-'Texts of the unsealed and largely undated drafts, all except the Timur letter on fine parchment,
in H. Ellis, Original Letters Illustrative of English History, III ser., i (London, 1846), 54-58, and
F. Hingeston, Royal and Historical Letters during the Reign of Henry the Fourth, i (London,
1860), 421-428. The dates given are London, 12 February, and Hertford, mens ffebruar', both
without year. Various years have been proposed. Henry IV is documented in London on 9, 16 and
21 February 1404 (but Johannes was in Valencia on 1 April 1404), on 14 and 17 February 1405
and 6 to 19 February 1406, and in Hertford on 30 January and 1-3, 21 and 25-26 February 1406:
T. Ryroer, Foedera, Conventiones. literae. ... iv (3rd ed: The Hague, 1740), 62,94; and J. Wylie,
History of England under Henry the Fourth, iv (London, 1898), 292-293; J. Kirby, Calendar of
Signet Letters of Henry IV and Henry V: 1399-1422 (London, 1978), 120-122. The surviving
draft in London, British Library, Cotton Ms. Nero B XI, f. 172, could read Schadern but Schaden
seems probable; Hereford rather than Hertford is possible, but less likely, at f. 175. Barker, 506-
507, incorrectly deduces that the letters were written in 1401 and show that Manuel II was
negotiating with Timur,in 1401. Henry IV's drafts survive in a modern English collection of
documents concerning the Orient. The letter to Timur is somewhat obscure but suggests that the
two Dominicans visited England after Henry IV's accession in September 1399.
7
''Texts in E. Joachim, Das Marienburgher Tresslerbuch der Jahre 1399-1409 (Königsberg,
1896), 416-418; Jttrgen Sarnowsky most kindly advised on these texts.
The Master's five letters, dated 20 January 1407, were broadly similar to those to
the English king. They requested the King of Cyprus to assist Johannes»
describing him as "the tireless instigator of so many affairs," in promoting union
with the Armenians in his kingdom; Timur, who had in fact died in February
1405, and Miran Shah were thanked for freeing so many Christians taken from
Bayezid in 1402 and for protecting Christian merchants; Manuel II was called
upon to further the union of the Greek and Roman Churches; and a rather
imprecise message was drawn up for the ruler of Ethiopia. 77
By 13 June 1407 Johannes was with the Dominicans at Venice where he

granted' indulgences to the Dominican tertiaries; his text mentioned Caterina of
Siena and stated that he had seen the papal letter approving the rule of the
Penitential Dominicans. 7 8 He presumably maintained his allegiance to the
Roman pope until May 1408 when Gregory XII's cardinals fled to Pisa where
they summoned a council to bring an end to the schism and to elect a new pope.
Johannes followed them. He was well aware that the schism militated against the
success of missionary work in the East, and in 1404 he had recalled that he had
been told how Bayezid had said he did not fear war against the Latins as long as
they had two popes but that he would have to make peace with them when there
was only one. 79 Johannes was at Pisa on 1 September when the cardinals decided
to send him as nuncius to Constantinople, styling him archiepiscopus
Soltaniensis seu Orienlis. He left on 18 September with letters summoning
representatives to the council which were addressed to Manuel II, to Mircea,
Voivode of Wallachia, and Alexander, Voivode of Moldavia, and to the bishops
and prelates of the regions described as Orientales, probably the area beyond
Trebizond; Tartaria Aquilonaris, to the north and north-east of the Crimea;
Gazaria, to the north-west of the Crimea; Comanta to the north of the Crimea;
and Romania or Byzantium. 80 Johannes certainly saw the Byzantine emperor
Manuel II 8 1 and he returned after convoking many representatives to the
council. 82 He was back in Pisa on 2 April 1409 when he appeared as one of the
proctors of Antonio Panciera, Patriarch of Aquileia, whose company he may
have joined, probably in Venice, on his way back from the East. The list of
those present on 2 April described him as episcopus in universali ecclesia and it
correctly gave the date of his promotion to Sultaniyah as 20 July 1398. 83 A text
77
'Texts in K. Forstreuter, "I)er Deutsche Qrden und Sildostreuropa," Kyrios, i (1936), 268-272.
78
Text in Tommaso da Siena, 164-166.
19
Ubellus, 100.
80
Text in J. Vincke, Briefe zum Pisaner Korail (Bonn, 1940), 94, 231; cf. $. Papacostea, "La
Valachie et la Crise de Structure de l'Empire Ottoman: 1402-1413," Revue Roumaine d'Histoire,
xxv (1986), 30-33.
81
Loenertz (1940), 262-263,
82
oi AS noted in a text in Vincke (1940), 236.
OJ
Text in D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Cottèctio, xvii (Venice, 1748),
338. This source erroneously referred in a heading to the Episcopus Soltanien. rather than to an
issued at Pisa which noted his return and his report to the council entitled
Johannes as Archbishop of Sultaniyah sive Orientis,M but the presence list of 26
May again noted,him, still among Panciera's proctors, as episcopus in universali
ecclesia.**' He was mentioned, together with the same proctors, as subscribing to
the deposition of the two rival popes, Gregory XII and Benedict Xm, on S June
when he was frater Johannes de Padua magister in theoiogia episcopus in
universali ecclesiaHe may have remained in Pisa until the election on 26 June
1409 of Pope Alexander V who presumably confirmed his offices.
Only in the Pisan presence lists of April, May and June 1409 was
Johannes described, not as Archbishop of Sultaniyah and of "the whole Orient",
but as de Padua, as a Master of Theology and as episcopus in universali ecclesia.
This title was employed by bishops who had no see but retained their status and
powers as ordained bishops. Johannes had not lost his see; in fact he was given
its title in the text noting his return to Pisa. Though he had lost control of his
see and had little immediate prospect of returning to it, there was no particular
reason in the spring of 1409 for Johannes to suppose that he had lost his
archbishopric; nor did other bishops at Pisa describe themselves as in universali
ecclesia. Possibly Johannes took a personal decision to regard himself as no
longer a valid holder of his see because the line of popes who had appointed and
recognized him was being judged invalid by the council.
Johannes, long separated from his church at Sultaniyah, was increasingly

involved in Eastern European lands. Timur had died in February 1405, but there
was still a Mongol threat along the frontiers of East Central Europe and beyond,
so that the archbishop's linguistic and other experience may have been useful in
an area in which there were a number of Dominican establishments and
missions. On 26 July 1409 Johannes was at Kronstadt on the borders of
Hungary, Wallachia and Moldavia, where he used his customary title as
Archbishop of Sultaniyah in granting an indulgence to a church, employing a red
wax seal inscribed, from the Song of Solomon, WLNERASTI COR MEV[M
SOR] OR MEA SPONSA. 87 In 1407 he had used what he described as his
travelling seal — quo in nostre peregrinalionis processus utirnur.*s On 29
December 1410 the archbishop was probably back in Italy at Bologna with
archbishop: Biblioteca Vaticana, Ms. Vat. Lat. 4172, f. 62-62v. The date of promotion was
needed in order to establish precedence at the council.
84
Text in Vincke (1940), 236.
85
Text in Mansi, xvii. 353.
86
Text in J. Vincke, Schriftstücke zum Pisaner Konzil (Bonn, 1942), 201.
87
Text in F. Zimmermann - C. Werner - G. Müller, Lirkundenbuch zur Geschichte der Deutschen in
Siebenbürgen, iii (Hermannstadt, 1902), 481 (with honor for soror). Ç. Papacoslea, "Un C&lätor
în Tärile romine la Inceputul veacului a) XV-Lea," Studii [Bucharest], xviii (1955), discusses
Johannes' descriptions of Wallachia.
88
Text in Tommaso da Siena, 164-166.
Alexander V's successor John XXIII, who there named him apostolic
administrator of the Archbishopric of Cambaliensis, that is of Pekin, long vacant,
since the death of Archbishop Charles who, the bull said, had not been replaced
as Pekin was too distant and dangerous; Johannes was to have the incomes,
which were not specified, of the archiépiscopal mensa." China was outside the
traditional Dominican sphere of action, but Johannes asserted in 1404 that in his
youth he had known the Franciscan Karolus de Francia of Pekin who, so he said,
had long been dead; that he himself had repeatedly been called to China by the
Christians there; and that he had protested to the pope who did nothing about
sending the necessary missionaries. 90 On 12 February 1412 Johannes was at
Lwow in Poland acting as apostolic delegate and describing himself as
administrator of Pekin; he granted indulgences to those who visited the
Dominican church at Lwow. 9 ' A manuscript of his Ubettus which was copied in
1412 survived in the Dominican house at Leipzig.92 Then or thereafter Johannes
died or disappeared.9-*
Johannes' IJbellus displayed an impressively broad view both of Eurasian

Christendom with its Christian communities and heresies and also of Muslim
and pagan practices. It was free of stories about monsters, pigmies and other
89
Text in Loeneitz (1940), 267-268.
^Libellas, M9-K0; cf. Bih», 542-544.
9
' T e x t in Loeneitz (1940), 268; idem, La Société des Frites Périgrinants, i (Rome, 1937), I I I -
112, 170-172, had earlier conflated Johannes of Sultaniyah with Jean de Gaiïlefontaine and
stated that he spent his last years in the Province of Kipchak (Crimea), for which there is no
direct evidence, and that the tituldr administration of Gambaliensis (Pekin) gave Johannes
jurisdiction over Caffa and the other bishoprics of Kipchak. though the 1410 document did not
say so. Johannes was not Bishop of Cimbaliensis (Cembalo) in the Crimea, which between 1410
and some time before August 1413 had a Bishop Tilmannus Wesseli appointed by John XXIII
Fedalto, i. 562-563; ii. 86. LoeneiU (1940) amended his earlier views but his earlier ideas have
sometimes been repeated by others. Richard, Papauté (1977), 182, 261, states that Johannes
established himself at Caffa, and that "il imagina de se faire ... conférer, en 1410, le titre de
Khanbaliq", that is of Pekin. Fedalto, i. 551. 574-575, speaks of Johannes as being able to
administer the Archbishopric of Pekin from the Crimea, of his being Metropolitan of the
Kipchak province in 1410, and of Pekin having possessions in 1410 which Johannes could
administer. None of that results directly from the 1410 bull. Fedalto, i. 574-575, states that
Johannes passed to the Avignon obedience; he actually passed to that of Pisa. Fedalto, i. 551,
555-556, shows that the Archbishop of Pekin was considered to be the Metropolitan of Simon
Bishop of Caffa, provided by Boniface IX in 1401, which might suggest that Johannes could
later have enjoyed some jurisdiction in the Crimea, though there is no evidence that he went
there in or after 1410. These matters remain obscure.
92
Kem, Libellas, 88.
93
Richard, Papauté (1977), 155, 182, states that Johannes must have died at Lwow in 1412, but
there is no proof of that. Even if he were the Johannes replaced as Archbishop of Sultaniyah in
1423 (Fedalto, ii. 212), he could have died long before that replacement. On 7 May 1413 John
XXIII recognized the Dominican Withelmus as episcopus of Sultanien., which must have been
Soldaia and not Sultaniyah which was an archbishopric: text in TSutu, part 2, 224-225. This was
probably the English William Bellers, elect of Soldaia in 1403. T&utu, part V. 256 (as of
Sultaniyah), The 1413 bull therefore provides no evidence for the death of Johannes of
Sultaniyah.
marvels. Its author can scarcely have had direct experience of all the areas he
discussed in 1404. He had comparatively little to say about the Greeks of
Byzantium, though he did note that many converts to the Roman church had
been forced into exile in Italy and elsewhere. 94 He wrote of Lithuania as having
been converted, though not in its entirety, and he briefly described Wallachia and
its language. Johannes said that Durazzo had been depopulated by the Turks but
that Albania had been liberated from them thanks to Timur, and he hoped that the
Serbian leader Stefan Lazarevki would restore Christian rule there.
The Libellus recalled missionary successes in Tatar and Mongol lands,

especially in China. Johannes had himself been in Caffa in the Crimea and in
Circassia between the Black Sea and the Caspian where, he claimed, there had
been great successes, thanks to his own work. Johannes wrote of conversions in
Armenia, Georgia and Southern Russia, and of Timur's widespread destructions
there. He mentioned the Catholics of Kurdistan, where the Dominicans were
active, and of Baghdad, where Johannes had sent a missionary who had made
conversions there; the Syriac Katholikos of Mosul was well disposed. The
archbishop expressed his hopes of visiting India, about which he wrote very little
even though it lay within his province, and Ethiopia, which was so difficult of
access that there was only limited contact with it as it was normally reached by
sea from India. Johannes remarked that the Ethiopians had exchanged envoys
with the pope and that they made pilgrimages to Jerusalem and had much
affection for the papacy; he seems to have had some personal experience of these
exchanges and he wrote that in his own time the Ethiopians had sent to Venice
for liturgical vestments and furnishings. 95 When Johannes reached Venice at the
very end of 1402 he probably heard of the arrival there in the previous June or
July of an Ethiopian envoy. 96 There were also contacts with India and in June
1403 two allegedly Indian priests were with the pope in Rome. 97 Johannes' zone
of operations, the Province of all the East, coincided roughly with the area of
Mongol domination, even if those Mongols centred on Southern Russia were not
under Timur's control. The deletion of the passage expressing hopes for Timur's
conversion from the letter for Timur which Henry IV entrusted to Johannes
suggested a strand of realism in Johannes' thought. He himself claimed in 1403
that the Chinese emperor was a Nestorian, 98 and the fact was that it was the
Nestorians in the thirteenth century rather than the Latins who had come closest
to converting Ghengis Khan and his successors to Christianity.99
94
Libellus, 101.
95
O n the Libellus, Bihl and Richard, Relations (1977), XX11-XXVI; some passages concerning
North Africa, Anatolia and other parts are omitted from the text in Kern (1940).
96
Iorga, i. 120-121.
97
Täutu, part 1, 260.
98
"Mimoiie," 442, 460.
" L . Gumilev, Searches for an Imaginary Kingdom: the Legend of the Kingdom of Prester John
(trans: Cambridge, 1978), 161-162 et passim.
T I M U R ' S D O M I N I C A N ENVOY 227
Johannes' origins remain as obscure as his end. He was most probably an

Italian who became a Dominican missionary. He served as Bishop of
Nakhichevan in Armenia where he may have been at least from about 1390, and
he knew Persians and Mongols well. He had contacts with Timur who sent him
to Italy in 1397 or 1398 when the pope translated him in July 1398 to the
Archbishopric of Sultaniyah. In 1401 and 1402 he was at Timur's court in
Karabagh and Anatolia, and in 1402 Timur again sent him, or used him as an
envoy, to the West. Johannes' Dominican colleague Franciscus named Ssathru,
who in 1398 succeeded him briefly as Bishop of Nakhichevan, was apparently a
native of Tabriz, and Franciscus too was used by Timur on several missions to
Constantinople, Paris and London; Franciscus disappeared after 1402, while
Johannes seems not to have returned to Asia after 1402, partly perhaps because
Timur had left Anatolia in 1403 and died on his way to China in 1405. The
archbishop had been specially favoured by Miran Shah but he was killed in 1408.
Johannes, with his striking white beard, promenaded around Western courts
ostensibly as a roving Mongol envoy but in reality more as a one-man pressure
group for his own missionary activities which in practice amounted after 1402 to
very little, even though he maintained a theoretical interest in China and
Ethiopia as well as in Byzantium, Cyprus, Trebizond, Southern Russia and other
places. His written works had a certain dispersion. The Libellus survived in at
least six manuscripts, and the treatise on Timur was included in a major French
chronicle composed in or soon after 1415. One French version of the memoir on
Timur was copied on parchment into a manuscript in which it followed a history
of Richard II of England which was written in the same hand and which ended
with a document dated 25 March 1403. 100 The other surviving French version of
the memoir was copied into a finely illustrated and decorated manuscript in which
it followed a Latin version of Hayton's history of the Mongols; in this
manuscript the memoir opened with an illumination showing an attack on a city.
This volume was in the library of the Duke of Burgundy by 1420. 101
Johannes Archbishop of Sultaniyah was concerned with an amazing range

of countries. He was a familiar figure in the curia of the Roman pope and visited
100
Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Ms. franç. 5624, f. 63v-72v. Moranvillé, Chronographia, i
(1891), p. xlii, points out that the two major additions in the continuation of the chronicle,
which closed in 1405 and was composed in 1415/29, were a history of Richard II (iii. 163-190)
and the memoir on Timur (iii. 206-233). He did not note that these are the two works contained,
in French, in Ms. franç. 5624. Chronicque de la Trmson et Mort de Richart Deux Roy Dengleterre,
ed. B. Williams (London, 1846), pp. Ixxxiii-lxxxvi, describes Ms. franç. 5624, noting that it is
an early version of the Richard II text which mentions nothing later than March 1403. Cf. J.
Palmer, "The Authorship, Date and Historical Value of the French Chronicles on the Lancastrian
Revolution," Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library, Ixi (1978/9).
101
Paris, Ms. franç. 12,201, f. 83-97v, described by C. Kohler, in Recueil des Historiens des
Croisades: Historiens Arméniens, ii (Paris. 1906), pp. lxxxvii-lxxxvu. Moranvillé, "Mémoire,"
441 n. 1, states that this Ms. is in the same hand as the translation of Timur's letter to Charles
VI; the question of the various hands involved deserves further consideration.
many Western and Central European courts; he had some influence with Timur
and Miran Shah over a number of years and spoke at least some Persian; he had
contacts with China though he never went there. He expressed hopes of reviving
the seriously depleted missions in Mongol-dominated lands, and was interested in
the union of various Oriental Churches with Rome. Johannes was also concerned
with the penitential movement within his own Dominican order, and he played
some part in the quarrels and confusions of the papal schism in Northern Italy.
From successive popes of the Roman obedience he secured a collection of powers
and titles which in the end he was, however, able to exercize only in Eastern
Europe, despite his title as primate of the Christians of "the whole Orient." 102 In
1410 John XXIII named him administrator of the Archbishopric of Pekin of
which the Franciscans had lost control. He did not return to Asia after 1402 but
travelled in the West and in Prussia, Poland, Hungary and the Balkans. In 1408
he transferred his allegiance to the Pisan Council which was attempting to end
the papal schism, and he journeyed on its account to Constantinople and the
Christian rulers of the Balkans. In 1412 he was in Poland but then he
disappeared. Johannes had some importance before 1402 through his contacts
with Timur and Miran Shah which, according to his own writings, did
something to improve the conditions of Christians and even to make converts
within the Mongol dominions. From 1403 onwards he was acting as Timur's
envoy in the West and disseminating information both by word of mouth and
through his writings about the Mongols and about the Oriental Christians, but
the Latin missions to the East were largely moribund and there was little real
hope of converting Asiatic rulers. Johannes' own Libellus recognized that
nothing could be done without missionary manpower: Quid plus, nisi mittantur
messores
POSTSCRIPT
L. Tardyj "The Caucasian Peoples and their Neighbours in 1401," Acta

Orientalia, XXXII (1978), repeated certain earlier remarks which are now revised
above and translates, sometimes inaccurately, parts of Johannes' Libellus,
including sections published in Kern. Tardy edits Johannes' descriptions of areas
around and between the Black and Caspian Seas where he had long lived and
spoke various local languages, giving details of indigenous Christians and of
Dominican and Franciscan missions. E. Cernili, Etiopi in Palestina: Storia della
Comunità etiopica di Gerusalemme, i (Rome, 1943), 212-213, publishes a
passage on Ethiopia not given in Kern.
' ® C f . Richard, Papauté (1977), 182 n. 46: "Jean III a visiblement essayé de faire reconnaître à
son siège la primauté sur l'Asie mongole, y compris la Chine. l'Ethiopie et l'Inde."
m
Libel!us, 121.
Johannes saw either the Circassian Sultan Barkuk or his son Sultan Faraj
and their parenti, the phrase Vidique ipsum puerum... being unclear. Idbellus,
111-112, mistranslated in Tardy, 93. Barkuk was sold in Caffa and reached Egypt
in 1362/3, and Johannes seems unlikely to have seen him before that. Barkuk did
summon Timur across the wide Euphrates in 1394 (text in Iorga, ii. S29), but
Johannes, even if present, would scarcely have seen Barkuk's puer and their
parenti on that occasion. Barkuk died in 1399. In October-November 1401 Tiimir
sent envoys, conceivably including Johannes, from Syria to treat in Cairo with
Faraj, born in 1389 and still a puer: W. Fischel, "A New Latin Source on
Tamerlane's Conquest of Damascus: 1400/1401," Oriens. ix (1956), 212-214.
The Traité d'Emmanuel Piloti sur le Passage en Terre Sainte (1420), ed. P.-H.
Dopp (Louvain, 1958), 240, recorded these envoys' presence in Cairo.
Johannes possibly visited the Avignon pope Benedict XIII, conceivably in

1404. Between 1405 and 1408 that pope's travelling library included an Ystoria
Tamburkmi, which disappeared thereafter but may have been Johannes' treatise:
M.-H. Jullien de Pommerol - J. Monfrin, La Bibliothèque pontificale à Avignon
et à Petiiscola pendant le Grand Schisme d'Occident et sa Dispersion: Inventaire
et Concordances, i (Rome, 1991), 38, 290, 298. Tardy, 85-87, suggests that
Johannes was in Hungary somewhere between 1403 and 1408, and that he later
saw Sigismund to whom in September 1408 he was sent as an envoy from Pisa.
Bath
Irène MÉLIKOFF
QUI ÉTAIT SARI SALTUK ? QUELQUES

REMARQUES SUR LES MANUSCRITS
DU SALTUKNAME
Depuis quelques années, on constate un renouveau d'intérêt pour le

Saltukname, à la siiite de l'édition, par Fahir tz, du manuscrit de la bibliothèque
du Topkapi Sarayi 1 . Dernièrement, une analyse exhaustive de cet écrit
romanesque a été faite par Kemal Yiice 2 , mais l'auteur s'est contenté de l'analyser
en détails, sans le soumettre à une étude critique.
Or, le Saltukname est un texte particulièrement touffu et difficile à

interpréter, à cause de la multitude d'éléments hétéroclites qu'il contient et parce
que rien, dans cet enchevêtrement, ne laisse apparaître la réalité historique du
héros qui a inspiré l'œuvre : le derviche-gazi Sari Saltuk, qui a vécu dans la
deuxième moitié du XlIIème siècle.
Les légendes le concernant ont été amassées quelques deux cents ans plus
tard, par Ebu'l Hayr-i Rumî, à la demande de Djem Sultan. Ebu'l Hayr-i Rumî
semble avoir été le conteur attitré du prince 3 .
En 1473, pendant sa campagne contre Uzun Hasan Akkoyunlu, Mehmed

II nomma Djem Sultan "muhafiz" de la forteresse d'Edime. Ayant entendu parler
de San Saltuk, le prince chargea son conteur de rassembler pour lui le récit de ses
aventures. A sa demande, Ebu'l Hayr aurait parcouru la Roumélie pendant sept
1
Saltubiâme, The Legend of San Saltuk collected from oral traditions by Ebu'l-Hayr Rimî. text in
facsmile with critical and stylistic analysis and index by Fahir Iz. Edited by Jinasi Tekin, Harvard
University 1974-1976 sq.
2 Kemal Ytice, Sahuknâme'de Tariht, Dint ve Efsanevi Unsurlar, Ankara 1987 (KaltUr ve Turizm
Bakanligi yayinlan).
3 C f . Manuscrit du Topkapi Sarayi, Hazine n' 1612, ff. 616 a-b.
232 Irène MÉLIKOFF
ans, à la recherche de ces légendes. C'est donc en 1480 qu'il composa le

Saltukname. Il est certain qu'il y a incorporé nombre de légendes entendues et
n'ayant aucun rapport avec le héros principal, son but étant surtout de trouver de
la matière pour amuser le prince.
En 1481, à la mort de Mehmed II, commença la guerre fratricide entre

Bayezid II et Djem Sultan. C'est peut-être la raison pour laquelle le manuscrit de
Ebu'l Hayr-i Rumî a sommeillé pendant un siècle.
A la fin du XVIème siècle, on voit apparaitre des copies du Saltukname,

se référant à l'œuvre dTîbu'l Hayr-i Rumî.
Le seul manuscrit à peu près complet — il ne manque que le premier folio

— est daté de 1000/1591. C'est celui du Topkapi Sarayi, Hazine 1612, qui a été
édité par Fahir lz 4 . Entre la compilation d'Ebu'l Hayr et l'apparition des
manuscrits du Saltukname, plus d'un siècle s'est écoulé. Beaucoup d'événements
s'étaient produits. Aussi irouve-t-on nombre d'anachronismes par rapport à
l'époque où vivait Ebu'l Hayr. Beaucoup de détails ont été ajoutés par les
copistes. On a principalement recherché à revêtir le héros d'un vernis d'orthodoxie
sunnite.
Il y eu, en effet, entre temps, la propagande chiite de Chah Isma'il et la

réplique violente de Selim 1er. La polémique contre les Chiites, qu'on appelle
"Rafizî", est entrée dans une phase aiguë après la guerre ottomano-safavide et la
bataille de Tchaldiran.
C'est aux copistes que sont dûs les détails ajoutés au Saltukname où Sari
Saltuk fait figure de Sunnite convaincu, proclamant la supériorité du rite hanéfïte
sur tous les autres et menant une propagande acharnée contre les "Rafizî". Le
Prophète lui apparaît en rêve pour lui ordonner de tuer tous les Rafizî. Il les
combat à Bagdad et en Iran (f. 218). Il profane le tombeau dlsma'il, leur chef, et
brûle son mausolée (ff. 373-374). Ce n'est certainement pas à Ebu'l Hayr que ces
détails d'un autre siècle doivent être attribués.
Il en est de même de l'épilhète "Sunnî" qui apparaît tout au long du texte.

Au XVème siècle, sous le règne de Mehmed II, la polémique sunnite-chiite
n'était pas entrée dans sa phase critique. Celle-ci n'apparaîtra que lors de la
propagande anti-sunnite de Chah Isma'il.
^Jusqu'à présent, on connaît trois manuscrits du Saltukname : celui de Topkapi Sarayi, Hazine
1612, copié en 1000/1591, par un copiste inconnu ; celui de Bor, Halil Bey KUtuphanesi, copié
en 1S76 (985), manuscrit incomplet, mais qui a été complété plus tard sur le précédent par un
copiste inconnu ; celui de Ankara, Millt Kiitiiphane, 283 ff., non daté, copiste inconnu. Tous les
manuscrits se réfèrent à la version de Ebu'I-Hayr Rûmî faite à la demande de Djem Sultan.
QUI É T A I T S A R I S ALTUK? 233
Lorsque le Saltukname est dépouillé de ces anachronismes dûs aux

copistes de la fin du XVIème siècle, San Saltuk apparaît sous l'aspect d'un
"derviche colonisateur", ce qu'il fut réellement.
Dans le Saltukname, on trouve nombre de légendes qui font partie du

répertoire des épopées turques en général : combat contre les div et les dragons,
symbolisme ornithologique appartenant aux substrats chamaniques encore
vivants dans les épopées et les récits hagiographiques. Sari Saltuk se
métamorphose en oie sauvage, oiseau migrateur qui joue un grand rôle dans la
mythologie des peuples nomades. On trouve également des attributions magiques
données au Kazan "chaudron", qui est un autre élément chamanique. Mais on ne
trouve par contre rien, dans l'épopée, qui rappelle les faits historiques auxquels
est lié le nom de Sari Saltuk : l'installation de tribus tiirks en Dobroudja et la
première colonisation turque de cette région, en 1263-4.
Ces faits sont relatés dans le Seldjuknâme de Yazidjioglu Ali, composé en

1424 (827). Ils ont été repris, en 1579, par un historien de cour, Seyyid Lokman,
dans une chronique abrégée intitulée Oguznâme.5
D'après le récit de Yazidjioglu Ali — qui se réfère à Ibn-i Bibi —, Izzeddin

Keykavus II, fuyant les méfaits des Ilkhanides, s'était réfugié à Byzance, auprès
de Michel Vin Paléologue, avec ses fils, sa mère qui était une princesse grecque,
et une partie de sa cour.
Un jour, Izzeddin Keykavus et Ali Bahadur, dirent & Vasilyos, c'est-à-dire

au Basileus :
"Biz Türkíiz, daima §ebirde oturamayiz. Bize yaylak ve krçlak olacak yer
versen de Anadolu'dan bize uyanlar gelse."6
Le Basileus leur octroie la région de Dobroudja. Les Tiirks envoyent en

secret porter le message à ceux de leurs clans. Ceux-ci arrivent des montagnes
d'Iznik et traversent la mer à Üskiidar. A leur tête se trouve San Saltuk7.
Trente ou quarante oba (clans) débarquent en Dobroudja, soit, d'après

Seyyid Lokman, 10 000 ou 12 000 Türkmens.8
Voir Paul Wittek, ïavjwghlu 'Ali on the Christian Turks of the Dobnija, BSOAS, XIX/3, 1952,
pp. 639-668 ; Aurel Decei, Le problème de la colonisation des Turcs Seldjoucides dans la
Dobrogea au Xlllème siècle, Ankara Univ. D.T.G. Fakiiltesi, Tarih Arajtirmalar Dergisi, eilt VI,
n° 10-11, 1968 (Ankara Ünivereitesi Basimevi, 1972) pp. 85-111.
6
Cf. Aurel Decei, op. cit., pp. 87-88.
7
Ibid. p. 88.
8
Cf. Franz Babinger, lA, s.v. Sari Saltuk Dede.
Ces faits sont confirmés par les historiens byzantins, Pachytnères et

Grégoras.9
La Dobroudja était un corridor à travers lequel les Tatares de la Horde d'Or,

établis en Crimée, passaient pendant leurs incursions dans les Balkans. Michel
V m y installa les Tiirkmens de façon à ériger un obstacle contre les incursions
des Tatares.10
Après le départ des Tiirkmens, le Sultan Izzeddin Keykavus fit une

tentative pour renverser le Basileus. Ayant échoué, il fut emprisonné dans une
forteresse avec ses deux fils. Délivré par les Tatares de la Horde d'Or, il se réfugia
en Crimée avec ses fils. San Saltuk qui avait participé à cette expédition avec ses
Turkmens, s'installa en Crimée pour un certain temps. 11
Izzeddin Keykavus meurt en 1280 (679). Son fils Mes'ud qui lui succède,
s'apprête à retourner en Anatolie. Avec la permission du Khan de la Horde d'Or,
Sari Saltuk retourna, avec ses nomades (gôçer eli) et leur bétail, dans leur pays,
c'est-à-dire en Dobroudja. Il y resta jusqu'à sa mort. 12
Après sa mort, autour de 1300, une partie des Turks de la Dobroudja,

ayant eu assez des Mécréants, émigrèrent en pays de Karesi, avec, à leur tète,
HalilEdje. 13
Ceux qui restèrent, se seraient convertis au Christianisme. Ces faits sont

confirmés par les historiens byzantins : Pachymères, parlant des Tourkopoulos,
peu après 1300, dit qu'ils sont des Chrétiens de fraîche date et qu'ils sont arrivés
récemment "de pays situés au nord". Grégoras, en 1307, parle des Tourkopoulos,
soldats Turks baptisés ei enrôlés dans l'armée. 14 Ce serait là l'origine des
Gagaouzes.15
D'après le récit des sources turques, nous avons à faire à des tribus
nomades dont le but n'était pas de construire des villes, mais de coloniser la
Dobroudja, qui leur avait été donnée, en continuant à y vivre selon leurs usages.
Les deux ou trois villes musulmanes qu'ils sont dit avoir fondées, l'ont
probablement été plus tard, lorsqu'ils furent déjà sédentarisés.
9
Cf. Paul Wittek, op. cit., pp. 655-664 ; Aurel Decei, op. cit., p. 97.
10
Cf. Paul Wittek, op. cit., p. 654
l
' C f . Paul Wittek, op. cit., pp. 648 sq ; Aurel Decei, op. cit., pp. 88-89.
12
Cf. Paul Wittek, op. ci!., p. 649 ; Autel Decei, op. cit., pp. 89-90.
" c f . Paul Wittek. op. cit., p. 651 ; Aurel Decei, op. cit., p. 90.
14
Cf. Paul Wittek, op. cit., pp 655-664.
' ~*Sur le problème des Gagaouzes, voir Keraal H. Karpat, Gagauzlarm tarihi mensei iiierine ve
(olklorundan parçalar, I. Uluslararasi Tiirk Folklor Kongresi, Bildirileri, I. cilt, Ankara 1976,
(Ankara Universitesi Basimevi) pp 163-171.
QUI ÉTAIT SARI S ALTUK7 235
Kemal Yiice avance une hypothèse intéressante : d'après lui, ce sont les
tribus Tchepni qui nomadisaient entre Iznik et Sinop, poussant parfois jusqu'à
Trébizonde. Les Tiirkmens qui ont émigré en Dobroudja avec San Saltuk,
auraient été des Tchepni. Dans ce cas, San Saltuk aurait appartenu à la tribu des
Tchepni 16 .
San Saltuk semble effectivement avoir été un chef tiirkmen qui a conduit
plusieurs clans de sa tribu en Dobroudja où ils se sont installés et qu'ils ont
colonisé. Il a dû cumuler les fonctions de chef de tribu et de chef religieux, selon
la tradition des "Baba" Tiirkmen, c'est pourquoi il est appelé Saltuk Baba ou
Saltuk Dede.
Après avoir exposé les événements historiques mêlés au nom de Sari

Saltuk, essayons de cerner les caractéristiques du personnage. Voyons tout d'abord
ce que nous apprennent les voyageurs : Ibn Battuta qui a visité les régions où
vécut San Saltuk une centaine d'années après sa mort, dit être arrivé, après avoir
quitté la Crimée, dans une ville connue sous le nom de "Baba Saltuk". Voici
comment il juge San Saltuk : "On dit que Baba Saltuk était un mystique
extatique, mais on rapporte de lui des choses que réprouve la loi religieuse." Son
jugement rappelle celui que porta Achikpachazade sur Hadji Bektach17.
La plus ancienne source relative à San Saltuk, le décrit donc comme un

saint personnage, teinté d'hétérodoxie.
La tradition donne comme disciple à San Saltuk un curieux personnage. Il

s'agit de Barak Baba, un derviche hétérodoxe, qui a fréquenté les cours de Gazan
Khan et d'Oldjaytu, où il faisait des miracles et étonnait ses contemporains par
ses pratiques ornithologiques, teintées de Chamanisme. 11 fut mis à mort au
Ghilan, en 1307.
D'après la légende relative à San Saltuk, Barak aurait été un prince

seldjoucide qui serait resté à Byzance et y aurait été baptisé. San Saltuk demande
au Patriarche de le lui confier. Le Patriarche, connaissant la sainteté de San
Saltuk, accède à sa demande. Sous l'influence de Sari Saltuk, le prince serait
16
Cf. Kemal Yttce, Saltuk Nânte, pp. 86-88 ; A. Ya$ar Ocak, La Révolte de Baba Resul ou ta
Formation de l'Hétérodoxie Musulmane en Anatolie au Xlllème siècle, Ankara 1989 {Publications
de la Société Turque d'Histoire, série Vil, n" 99) p. 67. D'après Fanik Silmer, de nombreuses tribus
Tchepni vivaient aux environs de Sinop durant les années 1270-1280 ; une grande partie de ces
tribus Tchepni étaient hétérodoxes (batini).
17
Ibn Battûta, Travels in Asia and Africa 1325-1354, translated and edited by H. A. R. Gibb.
London J965 (5th impression) : cf. pp. 153, 165, 357 ; Ibn Battûta, Voyages, II. De la Mecque
aux steppes russes, trad. C. Defremeiy et B. R. Sanguinetti, réédition Paris 1982 (F. Maspero-La
Découverte), pp. 238-239.
redevenu musulman et se serait mis au service du saint qui lui aurait donné
comme nom Barak "le chien"18.
Les noms de Sari Saltuk et de Barak Baba sont mentionnés dans les
Vilâyetnâme, notamment ceux de Hadji Bektach et d'Otman Baba. Ces deux
hagiographies racontent le combat légendaire de San Saltuk contre un dragon, à
Kaliakra, pour délivrer une princesse, fille du Tekfur.
Bien qu'il soit revendiqué par les Bektachis 1 ', Sari Saltuk n'a
probablement eu aucun rapport avec Hadji Bektach, ni avec le mouvement des
Baba'is dont Hadji Bektach est issu, autrement son nom aurait été mentionné
dans le Menâkibnâme que Elvan Djelebi a consacré à son aieul Baba Ilyas-i
Horasanî, un des chefs du mouvement 20 . Evliya Djelebi qui a écrit que Sari
Saltuk est allé en Dobroudja par ordre de Haci Bektach, s'est probablement
inspiré du Vilâyetnâme.
Revenons maintenant au Saltukname pour y analyser les éléments

hétérodoxes qui y foisonnent et qui sont en contradiction avec l'image d'un Sari
Saltuk, défenseur acharné du Sunnisme.
San Saltuk voit apparaître Ali en rêve qui lui raconte une tradition très
répandue dans les milieux Alevi-Bektachis : "Quand je serai mort, vous verrez
venir un personnage voilé conduisant un chameau, qui viendra prendre mon
cercueil." Ce personnage voilé n'est autre qu'Ali lui même (ff. 398-399).
On trouve d'autres éléments Alevi-Bektachis: pendant le mois de

Muharrem, Sari Saltuk fait cuire le achure, il se vêt de vêtements noirs et tient
trois jours de deuil (f. 303). Il s'agit du deuil traditionnel des Alevi-Bektachis,
pour commémorer la tragédie de Kerbelâ.
Un autre fait caractéristique, c'est la rencontre de Sari Saltuk avec un

Kalenderi (f. 364a) qui a la tête, la barbe, les moustaches et les sourcils rasés. Il
devient son Ahiret kardep "frère de l'Au-delà" (ff. 362-366). La coutume du
Ahiret kardefi est obligatoire chez les Alevis21.
1
®Sur Barak Baba, voir Fuat KôprillU, Influence du Chamanisme Turco-Mongol sur les Ordres
Mystiques Musulmans, Istanbul 1929 (Tiirkiyat Enstitiitiisii yay.) ; Abdulbâki Gôlpinarli, Yunus
Emre ve Tasavvuf, Istanbul 1961, pp. 252-279 ; A. Ya$ar Ocak, La Révolte de Baba Resul, pp.
105-110.
1 % . Abdulbâki Gôtpinarli, Menakib-i Haci Bektai-i Veli-Vilâyetnâme Istanbul 1958, pp. 45-
48.
2
®Elvan Çelebi, Menâkibii'l-Kudsiyye fî Menâsibi'l-Unsiyye, édité par Ismail E. Eriinsal et A.
Yajar Ocak, Istanbul 19S4 (Edebiyat Faküliesi Matbaasi).
2
' Voir Irène Melikoff, Une Coutume des Bektafi-Alevis : Musahip ou Ahiret Kardeji, Actes du
Congrès sur Haci Bekta; et tes Ordres se réclamant de lui (Université de Strasbourg, juin-juillet
1986) (sous presse). Cet article a également paru dans: Irène Mélikoff, Sur les traces du soufisme
QUI ÉTAIT SARI SALTUK? 237
Fuat Kôpriilii a discerné, avec l'intuition qui le caractérise, les rapports

entre les Alevis d'Anatolie et les Baba'is. Il voyait dans 1« Tiirkmens qui étaient
revenus en Anatolie au temps de Karesioglu Kara Isa, les descendants des
Baba'is22. Bien que rien ne permette de considéer Sari Saltuk comme un de ceux-
ci, les croyances religieuses des anciens Baba'is n'étaient probablement pas
différentes de l'Islam populaire et hétérodoxe professé par les Tiirkmens qui
n'avaient pas encore coupé le cordon ombilical qui les rattachaient à leurs
anciennes traditions chamaniques.
Les légendes de San Saltuk sont surtout dominées par une atmosphère de
syncrétisme christiano-musulman. Ce syncrétisme est caractéristique de l'époque
à laquelle il vivait. Nous avons vu le Christianisme et l'Islam se cotoyer. San
Saltuk, tout comme Barak Baba, présente un aspect chrétien et un aspect
musulman. San Saltuk est dit être versé en théologie chrétienne et parler toutes
les langues à la fois. Il trompe son entourage en officiant à Sainte Sophie sans
attirer la moindre méfiance.
Dans les pays balkaniques où sa mémoire est vénérée, Sari Saltuk est
confondu avec des saints chrétiens tels Saint Nicolas, Saint Spyridon, Saint
Georges (à cause de sa victoire sur le dragon). Saint Elie, Saint Siméon, Saint
Naum.
A Kaliakra, sa tombe est vénérée à la fois par les Musulmans et par les
Chrétiens. A Ohrid, elle se trouve dans le monastère chrétien de Saint Naum.
D'après Hasluck, Bayezid II aurait bâti le mausolée de San Saltuk à Baba Dagi,
sur l'emplacement de la tombe d'un saint chrétien. Ses tombeaux et ses
mausolées se trouvent disséminés en pays chrétiens : en Albanie, en Yougoslavie
(Has), en Bosnie (Blagay, près de Mostar), en Grèce (Corfou), en Dobroudja
(Kaliakra) et en Roumanie où se trouve le plus important de ses mausolées, à
Baba Dagi.23
On ne saurait passer sous silence un fait qui a ému certains chercheurs : en

1538, Siileyman le Magnifique, passant par la Dobroudja, pendant sa campagne
en Moldavie, visita le mausolée de Sari Saltuk à Baba Dagi. Désirant se
renseigner sur le saint, le Sultan demanda à Ebu'ssu'ud Efendi (1490-1574), bien
connu pour son érudition, et qui occupa pendant trente ans la dignité de Cheykh-
ul-Islam : "San Saltuk evliya'ullah'dan mi dir ?"
Iure: recherches sur l'Islam populaire en Anatolie (Analecta Isisiana III), Istanbul 1992, pp. 95-
103.
z2
Cf. Fuat KÖprtilii, Türk Edebiyatmda llk Mulasawtflar. 2ème éd., Ankara 1966, pp. 45-4».
23
Cf. Franz Babinger, I.A. s.v. San Saltuk Dede.
Celui-ci rendit le fetva suivant : Riyazet ile kadid olmuf bir ke}i$ "un
moine émacie par l'ascèse." 24
Cette réponse surprenante a amené certains chercheurs à émettre des doutes

sur le jugement du Cheykh-ul-Islam.
Or, il me semble que c'est plutôt la personnalité de San Saltuk qui doit
être remise en cause : il fut certainement un chef de tribu tiirkmen, sans doute
également chef religieux. Il fut le premier colonisateur tiirk des Balkans, plus
particulièrement de la Dobroudja. Mais il ne faut voir en lui ni un missionnaire
ni un apôtre. Il professait probablement le même Islam hétérodoxe que les Baba
qui ont déclenché le mouvement Baba'i et qui s'est perpétué dans l'Islam
populaire des Alevi-Bektachis.
Il a émigré dans des régions où le Christianisme, encore mal enraciné,

avait à lutter contre l'hérésie Bogomile, venue elle aussi d'Anatolie. Ce facteur a
dû favoriser l'expansion de l'Islamisme dans ces régions.
Le syncrétisme islamo-chrétien répandu dans les Balkans et en Thrace

durant les premiers siècles de la conquête turque, a donné naissance, de part et
d'autre, à des mouvements religieux hétérodoxes.
Le nom de Sari Saltuk est lié à la propagation de l'Islam parmi les Slaves.
Il doit être regardé comme un symbole du syncrétisme islamo-chrétien
caractéristique des Balkans
Il demeure également un symbole éloquent de l'esprit de tolérance

religieuse qui dominait durant les premiers siècles de la conquête turque.
Université de Strasbourg
24
C f . M. Tayyib Okiç, Sari Salluk'a ail bir fetva, Ankara Universitesi llâhiyat Fakliltesi Dergisi,
vol. I, n* I, pp. 48-58.
N. OIKONOMIDES
FROM SOLDIERS OF FORTUNE

TO GAZI WARRIORS: THE TZYMPE AFFAIR
The historian Kritoboulos of Imbros narrates the feats of Mehemmed II in

good Greek, using as a model Thucydides himself. In one instance he shows the
sultan addressing his officers shortly before turning to the s i e g e of
Constantinople: this is a classical demegoria, in which he describes the main
stages of Ottoman history. His audience is first reminded of how the Turks came
from the East, how they conquered all Asia Minor and created a powerful state
with Proussa as its capital; then he describes how they crossed to Europe. First
they carried out short piratical raids. Then they occupied the top of a mountain
situated before the Hellespontos and the neck of the Gallipoli peninsula. They
took a fortress there, "either by force or by ruse", and used it as a base to raid,
rob and plunder their neighbours. Their number increased, they took more
fortresses, came down to the plain and started large scale operations which
resulted in conquering important parts of the Balkan Peninsula 1 . From this text
one remains with the impression that the Turks acted all the way in the line of
good gazis, who crossed the straights on their own. Of course one could hardly
expect a different perception of their deeds on the part of a 15th century sultan —
or on the part of a 15th century court historian whose opus was written for and
dedicated to Mehemmed II, not even twenty years after the capture of
Constantinople.
We do not need to comment on the authenticity of the speech. What is

clear is that we have here a stylised and quite imprecise version o f the events, a
version quite similar to the legend preserved in the early Ottoman chronicle of
'critobuli Imbriotae, De rebus per annos 1451-1467 a Mechemete I/ gestii, ed. B. Green
(Bucharest,1963), 59; Critobuli Imbriotae, Historiae. ed. D.R. Reinsch (Berlin and New York,
1983), 26-27.
240 N Ol K O N O M I D E S
Ashikpashazade 2 . Obviously this was the official version then prevailing in the
Ottoman court. It ignored some very well attested facts, such as the Ottoman
alliance with Kantakouzenos, and above all, the earthquake of 13S4, which
destroyed the houses and the walls of Gallipoli and other Thracian cities and
allowed the Turks to occupy them, accomplishing thus their first sizeable
conquest in Europe. 3
All sources, Greek and Turkish, agree that before capturing Gallipoli, the
Ottomans had occupied another fortress, called Tzympe (£inbi). Its exact location
is not known with certainty: some scholars openly or implicitly confess
ignorance. 4 Babinger proposed to identify this fortress with Qimenlik, in the
neighborhood (5 km.) of Gallipoli, 5 and this identification has been accepted by
some scholars, such as Taeschner; 6 Pitcher placed Tzympe to the south of
Gallipoli. 7 H. Inalcik placed it to the north, on the isthmus of the Gallipoli
peninsula, 8 as did Zachariadou, who proposes the neighbourhood of the modern
Bolayir, where the Ottoman hero of the conquest of Europe, Suleyman Pasha,
sultan Orchan's son, chose to be buried, because this was his first foothold on
the Gallipoli peninsula.9
From a text of Gregoras {infra, note 20), it can be deduced that Tzympe
was not far from the shore of the Hellespontos. But it is certain that it was not
to the south of Gallipoli; it lay on the way leading there from Constantinople. In
1305, Theodore Choumnos, imperial ambassador, was on his way to meet Roger
de Flor and the Catalans in Gallipoli, but, "before he reached Branchialion", he
learned that his life and the presents that he was carrying might be in danger from
the Catalans; so, being afraid that the Catalans might attack him, he returned
safely to Constantinople. 10
Êlizabeth Zachariadou, loropla Kai OpvXot TW naktidv aovXrivav [1300-1400] (Athens

1991), 54-57.
3 P Schreiner, Die byzantinischen Kleinchroniken II (Wien, 1977), 283-284.
4 C . Imber, The Ottoman Empire (Istanbul, 1990) 24; Tabula imperii Byzaniint 6. Thrakien
(Thrake, Rodope und Haimimonttis). by P. Soustal (Wien, 1991), 119, 437.
^F. Babinger, Beiträge zur Frühgeschichte der Türkenherrschaft in Rumelien (¡4.-15.
Jahrhundert), (München, 1944). 39
6 The Cambridge Medieval History I V/1 (1966) 761.
7 D.E. Pitcher, An Historical Geography of the Ottoman Empire from the earliest times to the end
of the sixteenth century (Leiden, 1972), map. 8.
8 H. Inalcik, The Ottoman Empire: the Classical Age 1300-1600 (London, 1973) 9; in The
Cambridge History of Islam I (Cambridge 1970), 274; and in A History of the Crusades, ed. By K.
Seiton VI (Univ. of Wisconsin, [1989]), 232-235.
^Zachariadou, loc. cit., 98,
10 Georgii Pachymeris, De Michaele et Artdronicu Palaeologis, ed. Bekker, II (Bonn, 1835), 509.
For the events and the date see F. Dölger, Regesien der Kaiserurkunden des oströmischen Reiches
IV (München, 1960), no. 2277 and A. Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins. The Foreign Policy
ofAndronicus II, 1282-1328 (Cambridge, Mass., 1972), 144-145.
THE T Z Y M P E AFFAIR 241
Here we have a second place-name the exact location of which is not

known, Branchialion, the Brachiol of the Latin sources." From two other texts
of Pachymeres it can be shown clearly that Branchialion must be sought at the
neck of the Gallipoli peninsula: this is the place where the Byzantine forces were
waiting to stop the Almugavars if they attempted to come out of the
peninsula, 12 and this appears to have been considered by the Catalans as the limit
of their Gallipoli "state", beyond which was the land of the Byzantine emperor
which they planned to raid, plunder and eventually conquer. 13 Consequently
Branchialion was not far from present day Bolayir, and possibly identical with it,
as has already been proposed: 14 it is true that there is some resemblance between
these two names.
From the above texts it becomes clear that Tzympe was obviously very
close to Branchialion, the main difference between them being that Tzympe is
mentioned as being a fortress while Branchialion is not. Having been an imperial
episkepsis, Branchialion must have been in the middle of fertile lands—and this
is really the case of the neck of the peninsula. Both were not far from Gallipoli,
but they were not very close to it either: they appear to be at a "safe distance".
Would it be possible to hypothesize that Branchialion was the name of the town
and Tzympe was the name of the fortress? The hypothesis of placing Tzympe
(and Branchialion) at Bolayir (which, by the way, had an acropolis that was
destroyed already in the 17th century, when people still remembered that it was a
conquest of Siileyman Pasha 15 ) gains in credibility.
Let us now come to the events. In general lines they are well known.' 6
All sources agree that the major figure of these operations was Siileyman Pasha,
the son of sultan Orchan, who was among the first to cross in Thrace. But while
Ashikpashazade describes the capture of this fortress as a daring coup performed
by few braves (including Siileyman), the Byzantine sources, which are
contemporary to the events, present the whole affair under a completely different
light.
'Byzantine town, province and episkepsis {ue imperial domain): see D. Zakythinos, MeXdrai
nepl rrjs SuMOfwäff Siaipiaem Kai Ttjs imzpXLOKrjs SiMKôeus ¿1/ T£ Bu(aimwi
Kpdra, Epeieris Heuireias Byzantinon Spoudon 22 (1952) 173. See also A. Carile, Partilio
terrarum imperii Romanie, Studi Venetian: 7 i1965) 251.
'^Georgii Pachymeris II, 543.
13
Georgii Pachymeris II, 600.
14
K. Spruner and Th. Menke, Hand-Atlas für die Geschichte des Mittelalters und der neueren Zeit
(Gotha, 1880) 84,86.
15
H.J. Kissling, Beiträge zur Kenntnis Thrakiens im /7. Jahrhundert (Wiesbaden, 1956), 54.
16
7?K most recent accounts are to be found in the publications quoted in the preceding footnotes,
to which one might add H. tnalcik, "The Conquest of Edirne", Archivum Ottomanicum 3 (1971)
185-210 (more detailed account), repr. in Variorum, no III.
242 N OIKONOMIDES
We are talking about the two main Byzantine historians of the time, John
Kantakouzenos and Nikephoros Gregoras. The former occupied the Byzantine
throne when these events occurred, while the latter was living in Constantinople
and was his virulent political opponent. Both are well informed and usually
provide accurate information; but their accounts may be suspected to contain
purposeful nuances or omissions, as the one wanted to justify his own policies,
while the other wanted to vilify them.
The middle of the 14th century in Byzantium was marked by long and
destructive civil wars. From 1341 to 1347, John Kantakouzenos, supported by
the landed aristocracy, had rebelled against the legitimate heir to the throne, the
young John V Palaiologos, who had the support of the businessmen and of the
lower social strata. Foreign powers were invited to participate in this civil war,
especially the Aydinoglus and, later, the Ottomans, whose support gave the
victory to the usurper. On 3 February 1347 Kantakouzenos, who had already
given his second daughter Theodora as a wife to sultan Orchan, entered
Constantinople and reigned as emperor John VI.
In an effort to heal the wounds and to legitimise his position in the eyes
of all, the victor emperor gave his third daughter, Helen, as wife to the young
Palaiologos, who thus became his "son" and had to accept a subordinate
position. On the other hand, Kantakouzenos bestowed on his first son Matthew
an imprecise dignity, inferior to the one of Emperor but higher than that of
Despot, and installed him as lifelong governor of semi-independent principalities:
the first extended between Christoupolis and Didymoteichon; then (end
1351/early 1352) this territory devolved to the Palaiologos together with the
important city of Ainos, and Matthew received the principality of Adrianople.
Considerable efforts had been made by John VI Kantakouzenos and his wife
Eirene to establish peace and cooperation between their son and son-in-law: it
was in vain. In 1352, civil war broke out once again between these two young
quasi-independent lords.17
In the meantime, John VI was taking precautions to avert any direct attack
by his son-in-law against himself. As the young emperor had (or could obtain)
the support of the Serbian and Bulgarian rulers, both trying to take advantage of
the Byzantine civil wars, Kantakouzenos turned to his traditional allies, the
Turks, and invited them for the first time to settle in Europe.
'^These are well known events described in detail in standard handbooks of Byzantine history,
such as the one by G. Ostrogorsky, Histoire de l'état byzantin (Paris, 19S6) and, in more detail,
in the biographies of the involved members of the Kantakouzenos family by D. Nicol, The
Byzantine family of Kantakouzenos (Cantacuzenus) ca. 1100-1460 (Dumbarton Oaks, 1968).
THE TZYMPE AFFAIR 243
This happened in 1352, two years before the earthquake that destroyed the
walls of Gallipoli.18 The historian Gregoras informs us that Kantakouzenos
always kept a Turkish guard corps in his palace, presumably made up of
mercenaries, in spite of the fact that they led a shockingly debauched life and
openly insulted the Christian religion. But we can presume that this was a very
small corps, because these mercenaries had to be employed (and received their
salaries) all year long: this made them very expensive. On the other hand
Kantakouzenos could not any more rely upon the Asiatic Turks as he realized: (a)
that they had stopped their frequent crossings to Europe, busy as they were with
other matters, and (b) that they considered the trip across the straits difficult and
dangerous, the sea being under the control of the Christians. So he decided to
bring them over for good; he thought that they would constitute his best
protection against the Palaiologos and his allies, the Serbs and the Bulgars. He
hired selected soldiers from among them (XoydSas... puoOdoacrOai), brought
them to Europe, together with their women and children, and installed them in
some towns of the (Gallipoli) Peninsula (ratv iv Xeppovijay iróXeav
¿voucl(ei Tiaív)-, "they had as permanent slaves the poor Greeks of the place,
as this desire of theirs was now supported by the emperor's authorisation."19 In
another passage referring to the same events, Gregoras says that Kantakouzenos
had installed the Turks in one fortified town [presumably Tzympe], from where
they managed to lay waste the whole countryside of the Peninsula. At a moment
which is not indicated here, the son of Orchan himself, the famous Siileyman
Pasha, joined them. When the earthquake of 1354 gave them the opportunity,
they took the big cities, including Gallipoli, brought over many new immigrants
from Asia Minor and extended their raids all over Thrace, up to the gates of
Constantinople.20
This is the story given by Nikephoros Gregoras. John Kantakouzenos

does not say how the Turks came to Europe. But while narrating, in much more
detail, the events of summer 1352, he tells us that John V Palaiologos moved
against Matthew Kantakouzenos in Adrianople. For this operation he took as
allies the Turks who had "then for the first time" occupied the fortress of
Tzympe. 21 This operation of the Palaiologos was very successful at the
beginning: the people of the Thracian cities sided with him and Adrianople
opened its doors. Matthew took refuge in the acropolis. John VI Kantakouzenos,
abandoned by the Turks that he had brought to Tzympe, turned again to sultan
Orchan; his Constantinopolitan army together with Ottoman reinforcements,
allowed him to relieve his son. The Turks of Tzympe changed sides.22 The
is
'"Nicephori Gregorae, Historiae byzantinae libri postremi, Bonn ed., IH, 224.
19
Ibid., 203.
20
Nicephori Gregorae, 224.
2,
loannis Cantacuzeni, Hisioriamm libri ¡V, Bonn ed., Ili, 242.
22
lbid„ 244.
244 N. OIKONOMIDES
victorious Kantakouzenos unleashed his allies to plunder the rebel Greek

populations, while the Palaiologos was taking refuge in Tzernomianon (Qirmen)
and then in Didymoteichoii. New operations against Matthew, that he undertook
with the support of the Serbs and the Bulgarians, ended in another catastrophe
because of the massive intervention of the Ottomans, under the command of
Suleyman Pasha, the son of Orchan. This was in late summer-early fall 1352. 23
When these operations ended, the Ottoman army plundered Bulgaria and
then returned to Asia Minor. But Suleyman decided to move with the Turks of
Tzympe. 2 4 John V had already tried to attract him to his side with gifts and
promises, and Suleyman had adopted an ambiguous attitude, establishing friendly
relations with the Palaiologos while keeping the Kantakouzenos informed about
all this. 23 In this context of uncertainty, the latter decided to crown his own son
Matthew as co-emperor (spring 1353) and started having second thoughts about
the Turks of Tzympe: experience had shown that they were unreliable and could
be openly disloyal.
Kantakouzenos declares that he felt unable to fight them away, because

they were very powerful and the Byzantine army was weakened by the civil strife.
We shall see below that the Turks could not have numbered more than a few
hundreds of soldiers, but even such numbers might appear awesome in the eyes
of a weak and disorganised Byzantine army. Moreover, the Turks could always
bring reinforcements from Asia Minor. So, John VI asked for the intervention of
the Ottoman sultan Orchan, who agreed to the principle of returning Tzympe but
added that the fortress was held by his son Suleyman and that it would only be
fair if he was given a compensation for abandoning it. 2 6 A deal was struck
providing for the payment of 10.000 hyperpyra, that Kantakouzenos sent to
Proussa; in response, the Ottomans sent over to Europe emissaries who were
supposed to deliver Tzympe. By then Suleyman had already left and was in Asia
Minor.
At that very moment, on the 1-2 March 1354, the famous earthquake
occurred; Suleyman was in Pege, on the Asiatic side of the Hellespont. As soon
as he was informed of the events, he "ignored his promise concerning Tzympe,"
organized a massive transfer of Turks with their families from Asia Minor to
Europe and took firm hold of the destroyed and abandoned fortresses, which he
23 Nicephori Gregorae, 171.

24 Nicephori Gregorae, 203: the son of Orchan crossed the Hellespontos (to Europe) as if it were
his colony or ancestral land, and decided to live with the Turks who had come there shortly
before. It is important to stress here that Tzympe was given to (not conquered by) Turks other
than the ones who campaigned with Suleyman Pasha in 1352 (as is assumed by some historians),
and that Sfileyman came and joined them post factum.
2 5 Ioannis Cantacuzeni, 250, 266.
2 6 I b i d „ 277.
THE TZYMPE AFFAIR 245
repaired and provided with garrisons. To Kantakouzenos' protests, he answered

that he did not take these cities by force but occupied then while they were
deserted. New negotiations with Orchan, and a new offer of 40,000 gold coins
resulted in an agreement that was never implemented, as Orchan temporised. 27
Then Kantakouzenos fell from power (November 1354). The agreement ceased to
exist.
From that moment on, the Ottomans proceeded on their own to the
conquest of Thrace: they raided the territory and exacted taxes from all cities,
where they installed their own agents called dekadarchoi and epitropoi?* The
archaic word epitropos means the "trustee", the "administrator": this was
obviously the person in charge of collecting and forwarding the taxes.
The term dekadarchos is less common. It means the commander of ten,

and I assume that this is the translation of the Turkish onbafi, the head of a
platoon of ten that was installed inside each city or fortress to maintain order—
and, maybe, as a token military presence in the city. The term reappears only
once again, as far as I know, in an Athonite document issued during the first
Ottoman occupation of the monastic peninsula (1395). Among those present at
the council of Karyes, there is a certain Michael dekarchos (Mixta^X Stmpxos),
a christian layman, who seems to wield a certain authority in the monastic
community. 2 9 1 now think, thanks to the passage of Gregoras, that he was at the
head of a local police force, installed on Mount Athos with the Turkish conquest.
The fact that he was a Christian should not surprise, as many Christians are
attested in the 14th and 15th century Ottoman military—not to speak of the
privileges that the Athonites had received from the Ottomans. 30
There are two phases that can be easily distinguished in this story. The
first, 1352-1354, is of particular interest to us. The second starts with the
occupation of Gallipoli in 1354.
The first phase, as described by Gregoras, brings to mind a contract of

feudal character. It is obvious that the Turks who first came, invited by
Kantakouzenos, were receiving a remuneration for staying on Byzantine territory
at the disposal of the emperor, but this was not a salary in cash. As it is said that
they had as "slaves" the Greek inhabitants of the region, and this with the
emperor's approval, one has to understand that the Turks had come as a company
of fortune, that drew its revenues from these inhabitants—in other words, that
27 Ioannis Cantacuœni, 278-282.

28 Nicephori Gregorae, 224.
Âctes de Dionysiou, ed. N. Oikonomides (Paris 1968), no. 8, 1. 22, 28, and commentary, p. 75.
my "Monastères et moines lors de la conquête ottomane,'' SUdost-Forschungen 35 (1976)
10.
246 N. Ol K O N O M I D E S
they were similar to pronoiarioi, to whom oikonomiai had been granted

collectively rather than individually. This practice is known in 14th century
Byzantium: see for example the clear-cut case of the company (owrpofta, i. e.
business association) of the Barbarenoi soldiers and several others which are less
well known but which must have been very similar so far as the financial
arrangements were concerned. It is conceivable—but cannot be proved—that
Kantakouzenos may have granted to the Turks some rights over their booty and
their prisoners.31
The existence of a feudal arrangement is confirmed by Orchan's reaction

when Kantakouzenos demanded that Tzympe be returned to him. The sultan put
forth that his son Siileyman, who had possession of Tzympe, was entitled to a
compensation for leaving it— consequently, Siileyman and his men were not
mercenaries but had revenues proceeding from the city and its inhabitants, and
these revenues were officially recognised, since Kantakouzenos had granted them.
Hence he proposed to "buy them back" by paying the 10,000 hyperpyra. This
amount, which must presumably correspond to the regular revenue of the
company for more than one year shows that the number of the Turks at Tzympe
was not very big. We know of no 14th century Byzantine soldier that would be
earning less than 10 hyperpyra a year— almost certainly they earned
considerably more—and a regular pronoiarios earned 70-80 hyp. a year. Of course
we do not know if this scale was also applied to the Turks. But anyway it
provides an order of magnitude and allows us to conclude that the Tzympe Turks
could hardly have numbered more than five hundred—most probably they were
considerably less numerous.
In this first phase the Turks of Tzympe acted as soldiers of fortune, who,
like so many others at that time, often behaved in the manner of brigands. N.
Iorga compared them to the military colony of Saracens that Frederic II installed
in Lucera. 32 They raided their neighbourhood—not the lands given to them—
according to their custom, and accepted jobs on the side, such as participating to
John V's campaign against Matthew Kantakouzenos. In doing this, they were
not, technically, breaking their contract with John Kantakouzenos, as they did
not turn against him but against another quasi-independent lord (who happened to
be his son). Being soldiers of fortune, they switched sides when things turned
sour and when they saw in front of them their compatriots from Bithynia. But
when things settled after 1352, Siileyman joined them. Their venture did not
change character, only its ambitions increased. And Siileyman adopted the same
attitude of limited loyalty to his employer, remaining open to other proposals,
I have examined these various forms of hiring of soldiers in: "A propos des années des
premiers Paléologues et des compagnies de soldats". Travaux et Mémoires 8 (1981) [Hommage à
M. Paul Lemerie] 353-371.
32
N . Iorga, Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches I (Gotha, 1908) 194.
THE TZYMPB AFFAIR 247
such as the ones of John Palaiologos. This caused the mistrust of Kantakouzenos
and his desire to get rid of this cumbersome soldier of fortune.
The second phase, after March 1354, came with the capture of Gallipoli.
Now the conditions changed completely. As there was no agreement at the
beginning, Siileyman and his men considered themselves as beneficiaries of a
windfall. Kantakouzenos' offer for these newly taken cities was much smaller
than the offer for Tzympe (10,000 kyp. for one town, Tzympe, and 40,000 for
the whole peninsula, including the major city and famous port of Gallipoli),
obviously because he considered this as a pay-off, not as buying back an
obligation of his. But especially after Kantakouzenos' fall, the scenery had
completely changed. The real gaza had started in Europe, in the name of the
Ottoman state. The time of the soldiers of fortune—or, at least, the time of the
soldiers of fortune in the service of the Byzantines—was over. From this
moment onwards the Turks were applying the classical Ottoman methods of
conquest. This second phase was executed according to the rules and conformed
with state ideology. Very naturally it expunged from the collective memory the
not-so-proud beginnings of the Ottoman installation in Europe.
University of Athens
Stephen W. REINERT
A BYZANTINE SOURCE ON THE BATTLES OF

BILECA (?) AND KOSOVO POLJE: KYDONES'
LETTERS 396 AND 398 RECONSIDERED
When sultan Murad and knez Lazar clashed at Kosovo Polje, Demetrios
Kydones was dwelling in Constantinople, occupied (so it would seem) with little
more than his private literary pursuits. Now in his mid sixties« Kydones had
served as a key advisor to two emperors, namely John VI Kantakouzenos (in
1347-54) and John V Palaiologos (in 1357-1372/73, 1374/75-1376, and 1379-
1385/1386). 1 Throughout his long and troubled career Kydones counselled
alignment with the Catholic west, disdaining the more viable alternative —
subordination to the Ottomans. It was thus inevitable that tensions frequently
arose between Kydones and the imperial circle following John V's submission to
Murad in 1372 or 1373, shortly after the battle of Cernomen. This friction so
intensified in 1385/86 that Kydones opted to retire. His difficulties at that time
doubtless stemmed from his affection and sympathy for Manuel II, John V's
second son and his own former pupil. In late 1382 Manuel had assumed
virtually autonomous rule in Thessaloniki, refusing thereafter to accommodate
with the Turks, and thus provoking Murad, in 1383, to lay siege to
Thessaloniki. Manuel's endeavors to preserve the city ultimately failed in spring
1387, when its citizens preferred surrender to starvation. Throughout Manuel's
reign in Thessaloniki, Kydones remained in close contact with the renegade
emperor. 2 Moreover, he continued to encourage and comfort Manuel during the
'For a comprehensive survey of Kydones' life and writings see F. Tinnefeld, Demetrios Kydones
Briefe, Erster Teil, Erster Halbband (Einleitung und 47 Briefe), (Stuttgart, 1981), 4-87. Also
useful are the biographical notes is F. Kianka's "Byzantine-Papal Diplomacy: The Role of
Demetrius Kydones," The International Review 7 (1985): 174-213 (especially pp. 175-78, 205-
11).
2
On Manuel's reign in Thessaloniki, including his contacts with Kydones, George Dennis' The
Reign of Manuel II Palaeologus m Thessalonica, ¡382-1387 (Rome: Pont. Institutum
Orientalium Siudioram. 1960) remains unsurpassed.
250 S t e p h e n W. REINERT
bleak years which followed, when, in hopes of future political rehabilitation,

Manuel submitted to John V's insistence that he relocate to the island of
Lemnos.
Manuel's exile on Lemnos lasted two years (ca. fall 1387-late summer
1389), during which time Kydones wrote his imperial friend some twenty
letters. 3 Two of these — letters 396 and 398 in R.-J. Loenertz's edition — are
particularly important, since they contain allusions to battles fought between
Christians and Turks. In an article published in 1970, Sima Cirkovid argued that
the pertinent passages in both letters relate to the battle of Kosovo, and hence
constitute precious contemporary evidence regarding if not the actual outcome of
that clash, then at least Kydones' evolving perceptions thereof. 4 While Kydones'
remarks in letter 396 indubitably refer to the legendary battle, it is considerably
more difficult to establish the same of Letter 398. I therefore propose to
examine these passages afresh — assessing, on the one hand, the merits of
Cirkovid's thesis, and explicating, on the other, dimensions of these letters
which thus far have been ignored.
Although the allusions are brief, the topic is complex. To establish a

background for discussion, I shall begin by summarizing what may be posited
about Kosovo and its antecedents from sources external to Kydones. Thereafter I
shall turn to the letters.
Historians to date have not fully established the causes, course, and results
of the first battle of Kosovo Polje, and perhaps they never will. The central
difficulty, of course, is the character of our sources. If any eye-witness accounts
of the battle were written, none has survived. Otherwise, contemporary reports
and notices are few, fragmentary and either laconic or dubious. Coherent, detailed
narratives emerge from the 1430s through the end of the fifteenth century, most
importantly in Serbian, Greek and Turkish. These accounts, however, are
contradictory, and their sources and credibility are difficult to determine.
^Regarding Kydones' correspondance with Manuel during die latler's exile on Lemnos, see R.-J.
Loenertz, "L'exil de Manuel II Paliologue I Lemnos, 1387-1389," Orientalia Christiana Periodica
38 (1972): 116-40.
4
"Dimitrije Kidon o Kosovskom Boju," Zbornit Kadova Vizantoloskog Institute 12 (1970): 213-
219. Cirkoviifs views are widely cited in Yugoslavian scholarship, and have recently been
circulated in English by T. Emmeit, Serbian Golgotha, Kosovo, 1389 (New York: East European
Monographs, 1990), 48-49. An extensive revision of his 1973 dissertation, Emmert's Serbian
Golgotha offers an excellent discussion of most of the primary sources bearing upon the battle,
and concomitantly the evolution of the "Kosovo Legend" in its earliest phase. Moreover, he
sketches the outlines of its development into the twentieth century.
KYDONBS' LETTERS 3 9 6 AND 3 9 8 251
Reconstructing the battle is thus an excercise in deciphering highly variable

perceptions; the result is at best a shadowy outline. The following, then, is a
sketch of what we may provisionally accept as plausible.*
Murad's invasion of Serbia in June 1389 was the culmination of an

ambition which we may trace to at least 1386, when he conquered NiS, but then
was barred at PloCnik from further encroachments into knez Lazar's domain.6 The
5
Emmert's overview and analysis of the sources pertaining to Kosovo is the most complete to
date (Serbian Golgotha, especially pp. 42-120), but still useful is M. Braun's "Kosovo" Die
Schlacht auf dem Amselfelde in geschichtlicher und epischer Oberlieferung, Slavisch-Bal tische
Quellen und Forschungen, 7 (Leipzig: Markert & Petters Verlag, 1937). The six hundredth
anniversary of the battle evoked several conferences and commemorative enterprises, perhaps
the most significant of which is the projected four volume collection entitled Kosovske
spomenice 1389-1989, under the general editorship of V. Djuriii et al. The third of these volumes
will cover the battle and its background (ed. M. Pantil et al., Kosovski. boj u istorii), and will
assuredly include a full inventory and discussion of the sources. For the papers delivered at a
conference held at Stanford University on June 2-3, 1989, see ed. W. Vucinich and T. Emmen,
Kosovo: Legacy of a Medieval Battle Between Cross and Crescent, Minnesota Mediterranean and
East European Monographs, 1 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1991).
The post-Byzantine Greek sources were initially analyzed by N. Radoj£i<?, "GrCki izvori za
Kosovsku bitku," Glasnik Skopskog nauinog druitva, 7/9 (1930): 163-72, with an abbreviated
German version entitled "Die griechischen Quellen zur Schlacht am Kosovo Polje," Byzantion, 6
(1931): 241-46. 1 have reassessed Chalkokondyles' narrative in "A Greek View on the Battle of
Kosovo: Laonikos Chalkokondyles," in ed. W. Vucinch and T. Emmeit, op. cit., 61-88. A.
Olesnicki's "Turski izvori o kosovskom boju" (Glasnik Skopskog nauCnog druitva, 14/7 [1934]:
59-98) remains the only competent overview of the Ottoman sources, even though the author's
classification of versions (i.e. Uruj reflecting a "popular Edirne" account, and Ahmedi and
Sukrull-&h conveying a "clerical-court" redaction) has received little support (cf. Emmert, op.
cit., 91-92). For the image of Kosovo in Serbian epic, see above all J. Redjep, PriCa o boju
Kosovskom (Zrenjanin: Ulaznica. 1976), and more concisely S. Koljevitf, The Epic in the
Making (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), 159-73.
6
C . JireCek, Geschichte der Serben, Zweiter Band, Erste Hälfte (1371-1537) (Gotha: Friedrich
Andreas Perthes Aktiengesellschaft, 1918), 118, which I cite for historiographic reasons. Earlier
JireCek dated PloCnik to 1387, envisioning it as a triumph of the Bosnians and Serbs over Mur&d,
and hence as "der letzte Sieg der südslawischen Confederation Uber die asiatischen
Eindringlinge." (Geschichte der Bulgaren [Prag: Verlag von F. Tempsky, 1876], pp. 340-341).
This view derives essentially from Leunclavius' reworking of NeSri, and proceeds on the dubious
assumption that Muräd had reduced Lazar to vassalage the previous year. It clashes with the more
credible entries in the Serbian annals, of which JireCek was apprised by 1918. Unfortunately,
JireCek's earlier view was decisive in shaping subsequent thought on the causality of Kosovo,
particularly in Anglo-American circles, owing to its adoption by H- Gibbons in his The
Foundation of the Ottoman Empire, A History of the Osmanlis Up to the Death of Bayezid I
(Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1916, cf. p. 169, especially note 4). This conception was
reinforced when Babinger, reverting to the less plausible Serbian annal entries, also located the
battle of PloCnik in 1387, on which see his Beiträge zur Frühgeschichte der Tilrkenherrschaft in
Rumelien (¡4.-15. Jahrhundert), Südosteuropaische Arbeiten, 34 (Brünn-München-Wien: Rudolf
M. Rohrer-George D. W. Caliwey, 1944), p. 77, esp. n. 43. Serbian historians, in contrast, have
by and large accepted JireCek's revised view on the date and significance of PloCnik, and hence of
the course of events leading to Kosovo. Recently, for example, see R. Mihaljtid, "Kostreska
Bitka," in ed. J. Kalitf, Istorija Srpskog Naroda, Druga Knjiga, Doha borbi za oCuvanje i obnovu
252 Stephen W. REINERT
sultan's subsequent preoccupations first in Karaman, and then in Bulgaria,

deterred him from renewed attempts. By the end of 1388, however, he was free
to resume the offensive. Moreover, he had acquired an additional pretext for war.
On August 27, 1388, the Bosnian commander Vlatko Vukovil decimated a
contingent of Ottomans led by Kavala Sahln in an encounter at Bileda. In reply,
Murad resolved to attack Serbia in force the following spring, his objective being
to subordinate this regional princes, in particular Lazar, or alternatively crush
them and annex their lands. Murad typically preferred the former method, i.e.
establishing the Christian princes as tributaries or vassals, as was the case with
the Palaiologoi. Clearly, however, this was an option which Lazar was prepared
to resist.7
The army Murad assembled in May or June 1389 included Ottoman forces
from Rumili and Anatolia, and additional contingents from the begs of western
and central Anatolia. Moreover, the sultan insisted that his sons, Yildirim
Bayazid and Ya'qub, participate in the campaign. On the Slavic side, Knez Lazar
took the initiative in organizing defenses, his allies being Vuk Brankovicf, the
lord of Kosovo and environs, and kralj Tvrtko of Bosnia. The latter did not
personally participate, but dispatched troops under the seasoned command of
Vlatko. Estimates of relative troop strength are utterly conjectural, but we may
accept that both sides assembled a very significant fighting force. 8
The action which took place once these armies met was a complex of
military and political events, the exact sequence of which varies from source to
source. It is impossible, therefore, to construct a credible outline of what
transpired from beginning to end. Alternatively, we can summarize the key
developments under four rubrics:9
drlave (1371-1537) (Beograd. Srpska knjiievna zadruga, 1982), 42, and again in, his Lazar
Hrtbeljanovid. hlorija, Kull, Predanje (Beograd: Nolit, 1984), 115. In both works, the relevant
sequence of events is laid out correctly.
7
For a reliable outline of the sequence from Ploinik through Kosovo, see JireCek, Geschichte der
Serben, 1. 118-122; Mihaljfii, "Kosovska Bitka," 43-44, and again Lazar Hrebetjanmu', 115-
124. t. H. Uzunârjili, in comparison, tends to follow NeSri rather uncritically (cf. Osmanlt
Tarihi, I. did, Anadolu Selfuklulart ve Anadolu Beylikleri hakkinda bir mukaddime ile Osmanli
Devletinin kumlu&undan Islanbul'm fethine kadar, 3d ed., Ttirk Tarih Kurumu Yayinlanndan XIII.
Sen, No. I6a2, [Ankara: Ttirk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi. 1972], 249-259).
®The most detailed discussion of the purely military aspects of the battle is still G. Skrivanii,
Kosovska Bitka (15 Juna 1389) (Cetinje: Stamparsko preduzede "Obod," 1956). Skrivanid
calculates the Ottoman fighting force at roughly 25,000, with an additional 10,000 auxiliaries
and supply units, and tazar's total strength at 15-20,000, with at the very most 16,000 fighters
(p. 59, and further pp. 93-94).
9
For the events associated with the battle per se, and pertinent primary documentation, see
Jireiek, Skrivamd, and Mihalj£i<5, as above in note 7, as well as Uzunfarjih (again following the
later historians, especially NeSri, but providing considerably more information on the Ottoman
side). Perhaps the finest concise summary is that by S. Cirkovid, in his notes to S. Novakovid,
KYDONES' L E T T E R S 3 9 6 AND 398 253
1. The Battle Per Se: On June 15, the feast of St. Vitus, the Slavs and the
Ottomans fought a pitched battle in the course of which both sides suffered
severe losses. When this struggle ended, the Ottomans still held the field; indeed,
Murad's viscera were buried presumably on the spot where he was assassinated. It
is plausible, therefore, that the fifteenth century sources are correct in stating that
the Christian forces were ultimately compelled to withdraw. The Ottomans did
not, however, pursue the retreating troops into upper Serbia and Bosnia.
2. The Assassination of Murad: At some stage in the action, Milos

Obiliti, one of Lazar's commanders, feigned defection, secured access to the
sultan, and then assassinated bim. Thereafter he was himself killed. MiloS's
motives remain a mystery, and it is unclear whether he accomplished his deed
immediately before the fighting began, or while it was in progress. Likewise it
is disputed whether Murad instantly died from his wounds, or lingered in agony
until the end of the battle. In any event, his body was subsequently embalmed
and sent to Bursa, while his viscera, as noted above, were buried on the
battlefield.
3. Bayazid's Accession and Ya'qub's Execution: At some point after

Murad's assassination, the events associated with Bayazid's rise to power
unfolded. First of all, those attending Murad (and this presumably included his
vizier, tandarli 'Ali PaSa) resolved to inform Bayazid, but not Ya'qttb, of what
had befallen Murad. Whether they did so on their own volition, or in accordance
with Murad's final wishes, is unclear. Then, when Bayazid arrived as summoned,
and observed his father's condition, he ordered that Ya'qub be captured and
strangled. Obviously, the chronology of this sequence is relative to that of
Murad's assassination. Hence it is conjectural whether Bayazid ascended the
throne, and eliminated his brother, at the beginning, middle, or end of the battle.
To the modern mind this may seem irrelevant. To those who wished to know
whether Murad or Bayazid led the troops to victory, it was of course a matter of
considerable interest.
4. The Execution of Knez Lazar: Sometime during the battle, knez Lazar
and a number of his nobles were captured. When the fighting was finished, they
were brought to Murad's tent and decapitated/Whether this occurred during the
sultan's final moments, and prior to the summoning of Bayazid, or after
Bayazid's accession, and hence at his command, is open to debate. Whatever the
case, it would seem that Bayazid subsequently authorized the release of Lazar's
remains, which were taken first to the church at PriStina, and eventually interred
in his monastery at Ravanica.
Srbi i Turd. Islorijske studije o prvim borbama s najezdom lurskom pre i posle boja na Kosovu
(Beograd: Kultura, 1960), 453-456.
Such, then, were the basic developments which occurred at Kosovo Polje
on June 15,1389 — a bloodbath, an assassination, an accession, fratricide, and
retaliatory executions. From a strictly military perspective, the Ottomans
achieved something of a victory, but at a considerable price. More importantly, it
was not a success on which they could quickly capitalize. Within days of the
battle, Bayazidset forth for Edirne to consolidate his regime and deal with the
predictable crises accompanying a change of sultan. It is hardly surprising, then,
that he terminated full scale operations in Serbia, instructing his udj begs, so it
would seem, to conduct limited harrying raids until he was free to return.
In summary, Kosovo Polje was not a "brilliant Ottoman triumph" which

led immediately to the subjection of Serbia. 10 Nonetheless, however one
qualifies its outcome ("victory," "Pyrrhic victory," or "tie"), the consequences
were undeniably more advantageous to the Ottomans than the Serbs. The former
held the frontier established in 1386-1389, and were poised for further expansion
Under Murad's decisive and capable successor. Moreover, the battle casualties did
not massively reduce the Ottomans' overall military capacity. The same was not
true of the Serbs, and the passing of knez Lazar, who had progressed considerably
in moulding a state from the wreckage of Stefan Dusan's empire, was an
irreplaceable loss.
With this as background, let us now consider Kydones' allusions to

contemporary political and military events.
II
Letter 396 (Vat. gr . 101, f. 46-46v)
There is no doubt that Kydones composed Letter 396 sometime after

reports about the battle had reached Constantinople.' 1 On the basis of common
sense as well as Ignatius of Smolensk's itinerary, we may surmise that news of
,0
K n e z Lazar's widow. Mitica, did not submit to Bàyazid until 1390. She did so, moreover,
largely to secure assistance in staving off Hungarian attacks on her territory. Vuk Brankovid
apparently preserved his autonomy into early 1392 (cf. Emmert, Serbian Golgotha, 75-76).
Bàyazid himself did not return Rumili, i.e. the Danubian frontier in the area of Rascia, until late
fall or winter 1392 (cf. E. Zachariadou, "Manuel II Palaeologos on the Strife Between Biyezid I
and K&di Burhàn al-Din Ahmad," Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 18 [1980]:
480-81).
"Loenertz published this dating in 1947 (Les recueils de lettres de Démétrius Cydonès, Studi e
testi, 131 {Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1947], 119, and cf. 35), reiterated
in his 1960 edition (.Démétrius Cydonès Correspondance, II, Studi e testi, 208 [Città del
Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1960], 350).
K YDONES ' LETTERS 396 AND 39 8 255
the battle must have arrived in Constantinople within at least ten days time. 1 2
Kydones does not indicate how soon after hearing the news he composed his
letter, but the intensity of his sentiments implies that he was writing while the
information was still fresh, or relatively so. His remarks, literally translated, are
as follows: 13
That accursed one who has abused God and his heirs so very much, and
who has behaved towards everyone with many indecencies, has died. He
has fallen [at the hands of those] whom he thought would not even stand
their ground once they received reports of what he was preparing against
them, but would [instead] take flight to the Ocean, merely [because of] the
rumours. But except [for the fact that this accursed one] has fallen, [even
so] our situation has not improved. I think that even if all the Turks were
to perish, not even then would the Rhomaioi fare better: Let those who
wish search out the reason for this. I suppose, however, that we shall
never end our search until we cease [blaming] others, and blame ourselves.
For I say that the [fate] of the unclean spirit will befall us—[the unclean
spirit] which is now wandering among [others]. I am convinced that it
will soon return to the house whence it left, bringing [with it] other
[spirits] worse than itself. What befalls us then shall be worse than
anything previous. That this does not come to pass, now, will be the
concern of God, and you emperors.
As the only indisputably contemporary Byzantine reflection on the battle

of Kosovo Polje, this passage is at once disappointing and intriguing. It
disappoints, of course, because it conveys such a minimum of factual
information. Adhering to the conventions of highbrow epistolography, Kydones
assumes a posture of cultivated remoteness — alluding to individuals, groups and
events rather than describing them in concrete detail; intimating his feelings and
,2
See below, note 17.
13
ed. R.-J. Loenertz, Demetrius Cydonis Correspondance, II, Ep. 396.24-37, on pp. 350-351:
"... '0 Si KardpaTos- iKetvo? Kai rrcMi piv rif BcAv «rI r^v airroO K\rfpoi>oß(av
vfoloas rroXXfj Si npds- ndvras AaeXyetq. xpr/adpevos- otxerat, teal iriimiKV in'
iKelmav oCr fir)S' äv 77)i' ¿>v irr' atirois mpeoKeuiffTo naOAma? iv6fu{ev
vnofieinai, dXX' dieowairras- fiövov elr rijv f(a Bdkrrrav (peöyfiw. rrkj)k Kfaelvov
veo6vros oif OÜTU ri npdypaß' fj/itv iv ßeXrltxnv. DPM 8' ovS' el wdvrc?
dnoOdvatev ToDpKot, /iiji' iv OBTIÜ 'Pufiatovs- icdXMov irpäfai. TOVTOV piv o&v n)v
alrlav i(itrra rots' ßovkopivois (qrclv. otfiai S' foäs- rafrrrfv CiroOvras- pySimrrt
rravoeofai, <?«r äv ßtj roiy tttAour ¿fivres fyiäs- atrmvs alncyiefa. <f>rpL Si l/jptv rd
TOV ixaddpTov ovpßfiocoSai rrvciparor. 6 vw /liv ircpLirkavupevov vpA? iMsi?
¿art v. weltojim S' aÖTÖ Kai dXXa iauroO x^pova rraptüaßdv rrpdf riv dxov S6ev
ivfS^jßijafv fieri ¡tiKpiv irravrfötw. Kai T68 ' ijpfv xrfpv Kai mv irporfpav (mm rk
ItTXara. roirrov ptv o&v biros' ßti yivt]Tai äe$ Kai vpli/ r o f r ßaaiXeikn ßctfaa."
dirkovid translated a part of this letter (i.e. 396.24-32), leaving out the metaphor of the unclean
spirit ("Dimitrije Kidon," p. 215). Emmert likewise limited himself to this section (see Serbian
Golgotha, p. 49). The volume of Tinnefeld's translations in which Letters 396 and 598 m i l
appear has not yet been published.
reactions with symbols and oblique signals, rather than direct statement. The
passage, consequently, answers few of the questions about Kosovo Pólje which
present-day historians regard as significant. Nonetheless, Kydones* view of the
circumstances and import of Murâd's death is intriguing, and his prophesy
concerning the future of the Rhomaioi is a tantalizing puzzle.
Let us consider, first, Kydones' convoluted sentence pertaining to the

events of Kosovo Polje. In essence it constitutes an epitaph for Murâd,
summarizing the character of his life and sketching its final apt. In sculpting
these remarks, Kydones' intent clearly was not to delineate for Manuel everything
he had heard about the battle — as if Manuel had no independent corridors of
information and knew nothing of what had happened. Kydones' objective, rather,
was to comment on the developments he considered most salient, for himself and
his correspondent, namely Murâd's death and its consequent impact within the
Byzantine sphere. It was doubtless for this reason that Kydones conveys so very
little regarding Murâd's adversaries, whose ethnicity he does not specify, and
whose leader (much less his fate) he passes over in silence. It is difficult to
suppose that Kydones was unaware of Lazar's death, or that he contemplated the
experience of the Serbs with callous indifference. Rather, writing to Manuel
Palaiologos, he carefully focused his reflection on the issue of immediate
relevance — the significance of Murâd's life and death vis-à-vis the Rhomaioi, in
particular the Palaiologoi.
The words Kydones uses to characterize Murâd's life are formulaic. They
evoke a familiar biblical type, that of the heathen fiaaiXevç who blasphemes
God, oppresses the "people of God," and vainly exults in his own power and
might. Outstanding exemplars of this type include the Egyptian pharaoh, the
Assyrian Sennacherib, or the oppressor kings of the Psalms. It was characteristic
of Byzantine writers to categorize hostile barbarian rulers according to this
paradigm, and reciprocally to reaffirm their own identity as the new "people of
God."' 4 Kydones' explicit depiction of Murad in these terms, in this context,
simply reveals the author summarizing, in ideological shorthand, his view of the
sultan's role on the wider stage of Christian history.
1
^Photius' Homily IV, composed following the Russian attack on Constantinople in $60, is a
classic case in point (see Cyril Mango, The Homilies of Pholius, Patriarch of Constantinople,
Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 3 [Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press, 195&], 9S-110).
Pertinent, here, is Mango's observation that elements from this homily, as well as homily III,
were incorporated by Dorotheus of Milylene in the address he gave in 1422, when Muräd II was
besieging Constantinople (p. 82). The latter's grandfather, B i y a z i d , who besiseged
Constantinople from 1399-1402, was likewise delineated on this model. See, for example, P.
Gauter, "Action de grâces de D i mi tri us Chrysoloras à la Théotocos pour l'anniversaire de la
bataille d'Ankara (28 juillet 1403)." Revue des Études Byzantines 19 (1961): 350.35-352.94.
K Y D O N E S ' L E T T E R S 3 9 6 AND 398 257
Kydones' version of Muiid's death amplifies this characterization, since it

depict the sultan's final episode as an expression par excellance of his vanity and
arrogance — the egregious faults of the type he represents. The author sketches
the episode in only two scenes — Murad boasting, prior to the battle, that his
adversaries would not stand and fight; and Mured facing his enemies in battle,
contrary to expectation, and suffering death at their hands. Let us consider first
the action which Kydones represents, and then assess his yiew of its significance.
Kydones' depiction of Murad's arrogant self-confidence prior to the battle,

and conversely his contempt for his adversaries, has no exact parallel in the
contemporary accounts. As dirkovici remarks, Kydones' assertion at least implies
a perception that Murad's forces were vast, outnumbering those of knez Lazar.15
Still, we may question whether the behavior Kydones describes is genuine or
fictitious. It is possible that envoys had carried reports of Murad's bragadoccio to
Constantinople, and that Kydones, with his liaison to palace circles, picked up
on those stories.'6 On the other hand, the action might well be fictive, the intent
being to exhibit Murad acting according to type, and to flavor the circumstances
of his death with an essential ingredient of good spectacles — a twist of irony. If
so, one wonders whether Kydones himself contrived the image, or if popular
rumors about "the downfall of the sultan" included this element.
Kydones' intimation that Murad simply fell in battle, killed by his

enemies — in the plural — likewise raises intriguing questions. Was he aware
that Murid had been assassinated, and, in writing to Manuel, did he dismiss this
as a secondary or inelegant detail? On the other hand, does he mean what he
implies — that Murad, in point of fact, fell in battle? Again, we are hardly in a
position to resolve the matter. It is possible, however, that Kydones' assertion
reflects the reports and rumors as they first arrived in Constantinople. According
to Ignatii of Smolensk's memoir, the news which metropolitan Pimen and his
party received on June 27 was similarly generalized, indicating that both Murad
and knez Lazar simply perished in battle. This they learned at Astravike, a port
on the Pontic coast less than fifty miles from Constantinople.17 To be sure,
15
"Dimiuije Kidon," p. 215.
'Êven though Kydones had retired from office, he still met with members of the imperial
family. Cf. Ep. 398.20-21, where it is evident that Kydones had read a letter which Manuel had
recently sent to his mother, Helena.
'^The Russians were en route to Constantinople, and had stopped at Astravike (which Ignatii
calls "Astravija") specifically to inquire for "news about Murad." They discovered that a battle
between knez Lazar and MurSd had taken place, and that both rulers had been killed. This was
apparently fresh news, since when the travellers sailed from PontSraklia on June 24, after a nine
day stopover, they still had not heard about the battle. For the text and translation, see ed. G.
Majeska, Russian Travellers to Constantinople in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries,
Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 19 (Washington D.C., 1984), 88/90 (English), 89/91 (Slavic), with
Majeska's comments pp. 403-404. Cf. Emmert, Serbian Golgotha, 43.
Ignatii's account does not necessarily corroborate Kydones, since Ignatii may
likewise not have recorded everything he heard about the battle. If he did,
however, this at least raises the possibility that the Greeks of Constantinople and
environs initially presumed that Murad was killed in the fight, and not
assassinated. In this regard, we may note that popular debate over the
circumstances of Murad's death would continue for generations. In the 1460s, fin-
example, Chalkokondyles transmits a "Turkish" version which also alleges that
Murad fell in battle. Here, the sultan joined his troops in pursuit of the fleeing
Serbs, but was speared by a foot soldier whom he attempted to overtake.18
Let us turn, now, to Kydones' sense of the importance of Murad's

passing. Obviously, he contemplates Murad's fate — the way he died in
relationship to his life — as fitting, as good riddance to bad rubbish. One senses
here the satisfaction of a veteran Byzantine statesman who had experienced the
sultan's reign from beginning to end, who mourned the Ottoman consolidation in
Thrace, which Murad directed, and who personally despised the sultan. One is
struck, however, by Kydones' reluctance to celebrate Murad's passing or the
battle as a divinely authored victory. According to the standard script, the
blaspheming tyrants ideally perish in a spectacle of divine wrath. God himself
engineers their fall, directly or indirectly, simultaneously saving his people.
Such is the thrust of the earliest Latin accounts of Murad's fall. 19 Kydones, as
Laonici Chalcocarufylae historiarium demonslraliones, ed. E. Darkd, vol. I (Budapest: Societas

Frankliniana, 1922), 54.6-10. Cf. also my article "A Greek View on the Battle of Kosovo:
Laonikos Chalkokondyles"; see n. 5 above.
" O n August I, 1389, Tvitko 1 signed a letter addressed to the senate of Trogir announcing that
he had achieved a great victory over "the enemy of the Christian people," namely sultan Murad I.
He identifies God as its agent, and leaves no doubt regarding the outcome: "God's right hand lent
us its full help and support and we held the field in triumph. We fought them, defeated them, and
streched them dead on the ground so that only a few of these infidels remained alive. And this,
thank God, without a great number of losses on our own side." (For the text, see Braun,
"Kosovo," Die Schlachl, 9-10; quoted here is Emmert's translation, op. cit, 45). Tvitko's letter
was clearly propaganda for himself and Bosnia, and a month later he sent a similar letter to the
Florentine senate. The text has vanished, but the Florentine reply, composed by none other than
Coluccio Salutati, survives.
Writing in the cultivated humanist Latin for which he was now famed, the chancellor
applauds Tvitko for his glorious victory, obtained, he concurs, "by the ineffable mercy of the
omnipotent and eternal divinity who cares for His flock." Thereafter Salutati recounts what the
Florentines have independently heard about that celebrated battle, which he correctly dates to
June 15, 1389, and situates at the Field of Blackbirds, i.e. Kosovo Polje. In essence, Salutati
envisions the battle as a critical moment in the defense of Christendom against aggressive
Islam. The Bosnians and their king are the "warriors and heroes of the true Christ," compelled by
the "arrogantly mad and madly arrogant Muhammad-worshipper" to take up arms, since he had
invaded Bosnia with a host of thousands, and generally aspired to obliterate Christianity from
the earth. His battle, then, was a war with Christ; consequently, events proceeded as they did on
June IS because Christ elected to crush his enemies, including the sultan. Echoing
Tvrtko, Salutati describes the engagement in no uncertain terms as a glorious triumph of
Christians over infidels, who perished by the thousands. Moreover, Christ extended his right
KYDONES' LETTERS 396 AND 3 9 8 259
we have seen, sets the stage for this interpretation in his characterization of
MurSd. But then he departs from the script, denying the heavenly actor his
customary role, and only vaguely intimating that Mur&d's adversaries were
Christians! Why so? Forming conclusions from an a u t o ' s silence is of course a
dangerous game. It is possible, however, that when Kydones wrote this letter, he
was either despondent or, as ¿irkoviti argues, simply uncertain about the general
results of the battle.20 The evidence, in other words, was insufficient to proclaim
Kosovo Polje another episode in salvation history.
Kydones' view of the impact of Murad's passing on the Byzantines is

more apparent. It is not, to be sure, transparent, since at this point he expresses
himself with utmost caution, lapsing ultimately into metaphor. Once we
decipher the metaphor, however, it becomes evident that Kydones' central concern
is an impending political crisis at Constantinople. The dimensions of this so
disturb him, moreover, that he regards the outstanding positive development at
Kosovo Polje — the death of the sultan — a marginal blessing, of no direct
consequence for what is about to befall the Rhomaioi. Let us consider, then,
what he writes and what he actually means.
Following his epitaph on Murad, Kydones abruptly switches his focus to

the Rhomaioi and their situation in the summer of 1389. He is distressed by
their behavior, or rather a pattern of destructive behavior which he apparently
regards as chronic, and believes would persist even if the Ottoman threat were to
vanish — even if all the Turks, and not merely MurSd, were to die. He
emphasizes that this is an internal problem, and seemingly taunts his
countrymen for blaming their woes on outsiders — presumably the Turkic
invaders. Then, using words and phrases from Matthew 12:43-45, he prophesies
potential disaster. In the biblical text, Christ depicts an unclean spirit departing
from a man, returning to the house whence it came, departing again, collecting
seven spirits worse than itself, and then returning to torment the wretched man
more hideously than before. Applying this to present circumstances, Kydones
equates the afflicted man with the Rhomaioi, and claims that an unclean spirit is
presently sojourning elsewhere, but will return and wreak havoc like its
scriptural counterpart.21 He concludes, rather feebly, with a plea to God and the
hand to Tvrtko's twelve nobles who made their way to Murad's tent, and above all to the nameless
hero who managed to stab the sultan in his throat and belly, ending his life. Intimating that the
twelve were immediately killed, "as victims to the dead leader over his ugly corpse," Salutati
celebrates their death as martyrdom. His letter, in short, is not so much an expression of
congratulations to Tvrtko, as an outpouring of praise to God for using the Bosnians, as worthy
tools, to defend Christendom against Islam. (For the text, see again Braun, op. cit., 14-15, and
Emmert's translation, from which I have quoted, op. cit., 45-47). It is important, however, as
corroborating evidence that Murad was assassinated by a Slav who penetrated the Ottoman lines.
20
"Dimitrije Kidon," 215-216.
21
Kydones' use of the Matthaean text will be evident from the following comparison:
260 S t e p h e n W. R E I N E R T
emperors — in the plural — that they concern themselves to avert this. 22 These
lines, which Cirkovicf and others have only partially explored, evoke three
questions. What is this "internal problem" to which Kydones alludes? What does
he mean by prophesying the return of an unclean spirit? Finally, who are the
emperors to whom he appeals, and what does he expect of them? These
questions, in my opinion, can be answered if we consider certain political
developments between 1373 and late June 1389, when Kydones plausibly wrote
his letter.
Since the spring of 1373, the Palaiologan family had been rent by an
internal feud which periodically destabilized the government in Constantinople,
and enmeshed its various members in dependency relationships with the Italians
and Turks. Between 1373 and 1385, the conflict consisted of a duel between John
V and his eldest son, Andronikos. This struggle began in 1373, when
Andronikos attempted a coup but failed. As punishment, he and his three year old
son, the future John VII, were partially blinded and imprisoned in the tower of
Anemas. Manuel was now crowned as his father's co-emperor, and the seeds of a
(a) Kydones Ep. 396.32-36:

"tfiifil Si TI TOD dxaSdpTov (WiiPfoeotiai mrufiaros-. i iw pin ltcpnrXavtbievov
npfc dAAaj- torlv. mlBofiai 6' airrd Kal ¿DJui iavroo x^Lpova irapaiafidt/ vpfc tAv
oticoi/ 86ev dnc6rffjj]Oft> fieri fiLKpdv ¿nawffetv. Kal rid' fifiiv Kal Taif
rrporipav /arai T& Icxara."
In my translation:
"For I say that the [fate] of the unclean spirit will befall us—[the unclean spirit] which is now
wandering among [others]. I am convinced that it will soon return to the house whence it left,
bringing [with it] other [spirits] worse than itself. What befalls us then shall be worse than
anything previous."
(b) Matthew 12:43-45:
"Orav Si t6 dKdOaprov rnxupa ¿(¿Xthj ini tov iripatov, Siipxtrai iviSpotv
t6tuv ftjrovn ivdiravtnv, Kal oix ciptmei. t6tt Xtyei, Els' Tin oCk6u fiov
imcrrpiipio 66ev i f f j M h v . Kal eiiplmei axoiAtovra oeoapuptvov Kal
KeKoatnniivov. t6tc nope tx mi Kal wapaXauPdvci pc9' tavmv ¿mi Irtpa irvcvfiara
irowipdrtpa iavrov, Kal eloekMvra Karoucei ¿kcl. Kal ylvtrai 7J fcxaTa T0
"
drtptoTTOv tKctvov xelpotsa t&v irpaTaf. ovnir larai Kal tq yevtif rain] rtj
nowfpq.
In The Jerusalem Bible translation, ed. A. Jones (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co., Ltd.,
1966):
"When an unclean spirit goes out of a man it wanders through waterless country looking for a
place to rest, and cannot find one. Then it says, I will return to the home I came from.' But on
arrival, finding it unoccupied, swept and tidied, it then goes off and collects seven other spirits
more evil than itself, and they go in and set up house there, so that the man ends up by being
worse than he was before. That is what will happen to this evil generation."
Obviously Kydones has simplified elements of the original setting and action to render the
metaphor applicable to present circumstances.
It is significant, here, that the form Kydones uses is the simple dative plural, and not the dual.
Consequently, he is not limiting his appeal to two emperors. I thank Professor George Dennis
for this observation.
KYDONES' L E T T E R S 3 9 6 AND 398 261
prolonged vendetta were sown. In July 1376, Andronikos and his son managed to
escape. By mid-August they returned with Genoese and Turkish help, entered
Constantinople and captured their kinsmen, who now suffered their turn in the
tower. Meanwhile Andronikos established his regime, elevating his son as co-
emperor.23
The story repeated itself in June 1379, when John V and company
escaped, with Venetian help, and promptly journeyed to Bursa with offers Murad
felt inclined to accept. By early July, John V and Manuel had re-established their
regime. Their victory was only a partial one, however, since Andronikos
managed to evade capture, and retreated with his family and hostages to Galata,
where he fought on with Genoese support until 1381. At this juncture, the
imperial family resolved to make peace and bind up its wounds as best they
could. A treaty was concluded, the key clause of which defined the future order of
succession. It was agreed that Andronikos would succeed John V, and that
Andronikos would be followed by his son, John VII.24
This compact, however, failed to restore peace and harmony among the
Palaiologoi. First of all, it necessarily excluded Manuel from the succession.
Outraged, Manuel departed for Thessaloniki sometime in 1382, where, as
previously mentioned, he ruled for the next five years pursuing an independent
policy, to the annoyance of his father as well as Murad. By early 1385,
moreover, Andronikos and John VII were embroiled in territorial disputes with
John V. This conflict was prevented from escalating into yet another struggle
over the capital by Andronikos' timely death, which occurred in late June of that
year.25
The tensions within the Palaiologan clan were not buried with
Andronikos. To the contrary, within two years they resurfaced, this time with
John VII pitted against John V and Manuel. Following Andronikos' death, John
VII regarded himself as his grandfather's heir apparent, basing his claims on the
1381 treaty. Whether or not John V concurred is unclear. In the spring of 1387,
however, developments occurred which caused John VII to fear for his political
future. After Manuel's rule in Thessaloniki came to an end (April 6), he
desperately maneuvered throughout the following months to secure a
reconciliation with his father. Eventually, in the autumn of that year, John
permitted his son to return to the capital, at Murad's behest. Manuel's ambition
23
F o r the entire period from 1373-1387, see George Dennis' Manuel ¡1 Palaeologus in
Thessalonica. For the phase of the feud from spring 1373 through Andronikos IV's coup, see pp.
26-40. In addition, cf. J. Barker. Manuel // Palaeologus (1391-1425): A Study in Late Byzantine
Statesmanship (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1969), 20-32.
24
Dennis, op. cit„ 41-51; Barker, op. cit., 32-42.
25
Dennis, op. cit., 57-88, 108-112, 114-126, 133-141; Barter, op. cit., 43-52.
now was to recover his status as John V s co-emperor and designated successor,
and he was willing to do whatever was necessary to attain that goal. His
proposal, however, placed his father in a most delicate position. If he embraced
Manuel as his imperial colleague and successor, he would instantly provoke John
VII into open revolt. On the other hand, John V distrusted his grandson, and
certainly realized from past experience that Manuel's aid might well be
invaluable, if not essential, should John VII actually attempt a coup. The elder
emperor solved his dilemma rather shrewdly by accepting Manuel's contrition,
but leaving his official status, and the issue of succession, an item for future
deliberation. Meanwhile, he instructed Manuel to take up residence on Lemnos,
far from the capital. There he remained from approximately the autumn of 1387
through late summer or early fall 1389. 26
John VII, it would seem, considered his uncle's departure from

Thessaloniki a threat to his career, and began to manoeuver accordingly.
Sometime in April or May of 1387, the Genoese of Pera accorded him the
acclamations due an emperor, and on at least one occasion deliberately slighted
John V. 2 7 The incidents, if nothing else, suggest the direction of John VII's
plans. Apparently he was envisioning a coup d'état which would unseat his
grandfather, and forestall Manuel's chances of attaining power. He would do so
with the aid of the Genoese, and certainly the Turks as well. Thanks to Michel
Balard's discoveries, we now know that at least a month before the battle of
Kosovo, in May 1389, John VII was present in Genoa, doubtless maneuvering
for political support. There he was acclaimed emperor, received loans, and
remained until December 1389, or January 1390. 28 Meanwhile, John V and
Manuel bided their time, wondering what would happen.
^ D e n n i s , op. cit., 142-139; Barker, op. cit., 59-69. On Kydones' contacts with Manuel during
his exile on Lemnos, see R.-J. Loeneitz, "L'exil de Manuel II Pallologue & Lemnos, 1387-1389,"
Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 38/1 (1972): 115-140.
27
F o r the document, see R.-J. Loenertz, "Fragment d'une lettre de Jean V Paliologue I la
commune de Genes, 1387-1391," Byzantiniscke Zeitschrift, 51 (1958): 37-38, with Loenertz'
commentary pp. 38-40.
2
*In 1962, John Barker established that John VII was probably in Genoa "before and up to his
1390 coup" (Manuel II, p. 235). Barker reached this conclusion after an exhaustive analysis of
the later narratives (Doukas, Chalkokondyles, "Pseudo-Sphrantzes" [i.e. Makarios Meiissenos],
and the anonymous author of the Barberini Chronicle), compared with six Genoese and Venetian
archival documents, all dating from 1390. In his conclusion, Barker cautioned that the evidence
was circumstantial, and that the question could only be resolved following a "systematic search
for and publication of any other surviving documents, especially Genoese, which would provide
specific and undeniable testimony." ("John VII in Genoa: A problem in late Byzantine source
confusion," Orientalia Christiana Periodica 28/1 [1962]: 213-238). In my opinion, Barker's
study superbly illustrates the complexities of our sources for the later fourteenth century, and the
difficulties of establishing something as simple yet fundamental as an emperor's itinerary.
Barker himself, it would seem, did not hit upon the documents which eventually solved the
puzzle. (His own research in the Genoese archives in 1974-1975, however, resulted in the
discovery and publication of several fascinating documents from 1382, 1396, 1397, 1398, and
KYDONES' LETTERS 396 AND 398 263
Such, in brief outline, is the feud which so debilitated the Palaiologoi

between 1373 and 1389, and which plausibly underlies Kydones' comments on
the Rhomaioi and their situation at the end of Letter 396. With this in mind, let
us return to the questions previously posed.
It is likely, first of all, that the mysterious "inner fault" which Kydones
attributes to the Rhomaioi is the recurring pattern of dynastic strife. Kydones
characterizes this so obliquely, we may presume, because of his correspondent's
identity — i.e., a member of the imperial family whose involvement in the
chaos has been repeated. 29 Secondly, his parable of the return of the unclean
spirit probably conveys his awareness that John VII was presently in Genoa
agitating for help to foment a coup, and likewise his expectation that the young
man would return shortly (fieri ¡iLKpdf) and prosecute that ambition. The
"unclean spirit now wandering among others" does not, of course, designate John
VII per s e , but rather his seditious ambitions and plans, which he is entertaining
with others (i.e. the Genoese), or which the latter are inciting. In the same vein,
the "other [spirits] worse than itself with whom this spirit will return likely
alludes to the Ottomans, the predictable future allies of John VII and the
Genoese. The house (OIKO?) whence this dtcdOapTov weOfxa came, and where
it shall return, could refer symbolically to the Palaiologan household, or
concretely to Silivri (where John VII was ruling as an Ottoman vassal),
Constantinople, or in a wider sense the "empire of the Romans." Finally,
Kydones' exhortation to "the emperors" must surely refer to John V, Manuel and
1404. For these, see "Miscellaneous Genoese Documents on the Levantine World of the Late
Fourteenth and Early Fifteenth Centuries." Byzantine Studies/Éiudes Byzantines 6 [1979]: 49-
82). A further clue to John Vll's movements in Italy emerged in 1976, when E. Lappa-Zizicas
edited and discussed an inscription in a gospel book owned by Pietro Filargis (the future pope
Alexander V), and now in the Benaki collection. Composed by Filargis himself, the note records
that the latter had received the book in 1392 as a gif) from Maria, the mother of emperor John
Palaiologos, when she came with her son to Ticino in Liguria ("Le voyage.de Jean Vil Paléologue
en Italie," Revue des Études Byzantines 34 (1976], 139-142, with the text on pp. 140-141).
While documenting John VII and Maria's journey to Italy, the inscription nonetheless
compounded the problem by dating their visit to 1392, rather than sometime before spring
1390. In 1978, Balard at last identified documents attesting to John VII's presence in Italy
precisely as Barker conjectured — "befote and up to his 1390 coup." These indicated that he was
in Genoa in May 1389, and suggested that he sailed east the following December or January (La
Rommie Génoise (Xlle - début du XVe siècle), I, Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d'Athènes et
de Rome, 235. [Rome: École française de Rome, 1978], p. 94, note 320). The confusion created
by the Filargis inscription was subsequently clarified by P. Schreiner, who established in 1984
that Filargis probably penned the lines years after he received the book, and that it doubtless
refers to late 1389. (See his "Una principessa bulgare a Genova," in ed. G. Pistarino, Genova e la
Bulgaria nel medioevo [Genova, 1984], 229-232).
79 '
Cirkoviti of course recognized this: "Verovatno je to alu2ija na podeljenost i zavadjenost u
vrxovima Caretva." ("Dimitrije Kidon," 215). In his essay "Contribution à l'histoire de la
conquête turque en Thrace aux dernières décades du siècle," I. Dujtev simply narrates the conttro
of this letter without deciphering its meaning (Éludes Balkaniques 9/2 [1973]: 91).
John VII collectively.. Here, it seems to me, Kydones tacitly expresses his hope
that they will find a diplomatic solution, and avoid yet another struggle for
control of Constantinople.
Interpreting Letter 396 in this way, it is apparent that Kydones' frame of

mind in late June 1389 was hardly optimistic. He was obsessed by fear that the
imperial city would once again become a battleground, and that John VD would
win the struggle. He contemplated whatever happened in that legendary battle in
Serbia from this perspective of fear, and his responses were restrained and
circumscribed. To sum it all up, when the news of Kosovo arrived, the ex-
mesazdn felt gratified that the accursed Murad had perished. Returning his gaze to
his homeland, however, he recognized that nothing much had changed and that
the future was precarious, with or without Murad.
As events would show, Kydones' apprehensions were entirely justified. By

early 1390, some seven months after Kosovo, John VII had returned to Rumili,
intent on staging his coup. In April he laid siege to Constantinople, aided by the
Genoese and the new sultan. After occupying the city the night of April 13/14,
John VII ruled for three months. Then he lost his throne when Manuel recovered
the city for his father, and himself. 30
Letter 398 (Vat. gr. 101, f. 47-47v)
In contrast to Letter 396, Letter 398 is somewhat more celebratory in

tone. Relevant here are the first twenty lines, which may be translated as
follows:
Was it necessary that you be away from us, now when the Savior has
granted the community of Christians such a great favor, that you not join
in celebrating with us, raising thank offerings to God for our common
freedom, and deliberating so that the remants of the impious be utterly
destroyed? Was it necessary that you sit unconcerned with the farmers on
Lemnos, like some other useless burden to the earth, when you are such a
one as none of the Rhomaioi, not only in war, but in everything else by
which men are distinguished? I cannot believe that someone would say
that anything stranger than this has ever happened. This is affirmed in the
common opinion and rumor of all. From everyone it is heard: "If he were
now with us, nothing would hinder [us] from driving the force of
barbarians across the frontiers. But now we seem to enjoy good fortune
only by half, for we are not contributing our [share] to what we have
received from God." This, everyone prophesies, will render the divine gift
30
Barker, Manuel II, 70-79.
KYDONES' LETTERS 396 AND 398 265
useless to us. Thus your present absence overshadows our pleasure at the
defeat of [our] enemies.
In the following lines, Kydones prays that God and the emperor, i.e.
Manuel's father, John V, will secure Manuel's return, so that Manuel may join
his father in attending to matters of war. 31
Clearly Kydones wrote this letter after receiving word that the Ottomans
had definitely suffered a defeat, an event which allegedly evoked great joy and
hope amongst the Constantinopolitans. Moreover, he writes of it in terms
approximating Salutati's interpretation of Kosovo — i.e., as a victory authored
by God, who intervened to facilitate the freeing of his people, the community of
Christians. Kydones does not, however, suggest that this development in fact
liberated the Christian community, or at least the Rhomaioi. Rather, he believes
it provides an opportunity for that process to begin, and affirms that the
Rhomaioi must actively collaborate with God to achieve their freedom. In the
core of the passage, Kydones delineates his vision of this collaboration, and
likewise confesses his pessimism that it would ev^r come about. His vision,
quite simply, is that Manuel's current political status will be reversed. At such a
critical moment, Kydones intimates, Manuel's exile on Lemnos is as useless to
the Rhomaioi as was Achilles' withdrawal to his tent. 32 He finds it preposterous
that a man of Manuel's military and intellectual abilities should not be in
31
ed. R.-J. Loenertz, Dimitrius Cydonis Correspondance, Ep, 398.1-20, on pp. 352-353: "Si
Si ¿XPO" vvv fttu" napcivai, -n^tKaim^ r<p /rotwp TW Xptcmavm> xty-TO?
TOO Sdjrfjpos- So6fl<JT)i, xal /¿ij mtiiravt)Yvpl(eiv fiiv IFYITV Kal xwrrfP-o G f p nfc"
minis eutcplas dvdirrav, avfifiovXfUfii' Si mi 6ir<i& kurr^ti/ ¡ltxP1 TiXous ri
iyKaraXelmiaTa TQV doe¡¡¿V ¿(6Xo6pfir$)facTai, dW ' (V rg A/fiity fieri rCtu yeupy&V
¿xnrep dXXo ti r f c yijs- iriaoiov ijfios- djieAxfltirra KaOfjoSai, rotw iAvra dan 06 ns
'Ptiftaiuv, aim tv mMfitfi ¡¡6vov dAXi teal drrqnoT' &v ivBpes dparpeirie? TrXfSotxni/;
fyd fiiv OCK clS' el n TWV miirore ycfofiitw TOOTOV irapaSo&Tfpov etmx nr Sv.
TOSTO Si val T§ Kotv§ 1tdvruv yvami Kal /3o§ fieffaioDrat. irdtrruv ydp tanv dxoteiv
¿S vvu TOV Selves' vapivros obSiv, Sv iKdXvev inrip roils- Spoil? T7)i/ T£U> papfidpuiv
Sfoaiui* iXaQfjivu. w S' if fyuoctas- StmSfiev ebrnxqutvat, rets- rrapd roO 6eov tii)
ml T6h> fiiiertpox/ elirfepofiiw. fl irdvrei dvafeXfj votfjaeif f/fui> Kal ri iela Sdpa
liaimtovrai. OBTOJS- rj enj VW Anouaia r f f v dird rijr r&v lroXtiiLw ^RRTFI •f\Sotî>
diiaupoi. dXXd rairqi/ iiiv fail/ dxepalav Gedt re Kal PamXeifc drtoSdCev,
tiravayay6vrcs rdv Octji ¡¡iv KOLvij iieri nivrw ruv yeret^tinav x^P1" (lofyievov,
fiaaiXet Si owaynuatixevov npdsk rd Aotird TOO LROMPOV."
32
Kydones signals the simile when he describes Manuel sitting unconcerned, like a "useless
burden to the earth" (rig- y^F ir&nov dxHor, 398.8) and extols him as unique "in everything
else by which men are distinguished" (drrywor ' dvSpej- dpwpevies reXtfknxjiv, 398.10).
The phrase "iruaiou dxBos'" echoes Achilles' description of himself to Thetis: "[I] sit here
beside my ships, a useless weight on the good land" (11. 18.104), just as "dvSper dprnpetries"
reXiSovtrif" instantly recalls Phoinix's address to Achilles, reminding him of when he was a
child, "who knew nothing yet of the joining of battle nor of debate where men are made pre-
eminent" (II. 9.440-441). (1 have quoted here R. Lattimore's translation, in The liiad of Homer
[Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1951], p. 210, p. 378).
Constantinople — implicitly acknowledged as John V's heir, serving as his co-

emperor, and devising with him an aggressive stance against the Turks. Thus he
prays that this will change — in other words that John V will alter his whole
policy, whatever the repercussions vis-à-vis John VU and the Ottomans. He
affirms, moreover, that the populace at large shares his assessment, but that no
one is optimistic that the opportunity at hand will be exploited. Implicitly this
also includes Kydones, despite his earnest prayer that God will ordain the
contrary.
These intriguing twenty lines raise two questions: what was the defeat to
which Kydones refers, and to what extent is his depiction of the
Constantinopolitans' reaction merely rhetorical exagerration, designed to flatter
and comfort Manuel?
For those who persist in viewing Kosovo Polje as a "smashing Ottoman

triumph," the answer to the first question is straightforward. Between autumn
1387, when John V exiled Manuel to Lemnos, and autumn 1389, when Manuel
probably returned to Constantinople, the only known Ottoman defeat was the
one which Kavala Sahïn suffered at Bilecfa, on August 27, 1388. Consequently,
Kydones' Letter 398 must have been written in response to that event. Such was
Loenertz's deduction, which many have followed. 33 Cirkovki, on the other hand,
questioned whether the encounter at Kosovo in fact resulted in an "Ottoman
triumph" and read Letter 398 rather differently. He insisted, first of all, that the
arrangement of the letters in the manuscript is chronological, and that reversing
the order (i.e. presuming that Letter 398 [Vat. Gr. 101, f. 47-47v] preceeds Letter
396 [Vat. Gr. 101, f. 101, f. 46-46v]) without compelling reason is arbitrary.
Moreover, he argued that the battle of Biletfa was little more than a local
skirmish, documented only at Ragusa, the consequences of which Kydones and
his compatriots would not have construed as a heaven-sent opportunity to
"destroy the remnants of the impious," or "drive the barbarians across the
frontiers. " Thus Cirkovid conluded that Kydones plausibly wrote Letter 398 with
reference to Kosovo Polje. It reflects, in other words, a subsequent set of reports
arriving in Constantinople — rumors which depicted whatever happened at the
^Loenertz first dated this letter to the aftermath of Bilei!a in his "Manuel Paléologue et
Démétrius Cydonès, Remarques sur leurs correspondances (Troisième série)," Échos d'Orient 37
(1938): 123 (referring then to the letter which Cammelli had numbered 166). Loenertz reiterated
this view in 1947, in Les recueils de lettres de Démétrius Cydonis (p. 119); in his 1960 edition of
the letter (p. 352); and in his 1972 study of Kydones' correspondance with Manuel during the
tatter's exile on Lemnos ("L'exil de Manuel II Paléologue à Lemnos," pp. 135-136). Barker
accepted Loenertz's dating in his Manuel II (p. 66). DujCev, on the other hand, apparently
accepted Loenertz' placement of the letter to late 1388, but supposed, for reasons he did not
explain, that it referred to the battle of Ploinik ("Contribution i l'histoire," p. 90). This is
patently impossible, since Manuel was not dwelling on Lemnos in 1386, when Lazar scored his
victory at P!o£nik (see above, note 3).
KYDONES ' LETTERS 3 9 6 AND 3 9 8 267
battle as an unqualified defeat. Kydones' reaction in Letter 398 therefore

anticipates or parallels Salutati, who, as we have seen, envisioned the battle in
these terms in October 1389. 34
dirkovkf s view of this letter is fascinating because it transcends the stock

assumptions which Loenertz and others have made concerning Kosovo, leading
us to wonder if Kydones' Letter 398 documents insurrectionist sentiment brewing
in Constantinople in late summer or autumn 1389. Before accepting £irkovi<fs
thesis, however, we must establish that his reasons for placing the letter in the
aftermath of Kosovo, rather than that of Bileda, are cogent. Unfortunately, this is
difficult to do. The arrangment of the letters in the manuscript is slender proof,
since many of Kydones' letters clearly are not in chronological onto1, particularly
those for the 1380s. 35 Secondly, and this brings us to our second question, the
content of Kydones1 remarks hardly guarantees that Letter 398 transmits the
reverberations of a "major battle" such as Kosovo, and not a "minor skirmish"
such as Bilecfa. It is not impossible, first of all, that rumors of Kavala Sahin's
defeat circulated throughout the Balkans in highly exagerrated form, and that the
absence of independent, contemporary attestations tp this is purely a matter of
chance. In this case, Kydones might indeed have written to Manuel as
enthusiastically as he did, perhaps even reflecting popular opinion, in honest
naivitd. Alternatively, he might have exploited reports of a minor Turkish defeat
in far-away Bosnia merely as a pretext for idealizing Manuel as the perfect rhetor-
warrior (which theme he elaborates in the last half of the letter), attributing to
the populace appropriately flattering, but fictive, sentiments and reactions. In
short, the internal clues in Letter 398 are so vague, and lend themselves to such
variable interpretation, that we cannot exclude the possibility that Kydones wrote
this letter as Loenertz supposed, following the battle of Bileifa, in autumn 1388.
By the same token, however, there is no reason to dismiss Cirkovid's

views out of hand, since the themes of the passage are not inconsistent with the
circumstances of late summer or autumn 1389. Within weeks of his accession,
Bayazid faced a serious military and political crisis in Anatolia. Six of the most
important rulers undertook a variety of anti-Ottoman actions, the overall aim of
which was to dismantle the hegemony which Murad had built up in the western
and central sectors of the peninsula. This was a critical challenge, and would
drain Ottoman military resources from Rumili for six months to a year. 36 It
34
"Dirmtrije Kidon," 216-219; regarding Salutati's letter, see above n. 19.
Êstablishing the c o m c t chronological order of any collection of Byzantine letters is a
nightmarishly difficult task, and most "chronotaxeis" are open to continuous revision. In 1972.
Loenertz concluded that the plausible order of Kydones' correspondance with Manuel from 1387-
1389 was as follows: 370, 368 and 368*, 372, 373, 381, 374, 379, 382, 383, 385. 380, 387,
390, 388, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 402, 398, 403, 397, 404, 396, 401 and 401», and finally
410 ("L'exil de Manuel S PaKiologue & Lemnos," pp. 119-138).
3
^See appendix, below.
might be argued that these circumstances provided the Byzantines an opportunity

to shake off their vassalage to the Ottomans, further complicating B â y a z ï d ' s
problems. T h o s e so inclined, moreover, would very likely h a v e looked to
Manuel for leadership, given his determined and courageous resistance to Candarh
Hayreddin PaSa in Thessaloniki. If Kydones wrote Letter 398 sometime after
Letter 396, as Ô r k c v i i f supposes, might his circumscribed optimism reflect his
conviction that the bloodletting at Kosovo, the disorders accompanying Bâyazïd's
accession, and the impending or subsequent transport of m a n y remaining
Rumilian troops to Anatolia provided a golden opportunity to attack the
Ottomans? If so, was Kydones no longer obsessed by fears of John VII, or did he
expect that particular threat to evaporate if John V and Manuel quickly allied,
threw off Ottoman suzerainty, and recovered what territory they could?
Given t h e state of the evidence, it is impossible to resolve these

questions, and prudent to imitate L a o n i k o s Chalkokondyles, w h o left his
comparison of the Greek and Turkish views of the battle of Kosovo Polje by
advising his readers to choose whichever version they preferred — DXXÀ RADRA
lièv (TU, SIJJI éKàorif) rrpoa^XÀÇ tfyeîodai. ire pi AÙRÛVV In L e t t e r 3 9 6 ,
Kydones was certainly reacting to the news of Kosovo, and his response
apparently was Clouded by his anxieties over John VII's anticipated coup d'état.
That much we may accept. The context of Letter 398, on the other hand, is
ambiguous and we cannot presently resolve whether Kydones was writing with
reference to Bileda or Kosovo Polje. Nonetheless, whether we attribute it to 1388
or 1389, perhaps the most significant theme of this passage is the pessimism
circumscribing Kydones' sense of opportunity — his conviction that in the end,
John V most likely would preserve the status quo, implicitly for the classic
reasons, even when presented with an allegedly golden opportunity for change.
Here again events would justify Kydones' pessimism, since John V indeed
retained his ties with the Ottomans in the afteimath not only of Bileda and
Kosovo Polje, but also his restoration to the throne in September 1390. 3 8
Ill
O u r uncertainties regarding the meaning of these letters illustrates a

fundamental characteristic oif litterati such as Kydones and his royal friend. They
wrote and even preserved texts such as these essentially for themselves, for their
little world of fellow mandarins w h o knew all the codes, beginning with the
Kunstsprache, and w h o esteemed these "icons of the soul" less as repositories of
information than as conversations within their circle, the artful ties that bound
them one to another. Since they did not write for outsiders, and no one alive
"Laonici Ckalcocandylae historiarium demonstraliones, 54.10-11.

38
Cf. Barter, Manuel //, 78-9.
KYDONES1 LETTERS 3 96 AND 398 269
knows all the codes, we necessarily contemplate their polished gems through a
wall of semi-opaque glass. Sometimes, to be sure, we can recognize what we
see, discerning the dates and data we hope to find. But frequently we cannot, and
thus can only smile at the cleverness of these mandarins who preserved their
wall, kept their secrets, and consequently held future pdpflapot at bey.
In conclusion, Professor Cirkovitfs interpretation of Kydones' letters 396

and 398 remains a significant hypothesis. Whatever its future fate, it reminds us,
for the present, how remarkably little we know not only about the first battle of
Kosovo, but likewise the opening months of Yildinm Bayazid's rule — a time
when the structure of Murad's empire was shattered in Anatolia, and may well
have been weakened, if momentarily, in Rumili.
APPENDIX: DID YA'QtJB C E L E B I DIE AT KOSOVO P O L J E ?
According to C. Imber, the Anatolian crisis Bayazid experienced soon after his
accession may have been compounded by dynastic strife, since, in his view, the date
of BSyazid's surviving coins (i.e., A. H. 792, commencing 20 December 1389) might
suggest that Biyazid did not attain power, or at least did not openly declare his
sovereignty, until some six months after the battle (The Ottoman Empire, 1300-M81
[Istanbul: The Isis Press, 1990], 37). Implicitly, therefore, Ya'qub was not executed at
Kosovo, but struggled with his younger brother during that interval. The argument is
of course speculative, since the majority of our narrative sources posit a two-step
succession drama (i.e. Ya'qub's execution and Bayazid's accession) at Kosovo Polje.
In assessing Imber's thesis, the contemporary source of immediate interest is the

Venetian Senate Deliberation record of July 23, 1389. (For the text, see ed. S. Ljubid,
Listine o odnaSajih izmedju juinoga slavenstva i mletaike republike, vol. 4,
Monumenta spectantia historiam Slavorum meridionalium, vol. 4 [Zagreb: Fr. 2upan
(Albrecht i Fiedler), 1874], #384, pp. 269-70. For a partial but not entirely accurate
translation, see Emmert, Serbian Golgotha, 48). This document contains two
important passages pertinent to the succession. In its opening lines, reference is
made to the news the senators have received "of the death of Murad and of [his] son,
and of the new lordship of [his] other son" ("nova, que habentur de morte Morati et
filii. et de novo dominio alterius filii," ed. Ljubil, op. cit., 269). The remainder of the
document records the instructions for Andrea Bembo, whom the senators are
dispatching to Constantinople to oversee Venice's accommodation to the new state of
affairs. His initial mandate was to order the vice-baiuld in Constantinople to
assemble the communal council, which would deliberate the utility of sending an
envoy, i.e. Bembo, to meet with Murad's successor. Again the document does not
designate the latter by name, but merely as "that one who shall be in the imperial
place of Murad" ("illius, qui erit in imperio loco Morati," ibid., 269). The commissio
then outlines what Bembo should communicate to Murad's successor, in the event the
commune deems such an embassy appropriate. First of all, the senators authorize
Bembo to present letters of credence, but urge, as a precaution, that one set be
prepared for one of Murad's sons, and a second for the other. Bembo then would offer
the appropriate one once he arrived at court and knew who was ruling ("et si
deliberabunt [i.e. the Constantinopolitan council], quod ire debeat [i.e. Bembo), tunc
in bona gratia vadat et se presentet cum nostris litteris credulitatis, que ad cautelam
fiant in personam amborum flliorum Morati separate, ut presentet illara illi, qui
dominabitur." Ibid., 269) Next the document records what Bembo should verbally
convey to the nfew1"saltan. Relevant here are three of the authorized statements: (1)
that prior to Bembo and company's departure from Venice, the Senate was apprised,
although not clearly, ¡of the -war and the strange event (novitas) which had transpired
between Murad and count Lazar, regarding which a variety of incredible things were
being said ("dicere. debeat, quod subtus paititam glaeanim presentium de Venetiis ad
audientiam dominationis ndstre venerat, sed non clare, bellumet ndvitas, quod fuerat
inter magnificum dominum Moratum, qua patrem suum et comitem Lazarum, de quo
diversa dicebantur, quibus fides bene preberi non potent." Ibid., 269); (2) that in any
event the Senate had heard of Murad's death, which evoked its displeasure; ("Sed tamen
dominatio nostra audiverat de morte ipsius domini Morati, de qua maximam
displicentiam habuerat," ibid., 269); and (3) that the senators have likewise heard that
the son of Murad, (i.e. the one whom Bembo finds enthroned), has succeeded to the
power and lordship of his father, on which they extend congratulations ("Similiter
audivimus de felici creatione sua ad imperium et dominium ipsius patris sui, de quo nos
fueramus valde letati, ..." Ibid., 269). We may deduce from the foregoing that five
weeks after the battle of Kosovo Polje, the Venetian authorities felt certain that Murad
had engaged in a war with knez Lazar. They were perplexed, however, by the various
stories they had heard about what transpired either in that context or its aftermath.
They did believe that Murad and one of his sons had died, and that Murad's other son
consequently had attained the throne. Moreover, they possibly had heard that Murad
was assassinated, alluding to that event, in the deliberation record, as a "novitas." On
the other hand, the senators clearly did not know which of Murad's sons had died, and
conversely which had attained the throne. They further presumed, rather curiously,
that their representatives in Constantinople were and might well remain similarly
uninformed — i.e. until an envoy actually arrived at the Ottoman court and determined
the identity of Murad's surviving son. Hence their insistance that two sets of letters of
credence be prepared, one addressed to one son, another to the other. That much we
may confidently extract from the document. Let us observe, conversely, that the notes
do not intimate that the Venetians believed Murad's recently deceased son died during
his father's war with Lazar, or that he was murdered in a succession dispute. Similarly,
they do not suggest an awareness that Murad's surviving son was elevated to power in
the context of the battle, i.e. immediately after Murad's death.
For present purposes, the key importance of the July 23 senate deliberation record
is its indication that one of Murad's sons died in chronological proximity to his
father, and that the other had established himself in power between June IS and, at the
latest, early July. (We presume here approximately a fortnight for a very rapid
communication from the Balkans or points south to Venice). If this information is
correct, the identification of the former with Ya'qub and the latter with Bayazid is
straightforward. (There is, after all, no credible evidence that Murad had additional
surviving sons in 1389, and Bayazid assuredly was alive when the Venetians were
deliberating on July 23). Thus, we could justifiably conclude that whatever the
conflict which unfolded between B&yazid and his elder brother, it terminated quickly
(at most within a few weeks) — if not at Kosovo Polje, then elsewhere. At this
juncture we may ask, what other contemporary evidence might be adduced to
corroborate or amplify the Venetian document?
Three western authors writing variously in 1389 and the 1390s affirmed that a son
or sons of Murad were killed at Kosovo. In his letter to Tvrtko of Bosnia dated
October 20, 1389, Coluccio Salutati claimed that two of Murad's sons were killed at
KYDONES ' LETTERS 39 6 AND 3 98 271
the Field of Blackbirds. (Emmert, Serbian Golgotha, 46, and see above, note 19).
Also in 1389, in his Songe du vieil Pelerin, Philippe de Mfeiires asserted that Murad
"and his son" died in the battle (see Emmert, op. tit.. 176, n. 18, for the French text).
Seven years later, in his Epistre lamentable et consolatoire, the same author emended
his views slightly, stating that "Amourath and one or two of his sons died valliantly"
(ibid., in Emmert's translation on p. 50, with the French on p. 176, n. 19). Finally,
in what appears to be an account of Kosovo, curiously entered sub anno 1395, the
monastic chronicler of Saint Denys reports that MurSd died along with one of his sons
(ibid., in Emmert's translation, p. 52). The value of these assertions is difficult to
assess, since their underlying sources are not specified. (Salutati, however, may well
have derived his information from Tvrtko's anterior letter.) In any event, we may at
least observe that a few contemporary writers in Florence and Paris presumed that one
or more of Murad's sons died with him at Kosovo, evidently in the battle.
The earliest extant text which posits the death of an Ottoman prince at Kosovo,
and moreover identifies bim by name, appears to be an anonymous Catalan romance
entitled Historia de Jacob Xalabin (most recently edited by A. Pacheco, Els nostres
classics, Collecci6 A, vol. 93 [Barcelona: Editorial Barcino, 1964], with an
important introductory essay pp. 5-48). The identity of the author is unknown;
possibly he had served the Ottomans as a mercenary. He wrote, so it would seem,
sometime in the first decade of the fourteenth century (ibid., p. 38). His objective was
to celebrate Ya'qub Celebi's nobility and honor (besmirched by the lascivious desires
of his stepmother, the Greek "Issa Xalabina"), and implicitly to lament his failure to
succeed his father as sultan. The concluding sections (ibid., 139-149) recount Murad's
conflict with knez Lazar, including the battle at Kosovo Polje, rather fancifully.
Relevant here is the author's claim that at the conclusion of the battle, Bayazid not
only dispatched the mortally wounded Murad, but then summoned and personally
murdered Ya'qub (ibid., 148). It is likely, of course, that the novelist ascribed these
actions to B&yazid to villify him, doubly, as a parricide and fratricide. Even so, one
wonders if this construction was arbitrary, or if it reflects the fact that Bayazid's
succession was arranged by those who resolved to block Ya'qub, and that Bayazid
immediately ordered the entrapment and execution of his brother. In other words, does
this version, distorted as it may be, corroborate the standard mid and late fifteenth
century accounts?
Before attempting a judgement, let us consider the curious account in a Florentine

chronicle more or less contemporary with the Historia de Jacob Xalabin — the
anonymous Cronica volgare dal 1385 al 1409. (Emmert, op. cit., has brought the text
to light and translated it in full, pp. 180-184 [= note 33]). According to this author,
who may have been Andrea di Niccolo Minerbetti, the events of Kosovo extended
over seven days, and Murad was accompanied by four sons in all. Of these the author
identifies only one by name, i.e. "Baisetto". The battle lasted two days, with frightful
carnage on both sides, and it ended when the Serbs, including their leader, withdrew.
On that same day two of Murad's sons were killed and buried in the vicinity. Two days
later, in a plot to avenge his honor, Lazar returned and succeeded in stabbing Murad,
who then suffered in agony for thee days. In his final hours the sultan enjoined his
two surviving sons (his nameless eldest son and Bayazid) to care for all those
surviving the battle, and ordered the beheading of Lazar and his companions. Perhaps
the most intriguing part of the chronicler's narrative, at least for our purposes, is his
version of the aftermath of Kosovo — in which time frame he situates the succession
struggle. Following Murad's death, the eldest surviving son and Bayazid hastened to
Turkey, where the former "was made signore of the land and was called the new
Moratto. But he remained signore very shortly, for his brother killed him and took
over the rule of the land for himself. He was called Baisetto and afterward did great
things." (Ibid., 183 [Emmert's translation]). Much of this narrative is pstently,
indeed entertainingly inventive. Considering, however, that the author might have
encountered some'solid information (emanating perhaps from a Genoese informant?),
we cannot summarily discard it as nonsense. Consequently, is his assertion that
BSyazid attained power by eliminating his brother fictive, or does it corroborate the
Catalan novelist and subsequent Ottoman tradition? Similarly, is his setting for the
succession struggle merely an aberration, or does it reflect (and hence document) the
sequence of events Colin Imber has proposed?
In drawing our conclusions, we cannot- of course simpy harmonize the

evidence into a new amalgam, like medieval exegetes addressing the vagaries and
contradictions of scripture. Our sources, albeit v"contemporary," are far too intractible
and elusive, and our mentality (let us hope) is somewhat different. Ultimately, and
unfortunately, we must simply resort to calculations of plausibility. We can accept, to
be sure, that Ya'qub died in 1389, a casualty in B&yazid's rise to power. Moreover, I
see no reason to discount the chronology embedded in the Venetian document of July
23, and therefore suppose that at least a fortnight or so prior Ya'qub had met his end,
and BSyazid was established as sultan: LAS regards the locale and character of this
"succession drama," our assessment rriiist turn not on the date of Bayazid's coins,
which proves little, but rather the credibilityof the two major versions at our disposal
— that which situates tbe episode at Kosovo, with a quick entrapment and execution
of Ya'qub on the spot, and that which posits a brief period of direct conflict between
the two brother« elsewhere, terminating in Bayazid's victory. The latter, to be sure, is
chronologically feasible. Nonetheless, I am inclined to favor the former version
because it is just possible that the Catalan romance, despite its absurdities and
obvious bias, echoes a reality independently and (mirabile dictu) correctly transmitted
in the later narratives, Creek as well as Turkish. Likewise the information which
SalOtati obtained, and the rumors circulating in Paris, may reflect, in a generalized
way, the fact that Ya'qub died at Kosovo. It is conceivable, therefore, that Bayazid
indeed effected his brother's death, shortly after Mur&d expired, obviously with the
collaboration of those who, for reasons still obscure, preferred that Ya'qQb not attain
the throne. Let us admit, nonetheless, that the evidence is by no means decisive, and
that the Florentine chronicler (and hence Dr. Imber) might be right. As with so many
aspects of Bayazid's reign, we await better sources, and meanwhile must rest content
with the ambiguous.
Rutgers University
Michael ROGERS
THE PALACE, POISONS AND THE PUBLIC.

SOME LISTS OF DRUGS IN MID-16TH CENTURY
OTTOMAN TURKEY*
The debt of the developments in botany and pharmacology in later 16th

century Europe to material from Ottoman Turkey was widely recognised. The
flower market in Istanbul with hawkers offering rare plants, bulbs or seeds for
sale was described by Pierre Belon in 1547'. European horticulture, even if the
contribution of Busbecq has been somewhat exaggerated2, also owed much to the
Imperial ambassadors to the Ottoman Court. Nor were the introductions merely
of horticultural importance. The Augsburg physician and botanist Leonhard
Rauwolffs journey to the Levant in 1573-743 was largely with the purpose of
acquiring new drugs and of opening up new sources for drugs already known. He
disparages 4 the apothecaries of Aleppo for their lack of interest in fashionable
European remedies like the purging electuaries Diacatholicon and Diaphoenicon,
though he found them there imported ready mixed from Marseilles or Venice, but
he found the simple drugs they sold to be of excellent quality. The Ottoman
Empire was also a haven for refugee doctors, not merely the Jewish physicians of
the diaspora of 1492 and their descendants 5 , but, for example, the Portuguese
Amatus Lusitanus 6 who, worsted in a dispute in the early 1560s with Matthioli,
*1 am much indebted to Benin Torolsan-Scott for her helpful comments.

'Belon, 0589), 111, 485-87
2
Sprengel, I, 294-98, evidently on the basis of Matthioli's letters, attributes various
introductions to Busbecq, possibly brought to his attention by his physician Quacquelben who
died of the plague in Istanbul — including Syringa vulgaris, Astragalus poterium, Aesculus
Hippocastanum and Peganum Harmala. Some of these are Mediterranean or Western Asiatic, but
others, like the common lilac and the horse-chestnut, need not have come from Turkey at all,
Nor does there seem to be any evidence to connect Busbecq with the history of the tulip. Clusius
was, however, sent seed of Turkish tulip hybrids by David llngnad in the 1570s (Conti, (1939))
and grew it on, he says, in the Botanic Garden at Leyden.
3
Itinerary,(1693); Babinger, (1912), 148-61; Dannenfeldt, (1968)
Îtinerary, (1693), 219
^Compare Heyd's study of Moses Hamon, (1963) 152-70. Cf. Terzioglu, (1977).
6
alias JoSo Rodrigues de Castelo Braneo, cf. Friedenwald, (1937)
274 Michael ROGERS
who was then chief physician at the Habsburg Court in Prague, was denounced
to the Inquisition and had to flee to Istanbul.
How far this European progress in pharmacology and botany was

influential in Ottoman medicine as a whole is difficult to say. As in many
societies innovation in medicine had to contend with the traditional ideas of a
powerful establishment and Moses Hamon's fall, for example, was provoked by a
polemic with physicians of the Qaysuni family 7 on the propriety of treating
Suleyman the Magnificent's gout with opium. But it would in any case be
wrong to think of pharmacology in the 16th century Ottoman empire as in
decline or of Ottoman pharmacists and apothecaries as no more than practitioners
of folk medicine. Like their European contemporaries they doubtless continued to
use the standard works of the classical Arabic pharmacologists and their
commentators, but they also wrote their own, notably a recently identified
treatise on simples dated 792/1389-90, Edviye-i Mtifrede, by Ishak b. Murad of
Gerede 8 . Other pharmacological treatises and medical formularies were also in
circulation. Mehmed II ¿ommissioned a copy of Dioscorides' Materia Medica.
There was a copy of Ibn Baytar's famous treatise on simples, the Mufradat, in
Bayazid II's personal library 9 . And another Syrian, Davud b. 'Umar al-Antaki
(1511-90), both wrote on aiid taught pharmacology.
However,the relationship of practice to theory is more difficult to trace.

This gives the estate of an apothecary at Edime, Riistem b. c Abdallah al-'Attar
(dated 5 Receb 956/30 July 1549) published by the late Omer LutfT Barkan 10
considerable interest. From its vefy, small size it is clear that he was very far
from being the Chief apothecary of the city and its comprehensive contents are
therefore remarkable evidence for what the ordinary Ottoman chemist's shop of
the time could be expected to contain. It was made up of a shop in the druggists'
quarter (the cAttariri)-valued at 8150 ak$e and a dwelling house valued at 12,000
akije, the rest being almost entirely the stock, together with a series of metal
vessels, including two rose-water stills {furun-i giilab and furun-i verd) and
various gourds (ka V), cucurbits and alembics. Apart from two blue and white
hokkas valued at 36 akge for the pair the few pieces of Iznik blue and white
pottery listed — two fim sahan (at 3.5'akfe and 7 ak?e, respectively) and 3 old
(kohne) fini dishes (tabak) — were evidently insignificant; but other vessels
included a large hokka valued at 56 aJcê, two hokkas valued together at 36 akge
and two broken (or cracked) hokkas valued together at 17.5 ak§e, as well as boxes
âlso given in the sources as Qusuni. Cfi Behrens-Abouseif, (1987),7

8
Spiess, (1968), 185-; Canpolat, (1973). 21--, Baytop, (1985), 67-68
9
Adivar, (1982), 117-118 and Ek no. 35
'°Barkan (1966), 103-106. Since his widow would have needed to dispose of the shop lock, stock
and barrel not piecemeal everything must have been valued in order to fix a price for a
prospective purchaser. The estate amounted, however, to only 26,386 akfe, of which about
6,000 akfe was unpaid debts.
THE P A L A C E , POISONS AND THE P U B L I C 275
(kutu) and various kumkumas (rosewater sprinklers or scent droppers), two of

them valued at 82 ak$e and 57 ak9e respectively: since such sprinklers were often
glass the high valuations suggest that they were imports, from Venice.
Strikingly, there is no mention of albarellos, the characteristic apothecaries'
vessels in contemporary use in Europe 11 ; but vessels of that shape do not
anyway appear to have been made at Iznik. The remainder of the vessels are listed
in association with the drugs and evidently were their containers.
As must have been the case in many later Muslim cultures, most of the
terms for the drugs and preparations are far from the helienised terminology of
medical formularies or prescription-books like the Äqrabädhin of al-Kindi12. The
Edirne list has only one third to one half of, the drugs listed in the Äqrabädhin,
and scarcely more than a third of the lists in various Ottoman palace registers
published by Barkan13, though variations in demand provoked, for example, by
seasonal epidemics must have been considerable and occasional shortages,
particularly of imported drugs, must have been difficult to prevent 14 . It could
also have been that Röstern b. 'Abdallah s final illness was protracted and his
widow therefore obliged to carry on a business which was slowly running down
without being able to obtain further supplies.
Rüstern b. 'Abdallah appears to have stocked no New World drugs. 15 Nor

is there any reference to coffee. Notwithstanding, the stock was extremely
diverse. In the first place there were scents — aloes wood, sandal wood, balm of
Gilead, galangale, myrrh, musk, scented pastes ('abir); orris root (benefie kökü),
Indian nard (sünbül-i Hindi)-, and jasmine, violet and rose essences. Although the
vegetable seeds listed are all in the pharmacopoeias there are so many sorts that
he may well have done business as a seedsman too. There are diverse cordials,
philtres (title), preserves, jams and digestives (ciivaris) sometimes mentioned
with their ingredients, sometimes not. There is a rich battery of purges,
including turbith, senna and both chebulic and emblic myrobalans. There are
vegetable poisons — henbane (bene), hashish, Colchicum (sürencar/surancän),
and mineral poisons too, including vitriol (zac) and arsenic. Spices include
"Castiglioni, (1922), 76-88

'êdited and translated Levey, (1966)
13
Barkan, (1979), 77-80, 80-81, 90-92, 118-23
1,1
Even so, the total absence of drugs like rbubaib (ravend), lemon-grass [idhkhir, Andropogon
Schoenanthus, (B. no.349)]. scammony, harmal [wild rue, Peganum Harmala, Zygophyllaceae,
(B. no.2575)j and opium is puzzling since the demand for these would have been constant, not
seasonal.
15
The absence of Lignum Vitae (Guaiacum officinale, Zygophyllaceae) from Brazil is on the face
of it surprising, for it was certainly in widespread use in contemporary Venice for the treatment of
syphilis. This may, however, be explained by Rauwolffs observation in 1573-74 (Itinerary,
1693, 86) that China root [Smilax China, Smilacaceae, (B. no. 3230) which indeed appears in the
Palace lists] brought by the Portuguese from the Far East, was far more popular than Guaiacum in
Turkey for this purpose
276 M i c h a e l ROGERS
cinnamon, mace, cloves, and cardamoms. Most interesting, however, is the

presence of no fewer than four different sorts of theriac 16 , though whether they
were to be consumed as panaceas rather than antidotes is not indicated. One of
them, tiryak-i Akfemseddin}1, was evidently an Ottoman invention. Tiryak-i
erba'a can be identified with Jabir's theriac. Calinus is Galene, the principal
ingredients of which 1 8 were honey; squills; vipers' flesh; "hedychroum", a
mixture of herbs the fragrance of which was intended to counteract the harshness
of the other ingredients; and a considerable quantity of opium. Mithridatium was
very similar in its composition, except that instead of vipers' flesh it contained
the pounded flesh of the skink, and the inclusion of skinks among the stock here
(see below s.v. fakankur, no. 95) indicates that it too must have been the fourth
of the theriac preparations. The fact that opium, which was a major ingredient of
all of them, is not listed at all must indicate that the apothecary obtained some of
his medicines in an already made up state 19 .
The items were evidently listed shelf by shelf and were quite possibly
arranged by the size of their containers, for the entries tend not to be
homogeneous. This must have made it particularly necessary to label them, all
the more so when it came to poisons and preserves, since the kadi's staff could
scarcely have been expected to identify everything by taste. The corollary of this
is that when hurdevat are recorded this means "[smallish] amounts of unlabelled
stuff'
The orthography of the labelling, as transcribed in the inventory,

demonstrates a considerable degree of literacy on the apothecary's part, and only
'^Standard pharmacopoeias contained numerous recipes for such compounds. Andromachus,

Nero's physician (c. 54-59) created the theriac (C. Allbutt, (1921); G. Watson, (1966)) which was
to become famous as the antidote Galene, using Mithridatium as a basis, but with viper's flesh as
a conspicuous addition. Galen himself 100 years later commended this over and above Philonium,
which was, however, both prophylactic and therapeutic. Galene was much used as a panacea in
the Middle Ages from India to Europe, where it went under the names of "theriac of Andromachus"
or "Venice treacle". The Renaissance revival of the Classics, and doubtless the frequency of
poisoning at Renaissance courts, brought a revival in the reputation of such theriacs as antidotes
too. Cf. C.E. Daniels, (1911), 457-465. Interestingly, the inventory of the estate of the poet,
LSmi'i Celebi, who died in 938/1531-2 or later, (Bursa Jer'iye Sicilleri A 191/797, 39-42] lists
theriacs of various sorts, among enough spices, drugs and scents almost to furnish an
apothecary's stock on their own Cf. I.E. Eriinsal, (1990), 179-92
l7
Aksem$eddin (d. 864/1459-60)(cf. EJ.W. Gibb, History of Ottoman Poetry, ed. E.G. Browne,
volume 11 (London; 1902), 138-40) though, apparently, a descendant of Shiluib al-Din Suhrawardi
and ultimately a member of the Bayramiye tarikat, was an eminent 'alim who, on arriving in
Anatolia, was appointed mUderris of a medrese at Osmancik in Paphlagonia. A favourite of
Mehmed II he was also famous for his medical skill, though the name of the theriac does not
necessarily mean that he invented it himself.
18
Watson, (1966), 46 ff
'® Curiously, in Christophoro Acosta's treatise (1585) on plants and drugs introduced from the
Indies, a version of the better known treatise of Garcia da Orta (Markham, (1913)), the standard use
of opium in theriacs is not noted either.
occasionally are certain entries obviously corrupt, or possibly sheer mistakes.

Identifications are, however, not always certain, even when all allowance is made
for the unfamiliarity of apothecaries with certain imported substances. There are
many reasons for this. Some of the dangerous drugs or compounds would have
had misleadingly euphemistic names. Hie names of drugs, or the drugs they
signified, changed over time, and the problems apothecaries faced in interpreting
the classical Greek, Persian, Turkish and Arabic terms were compounded by the
rarity of contemporary glossaries giving the Arabic, Persian, Turkish and,
possibly most important, the popular equivalents. Drugs, moreover, were often
best described by their effects which inevitably overrode their physical
appearance: that must have made it difficult for even an experienced druggist to
identify them. There were also well known cruces, practically from the time of
Dioscorides on, in cases where the same name was given to two quite different
drugs, or where the same drug was obtained from plants of quite different genera.
Though in many cases it has been possible to guess the meaning because one
sense is more congruous there remain a number of problems which historians of
pharmacology have not been able to resolve, and some terms, indeed, have
resisted translation altogether20.
Only the entries in the inventory which include references to drugs, etc.
are given here.21 In the transcription when ve is used to link items in a list rather
than indicating a compound it is replaced by a semi-colon. Ve is not used
systematically in the Ottoman text and its absence on occasion has led Barkan
erroneously to assume that adjacent words are linked by Persian izafet.
41. A preserve of manna, possibly that from the camel-thorn, Hedysarum

alhagi, Alhagi maurorum, Leguminosae, (B. no. 198) and mint 22 . A possible
alternative reading for terencubin is turunc ve ancubin/citton (Citrus Medica) and
honey, possibly an interesting local precursor of Oxford marmalade, but
presumably stocked here for medical purposes.
42. An electuary of Mekka senna [Cassia acutifolia, Leguminosae, (B.

no. 895) known as true senna or Alexandrian senna] and lime or lemon 23 . The
term }arab does not necessarily imply that the liquid was alcoholic.
20
Por the record these include ilbii [Iblis] dirnagt ("Satan's claw"); khandir; 'uibad; habbU'l-ans,
karhi; kulb; pulmk kadarmiz ¡katramizk and ¡sadramiiym.
2
' T h e basic sources for the equivalents given below are Bedevian (1938) [B.]; the anonymous
"Dioscorides Triumphans", Dietrich, (1988) [Di.]; Dioscorides, Materia Medica, Dubler
(I955)[D.J; Hony, (1957) [ H J ; Jabir, Siggel (1958) [J.J; the Aqrabadhin of aJ-Kindi, Levey,
(1966)[K.]; al-Samarqaodi, Levey and al-Khaledi, (1967) [Sa.]; Mabberley, 0987) [M.]; Tutifat al-
AlbSb, Renaud and Colin, (1934) IT.]; Steingass, (1892) fS.]. When the sources conflict that is
indicated.
11
Terencubm ve na'ne murabban. Taraajubin (Sa. 202, n, 248; T. no. 259, s.v. "mann")
23
Si«a-i Mekki ve limn ¡arahi
278 Michael ROGERS
44. Emblic myrobalans 24 [Phyllanthus emblica, Euphorbiaceae, (B. no.

2653)], used in tanning (K. no. 22). They were held to be styptic, anti-diarrhoeic
and a light purgative
45. "Satan's claws"; anise [Arabic, shabath]15. The two could have been
separate, or a concoction.
46. Wormwood [Artemisia judaica or A. Santonicum, Compositae,

(B.nos. 487,490)]; galbanum [Ferula galbaniflua, Umbelliferae, (B. no. 1610a)];
and bitter aloes (Arabic, sabrj16
53. Root of Valeriana Phu [ or V. Dioscorides (B. no. 3550; K. no.

301)], a stomachic; an empty box. 27
55. A laxative; Galen's stomachic or digestive 28 , actually Galene, a form

of theriac 29 . Jawarish in Samarqandi's recipes were mostly composed of three
sorts of pepper, black, white and long
57. Handir; a medicinal preparation of musk. 30 For the former possibly

understand (S.) khandarus/frumenty, and Triticum dicoccum, Gramineae is listed
in the Materia Medica of Dioscorides (Di. I, no. 99). Its appearance here may be
an oblique indication of sources of ergot, a violent abortifacient and a product of
fungus infection of rye. Deva-i misk is given in 'Ali b. Rabban al-Tabari's
Firdaws al-Hikma31 as a complex preparation of Indian and Persian Malabathrum
[Cinnamomum citriodorum, Lauraceae, (B. no. 1038)] Cyperus rotundus,
Ocimum pilosum (hairy basil, afranjamushk or Frankish musk), Sison ammi
[=Carum copticum, Umbelliferae, (B. no. 881)] celery seeds, anise, fragrant tree
lichen (ushna), Soqotrine aloes, wormwood, dodder, saffron, myrrh, garden
Melissa and musk. These were prepared with wine, balsam and honey to make a
digestive.
24
Emlec
25
llbiz [Ibtis] dirnagi; sibid
Hurasani; kasni; sabur
21
Asl-ifu; hali kuli
2
®Mushil; cuvarif-i Calinus
29
See above, note 6
^Handir; deva-i misk
31
Siggel, (1958), 217. Jibir, however, (Siggel, (1958), 217-18: text VI, 168b, 176a, 177b) gives a
different receipt: turmeric, Doronicum, coriander, Ocimum pilosum, garden Melissa, pearls and
amber, coral and raw silk (sic), red carrot or beetroot, Malabathrum, nard, cardamums, cloves,
white lichen, bastard pepper, ginger and peppercorns. Raw silk (cf. also the Palace inventory of
981/1573-74 below) is given in T , no. 41
THE PALACE,. POISONS AND THE PUBLIC 279
Other medicinal preparations (dawa) are given in Jabir's formulary using

pepper or assafoetida as a base. For the latter see no. 71 below
59. Gum arabic [from Acacia arabica var. nilotica, Leguminosae, (B.no.
33), used inter alia, as a dentifrice (K. no. 19)1; benzoin, [though Samarqandi
understands salikha as cassia [Cinnamomum Cassia, (B. no. 1037)]; eupatorium
[Arabic, ghafath, Eupatorium cannabinum, Compositae, (B. no. 1570) a specific
against fevers and agues]; Mecca myrrh [Commiphora abyssinica or C. myrrha,
Burseraceae, (B. nos. 1135,1139; K. no. 283)], which were held to be astringent,
antispasmodic and antiputrescent 32 . This could be an interesting indication of the
incense trade in Ottoman Edime 3 3 , though myrrh was also used as a purgative
and eupatorium was not used in incense.
63. Cornelian cherry preserve 34 [cf. Di.I, no. 95]
64. Galene theriac; a balance and [its] box 35
65. Jabir's theriac 36 , composed of four simples — Gentian, berries of the

sweet bay, Aristolochia longa and myrrh 3 7 ; raw [?] aloes wood [Aquilaria
Malaccensis, Thymelaceae, formerly known as Aloexylon Agallochum (B., no.
228, who erroneously states it to belong to the Leguminosae; K. no. 210] [in] a
box; an empty pot
66. 'Azbad and a pot [for it]; bitter almonds (Di. I, no. 99) 3 8 . The first
term gives no satisfactory sense. Barkan suggests avsepid/tisabid, S. (also avfin),
a sort of water-lily, [probably Nymphaea alba, or else Nelumbium speciosum,
the Egyptian lotus, both Nymphaeaceae (B. no. 2396; Meyerhof, no. 103)], and
the Palace lists below show that water lilies were consumed, for whatever reason,
in quite enormous quantities. Avsepid/usabid could, however, be a euphemism or
corruption for isfidac (from Persian ab-i sapid, white lead or ceruse), which
appears in the Palace lists and which was a notorious poison but which was also
used (K. no. 8) as an astringent.
Âkakya; saliha; ga/et; miirr-i Mekki

33
Hans Paumgartner, edited Miiller, (1934), 103-122, is one of the few post-mediaeval European
sources to deal with the incense trade, though it was obviously no less important in this later
period than in earlier centuries.
^Kizilak murabbasi
it
Calinus; mizan ve kun
36
Tiryak-i erba'a; 'ud-i ham ve kuti; hokka-i hali.
37
cf. K. no. 98; JSbir-Siggel, 219; text VI, 171a, 176b, !77b, 188b
38,
azbad [?] ve hokka; levz-i miirr
280 Michael ROGERS
69. Jars or pots of rose-water and grape wine or grape juice, evidently a
container of each 39 . The combined valuation, which is by far the highest in the
whole inventory of the stock, must be accounted for by the rose water, evidently
highly concentrated attar of roses, the production of which is still a major
industry in Thrace. Grape juice (K. no. 207) was a favourite vehicle for potions,
though wine, like vinegar, also had numerous medical uses.
71. A medicinal preparation of Assafoetida [Ferula Assa foetida,

Umbelliferae,(B. no. 1609)], cf. no. 57 above; a piece of red marble or
porphyry 40 . The recipe given by Jabir for the assafoetida confection 41 contains
assafoetida, Nigella sativa, pepper and cresses with honey.
73. Sandalwood (K. no. 183), used as an astringent and to purify the
urinary tract, as well as an incense; a compound of various scents 42
75. Carrot preserve; apple juice 43
77. Rubus leaves [S. dar, blackberry; Di. no. 33)]; some unspecified
plant 44 . For the latter possibly understand nabat(i), from 'ilk al-Anbat, Nabataean
gum or gum of the terebinth tree [Pistacia terebinthus or P. vera, Anacardiaceae,
(B.no.2721-22)]
78. Pills, grains or seeds; a ladle 45 . ANS has not been conclusively
identified. Possibly, understand anasta (S. galangale), or anasun, anise
[Pimpinella Anisum, Umbelliferae, (B. no. 2683)].
79. Sandalwood; a stomachic or tonic of pepper, cf. no. 55 above; a

medicinal preparation of musk, cf. no. 57 above 46 .
80. Stavesacre; onion seed; cannabis; "marine" sugar (perhaps from the
Nile, bahr al-Nil)47. Mevizec (literally, small grapes or currants) was one of
Jabir's major poisons, Delphinium staphysagria, Ranunculaceae (B. no. 1380) a
powerful insecticide and rodent poison. The Persian mavizak is a caique upon the
Greek staphys agria (wild grape), which also gives the English term, stavesacre.
39
Hokka-i gulab; ¡arab-i 'unnab Cf. al-Kindi's Kimiya al- 7/r, trans Garters, (1948)
i0
Deva-i hiliil; mermer-i somaki
41
Jabir-Siggel 215; text VI, 171a. 181a, etc.
42
SanM~ •aburlabir}
43
Havuf murabbasi; ¡arab-i luffah
44
Varak-i der; nabat
A5
HabbU l-ans; kefgir
46
Sandal; ciivari}; deva-i misk
^Mevizec; tohm-i piyaz; hafi}; kandi bahri. Onion in these formularies is not clearly
distinguished from squill, Urginea maritima, Liliaceae, an irritant (B. no. 3326; K. no. 12)
THE PALACE, POISONS AND THE PUBLIC 281
81. Small bits of black or chebulic myrobalans [Tenninalia chebuia,

Combretaceae, (Bedevian, no. 3368)]; henbane seeds, a powerful narcotic48. Dried
chebulic myrobalans were also widely used in tanning to give a soft yellow
leather.
83. Cannabis; turbith [Ipomaea Turpethum, Convolvulaceae, (B. no.

1939)]49. BWS, given the Turkish izafel, could be a toponym.
84. Itrifil (from Latin Trifolium); linseed; melilot [seed], an astringent,

mostly applied; daisy [seed]; chicory root (A. no. 188), prescribed by al-Kindi
inter alia for madness] 50 . Samarqandi (Sa. 184 n. 94) gives itrifl as a confection
of the three sorts of myrobalan, chabulic, emblic and belieric [this last
Terminalia bellerica, Combretaceae, Arabic balilaj, S. balil, (B. no. 3366)].51
85. Cummin (Nigella sativa, Ranuncuaceae) or Dill-seed; "Cyprus" 52

vitriol; storax [most probably, the Levantine Liquidambar styraciflua,
Hamamelidaceae, (B. no. 2115 K. no. 299)]; mustard [-seed] (K.no. 39);
ginger 53 . Mustard seed was mostly used, not, as in the West, as a condiment, but
as an irritant or rubefacient. al-Kindi also states that it was used in the
adulteration of violet oil.
86. Karhi, meaning unknown but possibly a contraction for 'aqirkarha,

[Anacyclus Pyrethrum (Di. Ill, 69)]; Baccae Lauri, berries of the bay tree [Lauras
nobilis, Lauraceae]; small amounts of unlabelled stuff; oil of watercress,
Nasturtium aquaticum, Cruciferae, [Arabic, sadhab]54. This last is a major crux,
however, since in the Aqrabadhin (K. no. 139) sadhab is rue, Ruta graveolens,
Rutaceae, (B. no. 3019) used as a tonic and digestive and as a principal ingredient
in the theriac, Mithridatium. It is also given as a major vegetable poison in
Jabir's compendium.
87. Cummin seed; myrtle leaves; orris root; Greek honey [possibly
Hymettus] honey; small amounts of unlabelled stuff. 55
Hurdevat-i helile-i siyah; bezr-i bene

i9
Ha}i}\ mSlberjjdiirbidi
50
Itrifil; bezr-i kelen; iklilU'l-melik; papadya; hindiiba kotii
5I
B . (no. 2275) for ifrifat gives bog-bean, Menyanthes trifoliata, Gentianaceae, but this does not
appear in the pharmacopoeias:.
52
"Cypras" may suggest Copper sulphate rather than iron or zinc sulphate, but Siggel remarks
(J. 215) that zaj was usually a mixture of the three, figuring among Jabir's mineral poisons.
si
T0hm-i (Orek; zac-i Kibriz; mat [read Arabic mai'a]; hardal; zencebil
54
Karhi I ?/; habbU'l gar; hurdevat; diUm-i sezab
55
A[emmtin; berk-i mers'm; benefye kskil; Yunan ball; hurdevat
282 Michael ROGERS
88. Arsenic 56 — or some sort of extract from a plant — in a [glass]

sprinkler; a small [Iznik] blue and white glazed pottery container.
89. [?] Triticum dicoccum, Gramineae [see above, no. 57]; dodder; small
amounts of unlabelled stuff 57 . Dodder, [Cuscuta Epithymum, Convolvulaceae,
(B. no. 1290)] was used (K.no. 18) as a remedy for flatulence and to purify the
blood. The species in question owes its name Epithymum, and possibly its
occasional use for "thyme", to the fact that it is parasitic on thyme.
90. Quince juice; oil of jasmine or some other sweet-smelling flower; oil
of Nasturtium or oil of rue 58 .
91. Bits of turbith and Alexandrian senna [evidently mixed, making a

powerful purgative]; jasmine oil; oil of Pavonia arabica, Malvaceae [B. no.
2571]; small amounts of unlabelled stuff 59 . If ka' r is read instead of kar' one
could understand oil from the seeds of the pumpkin, Cucurbita maxima, (B. no.
1270), which was used as a vermifuge
92. Seed of chamomile-flowers [S. employed as an insecticide (A. no.

39) and a mouse repellent (M. s.v.)]; some unspecified scent; either a type of
aloes wood [Aquilaria agallocha, Thymelaeaceae, used not only as incense but as
a much valued antiseptic in skin diseases (K. no. 240)] or fragrant wood of the
Balsam tree [more probably, the resin, Mecca balsam, Commiphora
opobalsamum, Burseraceae, (B. no. 1140)] as used in Jabir's recipe (J. 217) for
Mithridatium [see no. 95 below]; an empty pot 60
93. Dragon's blood [resin of Dracaena Draco (B. no. 1462) or D. cinnabari,
Agavaceae, or else of Calamus Draco, Palmae, (B. no. 782) the rattan]; mace;
cardamum; mint-lettuce [? understand mint and lettuce, in this case, seed of each:
alternatively, read al-hass, (Imperial or special)]; a small amount of Galene
theriac 61 . Dragon's blood was employed as a styptic and haemostatic and was
also an important ingredient of certain varnishes
94. Berries of the bay-tree; preserves of wild carrot or parsnip [Pastinaca

Schekakul, Umbelliferae, (B. no. 2567); K. no. 170, considered a be an
5
^Sifan oiu ve kumkuma; fini hokka-i sagir. Sic, (H.) though i/pan otu could obviously be a
popular name for a herb.
57
Handir; eftimun; hurdevat
CO
°Ayva ¡arabi; duhn-i zanbak; diihn-i sezab
59
Tiirbid hurdasi ve sina-i Mekki; diihn-i yasemin; diihn-i kar' : hurdevat
Tóhm-i gSv babmeci; boy (bu i); 'ud-i balsami; hnkka-i hali
Dammii'l-ahaveyn,• basbase; kakule; na ne al-hass; hurde Calinus
THE PALACE, POISONS AND THE P U B L I C 283
aphrodisiac]; red wine (S.), doubtless for medicinal purposes; an empty pot;
small amounts of unlabelled things62
95. A compound of myrobaians, cf. no. 84 above; skink [an aphrodisiac,

(cf. K. no 143) but also an important ingredient of of theriac, notably of
Mithridatium]; spikenard, [Nardostachys Jatamansi, Valerianaceaes (B. no.
2386)]; black Anatolian [?] myrobaians (cf. no. 84 above); kulb; celery root, or
possibly celeriac 63 . The recipe given by Jabir for Mithridatium64 is very much
an omnium gatherum: myrrh, Agaricum, ginger, cinnamon, saffron, alum,
incense, Babylonian cress, lemon grass (Andropogon schoenanthus), Balsam
berries and leaves, seseli (some species of Umbellifer), Ferula Narthex, peppers,
liquid storax, opopanax, Malabathrum, costus, terebinth gum (Arabic, 'ilq al-
Anbat), pepper, Teucrium, Asplenium Ceterach, Celtic carrot, parsley,
cardamine, fennel seed, gentian, Origanum Dictamnus, anise, Hypericum, the
innards and salt of skinks, asarabacca, sagapenum (Ferula persica), opium, wild
rue, galangale [Alpinia Galanga, Zingiberaceae, (B. no. 234)], horehound
[Marrubium vulgare, Labiatae (B. no. 2221)], Potentilla reptans, caraway (Sison
ammi), bay berries and citron.
96. (Indian) coconut; a red root vegetable 65 ; Agaricum [Polyporus

officinalis, a type of bracket fungus parasitic upon larch trees and imported from
the Volga area, widely prescribed but supposed by Ibn Sina also to be
alexipharmacic, (cf. K. no. 214)]; a type of rose or other flower; an empty pot;
small amounts of unlabelled stuff.
97. An empty pot; chicory root; fumitory [Corydalis spp., Papaveraceae,

(K. no. 289)]; putrak, [meaning unknown but possibly a corruption of Arabic
btarmiqi, Achillea Ptarmica (cf. Di. II, no: 146) or of pulcnk (S.), pennyroyal];
berries of the bay-tree; grains of poplar resin [read Arabic hawwar (K. no. 85)],
from Populus alba, used to treat sciatica and strangury66.
98. Berries of the sweet bay and [seeds of] Nasturtium aquaticum, or of
Ruta graveolens; "Mecca essence", evidently a proprietory compound; "marine"
galangale root, [Galanga officinalis, Zingiberaceae, (B. no. 1668)] sc. brought by
^Habbii'l-gar; fakakul murabbasi; ¡arab-i Dinari; halihokka ve hurde

Itrifii; ¡akankur; sunblil-i Hindi; kelile-i siyak-i Rumi; kulb /?); ka' r-i kereviz
64
Mitriditfls, VJ 168b, 176a, 178b, 180 a, etc., Sigge! 217
^Cevz-i Hindi; behmen-i ehmer; sandal; garikun; verd-i Manije; halt kokka; kurdevat. The
identification of behmen (variously radish, beetroot, carrot) is still disputed. Sprengel, (1807-
1808) suggests that white behmen should be Centaurea behen, Composite, (B, no. 937, ak
behmen) and ted behmen Umonium sp., Piumbaginaceae, (B. no. 3307, kirmui behmen).
^Halihokka; asl-i hindiba; jahtere; putrak; habbt'l-gar; beirii'l-ljure IfutreJ
284 Michael ROGERS
sea from the Far East, or possibly from Egypt, cf. qand-i bahri and mumiya-i
bahri in the Palace lists; small amounts of unlabelled stuff 67
99. Colchicum [(B. no. 1122; K. no. 158) the alkaloid colchicine is a
powerful if dangerous pain-killer and was much used in the treatment of gout];
sweet Cyperus [Cyperus longus, Cyperaceae, (B. no. 1331; K. no. 143)] violet-
scented; cress seed or rue seed; sea salt; basil seed; a small amount of cress- or
rue-seed 6 8 . An infusion of Ocimum basilicum, Labiatae, (cf. K. no. 16), was
recommended for gonorrhoea and kidney complaints.
100. Grains of arsenic; pure myrrh; kadarmiz, "tureen" [?], meaning

unknown, but possibly from Arabic qatr, "drop" and Persian mikhtan "to make
water", hence a green-coloured diuretic; Ak$emseddin's theriac.69
101. Sour pomegranates 70
103. Syrian wild carrot or parsnip [Pastinaca Schekakul, Umbelliferae,

(B.no. 2567)]; vessels with oil of roses and rose-water; miscellaneous bits of
stuff 71
104. A red root vegetable; assafoetida; wild carrot seeds [S.diUu; Latin
Daucus, (B. nos. 1371-73; K. no. 104], prescribed as an emollient, carminative
and diuretic; grains of balm of Gilead [either Commiphora opobalsamum,
Burseraceae, or perhaps gum storax, Liquidambar orientalis, Hamamelidaceae];
Paeonia officinalis, Ranunculaceae, (B. no. 2516; T. no. 3180, an astringent)72.
105. "Sparrows' tongues" [with numerous, not obviously congruous,

equivalents, but probably the stamens of .safflower, Arabic 'usfur Carthamus
tinctorius, Compositae, (B. no. 877)]; tonic pills; Egyptian pomegranate flowers
(K. no.65), prescribed as an astringent 73 . Bedevian (no. 1649) gives lisan al-
'a?fur as the manna ash, Fraxinus Ornus, Oleaceae
106. An empty box; marshmallow seed [Arabic hitmi, Althaea

officinalis, Malvaceae, (B. no. 245)]; melilot [seed]; small amounts of unlabelled
stuff 74
67
Habbii'l-gar ve sezab; ociz-i Mekki; miist-i bahri; hurdevat
^Sürencar [surancänI; su ' d; tähm-i sezab; milh-i Enderani; töhm-ifeslegen; sezab hurdesi
Habb-i zernih; murr-i soft; kadarmiz/katarmiz [?-i] sebi; tìiyak-i Akjemseddin
Rumman-i hamid
7
' fakakul-i $ami; hokka ve diihn-ì verd ve giilab; hurde
72
Behmen [cf. no. 96]; hiltit; bezr-i luki ; habb-i belesan; 'udU'l-salib
73
Usan-i 'usfur; habb-i mukawi; gülnar-i Misri
I^Hali ¡tuli ve bezr-i halmi [hatmih/, iklil-i melik; hurdevät
109. Bastard cardamum 75 , [Lagoecia cuminoides, Umbelliferae, (Sa. 229,

n. 434; T. no. 340; B. no. 2010)], widely used (M. s.v.) as an abortifacient; rose
petals (S.); shells of the seed of the Ban or Ben tree [Moringa aptera,
Moringaceae, (B. no. 2335; K. no. 32) which gives an oil used in soap-making
or for salads]; [?] gripe water; "green pills or seeds". Though Steingass gives al-
habba al-khatfra as an Arabic equivalent of vendane in the Arabic Materia Medica
(cf. Di. I, no. 35) the term was applied to the unripe fruit of Pistachia
terebinthus.
110. A preserve of cloves, kabili [Embelia ribes, Myrsinaceae (B. no.

1505)], a vermifuge, and mint; soap 76
111. Dodder; Armenian bole, a widely used astringent, for wounds or

stomach complaints; small pieces of some unidentifiable drug; seeds or pills for
a philtre [S. tule]v
112. Berries of Physalis Alkekenji, Solanaceae, the winter cherry (Sa.

221, no. 384), rich in salicylic acid, but also held to be a narcotic; seed of
coltsfoot, [Arabic su'ala/su'ali, Tussilago Farfara, Compositae (B. no 2305)], for
coughs and asthma; red coral; sandalwood 78 . Coral (K. no. 38) had numerous
medical uses.
113. Marshmallow seeds (Althaea officinalis, Malvaceae); an iron pot;

rose syrup; violet paste 79 .
The lists of drugs in palace accounts published by the late Omer LutfT
Barkan are in many respects a striking contrast being so comprehensive, that
they could almost have been ordered by an apothecary with a pharmacopoeia in
his hand. Although many of them are spices or seasonings or even of culinary
importance their appearance in these lists all together makes it probable that the
primary reason for their inclusion here was medical, not gastronomic. The drugs
are mostly ingredients or simples so that it is generally unclear which particular
'Kurtuman [kardamana]; giilbez; kesru'l-vendane; ebirenc [abranc]; habbii'l hadr. T. no. 340,
also gives, incongruously, kurtuman, wild oats or tares: the scribe, or the apothecary, must
simply have confused the two. Possibly, however, it may be a corruption of kurl
bojan/wolfsbane, the well known poison Aconitum Lycoctonum, Ranunculaceae, and a much
esteemed drug in Ottoman Turkey (cf. Busbecq, Letters, 208) which one would certainly have
expected an apothecary in Edime to have stocked.
7
®Karanfil ve kabili vena'na murabbast; sabun
77
Aftinin [ctftimunj; lin-i Ermeni; hurde isadramityun: bezr-i dale
n
Habb-i kakenc (S.kaknaj); habb-i suar [su '61]; mercon-i dinner; sandal
^Bezr-i hatmi: hokka~i ahen; sprab-i verd; benefit hamiresi
286 M i c h a e l ROGERS
prescriptions they were intended for, though the absence of some of the principal
ingredients for theriacs suggests that these may have been bought ready made up.
The valuations in the Edirne inventory, which presumably did not have to
allow for obsolescence or deterioration, are so low that the quantities, which are
not given, must have been small too. Most entries average less than 50 ak(e,
that is well below the valuations of the larger pots or crocks, hokkas and
kumkumas, whatever material they may have been made of, or of the two rose-
water stills valued at 192 akge and ISO ak(e respectively. In the case of the Palace
inventories, quantities are mostly given, in okkas or in dirhams, which suggests
the possibility of distinguishing between materials for the Helvahane or the
Sultan's kitchen and materials for the pharmacy. Thus, the 962/1554-55 list 8 0
gives chicory, cinnamon, ginger, mastic, capers, fennel, celery and barberries, all
several okkas of each, the rest of the entries being mostly in small quantities of
between 50 and 200 dirhams each and proportionately more expensive. The even
more complete 981/1573-74 list 81 makes broadly similar distinctions. Though
distinctions by quantity are not adequate to separate clearly medicines from
spices, flavourings and scents 14 okkas of frankincense (gunliik-i sefid) and 2
okkas of ladanum are a plausible indication of the importance and frequency of
fumigations in the Palace.
Some of the quantities given are, however, suspicious or puzzling.
Particularly curious are 33 okkas of poppy seeds (evidently a condiment

for bread), 2,500 poppy heads (hafhaf), and 3,645 dirhams of opium as well,
almost as if it was entirely taken for granted that food from the kitchens gave rise
to digestive troubles. 82 Other quantities seem vastly too large, such as 52,300
fresh waterliiies (niliifer) 83 ; 3 okkas of castoreum; 11 okkas and 125 dirhams of
maidenhair fern {persiyavân); 100 okkas of Polypodium ( b e t f a y i c ) . And the
relative quantities of some other items need explanation: 5 okkas of long
birthwort (zeravend-i tavil) but only 200 dirhams of the round variety (though
that cost markedly more weight for weight); and 83 miirekkeb [S."a type of
orange"] and packets (deste) of gold and silver leaf but only 3 dirhams each of
ginger and cinnamon — which must be a scribal error. 84
80
Barkan, (1979), 77-80, covering the period I Muharram 962 -12 Ramad&n 962/ 26 November
1554 - 31 July 1555. Accounts for (he New Palace (i.e. Topkapi Saray), the Eski Saray, the
Helvahane and two bakeries
81
Barkan, <1979), 118-23
From poppy heads an intoxicating, if medically useful, infusion, koknar, was made, and the
confectioners of Afyon Karahisar still advertise poppy head lokum.
83
And 56 okkas of waterliiies in the 1554-55 list
8
*Such must also be the case with 100 dirhams of fish roes (mlirg-i mahi). The Ottoman Sultans
were no strangers to caviare, but not as medicine and not on such a parsimonious scale.
Accounts for the Imperial kitchens for the year 895/1489-9085 mention
miscellaneous medicines issued to the Imperial physicians to the tune of 559
akfe. From this date at least, therefore, the medicine stores were a part of the
kitchens, more specifically of the Helvahane-i Amire. Although practically all
Ottoman inventories of whatever sort have intrusive items the lists of drugs have
practically none, though quite a few of them are poisons, doubtless on the quite
comprehensible grounds that most poisoning, either deliberate or accidental,
must have originated in the kitchens, so that the medicines and antidotes had
better be there too.
The ingredients listed in mid-16th century accounts for the Helvahane 86

fall into four broad groups, (a) Fruit, etc., for preserves, fruit pastes and jellies
(pestil and palude): sugar, honey, almonds, vinegar, black and white grapes,
apricots, plums, citrons, sweet cherries, tart pears, eggs, flour, starch, lemons,
lemon-juice, melons, olive oil, sesame seed oil, rock-salt, Morello cherries, figs,
black mulberries and unripe grapes (gäre).
(b) Spices and condiments: saffron, pepper, ginger, mastic, anise,

cinnamon, sumak, cloves.
(c) Drugs, seeds, etc., mostly in very small quantities: asarabacca, chicory
[root], caper-root (basal-i kebre), fennel-root, barberries, celery-root or celeriac,
chicory seeds, terra sigillata, QR QRHa 8 7 , castoreum, opium poppy,
Malabathrum (sadec), manna (tereitcubin), [gum-]lac, arrow root (ararud),
cardamums 88 , bay berries, valerian (fu), Babylon cress (huif-i Babili), 'usare,
antimony, myrtle berries (miird done), orchis (for salep), "medical claws" (sic:
atfär al-tib), Jew's pitch [Arabic, asfaltüs, bitumen, (Di. I, no. 38)], hare- or
rabbit-droppings (ters-i tav§cm) emblic myrobalans, parsley-seed, melon-seeds,
ANGLK (possibly, iglik, from S. angilina, angelica, for confectionery), Chinese
rhubarb, opium, Mecca myrrh, liquorice, orache or wild beet (pan), hyssop
[Arabic züfä, (Di. III, no. 27)], celery-seed, linseed, tamarind, pomegranate
flowers and mustard89.
(d) Scents and fragrant gums: spikenard (sunbiil), storax or frankincense

(giinlUk-i sefid), almond oil, lavender [ustuhudus, (Dietrich, III, no. 28)] and
85
Barkan, (1979), 90-92
86
cf. note 80 above
87
'aqirqarha, Anacyclus Pyrethrum, Compositae, (Di. Ill, no. 69) cf. no. 86 in Ihe Edirne
inventory; alternatively, (S.) aqri kohän, Arum Dracunculus/Dracunculus vulgaris, (B. no. 1465)
*%amame, Amomum spp., Zingiberaceae, (B. nos. 288-95); but also, perhaps incongruously,
identified (T. no. 165) as Cissus vitigenea, Ampelidaceae
89
2 0 okkas, so possibly used for culinary purposes as well.
288 Michael ROGERS
fresh roses, both in large quantities so evidently for distilling, fresh violets, and
a pod of musk.
Hie break-down is somewhat artificial, but all the entries under (c) appear
in the standard Arabic pharmacopoeias. Some items, evidently afterthoughts,
occur more than once. TTiere is no apparent system in the listing. 90
The most interesting item here is ararud, 100 dirham. This must be
arrowroot, a fine starch now obtained from the roots of members of the
Marantaceae, principally from Maranta arundinacea [=Phrynium variegatum, (B.,
no. 2212)]. These are New World species, though there are Old World species of
Maranta and the product is obtainable from other Old World plants. The name,
however, derives from the Aruak Indian "aru aru" (meal of meals), which
indicates that the New World name, even if not the New World product, was
familiar in mid-16th century Ottoman Turkey. Why, however, arrowroot should
be represented when the standard introductions from the Americas, mostly
Solanaceae, which figure in most European herbals by the mid-16th century 91 do
not is very strange.
A list in the accounts for the Helvahane-i Amire for 981/May 1573 - April
1574 92 , evidently just before the disastrous fire which totally destroyed the
Imperial kitchens in the Topkapi Saray is even more complete. This appears to
contain no comestibles at all 93 . The break-down is as follows.
' two items have resisted translation: rastin kdkii and 'usare. This last is from the Arabic root, to
extract the juice from something. It could therefore be a general term for "extract". Steingass,
however, gives for 'usare a tree yielding a gum or manna and possibly therefore the manna ash
[Fraxinus Omus, Oleaceae (B. no. 1650)]. That would explain why the substance sukkar-i 'usare,
occurs in the lists. Siggel (J„ 217), however, suggests Calotropis procera, Asclepiadaceae (M..
s.v.), the inedible fruits of which yield a strong fibre used in Africa as chewing sticks. Other
species yield latexes like gutta percha, some very probably poisonous. Though the; flowers of C.
gigantea are candied by the Chinese in none of these latter cases does the terrof'sugar" actually
apply.
Accounts for the same year (Barkan, (1979), 80-81) also contain a break down of medicines and
drags supplied to the Helvahane-i Amire and for despatch to Amasya. These comprise (a) spices,
condiments, etc. — saffron, mastic, black cumun, ladanum [Cistus ladaniferus, Cistaceae (B. no.
1053; K. no. 270)] used, inter alia, as a dentifrice; (b) drugs — Agaricum (2 okkas), opium (3
okkas), white manna [S-iirkhisht] (8 okkas), clove-flavoured asarabacca (asarun), terra sigillata
(13 okkas), valerian (fu), Armenian bole, cucumber-seeds, water melon seeds, alum, black hemp,
carrots, fennel and fennel-water. The list, which totals less than half of the main list, is
evidently a series of afterthoughts, which makes, however, the total amount of opium ordered
quite remaitable.
91
cf. Mommies, (¡619), Lopez, (1945), 221-
92
Barkan, (1979), 118-23
93
Most interestingly it is much more complete than a recently published prescription book from
the Topkapi Saray Archives (number not given) also for the Helvahane-i Amire, the earliest entry
in which is dated I017/I608-9 and the latest entry is dated 1181/1767-68, cf. Terzioglu (1992).
This contains receipts for theriaka, Mithridatium, syrups (iarab), pills, powders, cordials,
cosmetics and soaps, many attributed to particular doctors in the service of earlier Sultans. When
THE P A L A C E , POISONS AND THE PUBLIC 289
(a) Dyestuffs and mordants: oak-galls (mazu), indigo (givid), cochineal

(kirmiz)— local, or conceivably Mexican, but not lac, alum
(b) Poisons: white lead, red lead (murdesenk), much used, however, in
Ottoman carpentry and cabinet-making to protect timber against woodworm,
vitriol (zac), stavesacre (mevizek, Delphinium staphysagria: three separate
entries, perhaps to deal with mice or cockroaches in the kitchens which can
hardly have been vermin-free), soapwort94, deadly fungi (S.futr-i Rumi). Among
the other drugs were many which must also have been dangerous, but the above
substances rightly or wrongly, figured as poisons in contemporary Islamic and
European pharmacopoeias and would not have been stocked in large quantities by
a druggist except as such. 95
(c) Spices and condiments: saffron, ginger, cinnamon, long pepper (dar
fulfil), cloves, cardamon both large and small [kakule, Elettaria cardamomum,
Zingiberaceae, (B. no. 1500)], nutmeg, anise, cumin and mace, and gold and
silver leaf for confectionery.
(d) scents and fragrant resins: musk, ambergris, red roses, Chios roses,
dried and fresh, aloes-wood, spikenard, Indian spikenard [sadec or Malabathrum],
ladanum, myrrh, white and red sandal-wood, orris-root, violets, fresh and dried
(e) drugs: rhubarb, fresh water-lilies (Nymphaea alba, or else Nelumbium

sp.), 52,300 of them, opium (3645 dirham), celery-root, chicory-root, fennel-
root, chicory seed, fennel seed, watermelon seed, watercress seed (Nasturtium
aquaticum) or rue seed, maidenhair fern [persiyavfan, Adiantum capillus Veneris,
Polypodiaceae, (B. no. 114; Di. IV, no. 123)], onion seed, carrot seed, asparagus
seed, opium poppy seed, nettle seed [encere, Urtica pillulifera, Urticaceae, (B. no.
3535; Prosper Alpin, 182-83; Di. IV, no. 82)], cucumber seed, potash (K. no.
13), mint-water, linseed, fresh-mint, Sison ammi or Ammi visnaga [nanha,
nanhawah, (T. no. 284; Di. Ill, no. 59)], fumitory (bui, (S. buya), turnip seed,
absinthe [Artemisia sp., (K. no. 17)], terebinth gum ( 'ilkul-anbat), narcissus-
flowers [5. zerrinkade, (Di. IV, no. 147)], leopard's bane [Doronicum
Pardalianches, (B. no. 1454; K, no. 99)], white, and red, carrots (behmen), pitch
(Di. I, no. 36). valerian, a stomachic, Anemone (K.no. 24), germander
it was actually written cannot be precisely established for it is mainly in well-written naskhi in a
single hand, hence not by successive palace physicians. As a result we cannot say how the
prescriptions evolved over time, but there is a strong probability that complexity took the place
of efficacity, on the principle of when in doubt add another drug—like the contents listed on the
jars of rnacm now advertised at bus stations all over Turkey as quickening the sexual appetite.
^kundiise, possibly Gypsophila Struthium (B. no. 1765; K. no. 248) or Salicornia herbacea (B.
no. 3029); kiindus is one of J3bir's principal vegetable poisons.
95
0thers, like Babylonian cress [Thlaspi, spp., Cruciferaceae, (Di. 11, no. 140)], may figure TO
poison books by mistake.
290 Michael ROGERS
[Teucrium Chamaedrys, Labiatae (B. no. 3373)], Acorus calamus (Arabic wajj,
(K. no. 24)] 96 , wild cumin 97 (Persian kardamána), garden balm [Persian
bádharangbüyá, Melissa officinalis, Labiatae, (Di. HI, no. 44)] gum ammoniac
[ufak, from Dorema ammoniacum, Umbelliferae (B. no. 1448; T.no. 29)],
Alexandrian senna, feverfew [Persian uqhuván (Vullers 1,116), Chrysanthemum
Parthenium or (B. no. 384) Anthemis cotula], benzoin (saliha), dodder-seed,
fragrant moss [dfne, (T. no. 59)], eupatorium, grains of balsam, myrtle benries,
wild parsley®8, poppy heads, Acacia seeds [badem-i telh, Acacia Seyyal (B. no.
45)], other Artemisia species (hurasani), another sort of fungus (Jtijnif), wild
carrot, celery seed, rue or watercress, AKLK (? angelica), myrtle leaves,
scammony [mahmude, Oxystelma esculentum, Asclepiadaceae, (Prosper Alpin,
188), but also Convolvulus Scammona, Convolvulaceae, (B. no. 1158)], ivy
[serend, Arabic qisüs, Hederá spp., Hederaceae, (Di. Ü, no. 161)], an unspecified
halophyte (harbii) or watermelon, agaricum of two sorts, dried acorns, black
cumin, amber, ecru silk (sic, harir-i ham, cf. note 31 above), assafoetida
(sasalyus), fleabane (kuluna. Plantago psyllium, Plantaginaceae, one of Jábir's
principal vegetable poisons, but regarded by Prosper Alpin (181) as a valuable
drug], turbith, elecampane [rasen. Inula Helenium (B. no. 1924)], larch or juniper
[irsa, S. 'urs, (cf. B. no. 1978)], storax (giinliik-i sefld); castoreum, China root
(Smilax China), Orchis sp., chamomile flowers, dodder, terebinth gum, hyssop
Izufa, Hyssopus officinalis, Labiatae, (B. no. 1897;K. no. 131)], Anchusa or
Borago officinalis, [Arabic lisan al-thawr, Boraginaceae, (B. nos. 336, 677)],
barberries, Babylonian cress, fumitory seed, "rolled" [?] rhubarb [ravend-i
mudharic, Arabic ráwand dhakar, Rheum Rhaponticum, Polygonaceae, (B. no.
2959)], gentian [cendiyane, Gentiana lútea, Gentianaceae, (Di. Ill, no. 3)], dwarf
pine [resin] (cide), cubebs [kebabe, Piper Cubeba (K. no.149)], pennyroyal
(yarpuz"), fish roes, emblic myrobalans, radish seed, sesame oil, mustard, raw
mastic, opopanax [gavgir, Ferula Opopanax, Opopanax Chironium, (B. no.
2466; K. no. 67)], Cyperus longus (su'd), squill bulbs [K. no. 12], Jew's pitch,
scolopendrium, scordium or cultivated or wild garlic [Di. II, no. 135], horn
(boynu[z]-i ter), asarabacca, capers (kebere), dried mint, Armenian bole,
petroleum oil, cardamum [hamame, Amomum spp., Zingiberaceae, (Bedevian,
nos. 2 8 8 - 9 5 ) ] ' C e n t a u r e a or Erythraea (kanturyun); bamboo gum [labafir,
from Bambusa arundinacea (K. no: 186)], tamarind, linseed, nightshade (Physalis
Alkekenji), fumitory, Egyptian mummy 101 , seed of Nigella sativa [funiz, (B.
no. 2412)], dill-seed [durak otu (B. no. 368)], bay berries, two sorts of birthwort
s.v,, notes a clonal introduction from Turkey to Europe c. 1550.

?7
c f . no. 109 in the Edirne inventory
" Petroselinum sp.; S. also gives fafrasalyun as a sort of fungus
" G i v e n by Dietrich, however (II. no. 100), as a green vegetable, Araaranthus blitum, or
possibly one of the Chenopodiaceae
'"Ôr Cissus vitigenea, Ampelidaceae, (T. no, 165)
101
mumiya-i baliri (T. no. 263): cf. Dietrich (I, no. 39), not organic but a type of mineral wax,
pissasphaltus
[zeravend, Aristolochia longa and A. rotunda, Aristolochiaeeae, (B. nos. 463,

464; K. nos. 122-23)], Gilani millet.
(f) unknown, unidentified or disputed items: bezr-i ayed (? tonic seeds or

grains); bezr-i buyi and bezr-i misk (possibly just miscellaneous scented seeds,
pills or grains, or seeds of scented or aromatic plants); bezr-i guf (? a poison);
radtnf; sekmec\ 'urk-i sahh (pure distillate, of what is not stated); edhiz; bezr-i
himyel; topalak [possibly (H.) buckthorn, i.e. Rhamnus sp.; or (B. no. 1336)
Cyperus rotundifolius]; bezr-i diken-i sebz,02; bezr-i hakiyun (?S.
Aafcun/ratsbane); zamg-i buzum (S. buzuma, an unidentified fragrant plant).
Conclusion
Shortage of space precludes further commentary. With the Palace lists at

least it is quite probable that from the receipts and prescriptions given in
classical Arabic works of pharmacology like the Aqrabadhin of al-Kindi 103 or
post-Renaissance European works like the Centuriae of Amatus Lusitanus' 0 4
more of the specific ailments for which the drugs were ordered and conceivably, if
only by elimination, changes in therapy, may be charted. Unfortunately, the
Edirne inventory, for the reasons suggested above, is too incomplete to allow of
much more than rather obvious impressionistic comment. Further study of
pharmacists' tereke inventories, should they exist, and of other Palace kitchen
accounts could deepen the picture, but pharmacy, even when respectable, has
historically often been an underground affair, both in supply and in demand. In
the case of the lists considered here we can, however, conclude that most in
demand were laxatives and purgatives, as well as treatment for stomach-upsets —
the most obvious explanation for the prominence of opium in the Palace lists.
Also important were tonics, painkillers and poisons, either to prevent "some
natural sorrow, loss or pain", or to procure it. This conclusion may seem an
improper as well as an anachronistic aspersion in our contemporary civilisation
of Health shops, but I am reminded that, as recently as the 1950s, a "health shop"
in Oxford, so sinister in its appearance that the few customers it had appeared to
be furtive, was regarded, and doubtless with good reasons, by my medical
colleagues as principally an outlet for for aphrodisiac or abortifacient potions for
the uninstructed.
"^Probably, Benin Torolsan-Scott points out to me, the artichoke or cardoon, the only
vegetable which would fit this description
103
Levey, (1966)
104
Amatus Lusitanus, (1620)
292 Michael ROGERS
Bibliography
Acosta Africano, Christophoro, Delle... droghe, che vengono portati dalle

Indie orientali in Europa, (Venice, 1385). Anonymous translation from the
Spanish
Adivar, Abdiilhak Adnan, Osmanli Tttrklerinde ilim, revised by Aykut

Kazancigil and Sevim Tekeli, (Istanbul, 1982), 117-118 and Addendum no. 35
Allbutt, Sir. C, Greek medicine in Rome, (London, 1921)
Amatus Lusitanus, Curationum medecinalium centuriae septem,

(Bordeaux, 1620)
Babinger, Franz, "Leonhard Rauwolf, ein Augsburger Botaniker und

Orientreisender des sechszehnten Jahrhunderts", Archiv für die Geschichte der
Naturwissenschaften und der Technik, 4, (Leipzig, 1912), 148-61
Barkan, Omer Lutfi, "Edirne askeri kassami'na ait tereke defterleri (1545-
1659)", Belgeier, ÜI/5-6, (Ankara, 1966), 1-479
Barkan, Omer LutiT, "Istanbul saraylarina ait muhasebe defterleri",

Belgeier, IX/13, (Ankara, 1979), 1-380
Baylav, N. Faiih Sultan Mehmet devrinde tip eserleri ve ilaclar, (Istanbul,

1953)
Baytop, Turhan, Turk eczacilik tarihi, (Istanbul, 1985), 67-8, citing a

Turkish work by Geredeli Ishak b. Murad (792/1389-90), the Edviye-i Miifrede,
based in part, however, upon the Dhakhira-i Khwärazmshäht and partly upon Ibn
Sinä's Qänün
Bedevian, Armenag K.. Illustrated polyglottic dictionary of plant names,

(Cairo, 1938)
Belon, P., du Mans, Les observations de plusieurs singularitez et choses

memorables trouuees en Grece, etc., (Paris, 1588); Plurimarium singularium et
memorabilium rerum in Graecia, Asia, Egypto ... observations, (Plantin,
Antwerp, 1589), III, 485-87
Busbecq, Ogier Ghislin de, Turkish letters, ed. E. Seymour Foster,

(Oxford, 1927; 1968)
Canpolat, N., "XIV. yuzyilda yazilmi§ degerli bir tip eseri, Edviye-i
Miifrede", Turkoloji Dergisi 5/1, (Ankara, 1973),21-
Carbonelli, G., "Farmacie e farmacisti in Italia nel secolo XV", Rassegna

di clinica, terapia e scienze affini, XI/5-7, (1912), 1-26 (off-print)
Castiglione "La farmacia italiana del Quattrocento nella storia dell'arte

ceramica", Faenza X/3-4, (1922), 76-88
Conti, P. Ginoro, Lettere inedite di Charles de l'Escluse (Carolus Clusius)

a Matteo Caccini, floricultore fiorentino, (Florence, 1939)
Daniels, C.E., "Theriac, II", Janus, XVI, (Amsterdam, 1911), 457-65
Dannenfeldt, Karl H., Leonhard Rauwolf, Sixteenth century physician,

botanist and traveler, (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1968)
Dietrich, A., Zum Drogenhandel im islamischen Ägypten

(=Veröffentlichungen der Heidelberger Papyrussammlung), (Heidelberg, 1954)
Dietrich, Albert, Dioscorides Triumphans. Ein anonymer arabischer

Kommentar (Ende 12. Jahrh. n. Chr.) zur Materia Medica, 2 vols., (Göttingen,
1988)
Dubler, Cesar E., La Materia Mèdica de Dioscorides. Transmisión

medieval y renacentista, I-VI, (Barcelona, 1955)
du Fenoy,R., ed., Plantes d'Egypte par Prosper Alpin, 15814584, (IFAO,

Cairo. 1980)
Ismail E. Erünsal, "Türk edebiyati tarihinin ar§iv kaynaklan IV. Lami'i

Qelebini'nin terekesi", Journal of Turkish Studies 14 [= Fahir 1z Armagam, ed.
Günay Kut and Gönül Alpay Tekin], (1990), 179-94
Fliickiger, Friedrich A. and Daniel Hanbury, Pharmacographia. A history

of the principal drugs of vegetable origin met with in Great Britain and British
India, (London, 1874)
Friedenwald, F., Amatus Lusitanus, (1937)
Garbers, Karl, trans, "Kitàbfi Kimiyà al- 'itr ... Buch über die Chemie
des Parfüms und der Distillationen von Ya 'qüb ... al-Kindl. Ein Beitrag zur
Geschichte der arabischen Parfümchemie und Drogenkunde aus dem 9.
294 Michael ROGERS
Jahrhundert P.C.", Abhandlungen ßr die Kunde des Morgenlandes XXX,

(Leipzig, 1948)
Heyd, Uriel, "Moses Hamon, chief Jewish physician to Sultan Süleyman

the Magnificent", Oriens 16, (1963), 152-70
Hony, H. C.and Fahir Iz, A Turkish-English dictionary, 2nd. ed., (Oxford,
1957)
Kumbaracilar, S„ "Sarayda hazirlanan ilaclar," Dirim 24 (1949), 114-
al-Kindï, Àqrabâdhin, see Levey
al-Kindi, Kimiyâ al- 'itr, see Garbers
Kumbaracilar, S., "Tiirkiyede reçetenin tarihçesi", Dirim 25 (1950), 206

Levey, Martin, edited and translated, The medical formulary or Äqrabädhin
of al-Kindi, (Madison - London, 1966)
Levey, Martin and Noury al-Khaledy, The medical formulary of al-

Samarqandi [d 1222 AD], and the Relation of early Arabic simples to those
found in the indigenous medicine of the Near East and India, (University of
Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1967)
Lopez, E. Alvarez, 'Las plantas de America en la hotânica europea del

siglo XVI", Revista de Indias, VI, (1945), 221-
Mabberley, D.J., The plant-book. A portable dictionary of the higher

plants, (Cambridge University Press, 1987)
Markham, Sir Clements, trans., Colloquies on the simples and drugs of

India by Garcia da Orta, (Sotheran's, London, 1913)
Meyer, Ernst H.F., Geschichte der Botanik, I-IV, (Königsberg, 1855-57)
Meyerhof, M., and G.P. Sobhy, The abridged version of "The Book of
Simple Drugs" of Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Ghâfiqî, by Gregorius Abu'l-Farajj
(Barhebraeus), all published, (Cairo, 1932)
Monardes, N.S., Histoire des simples médicaments apportés de

l'Amérique, trans. Antoine Colin, (Lyons, 1619)
THE PALACE, POISONS AND THE PUBLIC 295
Müller, Karl-Otto, ed., Hans Paumgartner der Älter, Welthandelsbräuche,

(1480-1540), (Stuttgart-Berlin, 1934)
Önler, Zafer, "XIV. ve XV. yüzyil Anadolu Tiirkçesi botanik terimleri

(Edviye-i Mäfrede, Hazäinü's Saâdât, Mikerrebnâme, Miintahâb-i ¡iifa, Yâdigâr-i
Ibn-i Serif)", Journal ofTukish Studies 14 [=Fahir tz Armagam I, ed. Günay Kut
and Göniil Alpay Tekin] (1990 357-92
Rauwollf, see Staphorst, Nicholas
Renaud, H.J.P. and Georges S. Colin, Tuhfat al-Albàb. Glossaire de la

matière médicale marocaine, (Geuthner, Paris, 1934)
Siggel, Alfred, Das Buch der Gifte des Gâbir ihn Hayyan, (Wiesbaden,
1958)
Spiess, Otto, "Das türkische Drogen- und Medizinbuch des Ishaq bin
Murad", Wissenschaftliche Zeitung der Universität Halle, 17/2-3, (1968), 185-
Sprengel, Kurt, Kurt Sprengeis Geschichte der Botanik, neu bearbeitet, 2

vols., (Altenburg-Leipzig, 1817)
Staphorst, Nicholas, trans., Dr. Leonhart Rauwolffs Itinerary into the

Eastern Countries, with additions by John Ray, (London, 1693)
Steingass, F., A comprehensive Persian-English dictionary, (Calcutta,

1892)
Terzioglu, Arslan, Moses Hamons Kompendium der Zahnheilkunde,

(Munich, 1977)
Terzioglu, Arslan, Helvahane defteri ve Topkapi Saray'inda eczacdik,

(Istanbul, 1992)
Watson, Gilbert, Theriac and Mithridatium. A study in therapeutics,

(London, Wellcome Institute, 1966)
School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London

Claudia RÖMER
ON SOME HÄSS-ESTATES ILLEGALLY CLAIMED

BY ARSLAN PA§A, BEGLERBEGl OF BUDA
1565-1566
Arslan Pasa was appointed beglerbegi of Buda on May 19th, 1565 in

place of Iskender Pasa. Arslan was Yahyàpasazàde Mehmed's son (third
beglerbegi of Buda, 1543-1548). 1 Previously, Arslan had been sangaqbegi of
various sangaqs: in 1537, of Poiega as a reward for having brought the news of
Katzianer's defeat,2 in 1543, of Vuòitrn,3 in 1549, o f Kalocsa and Hatvan,4 and
between 1552 and 1556, of Székesfehérvàr,5 in 1556, of Silistre and in 1557, of
Lippa. 6 He then was sangaqbegi of Mohàcs and again, in 1560, of Poiega 7 and
eventually of Semendire (1564-65). 8 While in this latter position, he
administered the affairs of the vilayet of Buda when Zal Mahmud Pasa, the
beglerbegi of Buda, had left the city because of a soldiers' mutiny (July -
November 1564). 9
Arslan was a man of great enterprise. It was during his time at Buda that a
town wall was built for the lower town, and he had the water supply of Buda
' Givay, "Versuch eines chronologischen Verzeichnisses der türkischen Statthalter von Ofen",
in: Chmel, Der österreichische Geschichtsforscher II, Wien 1841, p. 61-62.
2Gdvay, op. cit., p, 61.
^Hammer, Geschichte des Osmotischen Reiches (-¡GOR), III, pp. 256. O. Zirojcvii does not
mention him in her list of the sangaqbegis of VuCitrn (Tursko vojno ureäenje u Srbiji, 1459-1683,
Beograd 1974, p. 263).
4Hammer, GOS, III, p. 289.
5Hammer, GOR, III, p. 307, 310, 355; Givay, op. cit.. p. 61.
Sabanovid, Turski izvori za istoriju Beograda. Katastarski popisi Beograda i okoline 1476-
1566, Beograd 1964, p. 645.
7SabanoviC, loc. cit.
®*Zirojevii, op. cit., p. 262.

^Givay, op. cit., p. 61.
298 Claudi a RÖMER
installed, which was to bear his name: Arslan Pasa sebili. The most important
military building, however, was the bärüthäne, the gunpowder magazine. 10 He
was also interested in financial matters.11
Arslan must have had an inclination to careless (läubäli) 12 and unusual

behaviour. As one example out of many PeCevi tells us a "funny story" (hikäye-i
uzhüke) about bow he ordered a poor Christian subject to be his guest, made him
his friend and had him converted to islam and circumcised on the spot. 13 Arslan's
last "careless" deed was his unsuccessfully attacking Palota without being ordered
to do so 1 4 at the beginning of the campaign of Szigetvär (1566). When
Veszprdm and Tata were lost, too, and Arslan personally went to Siileymän's
camp near Harsany, he was immediately executed (August 3rd, 1566). 15 Seläniki
adds that Arslan had offended the Grand Vizier. 16 In a letter to Petö Jänos, the
commander at Komorn, Arslan earlier had complained that John Sigismund, the
pasa of Temesvär and the beglerbegi of Szolnok were plotting for his downfall.' 7
After Arslan's execution all the goods he had brought to the camp were
confiscated. 18 But it took much longer until his other properties, especially those
he had unjustly held, were registered and disposed of. In view of Arslan's
"carelessness" some of the accusations brought forth against him might have
been true. Among other things he was accused of having taken a ransom of 120
florins from the crew of a ship to let them go. 19
The manuscript AF 30 of the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna

(Flügel, I, p. 258, no. 227) consists of 34 original Ottoman documents from
various periods, mostly dealing with Hungarian affairs. We can only speculate as
to how and when they were collected and bound together. Perhaps they were
among the booty either when Buda was taken from the Ottomans in 1686, or
they may have been seized in one of the clashes between the Ottoman and
Habsburg armies.
'"Fekete, Budapest a törökkorban, Budapest 1944, p. 95. For a short biography see H. Jensen,
"Ungarische Urkunden aus der Türkenzeit I. Über Arslan Pascha. Bejletbej von Ofen", in: Der
Islam X (1920), p. 147-148.
" P e i e v i , Tärih, Constantinople 1283,1, p. 36.
'^Peievi, loc. cit.
13
PeievI, I, p. 255-257.
14
SelänikI, Täriij, ed. Klaus Schwarz, Freiburg 1970, p. 31.
1S
Hammer, GOR, III. p. 445 and especially Peievi, I, p. 416.
16
Seläniki, p. 31-33.
17
Takäts, A budai basäk magyar nyelvi levelezese, I, 1553-1589 Budapest 1915, p. 19, 20, and
Jensen, op. cit., p. 148, and the German translation by H. Jensen, "Ungarische Urkunden aus der
Tiirkenzeit", in: Festschrift Georg Jacob, Leipzig 1932, p. 103.
'"Hammer, COR, III, p. 446.
'"Takäts, loc. cit. and Jensen s translation (cf. note 17). We do not, however know anything
about the background of this accusation.
S O M E tyÄ $ S - E S T A T E S 299
Among them there is one report of each of the kadis of Cäüqa, Leite, and
Belgrad in the sangaq of Semendire, and the kadi of Varädin in the sangaq of
Sirem, 2 0 announcing that in compliance with the Sultan's order a list of the
produce of certain villages that had not been granted to him in his berät and
which Arslan had unjustly appropriated had been made, sealed and sent off. The
kadi of L e ß e gives a brief summary of what his list contains in detail (docs. no.
8,30, 31, 34 of which text and translations are appended below). Only AF 30/31
bears a date (1st decade of Ramazän 975/Feb. 29th - March 9th, 1568). The other
three must have been written about the same time, since according to all of them
Sinän Cavus, a Cavus of the defter, 21 brought the copy of the sultanic command,
which ordered the reports to be written, and the letter of the addressee. According
to AF 30/8, 30, and 31 the reports were handed to Sinän Cavuä. The addressee as
well as the author of all the accompanying letters must be either Arslan's
successor, Soqollu Mustafa Pasa 22 or the defterdar of Buda. 23 This is corroborated
by AF 30/34, which is a letter that was written after the kadi of Belgrade's report
had been sent off. An earlier sultanic order had commanded that everything Arslan
had taken should be collected from his heirs and sent to the imperial treasury.
The kadi of Belgrade asks whether the money could not just as well be sent to
the treasury of Buda. 24 The only two persons in a position to decide in this
matter are the beglerbegi and the defterdar, but since the kadi of Belgrade asks for
a tezkere, it must have been the latter. Although its introductory formula
indicates that AF 30/31 was directly addressed to the Porte, we may assume that
it went via Buda just as the other reports did. Luckily four lists are extant in two
collections of parts of defters; these are that of the kadi of Varädin matching F
30/30, a list made by the kadi of Rüdnik, 25 as well as the kadi of Cäßqa's list
20
Caiqa = CaCak, east of Poiega; Lefee = Levat, a district of Central Seifcia between the mountain
ranges of Glediika Planina and Juhor west of the Morava river, whose main town is Rekovac
Enciklopedija Jugoslavije, Zagreb 1962. vol. 5, p. 521 a); Varädin = Petrovaradin on the Danube
opposite Novi Sad.
2
'Maybe he is the same person as the defter CavuSi Sinän mentioned in a letter of Soqoilu Mustafa
Pa5a of the 2nd decade of öemüzi 11 978 (Nov. 10th - 19th, 1570; see ms. Konsularakademie,
Vienna, Krafft, no. 137, fol. 5v), and as "Sinän, one of the defter favu$es of Budin" in 987/1579
(tnalcik, "Introduction to Ottoman metrology", in: Turcica XV (1983), p. 331).
22
Begletbegi of Buda from Aug. 3rd. 1566 to Sept. 30th / Oct. 1st, 1578, nephew of the Grand
Vizier Soqollu Mehmed Pa§a; see Givay, op. cit., p. 61.
23
I n 1568, Ahmed (Fekete, Budapest a lörökkorban, p. 212).
24
T h e argument that the money "will be counted for the deficiency of the aforesaid Emin in any
case" (see translation) probably means that the money was eventually to go to the imperial
treasury, but could be used meanwhile to overcome some lack of money in the treasury of Buda.
25
Mining centre in central Serbia, see Anhegger, Beiträge zur Geschichte des Bergbaus im
Osmanischen Reich, Istanbul 1.943, p. 148-149; Jireiek, Die Handelsstraßen und Bergwerke von
Serbien und Bosnien während des Mittelalters, Prag 1879, p. 52. Österreichische
Nationalbibliothek, ms. Mxt. 579 (Flügel II, p. 462-63, no. 1367, fol. 56v-61v; I thank Markus
Köhbach, Vienna, and Dävid Gita, Budapest, for drawing my attention to these lists.
300 Claudia RÖMER
matching AF 30/8 and the kadi of Leße's list matching AF 30/31. 26 On the
basis of AF 30/31, line 3, which says that the sultanic order was adressed to "the
kadis of Semendire", we may assume that there were many more reports and
lists. A. Velics has published three of the four extant lists in Magyarorszdgi
török kincstdri defterek, II, Budapest 1890, p. 320-327 (Varädin, Leße, and
Rüdnik). We cannot, however, agree with all his readings. Further, he does not
comment on the taxes. Of the kadi of RQdnik's list he gives only the final
paragraph and must have ignored its heading since he says: "Valöszinfi hogy ezek
is Arszlän pasa birtokai voltak (It is probable that these, too, were Arslan Pasa's
possessions)".
The kadi of Varadin's list is short enough to be published here again fully.
But the others are too long to be published here in toto since they show what
each inhabitant of the villages examined delivered to Arslan's men. We shall
therefore content ourselves with giving the number of inhabitants and the
paragraphs that sum up each village for 972 and 973 as well as the final
paragraphs showing the complete results of the investigations.
Since the sort of taxes and their amount in kind and cash were written
down in a separate qänünnäme for each sangaq,27 we naturally find different taxes
in the lists for the villages in the sangaq of Semendire and in the one for Sirem.
But, astonishingly Arslan collected different taxes in each of the two years from
the same villages. This, too, points to the irregularity and the illegal character of
his doings. That the population of the sangaq of Semendire had already suffered a
lot from unjustified levies can be seen in Inalcik, "Adäletnameler", in: Belgeler
II, 1965, esp. p. 63-71.
With regard to Ottoman diplomatics the reports belong to the category of

'arz-i häl as described by Fekete, Einführung in die osmanisch-türkische
Diplomatik der türkischen Botmässigkeit in Ungarn, Budapest 1926, p. LIX-LX,
and Gökbilgin, Osmanli fmparatorlugu Medeniyet Tarihi Qergevesinde Osmanli
Paleografya ve Diplomatik tlmi, Istanbul 1979, p. 105-108.
^Österreichische Nationalbibliohek, ms. Mxt. 593, (Flügel II, p. 473, no. 1401) fol. 93r-95v
and 97r-106v.
27
•"For the respective qànunnâmes of Sirem and Semendire see B. McGowan, Defter-i mufassal-i
liva-i Sirem. An Ottoman Revenue survey dating from the reign of Selim 11., Ph. D. thesis:
Columbia University, 1967, p. 1-9; Ö. L. Barkan, XV ve XVhnci amlarda Osmanli
imparatorlugunda Zirat Ekonominin Hukuki ve Malt Esaslari, I. Kanunlar, Istanbul 1943, p. 306-
312, p. 324-325; D. Bojanil, Turski zakoni i zakouski propisi U XV i XVI zeka za smederevsku
kruievacku i vidinsku ablast, Beograd 1974, passim.
SOME tfÀS§-ESTATES 301
AF 30/8
30.5 x 14.5 cm
on back: seal (el-faqir Hayder bin 'Abdallàh el-vasiq bi-l-meliki l-ilah; poor
Hayder bin 'Abdallàh, who trusts in God, the King).
huwa
1 Sultanum hazretleriniin l)ak-i pay-i kimya-iksir-Jjassiyetlerine (!) 'arz-i da'i-yi

haqir budurki haliyen SinanCavus 2/1 bendeleri yedinden merhum Arslan
Pasa CaCqa qazasmda bl-berat zabt u tasarruf eylediigi ba'z-i 3 / / qaryelerun
mahsuli zabu iiiin der-i devletden varid olan emr-i serifvin sureti ve se'adetlii
sultanum 4 1 / hazretleriniin mektub-i serif-i vagibu l-qabulleri varid olub
fehva-yi seriflerinde miinderig olan 5 11 iimur bi-temamihi miinfehim
olunduqda qaza'-i mezburda vaqi' olan iiC pare qaryeler halqmdan iki senede 6 /
/ merhum-i mezburun ademlerine ne vfcrdukleri tetebbu' olunduqda eger 'osr-i
gallatdur ve ispengediir 7 / / ve gayri mahsul her ne vferdiler ise qui (u) re'aya
iizre 'ale t-tafsil defter olunub imzalanub 8 / / ve muhurleniib mezbur Sinan
Cavu§ bendelerine teslim olunub irsal olundi baqi ferman 9 / / sultanum
hazretlerine menut u miifevvazdur
az'afu l-'ibad
ed-da'i Hayder
el-mevla bi-qaza'
Caiqa
He
The unworthy supplicant's report to the elixir-like dust under the feet of
His Highness my Lord is the following:
The copy of the noble command that has come from the door of felicity
concerning the possession of the produce of some villages which the late Arslan
Pasa had seized and held in the Qaza of Cafiqa without a Berat, as well as His
Highness my fortunate Lord's noble letter which has to be accepted, have now
arrived through the hands of your servant Sinan Cavus. After having completely
understood the things explained in their contents we investigated with the inhab-
itants of the three villages in the Qaza mentioned above what they had given to the
men of the aforesaid deceased over two years. The tithe of the agricultural products
as well as the ispenge and everything they gave him from their other products,
all was registered in detail according to (what) the soldiers and subjects (said).
(The list) was sealed, given to your servant the aforesaid Cavus and sent off.
302 Claudia RÖMER
As for the rest, the command depends on His Highness my Lord.

The humblest of servants
the supplicant Hayder
the qadi in the Qaza of
Ca£qa
Mxt. 593/93r-95v
Passages abridged in parentheses
31.5 x 11 cm
Huwa
Defter budur ki seles ve-seb'in ve-tis'ami'ede Catqa qazasinda Irzene nam qarye
ehalisinden merhum Arslan Pasa ademleri zabt eylediigi beyan eder ki zikr olunur
This is the list showing the produce of the village of Irzene 2 8 iti the qaza of
CaCqa, which the late Arslan PaSa's men seized in the year 973
(18 households, wheat: 85.5 kile, 29 barley: 20.5 kile, fodder: 14 kile, rye: 8 kile,
must: 69.5 medre, 30 haberdashery. 396 aqie, 31 resm-i kiivare: 4 aq£e,32 bid'at: 12
aq£e, 3 3 ispenge for 17 households of one to four fiscal men [10x1, 4x2, 2x3,
1x4], i.e. 28 fiscal men paying 25 aqfie each: 700 aqfie34)
note on the left margin of fol. 94r:

on iki unke yag twelve ounces 35 of fat
qarye-i mezbure (T)rzene siniirinde harigden gelub bag tasarruf edenierden hasil-i
'6sr-i Sire medre 'aded 40
The yield of the tithe on must from those who come from outside and possess a
vineyard within the boundaries of the aforesaid village of (I)rzene: 40 medre.
fi her keyl gendiim 14 ft her keyl arpa 8fi her medre Sire 14 bad-i hava 500
2
®Rzinje, 34 km south of Catak, on the river Rzinska (map "Uiice", Militärgeographisches
Institut, Wien 1940, 1:200 000)
29
keyl = kile: generally the Istanbul kilesi (1 k. of wheat: 25.65 kg. 1 k. of barley: 22.25 kg;
HINZ, islamische Maße und Gewichte. HO, I. Abt., Erg. Bd. 1, Heft I, Leiden 1970, p. 41.
3
" l n Semendire grape must (Sire) is measured by the medre consisting of 10 pinte (I pinte = 4
oqqa 160 dirhem = 5.6 kg; McGowan, "Food Supply and Taxation on the Middle Danube (1568-
1579)", in: Archivum Otlomamcum I, 1969, p. 173).
31
For haberdashery each household paid 22 aqie.
32
a tax on beehives (Fekete, Die Siyäqatschrifl in der türkischen Finanzverwaltung, Budapest
1955, I, p. 80), in Sirem, e.g., it was one out of 10 beehives or half a beehive out of five, or, if
someone owned less than five, it was. 2 aqie per beehive (McGowan, Defter, p. 2).
33
tax on pigs (Fekete, toe. cit.). in Semendire one aqCe per pig was taken (McGowan, "Food
Supply", p. 188).
3
În Semendire the ispen|e amounted to 25 aqie per fiscal man per year (McGowan, "Food
Supply", p. 175).
•"from the Italian oncia, which equals 26.583g (lnalcik, "Introduction to Ottoman Metrology",
in: Turcica XV (1983), p. 319; Schiibach, Byzantinische Metrologie, C. H. Beck, München
1970, p. 231.
SOME 0ÀS$-ESTATES 303
14 aqfie per kcyl of wheat, 8 aqCe per keyl of barley, 14 [pinte] (?) per medre of
must, 36 bad-i hava: 500 aqCe37
fol. 94v:
qarye-i LobatniCa tabi'-i qaia'-i mezbur
the village of Lob&tniCa in the aforesaid qaza 38
(17 households, wheat: 39 kile, barley: 3.5 kile, fodder: 8.5 kile, rye: 5 kile,
must: 24 medre, haberdashery: 330 aqCe)
giimle kiimden resm-i kiivare meblag 40, bid'at 5, on iki iinke yag
from the whole lot resm-i kiivare: 40 aqCe, bid'at: 5 aqCe, twelve ounces of fat
fol. 95r:
mezbur LobatniCanufi ispengesin beyan eder fi sene-i 974
(the following) shows the ispenge of the aforesaid LobatniCa in the year 974: 39
(17 households making 24 fiscal men (12x1, 3x2, 2x3) paying 25 aqCe each)
yekun 600
qarye-i mezbureniin sene-i mezburede vaqi' olan gallesin beyan eder ki zikr oiunur
This shows the agricultural products of the aforesaid village in the year
mentioned above (i.e. 974 again !)
(13 households): gem'en gendiim k 20 1/2 fi 14 mahlut k 10 1/2 fi 8 4 0
qarye-i Ilqronik tabi'i m fi sene-i 973
the village of Ilqronik 41 in the aforesaid (qaza) in the year 973 (12 households,
wheat: 17.5 klle, barley: 2.5 kile, rye: 16 kile, fodder 16.5 kile, haberdashery
264aq£e)
fol. 95v :
mezbur qarye-yi sene-i mezburede toll helak eylemegin '6sr-i sire giizidiir medre 5
fi 17
As the aforesaid village was destroyed by hail in the year mentioned above, the
tithe on must is little: five medre of 17 (pinte ?)
resm-i bid'at 20
bir qantar 'asel gumle qaryeden ahnmis
One qantar 42 of honey was taken from the whole village.
3
According to McGowan, 14 could mean the size of the medre and not its value, the pinte of
Semendire being the same as that of Sirem, which was valued at 10 aqCe (see note 30). In view of
Mm. 593/97v-106r (see below) it could also mean its value, which then would be considerably
lower than usual. The normal kile value of wheat was 10.3 aq£e in Semendire (McGowan, "Food
Supply", p. 165).
ûnspecified fines (Fekete, op. cil., p. 81).
38
vyiage 14 km WSW or 16 km SW of Kraljevo (map "Uiice")
3
®The kadi of ¿ a t q a was not meant to report any details of the year following Arslan's death.
"^mahlut is a mixture of wheat and rye (Fekete, op. cil., p. 80)
'"unidentified
42
1 qantar = 56.443 kg (lnalcik, "Metrology", p. 320; used for honey: p. 327)
304 Claudia RÖMER
qarye-i Dqronik ispenge (!) beyan eder sene-i minhii

This shows the ispenge of (he village of Uqronik in the aforesaid year (25 fiscal
men paying 25 aqte each): yekun 625 sahh
¿em'en qura 4 qit'a fi seneteyn mahsulat 43
gendüm la'ir iavdar 'alef mahlüt ispenge resm-i küväre
keyl keyl keyl keyl keyl 1925 (!) 44(!)
162 (!) 26 1/2 29 39 1/2 (!) 10 1/2 (!)
'öSr-i Sire tiurdevät resm-i bid'at rugan

medre 990 17 iinke
97 1/2(!) 12(!)
hurrire ma fihi bi-ma'rifeti el-faqir Hayder bin 'Abdallah el-mevla bi-qaza'i Ca£qa
This was written with my knowledge. Poor Hayder b. 'Abdallah, the qadi in the
qaza of Catqa.
Seal: as AF 30/8.
AF 30/30
29.5 x 19.5 cm
on back: seal
centre: el-faqir 'Osman bin Bilal
lower part: rasti mugeb-i riza-yi Huda-st
upper part: bes ne-danem ki gum siid ez reh-i rast
centre: poor 'Osman bin Bilal
lower part: Honesty is a consequence of God's approval,
upper part: so I do not know (how) one (can) err from the right path.
(metre: Haf!f-v-/v-v-/vv-)
1 Sultanum hazretleriniin hakipay-i seriflerine 'arz-i da'i-yi bi-l-ihlas budur ki

bu haqire hiikm-i serif-i vagibii t-tesrif varid olub 1 1 1 mazmun-i
meymuninda Varadin qazasina tabi' Girgurufta nahiyesinde vaqi' olan llyas ve
Besenova ve Remeta ve Disnos ve IlinCi nam qaryelere bundan aqdem 3 I I
Budun beglerbegisi olan merhum Arslan Pasa sene-i isna ve selas ve-seb'in
ve-tis'ami'ede bi-berat miitesarrif olub ve zikr olan qaryeleriin mahsulati All
nemiqdar oldugi ma'lum olunmaq ferman olunmagm imtisalen li-l-emri l-'ali
zikr olan qaryeleriin iizerine vanlub seneteyn-i mezkure-teynde (!) vaqi' olan
mahsulat defter olunub 5 / / ve imzalanub bu ljusus iCiin gonderilen Sinan
davus qullari ile hakipay-i seriflerine irsal olundi baqi ferman ol zat-i gelilii 1-
qadnmdur
^ S o m e of the sums are incorrect, which is shown by (!).

SOME IJÀSS-ESTATES 305
az'afu l-'ibad
'Osman el-mevla bi-qazà'
Varadin
The sincere supplicant's report to the noble dust under the feet of His
Highness my Lord is the following:
The noble command which has to be honoured has been received by this
unworthy one. Its fortunate content said that the late Arslan Pasa, who, earlier,
had been Beglerbegi of Budun, had held the villages IlyaS, BeSenova, Remeta,
Disnos, and tlinCi in the Nahiye of GirgurufCa 44 in the Qaza of Varadin during
the years 972 and 973 (1564/65 and 1565/66) without a Berat. The command
being to find out how much the produce of the villages mentioned above was,
we, in compliance with the exalted order, went to the aforesaid villages, and the
produce of the two years mentioned above was registered, (the list) was sealed and
sent to the noble dust under your feet by means of your servant Sinan Cavus
who had been sent for this business.
As for the rest, it is for that illustrious person to command. The humblest
of servants
'Osman, qadi the in the Qaza of
Varadin
Mxt. 579/65v-57r
Defter oldur ki bundan aqdem Budun beglerbegisi olan merhum Arslan

Pasa Varadin qazasina tabi' GirgurufCa nahiyesinde sene-i isna ve selas ve-seb'in
ve-tis'ami'ede bi-berat miitesarrif oldugi qaryeleriifi mahsulatin beyan feder
This is the list that shows the produce of the village in the nahiye of
Girgurufta in the qaia of Varadin which the former beglerbegi of Budun, the late
Arslan Pasa, held without a berat in the years 972 and 973.
^GirguroKr centre of a Nahiye, SW of Varadin (McGowan, Defter, map) HyiS: McGowan. Defter
p. 145-146.
BeSenova: McGowan, Defter, p. 285; map.
Remeta: according to McGowan, Defter (Map), there is a village called Kii(iik Remete and one
called Remeta, both to the east of Girfcurofti; in the register there is only Ktifiik Remeta, the taxes
of which are listed on p. 142.
DisnoJ; McGowan, Defter, p. 139.
tlini(i): mezra'a belonging to the town of trig, E of (jirgurofti (McGowan, Defter, p. 324; map).
306 CI a u d i a RÖMER
qarye-i IlyäS fi sene-i 9 7 2

resm-i gendiim Sa'ir resm-i resm-i
{jäne 45 keyl46 keyl kiiväre bid'at 4 7
204 80 30 180 24
qaiye-i m fi sene-i 9 7 3
resm-i gendiim sa'ir resm-i resm-i
filuri 4 8 keyl keyl ganem49 Capa 50
20 85 12 369 10
qarye-i Besenova fi sene-i 9 7 2

resm-i gendiim resm-i resm-i
häne keyl kiiväre bid'at
240 100 181 39
qarye-i m fi sene-i 9 7 3
häne gendiim resm-i sire
filüri keyl ganem pinte 5 '
20 107 166 2 2 4 fi
12
qarye-i Remeta fi sene-i 9 7 2

resm-i gendiim sa'ir resm-i resm-i
häne keyl keyl kiiväre bid'at
372 200 100 495 66
45
Tax on the household, collected from the Vlachs by the filurigis, i.e. the men who collected the
resm-i filuri (see note 48), for their benefit (Bojanii. op. cit„ p. 164). In 1516 it amounted to 2
aqfe per household in the sangaq of Braniievo (Bojanici, p. 27). It is not mentioned in the
Qanunname for Sirem (McGowan, Defter, p. 1-9), so that Arslan's collection of it was altogether
illegal. From the indirectly given number of households for 973 (the resm-i filuri being one filuri
per household) we can deduct that it amounted to 12 aqie per household. The population of llyaS
must have increased by three households between 972 and 973 (204: 12 = 17). The numbers for
DisnoS are not coirect: 15 x 12 = 180, 16 x 12 = 192.
^ Wheat was worth 14 aqte per kile in Sirem (McGowan, "Food Supply", p. 165).
^ F o r two pigs one aqte was taken in Sirem (McGowan, Defter, p. 3).
'"'This tax, restricted to the Slavic, especially Serbian, region was generally collected instead of
the gizye. It amounted to one filuri per household per year (Inalcik, Tilori", in: EI2 II, p. 915). Up
to 974/1566-67 it equalled 60 aqte (McGowan, Defter, p. 1), then 70 (McGowan, "Food Supply",
p. 175).
4
^Tax on sheep, for two sheep one aqie was taken in Sirem (McGowan, Defter, p. 5).
•'"gaba resmi: paid by unmarried villagers who had no land (H. Inalcik, "Osmanlilar'da Raiyyet
Rlisflmu", in: Belleten XXIII (1959), p. 586). It is not mentioned in the Qanunname for Sirem.
" H e r e the value of the pinte is 12 aqte (see note 30)
SOME 9 À 5 S -ESTATES 307
qarye-i m fi sene-i 973

filûrï gendiim sa'ïr resin-i Sire
31 keyl keyl ¿anem pinte
185 29 535 52
qarye-i DisnoS fi sene-i 972

resm-i gendiim resm-i resm-i
hâne keyl kiivâre bid'at
193 70 68 30
qarye-i m fï sene-i 973

filûri gendiim resm-i sire sa'ïr
15 keyl ganem pinte 6 1/2
58 1/2 265 169
qarye-i IlinC(i) fî sene-i 972

resm-i gendiim Sa'ïr resm-i resm-i bâd-i havâ
hâne keyl keyl kiivâre bid'at 70
408 143 22 483 444
qarye-i m fî sene-i 973

filûri gendiim sa'ïr resm-i
34 keyl 122 21 ganem
fi 14 227
harrerehu 1-faqir 'Osman bin Bilal

el-qadi bi-Varadin humiye ila yevmi d-din
This was written by poor 'Osman bin Bilal, the qadi of Varadin, may he be
protected till the Day of Judgment.
Seal: as AF 30/30
AF 30/31
31 x 21 cm
on back: seal
lower part: yek zerre 'inayet-i ilahi
upper part: bihter zi hezar padisahi
centre: el-faqir Hiiseyn bin 'Abdelkerim
lower part: One atom of divine grace
upper part: is better than a thousand kingdoms,
centre: poor Hiiseyn bin'Abdelkerim
(metre: Hezeg, -v/v-v-/v—)
308 CI a u d i a RÖMER
1 Dergäh-i devlet-medär ve bärgäh-i gerdün-iqtidära 'arz-i bende-i bi-miqdär oldur

ki hälädefterCavuSlarindan fahru 1-emäsil v e - l - a q r ä n I I I i a v u ä Sinän zide
qadruhü yedinden bu bendelerine süret-i hiikm-i Serif-i ¿ihän-mutä'-i sultäni
birle mektüb-i münif-i 'äli-Sän värid olub 3 I I mazmün-i münlfmde livä'-i
Semendire qädilerine Stäben münderig olan budur ki merhüm Arslan Paüa
Budün beglerbegisi iken livä'-i 4 I I mezburede ba'z-i havä?$ qaryeler
beräünda gendiiye ta'yin buyunlmamiS iken fuzülen iabt eylemegin mezbur
qaryelerden nemiqdär 5 / / nesne qabz ey ledügi yferlü y ¿rinden teftig olunub her
ne qabi olmis ise defter olunub mümä ileyh CavuS 6 I I Sinän bendeleriyle
genäb-i 'älilerine irsäl olunmaq fermän olunmagin imtisälen li-l-emri 1- 'all
mezbür Cavuä bendeleri 7 / / miibäieretiyle leftiS olunduqda merhüm-i
mezbürufl ädemleri l)aväss-i mezbüreden zabt eyledükleri qaryelerden Leföe
qazäsma 8 / / täbi' Qüqlin ve PrsqäviCär ve MotlofCa ve RäyinCa näm
qaryelerüil sene-i isnä ve seläs ve-seb'tn ve-tis' ami'e senelerinde väqi' 9 I I
olan mahsüllerin zabt eyledükleri zähir olub mezbür seneleriin her birinde
nemiqdär nesne zabt u qabz eyledükleri mezkür 10 / / qaryeler ehälisinden ve
ehl-i vuqüfmdan kemäl-i diqqat u ihtimämla teftis olunduqda | ü m l e
mahsülden naqd on ü£ 11 / / bin toquz yüz yelmis sekiz aqCe ve ü f y ü z
yigirmi dort buCuq kile bugday ve yüz yigirmi dort buCuq keyl arpa ve yüz 12
/ / buCuq keyl tavdar ve qirq dört bu£uq keyl 'alef ve yigirmi üö 'aded küväre
qabz eyledükleri zähir olub her biri 13 I I müfiredätiyle defter olunub ve defter
nisänlanub ve mühürlenüb müsärün ileyh Cavus bendeleriyle genäb-i
'älilerine irsäl 14 / / olunub väqi'-i häl häkipäy-i se'ädetlerine 'arz olundi bäqi
fermän re'y-i 'älilerine menüt u merbütdur tahriren 15 / / fi eväyili Ramazäne
1-mübärek sene-i 975
az'afu l-'ibäd
Hüseyn b. 'Abdelkerim
el-qädi bi-Lefte
The unworthy servant's report to the door, the centre of felicity, and to the
court that governs the world is the following:
The copy of the noble sultanic command which is obeyed by the (whole)
world and the illustrious and exalted letter have arrived now at your servant's
through the hands of the glory of his peers and contemporaries, Cavus Sinän, a
tavuS of the Defter, may his grade be augmented! What in its illustrious content
is explained to the Qadis in the Sangaq of Semendire is the following:
When the late Arslan Pasa was Beglerbegi of Budün he unjustly held
some Häss villages in the Sangaq mentioned above, although they had not been
granted to him in his Berät. The command therefore being to investigate on the
spot how many things he had taken from the aforesaid villages, to register
everything that had been taken and to send (the register) by means of your servant
the CavuS Sinän mentioned above to your exalted Highness, (the business) was
SOME tfÀSS-ESTATES 309
investigated together with the aforesaid CavuS your servant in compliance with
the exalted order. It then became clear that the men of the aforesaid deceased had
taken the produce of the years 972 and 973 (1564/65 and 1565/66) of the villages
of Quqlin, PrsqaviCar, Motlofca, and RayinCa52 in the Qaia of LefSe, which
belonged to the villages he had held from the above-mentioned ^lass-estates. On
very accurately and carefully investigating with the inhabitants and the
possessors of knowledge of the aforesaid villages how many things they had
seized in each of the years mentioned above, it became clear that altogether they
had seized from the produce 13,978 aq£e in cash, 324 1/2 Kile of wheat, 124 1/2
Keyl of barley, 100 1/2 Keyl of rye, 44 1/2 Keyl of fodder, and 23 beehives.
Each item was registered in detail, (the list) was signed and sealed and sent to
your exalted Highness by means of the aforesaid Cavus your servant.
As for the rest, the command depends on your exalted opinion. Written in
the first decade of the blessed Ramafcan in the year 975 (February 29th - March
9th, 1568).
The humblest of servants
Hiiseyn b. 'Abdelkerim
the QadI of Lefte
Mxt. 593/97r-106v
fol. 97v:
Defter oldur ki muqaddema Arslan PaSa merhum Budun beglerbegisi iken
Semendire sartgaginda Lef2e nahiyesinde gendii hasslartndandur deyii beratindan
harig isna ve seles ve-seb'Tn ve-tis'ami'e senelerinde fuzulen ademleri zabt
eylediigi qaryelerden Quqlin ve MotlofCa ve Raynifia ve PrsqaviCar dort qit'a
qaryeniiii mahsulatm beyan eder ki zikr olunur.
This is the list that shows the produce of four villages from among the villages
in the nahiye of Lefce in the sangaq of Semendire, namely Quqlin, MotlofCa,
RayinCa and Prsqavicar, which the late Arslan PaSa's men had unjustly seized in
the years 972 and 973 when he was beglerbegi of Budun, claiming that they
belonged to his (jass-estates, (although) they were not (mentioned) in his berat.
qarye-i Quqlin
qarye-i mezbureniifi 972 senesinde vaqi' olan mahsulatidur
The village of Quqlin — the produce of the aforesaid village in the year 972:
52
Qfiqlin: Kukljin, 8 km west of Kruievac on the left side of the river Golijska Morava;
PrsqSviiir: unidentified; MotlofCa; perhaps Milutovac 20 km northwest of KruSevac; Rayinòa:
Rajinac, g km north of the monastery of Ljubostinja (map "Kragujevac", Militirgeographisches
Institut, Wien 1940, 1:200 000).
310 Claudia RÖMER
gem'en
gendiim Sa'ir fcavdar 'alef erzen küväre Sire
k k k k k 'aded medre
48 13 15 1/2 17 1/2 6 7 fi 18
37
meblag
666 5 3
hurdevät resm-i resm-i

nefer bid'at eift 5 4
10 fi 22 meblag meblag
meblag 220 27 48
tafsil oldur ki qarye-i raezburenun sene-i seles ve-seb'in ve-tis'ami'ede vaqi' olan
ispengesin ve sayir mahsulatin beyan 6der ki zikr olunur.
This shows in detail the ispenge and the other products of the aforesaid village in
the year 973:
derbeyan-i ispenge-i sene-i 973: gcm'en
neferen 18 fi 25
meblag 450
(10 households): gem'en

gendtim sa'ir ma'a Cavdar 'alef huidevat yekun
k 49 fi 20 k 33 1/2 fi 16 k 14 fi 8 nefer 10 meblag
980 536 112 meblag 220 1848
fol. 99v:
qarye-i PrsqavKar
qarye-i mezbureniifi sene-i isna ve-seb'in ve-tis'ami'ede vaqi' olan mahsulat (!)
dur
The produce of the aforesaid village in the year 972:
(16 households), gem'en
gendiim sa'ir Èavdar erzen sire resm-i resm-i
k k k k medre bid'at küväre
108 75 56 1/2 39 fi 5 fi 18 97 19
195 94 1/2
1701
^ T h e sums for must, being included in the final aqte sum (which, however is given as 13,978
instead of 14,945), were obviously calculated by multiplying the number of medre by the value of
the medre, which could change considerably according to year and place (see notes 30 and 36).
5 4 Paid by those who possessed a iiftlik. Though amounting to 22 aq£e for long periods
throughout the empire, it is 24 aqCe here (Inalcik, "Raiyyet Riisumu", p. 577-586).
SOME 0 À S S - ES T A T E S 311
'alef kiivare hurdevat

k 'aded nefer 16
10 5 fi 22
mebla|; 352
tafsil oldur ki sene-i seles ve-seb'in ve-tis'ami'ede vaqi' olan ispengesin beyan
fcder ki zikr olunur
This shows in detail the ispenge of the aforesaid village in the year 973:
gem'en
nefer 29
meblag 725
fol. lOlr:
tafsil oldur ki qarye-i mezburenun sene-i seles ve-seb'in ve-tis'ami'ede vaqi' olan
'osr-i galle-yi ve hurdevat beyan 6der ki zikr olunur
This shows the tithe on the agricultural products of the aforesaid village in the
year 973:
fol. 101 v:
(16 households); gem'en
gendiim sa'ir Cavdar 'alef hurdevat

k 24 1/2 k 9 1/2 k 19 1/2 k1 nefer 16
490 f! 16 fi 16 fi 8 meblag
152 312 8 352
yekùn 1314
fol. 102r:
qarye-i Motloféa derbend-i qadim
The village of Motlofòa, the old mountain pass:
qarye-i mezburenun 972 senesinde vàqi' olan mahsùlàtidur ki zikr olunur
This is the produce of the aforesaid village in the year 972:
fol. 103r:
(23 households); gem'en
gendiim sa'ir sire huidevàt kiivare resm-i kiivà
k k medrefìl8 nefer 23 'aded ma'abid'at
46 46 23 fi 4 11 83
meblag meblag
314 (!) 92
yekun (?) bad-i hava
500
qarye-i mezbureniiii 973 senesinde vaqi' olan ispengesin beyan eder ki zikr olunur
This shows the ispenge of the aforesaid village in the year 973;
(40 fiscal men, paying 12 aqte each, except five, who only pay 6 aqCe each)
312 Claudia RÖMER
gem'en nefer 40 meblag 444 (!)

fol. 103v:
tafsil oldur ki qarye-i mezbureniifi 973 senesinde vaqi' olan 'o5r-i gallesin bey an
eder ki zikr olunur
This shows in detail the tithe on the agricultural products of the aforesaid village
in the year 973:
(23 households)
fol. 104v: gem'en

gendiim Sa'ir (jurdcvat
k k nefer 23
46 46 meblag
920 736 92
qarye-i RayniEa
qarye-i mezburesine 972 senesinde vàqi' olan mahsùlàtin beyàn èderki zikr
olunur
This shows the produce of the aforesaid village in the year 972:
(12 households)
fol. 105r:
gem'en
gendiim Sa'ir Cavdar 'alef Sire huidevàt
k k k k medre nefer 12
122 1/2 8 1/2 28 1/2 17 23 fi 18 fi 22
408 (!) meblag 264
tafsil oldur ki qarye-i mezbùreniin 973 senesinde vàqi' olan ispengesin beyàn èder
ki zikr olunur
This shows in detail the ispenge of the aforesaid village in the year 973:
(16 households); gem'en ispenge nefer 16
fi 25
meblag 400
fol. 105v:
tafsil oldur ki 973 senesinde vàqi' olan mahsùlàt-i qarye-i Ràyni£a-yi beyàn èder
ki zikr olunur
This shows in detail the produce of the village of Raynìèa in the year 973:
(12 households);
fol. 106r:
gem'en
gendiim sa'ir fcavdar 'alef
k k k k
38 (!) fi 20 5 fi 16 36 fi 16 14 fì 8
S O M E ff Ä S S - E S T A T E S 313
1660 80 576 112

gem'en
zikr olunan doit qit'a qaryeleriin iki senede vaqi' olan mahsuli
Hie produce of the aforesaid four villages in two years:
gendum sa'ir fcavdar 'alef kiivare meblag-i naqd
k k k k 'aded 13978 (!)
324 1/2 124 1/2 (!) 100 1/2 44 1/2 23
ma yahvihi haze d-defter hurrire bi-ma'rifeti 1-faqir Hiiseyn bin 'Abdelkerim el-
qadi bi-Lefce
The contents of this list were written with the knowledge of poor Hiiseyn b.
'Abdelkerim, the kadi at Lefce.
Seal: as AF 30/31
AF 30/34
31 x 19 cm
on back: seal
upper part: ljädim-i ser'-i resül-i mügtebä
lower part: 'abd-i.... Bàli bin Mustafa
upper part: servant of the chosen Prophet's Law
lower part: the .... slave Bali bin Mustafa,
(metre: Remel -v--/-v~/-v-)
huwa
1 Sultänum hazretleriniin häkipäy-i serif-i tütyä-misäl ve turäb-i bäb-i münif-i

kimyä-minvällerine 'arz-i dä'i-yi faqirii 1-häl budur ki hälä fahrü 1-emäsil
Sinän Cavus bendeleri yedinden 2IIsüret-i emr-i gelilül-'unvän ilemektüb-
i mergüb-i se'ädet-mashüblari värid olub mazmün-i hümäyumnda merhüm
ve magfürün leb Arslan Pasanuii mir-i mirän 3 I I oldugi tärihde livä'-i
Semendirede mir-i miräna mütc'alliq havässdan härig-i berät nemiqdär häsil
qabz u zabt ètmisdiir yérlii yèrinden teftis u tefalAus 4 / / edüb bi-qusür defter
èdub gönderesin déyii buyunlmagin qazämuzda väqi' olan re'äyä getürdüliib
diqqat u ihlimäm ile teftis olunub 5 I I her ne kim aljz olunmisdur bi-qusür u
lä-kiisür ber mügeb-i taqrir-i re'äyä defter olunub imzàlanub ve mühiirlenüp
Cavus-i mezbür bendeleriyle irsäl olundi 6 / / läkin se'ädetlü sultänuma värid
olan emr-i Serifden mu'ahhar ve muqaddemin näsih muqaddemä livä'-i
Semendire mevqüfaüna emin olan Emirgän (Emirhän ?) yedinden 7 / / näzir
qullariyla bu dä'ilerine bir mü'ekked emr-i Serif-i äher värid olub mazmün-i
hümäy&mnda merhüm-i mezbür iivä'-i Semendirede tahvil u tärihde 8/ /
härig-i berät qabz etdiigi mahsül veresesinden bi-qusür tahsii olunub mezkür
éminuR iltizämindan kesri vardur aria mahsüb olub hizäne-i 911 'ämireme
gönderesin d€yü buyunlmiS minväl-i meSrüh üzre qaziye häkipäy-i serife 'arz
314 Claudia RÖMER
olundi veresesi 'an qarib gelmek üzre olub anlardan 10 / / qabi ètdiikleri mäl-
i mevrüslanndanmi taleb olunub alma veyä säkit mi olalum be-her hai gerek
âzine-i 'àmireye gitsün ve ger Budün fcazinesine 11 / / zabt olunsun emin-i
merqümun kesrine mahsüb olur eger sultänum p n i b i n e alinursa miqdäri
iSäret buyunlub temessük-i Serif 12 / / 'inäyet oluna ki m ü | e b i y l e
muhäsebesi görilüb mahzar-i äsitäne-i se'ädete irsäl oluna fennän-i gelilü 1-
qadrlan nenün üzerine | ä r i olursa 13IIiSäret 'inäyet buyunlmaq regäsina
haqiqat-i häl südde-i sidre-mekänlarina 'ari olundi bäqi fermän se'ädetlü
sultänum hazretlerinün emr-i serifierinel4 / / menütdur
turäb-i aqdäm-i se'ädet-fergäm
Bäli-yi nä-käm näläm el-qädi bi-Belgräd
el-müfettiS
He
The poor supplicant's report to the noble collyrium-iike dust under the
feet of His Highness my Lord and to the dust at his illustrious elixir-like gate is
the following:
The copy of the mighty command and the desirable fortunate letter have
arrived now through the hands of the glory of his peers, your servant Sinan
CavuS. In its imperial content (the following) had been ordered; "You shall
investigate and inquire on the spot how much of the produce of the Beglerbegi's
Hass-estates in the Sangaq of Semendire the late Arslan PaSa has seized and taken
without a Berat when he was Beglerbegi. You shall make a faultless list and send
it (here)." The subjects in our Qaza were brought (together) and (the business)
was investigated accurately and carefully. According to the statements of the
subjects a complete and faultless list of all that had been taken was made. It was
signed and sealed and sent (off) by means of the aforesaid CavuS your servant.
But later, cancelling the letter that had come to my fortunate Lord, there
came to this supplicant of yours another corroborated exalted command through
the hands of the former Emin of the properties held in mortmain Emirhan,
(Emirgan), and your servant the supervisor. In its imperial content (the
following) was ordered: "You shall completely collect the produce that the
aforesaid deceased had seized without a Berat in the Sangaq of Semendire at the
time of his commitment from his heirs. There is a deficiency in the tax farm of
the Emin mentioned above. (The collected money) is to be counted for the
(deficency). You shall send it to my flourishing treasury." The case is as it is
being reported to the noble dust under (your) feet.
His heirs are about to come soon. Is (the money) to be claimed and taken
from their inherited properties that they have seized, or shall we be quiet ? The
SOME tfÀSS-ESTATES 315
money will be counted for the deficiency of the aforesaid Emin in any case,
whether it goes to the flourishing treasury or whether it is held for the treasuiy of
Budun. Should it be taken for the side of my Lord, would you inform (us) about
the amount and grant us a noble certification, according to which the account can
be settled and sent to the threshold of felicity. The true circumstances are being
reported to the lotus-like threshold with the request that you deign to inform (us)
on which condition the mighty command is issued.
As for the rest, the command depends on the noble order of His Highness
my fortunate Lord.
The dust under the feet of happy ending,

unhappy Ball, the Qadi of Belgrad,
the inspector.
Mxt. 579/58v-61v
31.5 x 11 cm
Defter oldur ki muqaddema Arslan Pasa merhum Budun beglerbegisi iken

Semendire sangaginda gendii hasslanndandur deyii beratindan hang isna ve selas
ve-seb'in ve-tis'ami'e senelerinde fuzulen ademleri zab{ eylediigi qaryelerden
Rudnik qazastna tabi* Ribes ve Lipovai nam iki qit'a qaryentifi mahsulatin beyan
eder ki zikr olunur
This is the list that shows the produce of the two villages named Ribes 5 5 and
L i p o v a i 5 6 in the qaza of Rudnik from among the villages in the sangaq of
Semendire, which the men of the late Arslan Pasa had unjustly seized in the
years 972 and 973 when he was beglerbegi of Budun, claiming that they
belonged to his Ijass-estates, (although) they were not (mentioned) in his berat.
qarye-i Ribes nam-i diger Rasqovik fi sene-i 972 5 7
gem'en
gendiim sa'ir Cavdar 'alef hurdevat
k k k k be-her h(ane) fi 22
29 1/2 12 20 26 10
220
55
Raikovi(i, 22 km southeast of Gomi Milanovac (map "Uiice") Ten households are mentioned
for 972, two of which are missing in the list for 973.
-^Lipovai, 8 km southeast of Arandjelovac (map "lliice") Ten households are mentioned for both
years, one of which has changed. The one new household did not pay any taxes except the
ispenge, probably because a newcomer could hardly have produced anything in less than a year's
time.
S7
On villages with two names see Halasi-Kun: "Unidentified Medieval Settlements in Southern
Hungary, Ottoman: nam-i diger," in: Stadia Turcica, Budapest 1971, p. 213-230.
316 Claudia RÖMER
resm-ibid'at Sire
ma'a küväre medre fi 10
meblag 9
29 90
qarye-i ra fi sene-i 973

gem'en
gendüm tavdar sa'ìr 'alef ¡spenge 58
keyl k k k neferen fi 25
27 4 4 6 14
350
huidevät
be-her h(àne) fì 22
2
198"
qarye-i LipovàC fì sene-i 973

gem'en
gendüm sa'ìr fcavdar 'alef sire hurdevàt
k k k k medre be-her h(àne) 22
30 8 1/2 11 1/2 6 1/2 37 1/2 IQ
220
resm-i küväre
ma'a bid'at
9
qarye-i m fì sene-i 973

gem'en
ispenge gendüm sa'ìr Cavdar 'alef hurdevàt
neferen k k k k fi 22
12 241/2 3 8 1/2 UL. 2
475 196 30 198
zikr olan iki qaryelerun iki senesinde vaqi' olan ispengesi ve gallati ve sayir
mahsulati budur
The ispenge, the produce and the other products of the two aforesaid villages
during the two years are the following:
some households of Upovai there were up to five fiscal men.

^ T h e correct sum should be 176, since there were only eight households in 973.
S O M E y À $ S - ES T A T E S 317
gem'en
gendiim Sa'ir iavdar 'alef (jurfevàt
k k k k fi 22
111 27 1/2 44 48 1/2 2fi
836
resm-i bid'at Sire ispenge

meblag medre fi 10 neferen fi 25
38 32
460 825
zikr olan qaryeleriin gallatmdan ma'ada hasil olan budur

What was collected except the produce of the two aforesaid villages is the
following:
yekun
2159
ma fihi hurrire bi-ma'rifeti

ve-ena alxjaru 1-vera
Husam el-qadi
bi-Rudnik
The content was written with my knowledge. And I am the humblest of

creatures, Husam, the Qadi at Rudnik.
Seal (very indistinct):

centre: tevekkiili 'ala haliqi
lower part:... ba-haqq-i resul-i humam
upper part: nazar-i rahmat kun suy-i Husam
centre: My trust is in my Creator,
lower part:... for the generous Prophet
upper part: look mercifully upon Husam
metre:
University of Vienna
318 Claudia ROMER
—rXj
' U . j v m U W ÎJ J ^ j j l ù i i W.j
- f ,Z ,
/ —
•"Sr
ii1 r >
J T T -
r*-
J j f j t
' t j j
<» r
e >M
' r '
M«
Peter SEBASTIAN
OTTOMAN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS

AND THEIR RELATIONS
WITH THE REPUBLIC OF VENICE
IN THE EARLY SIXTEENTH CENTURY
The study of the history of the Ottoman state in the late fifteenth and
early sixteenth centuries suffers from gaps in our knowledge of even the most
basic events. It is particularly hampered by confusion over the identification of
key officials in the Ottoman administration, both central and provincial. Few
scholars have done more than V.L.Ménage to set on a firm foundation the
process of overcoming these problems. In a seminal article published over
twenty-five years ago, Professor Menage brought together his expertise in
Ottoman palaeography and diplomatic, Ottoman chronicle studies and western
historical sources to initiate the science of prosopography as applied to Ottoman
history1. In this article of 1965, Professor Ménage, while producing editions and
translations of seven Ottoman chancery documents from the late 15th century
with historical commentary, demonstrated the intricate process of identifying
Ottoman officials by piecing together information from disparate sources.
This process of identification is the first stage in the historiographical

activity known as prosopography. The second stage consists of seeing patterns in
and drawing conclusions from the data collected through the first stage. The
different facets of prosopography and its use as one of the most important tools
of the research historian were extensively examined in an essay in 1971 by
Lawrence Stone. More than collective biography, as it is sometimes known,
Lawrence observed how prosopography has the potential to bind together
constitutional and institutional history on the one hand and personal biography
on the other which, as he points out, in the past have had a tendency to run
'Ménage, V.L, "Seven Ottoman Documents from the Reign of Mehemmed 11", in Documents from
Islamic Chanceries (first series), Oriental Studies vol. Ill, ed. S.M. Stem, Oxford, 1965.
320 Peter SEBASTIAN
along parallel paths 2 . The purpose of this essay is to present aspects of my own
research in Ottoman and Venetian history both through the use of the
prosopographical method and as an extension of Professor Menage's pioneering
work.
It was perhaps no coincidence that the Ottoman documents which formed

the basis of Professor Menage's 1965 article should have been found in the
Venetian State Archives 3 . The Venetians were highly sophisticated intelligence
gatherers and Europe's leading Seraglio-watchers. The Venetian Republic's
network of officials in the eastern Mediterranean was geared towards
accumulating every shred of information about the Ottoman Empire. This
intelligence poured into Venice where it was carefully read, assessed and preserved
in files. It determined to a large extent the Republic's maritime and commercial
policy in the eastern Mediterranean and the Near East. In Venice one of the most
avid readers and collectors of these intelligence reports outside the Council of Ten
and the Chancellery secretaries was Marino Sanuto.
Marino Sanuto and I Diarii
Sanuto was born in 1466 into one of the oldest but relatively
impoverished patrician families. He exhibited in his boyhood strong intellectual
powers and showed promise both as a historian and politician. This promise
never bore fruit in either sphere of activity. As a historian he suffered from an
inability to synthesize, distracted too easily by detail and unable to produce a
coherent narrative. Consequently none of his works was published in his own
lifetime. As a politician his abrasive personality and his purist, uncompromising
political beliefs led him to adopt positions of dissent from which he continually
harangued and antagonised his political friends as well as adversaries. His
intellect commanded great respect, particularly his knowledge of Venetian law,
administration and history which was almost unparalleled among his
contemporaries. However, he lacked the political nous to get himself elected to
high office 4 . Although a man of great ambition in literary and political arenas,
"Sanuto's was a pathetic career, characterized by a tremendous gap between
ambition and achievement, capacity and accomplishment." 5
^Lawrence Stone, The Past and the Present, London and Boston, 1981, Chapter 2, pp. 45-73,
first published in Daedalus, Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Boston,
Massachusetts; Winter, 1971, Historical Studies Today, Chapter 3.
•'They were discovered by Professor John Wansbrough in Busta 161 of the series Procuratori di
San Marco, misti, Archivio di Stato di Venezia (henceforth, ASV).
4See Robert Finlay, Politics in Renaissance Venice, Rutgers, 1980, pp. 10-13 and pp. 251-280
for the most penetrating assessment of Sanuto's career and historical enterprise; and also G.
Berchet, Prefazione ai diarii (di Marino Sanuto), Venice, 1903.
Vinlay, op.cit, p. 273.
OTTOMAN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS 321
Paradoxically it was this failure of his aspirations which left posterity

with perhaps a greater legacy than he could have bequeathed had he fulfilled his
ambitions. Unable to write successful narrative history, he became a chronicler
and archivist; unable to achieve high office, he had fewer responsibilities to
distract him from die enterprise. The result was I Diarii.6 From 1496 until 1533,
two years before his death, Sanuto gathered a mass of material amounting to
fifty-eight volumes or 40,000 pages of dense characters. Over ninety per cent is
in his own hand, the remainder being documents (usually letters and
ambassadorial relazioni) inserted at intervals, often at random. These were,
therefore, no ordinary diaries of events or personal experiences. They are an
archival and universal source in their own right, embracing a large cross-section
of material: copies and synopses of personal letters, reports from colonial
officials and intelligence officers, government records, relazioni, accounts of
debates and elections. Primarily the Diarii are a source for Venetian domestic
history, but such is the nature of the work that the subject matter covers
political, social, economic, religious and scientific developments from London to
Cairo, from Spain in the West to the Safavids in the East and to the Portuguese
in the Indian Ocean. With the destruction of documents in fires during the
sixteenth century, the importance of the Diarii, holding copies or summaries of
lost documents, increased still further.
A substantial proportion of the fifty-eight volumes is devoted to the

Ottoman world. An estimated 4,200 separate entries (i.e. summaries and copies
of reports, letters, notes) relate to the Ottoman Empire in the first twenty-five
volumes alone. The entries cover a vast range of subjects. Moreover, the 40,000
pages hold, and at times one might almost say conceal, the names of scores of
officials and subjects of the sultan of all political ranks and social positions,
from sultans to viziers, obscure merchants, messengers and peasants.
The proportion of documentation on Ottoman affairs varies from year to

year. In periods of crisis, such as the Turco-Venetian war of 1499-1503/904-908,
or Selim's campaigns against the Safavids in 1514/920 and the Mamluks in
1516/922 and 1517/923, as much as one third of Sanuto's effort was spent in
recording Turkish business. At other times the proportion is considerably less,
since Venetian politics, not the Ottoman Empire, was his chief preoccupation.
Of most value to the study of Ottoman history is the inclusion of reports and
letters from the eastern Mediterranean, usually synopses or copies, and
sometimes the original documents themselves. Most of the reports were written
by Venetian officials based in various colonial outposts or by Venetian officials
and merchants travelling abroad on business. They invariably described the source
^Marino Sanuto, I Diarii (1496-1533), autograph MS, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana (BNM)
Cod. It. VII. 228-286(9215-9273), and edited by R. Pulin et al, 58 vols, Venice, 1879-1903
[henceforth, Sanuto],
322 Peter SEBASTIAN
of their information to help the recipient, and consequently the historian, to

gauge the validity of the information. The sources were varied: travellers,
merchants, slaves, prisoners of war, renegade Turks, spies, and of special
significance, office-holders such as Grand Viziers, viziers, beylerbeys or
sancakbeys with whom Venetian officials conducted business. In addition,
Sanuto copied a considerable number of Italian translations of letters from the
sultan or a Grand Vizier to the Doge, or from a sancakbey to a Venetian official. 7
Sanuto himself never had a first hand picture of Turkish society, never
having travelled to the East. But he was active in Venice in debriefing eye-
witnesses of important events in the Levant and he had a wide circle of friends in
colonial outposts who wrote to him directly or else allowed him access to letters
which they had written to their families in Venice. Among his friends and
contacts were Venetian chancellery secretaries, especially secretaries of the
Council of Ten, some of whom went on missions to the Ottoman Empire and
met important Ottoman office-holders. 8 The secretaries were an important source
of information for Sanuto. Moreover, despite a dismal political career, he still
held sufficiently high office to give him access to first hand reports as they
arrived; and even before the Council of Ten permitted him to use its official
papers, certain correspondence was passed on to him.
Sanuto's stated aim in this undertaking was not to chronicle events or

collect documents but to write a history of the Venetian Republic.® The diaries
were the fruit of his painstaking research and were intended primarily as a filing
system with cross references to materials he could consult again when he felt
himself ready to embark on his history. However, this proved to be a
cumbersome filing system, set out chronologically, and in the end Sanuto must
have found it impossible to retrieve the information in an orderly fashion. 10
virtually all cases (he original Ottoman document can be located in the ASV. See also Peter
Sebastian, T h e Turkish documents in the Venetian State Archives. A note on the Indice
Bombad", in Studia Turcologica Memoriae Alexii Bombad dicata. Istituto Universitario
Orientale, Napoli, 1982, pp. 497-510.
8
See Mary Neff, Chancellery secretaries in Venetian politics and society, 1480-1533,
unpublished PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1985, which includes a
unique and comprehensive appendix of secretaries' careers, listing also their missions to the
East.
9
Sanuto, VIII, 6; Berchet, op.cit, pp. 26-27, 52, 115.
'®For Sanuto's method of working, see Peter Sebastian, Turkish prosopography in the Diarii of
Marino Sanuto, 1496-1517/902-923, unpublished PhD dissertation. School of Oriental and
African Studies, University of London, 1988, vol. I, pp. 12-25 (henceforth, Sebastian,
Prosopography).
Prosopography and history
How can the history which eluded Sanuto be unlocked from the Diarii!
With Professor Menage's own work providing the impetus to apply
prosopographical methods of analysis to the material, I chose the first twenty-
five volumes and 4,200 reports of source material on Ottoman affairs covering
the period 1496-1517/902-923 to attempt a critical analysis in conjunction with
Ottoman sources as well as other western sources. 11 My principal objective was
to identify where possible over two hundred individuals mentioned by name and
the scores of unnamed office-holders. In the process of wrestling with some of
the tortuous problems of identification, my ultimate aim was to gain a better
understanding of the men who ran the Ottoman Empire and of their relationships
with Venice.
The first twenty-five volumes span a period of immense political,

economic and social change in the Ottoman world. Two sultans of contrasting
natures, Bayezid II (1481-1512) and his son, Selim I (1512-1520), coped in
different ways with interna! and external forces which threatened the cohesion of
the empire. For both it was a period of almost continuous war. While Bayezid
was reluctantly on the offensive in his wars against Venice, Poland and Hungary,
and timidly on the defensive against Safavid Persia, Selim by contrast was
aggressive in extending his empire eastwards, defeating the Safavids at Chaldiran
(1514/920) and smashing and supplanting the Mamiuk empire in Egypt, Syria
and the Arabian peninsula (1516-1517/922-923). Internally Bayezid's
helplessness in the face of Shi'ite heresy and tribal rebellion (the Kizilba$) in
Anatolia was in stark contrast to the ruthless and bloody suppression of the
heretics at the hands of Selim. Civil war over the Ottoman succession always
threatened to erupt in the last years of Bayezid's reign and eventually did,
plunging the empire into crisis as brother fought brother. These were the
momentous events to which the Diarii were a witness through the multiplicity
of sources which came to Sanuto's attention. Moreover, these were the events in
which Venetian officials interacted with their Ottoman counterparts. That
interaction was galvanised by the birth of Ottoman naval power, which was a
recurring theme throughout the period. Although that power was successfully
deployed against the Venetian fleet in the Turco-Venetian war of 1499-1503/904-
908, the two powers were to find that it was in their mutual interest not to test
their naval strength against each other again for a generation. At one stage, when
the Venetian Republic was experiencing its own crisis with the loss of its
terrafemw possessions during the war of the League of Cambrai against Christian
Sebastian, Prosopography, vol. I, pp. 1-503 (Introduction and prosopography), pp. 504-540
(Bib)iography);vol. II, pp. 541-711 (Documents and Appendices). ! I am particularly grateful in
the first instance to my doctoral supervisor, Dr Colin J. Heywood, for steering me towards the
Diarii.
324 Peter SEBASTIAN
powers in the West in 1510 and 1514, the two states were drawn together into a
bond of non-aggression which amounted to an informal alliance. It is natural,
therefore, that the Diarii should offer insights into the nature of contacts between
Venetians and Ottomans.
Thus, the Diarii merit their own prosopographical study for three reasons.
First, the sheer wealth of information on individuals needs to be systematically
collated. In the past researchers have tended to assume that the Mustafa, Ahmed
or Sinan named in one report is the same man mentioned in a subsequent report,
often compounding the confusion which already bedevils the study of Ottoman
history in this period. Moreover, despite the editors' valiant efforts, the index of
names at the back of each volume of the edition is of only limited value as a tool
of research for Ottoman names as well as for most Venetian. Secondly, the great
advantage of Venetian sources and of the Diarii in particular over all other
sources is that they are concerned about the personality and character as well as
the activities of an Ottoman official. Not only do they record what office an
individual held, what he did, whom he met and where he was, but also how he
felt and what he said to colleagues or to Venetians or to contacts of Venetians.
The Diarii provide glimpses of an Ottoman official's friendship or enmity
towards Venice, his generosity or venality, and his success or lack of it in
intrigue. The Diarii, therefore, humanise the Ottomans. The character of an
Ottoman official mattered to the Venetians, because it might well influence the
sultan's negotiating position on issues concerning political and economic
relations between the two empires. Thirdly, this humanising quality of the Diarii
sources, so valuable to historical analysis, even though it comes to us ultimately
through Venetian minds, is virtually non-existent in Ottoman sources which are
in any case diffuse and threadbare. Using them to identify even some of the most
prominent officials is often a hazardous enterprise in which one has to rely on a
disparate collection of tomb and mosque inscriptions, deeds of religious
foundations, land registers and unreliable chronicle accounts. Professor Ménage
noted in a review article in 1978, that "when one is dealing with the early and
no-so-early Ottoman state, the mere establishment of a name or a date is often a
delicate question of collating Oriental and Western sources, so that the best final
judgement must be qualified by an on balance, therefore'.12 The Diarii, archival
material in Venice and other Western historical sources13 act as reliable controls
for Ottoman sources, filling many gaps in our knowledge and enriching our
'^Ménage, V.L, review of Stanford J. Shaw, History of the Ottoman empire and modern Turkey,
vol. I: the empire of the Gazis: the rise and decline of the Ottoman empire, 1280-1308,
Cambridge University Press, J976, in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies,
1978, 4(1), pp. 160-162.
'^For the contribution of western sources to our understanding of the Muslim and Ottoman woiid,
see V.J. Parry, "Renaissance historical literature in relation to the Near and Middle East (with
special reference to Paolo Giovio)", in B. Lewis and P.M. Holt, ed. Historians of the Middle East,
London, 1962.
sense of individual identities with details of opinions, strengths or weaknesses. 14

Nevertheless, the qualifications cautioned by Professor Ménage must remain. It
is therefore with the understanding that there are limitations both to the source
material and to the prosopographical method that die following conclusions are
here presented in brief.
Prosopography: the first phase

The identification of postholders
Although the Diarii have long been the focus of historical research, 15 the
reports containing Ottoman material have been used somewhat unsystematically.
The identity of some Turks has occasionally been taken for granted, while most
of the information on unnamed Turks, whom Sanuto mentions by rank alone,
has either been ignored or not been subjected to. rigorous, analysis. The result has
been to misinterpret some of the source material. My, purpose has been to draw
together every shred of information on both named and unnamed office-holders,
and then to place their careers in the context of events during the reigns of
Bayezid II and Selim I. 16
Using this methodology, the Diarii have yielded an extensive body of new
information on virtually every Turk in the prosopography. The following brief
notes are intended to be no more than a basic guide with which to approach the
different categories of individuals in the prosopography and to assess the
usefulness of the Diarii.
For an assessment of SanuM's reliability, as well as the work of the nineteenth century editors
(I checked all 4,200 entries in the edition with the original autograph manuscript of the diaries),
see Sebastian, Prosopography, vol, I, pp. 20-22, and vol. II (Documents), for editorial errors and
omissions '
15
Prosopographical analysis has been applied with great effect to Diarii material on Venetian
politics and society by Robert Finlay (op. tit.) in his study of the Venetian patriciate and by
Mary Neff (op. at.) in her study of chancellery secretaries. However, the problems of identifying
Venetians are wholly different from those encountered with the Ottoman material. To my best
knowledge a systematic assessment of the Ottoman material in the Diarii has never before been
done, despite some excellent work using primary and secondary sources on the history and
personalities of the period: see in particular, Hedda Reindl, Männer um Bayezid. Eine
prosopographiscke Studie über die Epoche Sultan Bäyezids II, Klaus Schwarz Veriag, Berlin, 1983;
see also a number of important articles by H.J. Kissling, listed in Sebastian, Prosopography, pp.
515-6. For the use made of the Diarii in Ottoman studies, see Sebastian, Prosopography. pp. 26-
27,
"'For the methodology adopted, see Sebastian, Prosopography, pp, 26-30.
326 Peter SEBASTIAN
The Ottoman Central Administration
The Diarii are a major source for the chronology of the Grand Vizierate
and the Vizierate. On several occasions the Diarii reports and Venetian archival
records are crucial in clarifying the identity of the postholder. They are
particularly important in establishing the identity of the Grand Vizier in
1501/906 (Hersekzade Ahmed's or Hadim Ali's tenure)17; in 1503/909 and 1503-
1506/909-912 (Hersekzade Ahmed's or Koca Mustafa's tenure); 18 in 1511-
1513/917-919 (Hersekzade Ahmed's and the tenure of one of three possible
Mustafa Pashas — see below, the Mustafa problem)-,19 and in 1514/920
(Dukaginzade Ahmed's tenure).20
The Mustafa problem — confusion over the chronology of the Grand

Vizierate in the years 1511-1513/917-919 — serves especially to illustrate the
historical contribution of the Diarii sources as well as to highlight Venetian
competence in obtaining high grade intelligence about the Ottoman government.
These sources suggest that Koca Mustafa Pasha rather than Hersekzade Ahmed
Pasha was the Grand Vizier at the time of the great janissary revolt of 21
September 1511. Moreover, some Diarii reports offer a radically new version of
events for the two years after the janissary revolt. They refer to the assassination
of Koca Mustafa immediately after the revolt rather than to his execution a year
later, traditionally recorded in November 1512; they indicate that a different
Mustafa Pasha was Grand Vizier in the early months of the reign of Selim I and
that it was he who was executed in November 1512; and they refer to yet another
Mustafa Pasha as Grand Vizier in 1513.21 The series of reports pointing to the
latter revelation appear to be confirmed by an Ottoman source which Professor
Ménage has drawn to my attention.22
1
11bid., pp. 83. 122.
n
l b i d „ pp. 82ff, 336
19
Ibid., pp. 340-345.
20
lbid., p. 63.
2
' / b i d . , pp. 340-345 for an analysis of this confusing period.
22
I am grateful to Professor Ménage for having passed me the following communication: "There
is a further Ottoman source which seems to support the suggestion (which I made in WZKM, 68
(1976), p. 35 and n. 14) that some other Mustafa Pasha was Grand Vizier for a few months
between the execution of of Koca Mustafa towards the end of 1512 and the re-appointment of
Hersekzade Ahmed. This is the Paris manuscript, Bibliotheque Nationale supp. ture 1183, which 1
described in Neshri's History of the Ottomans, London 1964, pp. 54-7 and 82-4: it is an
abridgement of Neshri with a continuation, by an unidentified redactor, covering the years
891/1486 to 923/1517. At fol. 84b the continuator records the execution of a Mustafa Pasa in the
words: '[Sultan Selim] Mustafa Pa$ay> Allàh emrine bir tóhmetle gflnderdi'—the tfthraet
presumably being the suspicion of clandestine dealings with Prince Ahmed. There follows the
account of the execution of Korkud and then of Ahmed, of the flight of Ahmed's sons 'Alaeddin and
Siileyman to Egypt (where both died of plague) and of Murad to Persia (where, 'it is said', he was
killed). In Rebi' II 920 May-June 1514 Selim set out against Shah Ismi'il: 've bu mezburde ti'iin
eseri belUrdi. Andan Mu$tafé Pa$a òlicek, Ahmed Pasa vezir-i a'zam olup ve Mustafa Pa$a ve
The Diarii are a unique source for the careers of the Kapudan-i derya or
Kapudan Pashas (Grand Admiral of the Fleet) in this period. Although not a
member of the divan until the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent, this office was
gaining in importance in the early years of the sixteenth century as Ottoman
seapower expanded under both Bayezid and Selim. There is some confusion over
the identity of the Kapudan in the late 1490s, during some months of the Turco-
Venetian war of 1499-1503, and in I513. 23 Otherwise, the Diarii reports plot the
course of the office and its holders in some detail. The most notable Kapudan
Pashas are Kii9uk Daud, Hersekzade Ahmed, Iskender Bostanci-ba$i and Cafer
Pasha. The application of prosopographical analysis to the Diarii reports on the
last two is particularly profitable: Cafer is mentioned by name on only one
occasion yet a substantial portion of his career during these years can be pieced
together. The Diarii are also a unique source on Hersekzade Ahmed's tenure as
Kapudan. Moreover, their contribution to our understanding of the building of
the Ottoman fleet and of the Halif Tersane (arsenal) in Istanbul is remarkable in
that they challenge the previously accepted view that it was begun in 1515/921
and that it was either Cafer Pasha or Piri Mehmed Pasha who were largely
responsible. In fact the arsenal was Selim's very first consideration after his
victory at Yenishehir in 1512 and it was begun when Iskender Bostanci was
Kapudan Pasha?*
There are a large number of Turkish ambassadors to Venice mentioned in

the reports. Sanuto himself met and conversed in an official capacity with at least
six of the fourteen who travelled to Venice between 1496 and 1517. The Diarii
material is of immense value and in almost all cases is the only source which
can help reconstruct the careers of such men as All Beg 7erc«man(interpreter) and
Ala-ed-Din who played a pivotal role in the international relations of the period.
Little, however, is recorded about the men who accompanied them. On the whole
the ambassadors were men drawn from the Palace Service, particularly the Inner
Service. For example, Qasim and Ala-ed-din were sitdhdar iwjjw(sultan's sword
bearer); Ali Beg was cebeci ba§((chief armourer) as well as subaf ¡(prefect or
'army leader'). The Venetians themselves were well-informed about the different
ranks within the Palace Service and of the status they conferred.
Takagin-ogh vezir oidi' (fot. 85b). The text is not explicit, but it implies that this second Mustafa
died of plague." Professor Ménage has also pointed out that this Mustafa It is not the OskUb man
mentioned in his Documents from Islamic Chanceries article, p. 118 (see above, note I) for he
died in 1519/925.
"Sebastian. Prosopagraphy. vol. I, pp. 188fT, 252ff.
24
Ibid., pp. 254-255.
328 Peter SEBASTIAN
The Ottoman Provincial Administration
Both the Beylerbey of Rumeli and of Anadolu figure prominently in the

Diarii reports. They reflect the picture gained from Ottoman sources that the
position of beylerbey of Rumeli was the senior of the two and had a place on the
divan. The Diarii are a rich source on the mobilisations and movements of the
various beylerbeys during the wars waged by Bayezid and Selim, as well as on
the identity of the post-holders and their manoeuvring for power.
The sancakbeys were the officials in the provinces with whom the
Venetians had most contact. It was usually in their mutual interest to maintain
friendly relations. The sancakbeys were important sources of information, not
just about affairs in their own sancak, but about developments in Istanbul, in the
divan, and in the empire as a whole. The information in the Diarii, although
mostly about contact with sancakbeys in the maritime provinces, are vital to the
reconstruction of the sequence of office-holders for a number of sancaks.
Similarly, the voyvodas, local lords often of Christian origin who acted as the
sancakbeys' executive arm, also figure prominently. Some developed their own
close relationship with local Venetian officials, but they tended to remain in the
shadow of the sancakbeys.
Irregulars
Considerable space is given in the reports to the activities of corsairs, not

surprisingly, given the damage they inflicted on Venetian shipping. The Diarii
provide information about Ottoman pirate policy: recruitment of corsairs at one
moment, their annihilation at another. They reveal three levels of collusion with
corsairs: first between them and the sultan, successively Bayezid and Selim;
secondly between them and some Princes (sons of Bayezid) in the provinces; and
thirdly, between them and maritime sancakbeys. The Diarii facilitate the
reconstruction of some aspects of the careers of powerful corsairs: Kurd-oglu,
Karahasan, Karadurmu§ and Oru^, as well as the famous Kemal Reis himself.
Prosopography: the second phase
The second stage of prosopographical analysis which allows revealing

generalisations to be made across a period of history and over a generation of
activity is only just beginning to come within the reach of the historian of this
period. Beyond the basic identification of the various Ottomans in the Diarii,
analysis founded on a comparison of common elements between individuals with
similar social, economic, religious and political backgrounds remains limited.
The information available is still insufficient to allow reliable conclusions about
the behaviour of a group and the individuals within it. Nevertheless, there are
questions which historians need to ask about the largest and most important
group in the prosopography, the Ottoman officials who ran the empire and who
appear in the thousands of folios of the Diarii. What were (heir ethnic origins?
Did they have a common social background? What was the source of their power
and influence? Were they purged on Selim's accession? What was their attitude
towards their Venetian counterparts with whom they interacted?
The Slave and the Religious Institutions
The great majority of the 232 individuals mentioned in the Diarii are
Ottoman officials of some kind. Most are products of the Kul or 'slave' system
on which the government of the Ottoman state was founded. 23 While there is
mention of some members of the Religious Institution (Ulema) and of Muslim
bom elements who normally staffed the Ottoman bureaucracy (e.g., the Treasury
or the Chancery), the Diarii reports are primarily concerned with the Kapikulu
('slaves of the Porte') who constituted the military and administrative elite and
who were the executive arm of the sultan. These were the men who had greatest
political power and influence, particularly where the empire's external relations
were concerned, and the men whom Venetian officials consequently needed to
cultivate most.
Most of the Turks in the Diarii reports are officials from the central
administration, especially members of the divan (Grand Viziers, Viziers), and
from the provincial administration (beylerbeys, sancakbeys, subafis, voyvodas
etc.). In Venetian reports they were often referred to as schiavi — slaves. Thus
to the outsider, the image presented by the Ottoman Empire of the early
sixteenth century was that of an administration run by slaves of the sultan. Hie
Diarii reflect, therefore, the picture of Ottoman administration gained from
Ottoman sources over the preceding century and before. 26 They highlight the
high profile of the kapikulu in the government of the empire during both the
reign of Bayezid and the reign of Selim. For example, with the exception of
Ibrahim Pasha (one of Bayezid's Grand Viziers) and Piri Pasha (one of Seiim's
Grand Viziers), who were Muslims from birth, all the Grand Viziers of the period
were drawn from the Slave Institution.
The Diarii illustrate the roles played by the kapikulu in the Inner Service
(Enderun) and the Outer Service (Birun) of the Palace; in the central
administration, that is, as members of the imperial council (Divan-i hiimayun);
25
lnalcik, H, The Ottoman Empire, the Classical Age, 1300-1600, London 1973, repr. 1975,
Chapters XI, XII, XIII for an account of the Kul system.
26
lnalcik, H, "Ottoman Methods of Conquest", Studia Islamica, 2 (1954), p. 120 and notes.
330 Peter SEBASTIAN
and in Che provincial administration. The information on these areas varies

enormously. On the whole, individuals only came to the attention of Venetian
officials if they were members of the divan, and then usually only the Grand
Vizier and the Viziers rather than the defterdar, the kadiasker, the nifana or their
secretarial staffs in the bureaucracy. In the provincial administration it was the
beylerbeys, the sancakbeys or the voyvodas who had most contact with Venetian
officials. The Diarii consequently lack information on those individuals who
worked in ihe Inner or Outer Service of the Palace unless they happened to rise at
some point to a position in the Divan or to an important position in the
provincial administration. There is one important exception: those officials from
the Palace who served as ambassadors did come under Venetian scrutiny.
Although the members of this Kul system were bound by a common

status — slaves of the Porte — they came from varied backgrounds. Some came
from famous aristocratic families who had ruled principalities and fiefdoms before
falling to Ottoirian conquest (e.g., Hersekzade Ahmed Pasha, Dukaginzade
Ahmed, Mesih Pasha, Mehmed Beg Karlovit and Mehmed Beg Obrenovic).
Some were eunuchs (Ali Pasha, Sinan Pasha, Cafer Pasha, Yakub Pasha, Firuz
Beg), largely drawn from Bosnia or Albania. The majority were from the
province Rumeli. All appear originally to have been Christians who found
themselves in the service of the sultan following capture in war, conscription as
children through the devoir me or, as in a few cases, having voluntarily offered
their services. They were Bosnians (Hersekzade Ahmed, TCafer Pasha, ?Hadim
Sinan, Hadim Yakub Pasha); Serbians (Mustafa, sancakbey of Avlonya and
Vizier)( henceforth Mustafa (B)); Albanians (Dukaginzade Ahmed, Koca Daud,
?Hadim Sinan, Giiveyi Sinan); Herzegovinans (Kiiûk Daud); Greeks (or
possibly Italians) from the Morea (Iskender Bostanci, ?Cafer Pasha), from Siroz
(Koca Mustafa Pasha), from Corfu (Ala-ed-Din), from Santa Maura (Ali Beg
tercuman), from the Greek community in Trabzon (Faik Pasha, Iskender Pasha),
and Mesih Pasha from the Greek imperial family of Paleologi. Some were the
personal slaves of Selim who had been in his household when he was a prince in
Trabzon (Biyikli Mehmed, Sinan Kapici Bap). The Diarii also record one
Armenian (Yakub Beg).
The extent to which these men retained any loyalty towards the Christian
communities which gave them birth is intriguing. There is no doubt that they
were first and foremost the 'slaves of the sultan', obeying his wishes and
executing his commands with purpose and loyalty. However, the Diarii accounts,
which illustrate how some of them did maintain very strong ties with the Latin
West and with Venice in particular, suggest that these kul elements by no means
severed all ties with their past. It nevertheless remains unclear whether those
slaves recruited as children through the devoir me were less likely to maintain
links than those who were captured in war or who volunteered their services.
The Diarii reports offer some insight into the factors which distinguished
one slave from another in a system of government in which all political power
emanated directly from the person of the sultan. Proximity to the sultan's family
and attachment to his personal household were both the reason for and the
consequence of a successful career. A large number of leading officials married a
daughter or granddaughter of the sultan. Marriage ties with the sultan's family
seem to have been more important in Bayezid's reign, probably due to the large
number of daughters. Both sultans also retained great trust in those officials who
were attached to their personal households during their childhood as princes in the
provinces. Teachers and officials were able later to wield considerable power.
This personal relationship with the sultan was also one factor in wresting some
power away from the members of the Slave Household, so that the latter did not
have a monopoly of policy-making, even if they did control its implementation.
Ibrahim Pasha, who became Grand Vizier, was Bayezid's teacher and a Muslim
from birth. Hoca Halimi and Mehmed Hocazade, like Ibrahim members of the
Religious Institution, were teachers of Selim; though not achieving high office
in any formal sense, they were reputed to be the power behind the throne. They
shared that reputation with two members of the Slave Household: Biyikh
Mehmed Pasha and Kapici Sinan Pasha, both of whom were in Selim's personal
household in Trabzon. Another man very close to Selim who commanded great
respect was Hemdem Pasha. The fate of this childhood friend of Selim, however,
illustrated that during the latter's reign one quality was supreme: bellicosity.
Hemdem was executed for his lack of ardour regarding the Chaldiran campaign;
Biyikli Mehmed on the other hand was one of Selim's most successful generals.
Success in war was, as one might expect, essential in Selim's reign. By contrast
during Bayezid's reign, a number of his generals were consistently unsucessful,
yet this did not seem to affect their standing. The most striking example is
Hadim Ali Pasha, who in spite of repeated failures, became the most powerful
Grand Vizier of the second half of Bayezid's reign and one of the most influential
figures of this period. Mustafa Beg of Avlonya (Mustafa (B)), who performed
miserably during the Turco-Venetian war, was not demoted or executed, because
he was Bayezid's son-in-law. Selim had no time for failures. While a very high
proportion of Bayezid's Viziers and Grand Viziers died of natural causes during
his reign, a high proportion of Selim's leading officials were executed.
Two significant observations can be made about continuity in the

personnel of government in the empire. First, there were several instances of
radical changes in personnel in which members of the divan and other leading
officials were suddenly stripped of office (e.g. 1498-99, 1504, March 1510,
September 1511, January 1512, August 1515, April 1516), sometimes on
account of a janissary revolt, sometimes because of the failures of the Viziers to
attain military success, sometimes, as in Bayezid's reign, due to the illness or
voluntary retirement of a senior official. However, rarely did these upheavals lead
to the permanent demotion of an official. The hallmark of government was the
332 Peter SEBASTIAN
repeated transfer of individuals from one rank or office to another, from the
central machinery of state to the periphery and back again. Beylerbeys could find
themselves sancakbeys in the provinces one year and viziers in Istanbul the next.
The geographical location of an individual's posting was equally varied. The
result of this oscillation was that experience of government at many levels and in
many parts of the empire was both wide and continuous: the periphery enriched
the centre and vice versa. This oscillation, which was facilitated by the
membership of the office-holders of a Kul cadre rather than to a heriditary
landowning class, precluded the amassing of regional or central power by any one
individual and thus enabled the sultan to maintain control of the levers of power.
But it also had important implications for the Venetians, since a sancakbey, for
example, in Bosnia with whom they were having dealings and whom they were
cultivating at one moment could be wielding considerably greater power in the
divan at the next.
Secondly, there was no radical change in the personnel of either the central
or the provincial administration on Selim's accession, despite having to win the
throne through force of arms. Selim used, at least initially, officials who had
held high office in his father's reign or who had began their careers under his
grandfather, Mehemmed the Conqueror. Many officials with this pedigree fought
and died in Selim's great campaigns, falling at Chaldiran against the Safavids,
and at Marj Dabik and Ridaniyya against the Mamluks. Selim even used Grand
Viziers, viziers and beylerbeys who had held those offices under Bayezid. Nor did
he discriminate against some officials who had at some stage demonstrated their
support for his brother and rival for the throne, Prince Ahmed. Hersekzade
Ahmed, Yunus Pasha, Hasan Pasha, Mustafa Pasha (B), Koca Mustafa (if he
survived the janissary revolt of September 1511), and Piri Mehmed Pasha are
some notable examples, but there are others. The Diarii indicate that Selim did
gradually introduce new, young men, (over and above those who had served in
his personal household in Trabzon) who owed their elevation to him alone, but
we are told very little about them.
Ottoman-Venetian relation s
A number of themes concerning links between officials of the two

empires emerge from the study of prosopography in the Diarii reports and other
Venetian reports.
Contacts were determined to a great extent by the Venetian government's

concern to find out as much as possible about the nature of the people
controlling the affairs of the empire which was a constant threat to the security
of the Republic's maritime possessions in the Adriatic and eastern Mediterranean
and consequently to the prosperity of Venice herself. The government needed
primarily to know the answer to three questions: what rank did an official hold?
What was his standing with the sultan, the Viziers, the janissary corps? Was he
sympathetic towards the Republic? The reports which Venetian officials sent
home reflect these intelligence requirements and their attempts to meet them.
Official contacts were of two kinds: those with the powerful members of
the central administration, especially members of the divan, and those with
officials of the provincial administration (sancakbeys, beylerbeys etc). The
maintenance of good relations at local level was of vital importance, not only to
preserve the peace and foster the economic well-being of the Venetian colonial
outposts, but also because the turnover of personnel in the central administration
was so great that from one day to the next a beylerbey or sancakbey could find
himself a vizier and vice versa.
It is striking how many friends the Republic had in Ottoman government,

men whose careers oscillated between the central administration and the
provinces. The occasions when Venetian officials refer to an Ottoman official as
"amico nostro", "amicissimo nostro" or "nostro gran amico" are numerous; and
in the case of the Grand Vizier Hersekzade Ahmed, neither the Venetians, nor
Ahmed himself, were in any doubt that he was in some way "zentilhomo
nostro".27 More importantly, the Republic knew its friends and its enemies and
who to approach for favours. If there was a rule of thumb which governed which
Ottoman official would be sympathetic towards Venice, it appears to have been
his proximity to Venetians in blood relationship and to Venice as his place of
birth. Many if not most of the Republic's friends were either related to the
Venetian patrician class or were born in Dalmatia where the Venetian empire had
itself put down strong roots over several centuries. It is less straightforward to
reach any conclusions about relations with Venice on the basis of membership of
the Slave Institution or Religious Institution, since the Republic could count on
members of both. Çandarh Ibrahim and Piri Pasha are examples from the latter
group. The Slave Institution provided most sympathisers, largely because many
of them were born in Dalmatia and because they dominated the divan and the
provincial administration, and these were the Venetian hunting grounds for
contacts. On the whole, those who had relatives in Venice were friendly, partly
for sentimental reasons, and partly to enable them to pull strings for their
relatives in the West, even though the latter were infidels. Such men had real
influence in both empires. Ottoman officials of kul status; therefore, did
maintain ties with their past.
But what does friend of Venice mean? It had a number of meanings. For
example, throughout the period Venice had friends at the very top of the
administration. Most of the Grand Viziers were sympathetic: Koca Daud,
27 For Hersekzade's claim to Venetian patrician status, see Sebastian, Prosopography, pp, 68-73.
334 Peter SEBASTIAN
Qandark Ibrahim, Hersekzade Ahmed, Mesih Pasha, Hadim Ali Pasha, Yunus
Pasha, Piri Pasha. Some — like the first four named — were more valued than
others, but none could be counted on in all circumstances. They might try to
influence affairs in Venice's favour, but once a decision had been reached, they
performed as true 'slaves' of the sultan, to the point of wholeheartedly
prosecuting campaigns against Venice. Moreover, if they perceived that Venice
was responsible for some wrong-doing against them (e.g., what might appear to
us as Hersekzade's pettiness over the affair of the balas ruby)2*, they could just as
easily be counted as enemies. However, on the whole there were many
individuals who were described as longstanding friends. Official contacts were
exemplified by the Venetians' quest for military aid from the Ottomans in 1510
and 1514 in her wars against Christian powers. The vast majority of leading
officials expressed their support for the Venetian cause and claimed that they
would do their best to persuade first Bayezid and then Selim to send troops.
None, however, was able to obtain concrete results. In 1510 the Venetian
government was chiefly in contact with its great friend Hersekzade Ahmed
(Vizier), with Hadim Ali Pasha (Grand Vizier), with Hasan Pasha (beylerbey of
Rumeli), with Koca Mustafa Pasha (Vizier), with Mustafa Pasha (B)(then
sancakbey of the Morea), and with Qasim Beg (sancakbey of Hersek-Nova). All
promised to help. Ludovico Valdrin, secretary to the Venetian bailo (consul) in
Istanbul, stated emphatically that it was Hersekzade's appointment as Vizier in
1510 that turned the balance in the divan in favour of Venice, so that Bayezid
was willing to consider the possibility of giving aid. In 1514 Venice was again
in contact with Hersekzade Ahmed (now Grand Vizier), with Dukaginzade Ahmed
(Vizier), with Mustafa (B) (now Vizier), with Ali Beg suba§i, with Biyikli
Mehmed Pasha, with Sinan Kapici Ba§i, and with either Hoca Halimi or Hoca-
zade Mehmeid Celebi. The last four individuals mentioned were very close to
Selim. Again ali expressed sympathy for the Venetian cause.
Can they in any way be described as agents, or more significantly, secret

agents of Venice, an illustration of the extent to which the Council of Ten had
succeeded in penetrating Ottoman government? There is little hard evidence to go
on. Some of those mentioned were opportunists who were prepared to take
bribes. Those, like Biyikli Mehmed and Kapici Sinan, with allegedly the greatest
influence with the sultan at the time, were also those who accepted offers of
money. The Venetians repeatedly resorted to the use of largesse in order to win
friends, but this took different forms. It might be an unadulterated bribe, or it
might take a more subtle form, as in the case of Hersekzade Ahmed whose
nephew, Zuan Kosaca, was a citizen and resident of Venice. Hersekzade took a
great interest in his nephew's career in the service of the Republic, and it was
Ibid., p. 76-78 and notes. This curious affair, amounting to Hersekzade's manic desire to
retrieve from Venice a precious stone which had belonged to his ancestral,Christian family,
soured relations with the Republic at a critical time before the Turco-Venetian war (1499-1503).
partly to please Hersekzade that in 1503 Zuan was granted a condotta or

command of 80 men in the Venetian army and an assured stipend. In 1509 at the
time of the League of Cambrai his condotta was increased to 100 men; and at all
times in her dealings with Hersekzade, Venice stressed how well Zuan was being
cared for.29
However, not all were opportunists. Some offered practical help. For
example, Mustafa Pasha (B) and Firuz Beg, sancakbeys in coastal sancaks,
allowed Venice to recruit mercenaries in the areas under their jurisdiction, even
though the sultan had not given his permission. So desperate were the Venetians
in 1514 to obtain Ottoman military aid that they encouraged the Ottomans to
mount a diversionary attack into southern Italy against the League of Cambrai
powers. Mustafa (B) was himself extremely keen on such a manoeuvre. 30
As stated before, the distinction between the Venetian state's relations

with representatives of central and local power is blurred, because of the
oscillation between the two or because of promotions. There are many examples
of good relations between Venetian and Ottoman officials at a local, provincial
level which indicate a measure of active co-operation which went beyond basic
co-existence. Support from Mustafa Pasha (B) and from Firuz Beg mentioned
above are two examples. There were others: co-operation in countering the
activities of corsairs 31 or unruly inhabitants like those of the Albanian Himare
region 32 ; co-operation concerning mutual commercial interests, such as the grain
and the salt trade; 33 and co-operation even over the provisioning of Ottoman
troops or repairing of Ottoman vessels34 or the unofficial sharing intelligence. 35
Notable individuals who maintained friendly relations were Mustafa Pasha (B)
during his tenure as sancakbey of the Morea, Faik Pasha, sancakbey of Arta;
Qasim Beg, sancakbey of Hersek Nova, as well as others. However, like the men
at the centre, these men on the periphery were invariably the loyal slaves of the
sultan, throwing themselves energetically into war against the Republic if the
sultan commanded it.
The two sides tended to accommodate one another over damages inflicted
on the other side by local subjects, or over disputes concerning Ottoman haraq
(poll tax) payers. The Venetians on the whole were more accommodating, at
times resorting to outright appeasement with an eye to win friends in the right
i9
lbid., p. 70 and notes.
30
/i>W., p. 373.
3
' Ibid., pp. 218-9, 232.
i2
lbid„ p. 367.
33
Ibid., pp. 303-4, 392, 425-6, 461-2.
34
lbid.. pp. 20Jff, 234-J.
35
/ i W . , pp. i l l , 370ff.
336 Peter SEBASTIAN
places. Even when the Venetians declared it was not their responsibility to
provide compensation, they were still prepared to be conciliatory and offer some
palliative.
Among those with the sultan's ear, enemies of Venice seem to have been
fewer in number, less important in status, and less relentless in their enmity. For
example, Kiifiik Daud may have been fiercely hostile in the 1S03 peace
negotiations, but it was said of him that he could be bought; Cafer Pasha did not
like Christians and above all hated the Knights of Rhodes, but he was friendly
with the bailo, Lunardo Bembo; Koca Mustafa, the only Grand Vizier whose
power the Republic really feared, was too involved in internal political intrigue
to pose a real threat. The least amenable to Venetian influence were the Kapudan
Pashas of the period (Iskender Bosianci Pasha, Kiif iik Daud and Cafer Pasha), and
the corsairs conscripted into Ottoman service (Kemal Reis, Oru$ and Kurt-oglu),
but there were also friendly Kapudans, like Hersekzade,
In general, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that, while Venice's friends

were useful in time of peace in providing a channel to the sultan and in obtaining
and safeguarding commercial privileges, they were quite useless if the sultan
decided that war was necessary; and they were quite useless in obtaining
substantial military aid for Venice at her times of crisis in 1510 and 1514,
though there were good reasons for their failure, and it may not have been for any
lack of trying: In 1511 Bayezid was too feeble to want to commit troops for such
a venture; irt 1514, the Viziers themselves were powerless even to influence
Selim against risky campaigns in the east which they opposed. It would be
premature to ¿onclude that it was Venice's friends in these years who were
instrumental » preserving the peace between the two empires which lasted for
more than a generation. There were many other factors, both internal and
external, such as Bayezid's approaching death, the dispute over the succession,
and war in the east, which can account for the Ottomans' desire to pursue a path
of peaceful co-existence, at times verging on an alliance, with its chief maritime
and colonial rival. However, while Venice's friends were prepared to throw
themselves into war when the sultan's command came, there was no element of
hypocrisy and the Venetians, who understood the realities of power, would not
have expected them to have acted otherwise. To the extent that most of the
sultan's leading officials did not go out of their way to press the sultan to wage
war against the Republic, their friendship must be considered to have been real
and of value to Venice. The Venetians themselves were in no doubt that it was
preferable to have a friend in the sultan's imperial council than not and they
expended much effort in their cultivations; and there was almost audible rejoicing
in Venice whenever news was received that one of their friends had been
appointed to that council.
Sanuto's Diarii, therefore, throw into relief the dynamic relationships

between officials of the two Empires; and with all this intelligence available to
it, the Venetian government could not fail to become expert at Seraglio-
watching. Through prosopographical analysis of this intelligence we can obtain
not only an idea of Venetian perspectives on the Ottoman Empire but also new
perspectives on the men who ran the empire which may well have eluded the
Council of Ten. We know that the Venetians periodically produced detailed
assessments 36 of Ottoman government, administration, military establishment
and revenue. However, there is no evidence that the Council of Ten or the
Chancellery secretaries, any more than Sanuto, kept track of the identities of all
the individuals who came to their attention in despatches; and they would not
have had the benefit of Ottoman written sources to help them in the task of
identification. They relied on experience, tribal memory and men on the ground.
In any case, it would have been anachronistic for the Venetians to have engaged
in the sort of analysis which produces an overview of the personnel of the
Ottoman state, even though prosopography as a term was coined during the
Renaissance.37
Surbtton
The Venetian chancellery secretary, Gian Giacomo Caroldo, produced one of the most erudite
surveys of the Ottoman state in this period. Caroldo was assistant to Andrea Gritti, Venetian
ambassador to Constantinople, during the successful peace mission of 1503. A copy of his
Narrazione is inserted in Sanuto, V, 455-468 (21 lv ff in manuscript of Diarii). Caroldo's
autograph manuscript can be located in the BNM, Cod. It, 882 (=8505)).
37
Lawrence Stone, op. cil., p. 263, note 1.
Nicolas VATIN
DEUX ÎLES À LA DÉRIVE:

SAMOS ET ICARIA ENTRE 1475 ET 1572
Faisant rapidement le catalogue des possessions génoises en mer Égée,

Jacques Heers conclut : "E faut y joindre surtout [les îles] de Samos et d'Icaria, de
faible intérêt économique, mais qui sont vers le Sud un bastion défensif, et un
relais vers l'île de Rhodes" 1 . Tant à Gênes qu'à Chio, on n'accordait
vraisemblablement que peu d'intérêt, en effet, à ces deux îles à peu près inutiles.
Ainsi s'explique sans doute en partie pourquoi on est si mal renseigné sur leur
sort à la fin du XV e et au début du XVI e siècle : ce n'est pas aux archives, mais
aux chroniques et aux récits de voyage que les historiens ont dû avoir recours, ce
qui a entraîné un certain flou et plusieurs contradictions2. Le présent article n'a
d'autre but que de tenter d'y voir plus clair et d'apporter, à la lumière de deux
documents d'archives, une modeste et hypothétique contribution à l'histoire de
Samos et Icaria.
Les historiens s'accordent pour dater de 1475 l'évacuation de Samos

abandonnée par la Mahone de Chio 3 . Cette unanimité ne suffit pas à convaincre
'Jacques Heers, Gines au XV siècle. Activité économique et problèmes sociaux, Paris, 1961, p
387
11 est caractéristique que les deux îles n'apparaissent pratiquement pas dans de récents travaux
fondés sur les archives, comme les livres de Ì. Heers (op. cit.) ou de Michel Balani (La Romanie
génoise (XII'-XV siècle), Rome, 1978). Cet absence paraît un signe de la faible importance de
Samos et Icaria aux yeux des Génois et des Chiotes. En ce qui concerne les récits de voyage, la
consultation est maintenant grandement facilitée par la récente parution du livre de Stéphane
Yerasimos, Les voyageurs dans l'Empire ottoman (XIV -XVF siècles). Bibliographie, itinéraires
et inventaire des lieux habités, Ankara, T.T.K., 1991.
3
Cf. Cario Pagano, Delle imprese e del dominio dei Genovesi nella Grecia, Génes, 1852, p. 148 ;
William Miller, Essays on the Latin Orient, Cambridge, 1921, repr. Amsterdam. 1964, p. 301 ;
F. W. Hasluck, "Depopulation in the Aegean islands and the Turkish Conquest", in Annual of the
British School at Athens XVII (1910-1911), pp. 151-181 (p. 169) ; Karl Hopf, Us Giustiniani de
Chios, Paris, 1888, p. 76 ; J H. Mordtmann (article "Samos" de l'Encyclopédie de l'Islam, I e
édition, Paris-Leyde 1934, t. IV, pp. 142 sq.) date l'évacuation de 1476, soit qu'il ait eu accès à
une autre source, soit (plus vraisemblablement) qu'il ait commis une petite inexactitude.
340 Nicolas VATIN
absolument de la véracité de l'information, dans la mesure où cette dernière

semble bien fondée sur une source unique, à savoir le texte rédigé en France,
après la conquête ottomane de Chio en 1566, par Jérôme Giustiniani 4 . D'après
cet auteur, Mehmed II "confirma leurs privilèges [aux Chiotes], & non seulement
pour l'isle de Chio, mais encores pour les autres limitrophes, comme aussi de
Nicarta, & Samos : toutes lesquelles Isles ont esté habitées iusques à l'année
1475 ; mais comme les Corsaires et Pirates les travailloient iournellement, les
seigneurs Iustinians résolurent de retirer tous les habitans d'iceltes à Chio, & les
laisser toutes vuides, inhabitées & desertes excepté l'isle de Nicarta, en laquelle
par ce qu'il n'y avoit point de port, les Corsaires n'y pouvoient aborder, partant
après la perte de Chio, Samos & Psara furent derechef habitées par une nouvelle
nation estrangere."
Giustiniani écrivait un siècle après les événements, mais il était le fils du

dernier podestat de Chio. Son livre constitue donc la meilleure source dont nous
puissions disposer. Le prendre au mot en admettant la date de 1475 fait courir un
petit risque. On doit cependant pouvoir le faire, quitte à se tromper d'un an ou
deux, puisque Bosio, qui travaillait sur des copies des archives de l'Ordre de
Rhodes, nous apprend que Samos appartenait aux Ottomans en 1481 5 . Le
chroniqueur ottoman Bihiçtî date d'ailleurs de 1479 la prise de possession de l'île
par Mehmed II: "La même année [884 / 25 mars 1479 - 12 mars 1480], écrit-il,
le beg de Biga reçut l'ordre de s'emparer de Ténédos, qui se trouvait en face de sa
circonscription, et d'y construire un fort. De même, il fut ordonné au beg de
Karasi de conquérir l'île de Samos. lis étudièrent ce qu'exigeaient [ces opérations]
et y affectèrent des bateaux. Puis partant l'un et l'autre en expédition, par la
fortune du pâdijâh qui a ie rang d'Alexandre, ils conquirent leurs îles, y firent des
travaux et firent proclamer que quiconque désirait être libéré des 'avâriz-i dîvân
n'avait qu'à venir : et bien vite, avant qu'il se passât long temps, les villages de
ces îles revinrent à l'état de [vraies] villes" 6 . Bihi§tî lie implicitement la prise de
possession de Samos I celle de Ténédos. Pour la même date, Sa'dii-d-dîn évoque
Francesco Piacenza, L'Egeo redivivo, o' sia chorographia dell'Archipelago, Modène, 1688. p.
200, ne donne pas de dale précise Quant à Louis Lacroix. Iles de la Grèce, Paris. 1853, p 250, ses
explications sont singulièrement floues.
^Cf. Jerosme Justinian, Lu description et histoire de l'isle de Scios, ou Chios, s. 1., 1606, p.
166. On peut aussi se reporter à la version italienne in H. Giustiniani, History of Chios, Ph.
Argenti éd., Cambridge, 194.1, pp. 380 sq.
5 ma
Cf. Giacomo Bosio, Dell'Istoria della sacra Religione et Ill militia di S. Giovuni
Gierosolimitano II, Rome, 1594, p. 352 ; ou II, Rome, 1621, p. 436.
^Ve yine tâ'rik-i me;kûrde Bîgâ begine hiikm vardi ki mukâzisindeki Bôzca Adayi tashir eduli
kal'esin ta'mir éde. Bi-'aynihi Karasi begine dai) emr «Ml ki Susâm adasm Jeth éde havâyiclerin
gôrlib gemiler vérdiler [vériib]. Ikisi dahi varub pâdi&âh-i Sikender-câh devletinde adalart feth
étdiler hifârlarm '¡mûret édiib çagtrtdiiar ki 'avarit i dîvâtundan kimUn kim bplâf olmak makfûdtysa
gelslin dédiler défi çok zamân geçmedin [geçmedin] ol adalarun kôyleri sehrist&nlarmda
IsehristinlaraJ dSndi (Bihrçtî, ms. du British Museum, n" 7869 du catalogue de Rieu, 209 v').
Entre crochets, j'ai indiqué le texte conservé dans un autre manuscrit du British Museum (catalogue
de Rieu n ' 24.955, B.M. Compilation, part I, 205 v ' sq ).
DEUX ÎLES À LA DÉRIVE 341
de son côté la main-mise ottomane sur Ténédos et sur Lemnos7. On assiste donc
en fait—et cela amène à admettre volontiers la date de 1479 pour le passage de
Samos sous l'autorité de la Porte — à la prise de contrôle par les Ottomans des
îles voisines du littoral anatolien à l'issue du conflit avec Venise de 1473-1479.
Ainsi s'explique sans doute la tradition érronée rapportée par Pîrî Rets : on
disait, peut-être par confusion avec Lemnos, que les Vénitiens avaient en vain
tenté d'obtenir la remise de l'île, amenant Mehmed II à construire un fort par
précaution8. Il semble donc raisonnable d'admettre que Samos fut abandonnée par
les Génois vers 147S et qu'elle demeura déserte plusieurs années avant que les
ottomans ne s'y installassent en 1479®. Quant à Icaria, son statut n'avait pas
changé.
On remarquera au passage que le récit de Bihigtî n'est pas dénué

d'inexactidudes. Parler de la conquête de Samos par la force ifeth) est plus
qu'exagéré, puisque l'île était abandonnée. De même, le repeuplement ne se fît
pas aussi rapidement que le chroniqueur le laisse entendre. En effet, la plupart des
sources dont on dispose confirment que ltle demeura à l'abandon durant les trois
premiers quarts du XVIe siècle. Seul Claude Bellièvre indique qu'en 1521 Samos
était habitée. Est-ce à dire que tel était réellement le cas, ou bien vit-il des êtres
humains en passant au large de ltle ? Encore faut-il ajouter que cet auteur signale
lui-même un risque de confusion avec Simi10. De toute manière, la description
rédigée peu après par Pîrî Rets ne laisse guère la place au doute : excellent
connaisseur de la région, le célèbre marin ne signale aucun village occupé. Au
contraire, il indique qu'on pouvait voir, devant un fort ottoman abandonné qui
avait été construit sur l'emplacement d'un ancien fort génois, un port artificiel
ensablé : ce n'est évidemment pas un signe d'occupation régulière". À en croire
Pîrî Re'îs, après le départ de Rhodes des Chevaliers de Saint-Jean en 1522, la
seule activité humaine constatable à Samos était épisodique et non agricole :
"Actuellement, les gens d'Anatolie et aussi de Cos viennent [sur l'île] avec des
7
Et non sur Samos, comme l'écrit par erreur Mordtm&nn (art. cil.) : cf. Sa'dû-d-dîn, Tâcû-l-uvârth
II, Istanbul, 1279 / 1863-64, pp. $68 sq.
"cf. Pîrî Rets, Kitâb-t bahriyye, F. Kuttoglu éd., Istanbul, 193S, p. 182: $»yie nakl éderler kim
bir tâ'ribde Venedtk fâhibi mqkir adayi merhûm sultán Mu\tmmad ùâziden istemif kim bir kal'e
binâ ¿de ammâ merhûm vërmemij. / j bu sebeb ile merhûm ve magfSr sultán Muhammad ùâtiiiir
ohm adada bir kal'e binâ eylelmi¡
9
Et non pas en 1475 comme l'indique Pitcher, An Historical Geography ofthe Ottoman Empire.
Leyde, 1972, carte n* XIV. La phrase finale de Bihi$tf laisse du reste clairement entendre qu'il
fallut repeupler ltle.
Samos. Ínsula inhabitata inter Rhodum et Constantinopolitim. Appelant vulgares Les
Esseaumes : Pytagaras samiits. Assime, Rhodiorum Insula" : cf. Claude Bellièvre, Souvenirs de
voyages en Italie et en Orient, Ch, Peirat éd., Genève, 1956, p. 16,
11
Cf. Pîiî Rets, op. cit., p. 184 : "Ônllnde binâ île yaptlmtf bir limâncu&i var. 01 limâncuguil
fjmdikiluUde ici folmif-dur. Herkez gemi girmez."
342 Nicolas VATIN
fusils. Ils y demeurent un ou deux mois, y faisant du pastirma12 de biche sauvage

qu'ils ramènent ensuite et vendent." 13 C'est la même impression de désolation
que conserva Pierre Belon du Mans de son passage vers 1547 : "L'isle de Samos
encore qu'elle soit grande, toutefois elle est maintenant quasi deshabitée. C'est
grand chose qu'une isle comme Samos, qui a cinq cents huictante et huict milles
de tour, doibve rester deserte, veu mesmement qu'elle feut anciennement si
célebrée & puissante, qu'elle faisoit teste à la force des Athéniens. La crainte des
pirates faict qu'elle soit deshabitée, en sorte que maintenant il n'y a pas un seul
village, et par conséquent il n'y a point de bestial" 14 . Pîiî Rets et Belon sont
deux auteurs particulièrement sûrs. D'ailleurs Jérôme Giustiniani précise de son
côté que c'est "après la perte de Chio" seulement que "Samos & Psara furent
derechef habitées par une nouvelle nation estrangere"15.
Il ne fait donc pas de doute que Samos demeura déserte près d'un siècle et
qu'à aucun moment les Génois de Chio ne tentèrent d'y remettre le pied 16 . Au
moins après 1552, les Ottomans semblent d'ailleurs avoir considéré l'île comme
potentiellement sous leur dépendance : les chasseurs dont parle Pîrî Re'îs, étant
armés de fusils, pourraient bien avoir eu quelques liens avec l'armée du sultan 17 ,
12
Viande séchée au soleil.
p. 186 : fimdikihâlde Anatôlûnun ve Istânkûyiin ftalki tiifenk ile gelur bir iki ay ol adada
olub vâfirâhû baçdumasm éderler andan sonra ilediib fatarlor.
14
Pierre Belon du Mans, Les observations de plusieurs singularitéz (...) trouvées en Grèce. Paris,
1553, 86 v \
" c f . Justinian, op. cit., p. 381
' 6 U n e lecture hâtive du texte de Belon du Mans fit écrite à Mordtmann (art. cit.): "Plus tard,
vraisemblablement après la paix conclue avec Venise sous B&yezid II en 1502, les Génois
paraissent avoir recouvré la souveraineté de l'île ; du moins Belon. qui visita l'Archipel peu après
1547, dit-il expressément qu'elle appartenait à la seigneurie de Chio." La confusion de
Mordtmann s'explique par la rédaction maladroite de Belon: "La première isle que nous
advisasmes de loing, fut Icarie, qui est maintenant nommée Nicarie, que nous laissasmes à costé
dextre : <1 ne fusmes gueres sur mer que nous ne vissions l'isle de Samos, laquelle apparoissoit de
bien loing : car il y a de moult hautes montaignes en ¡celle. C'est une petite isle du ressort de la
Seigneurie de Chio, qui n'est pas large, mais est estendue en longueur. Elle n'a gueres haultes
montaignes. aussi n'ha gueres de bois, mais il y croist beaucoup de bled, & bons pasturages pour
brebis, dont ilz font à force fourmage. Ceste isle a bons ports : & n'estoit la paour des coursaires.
elle (comme plusieurs autres islettes deshabitées) serait rendue mieux cultivée. Car quand le
moindre coursaire de mer y vient faisant quelque peu d'effort sur eux, ilz les prennent esclaves, &
les mettent en Galère par force." (Belon, op. cit., 86 r"). Il est vrai que la mention de bons ports
favorables aux corsaires évoque ce qu'on dit généralement de Samos, et non d'Icaria. Il est
néanmoins certain que c'est cette dernière que décrit le passage cité dans la présente note, puisqu'il
y est écrit que l'île n'a pas de hautes montagnes, et partant pas de bois. Tel n'est pas le cas de
Samos, au contraire, qui est d'ailleurs décrite par Belon à la page suivante. On doit donc
comprendre que le passage mis (par moi) en italiques, qui rendrait le texte incohérent s'il
concernait la même île que le reste de la citation, constitue en réalité une parenthèse (consacrée à
Samos) dans la description d'Icaria. Ce n'est donc pas Samos, mais bien (caria, que Belon
rattachait à Chio en 1547.
17
En théorie, les re'âyâ n'avaient pas le droit de porter des armes à feu. Il est vrai que l'usage de
celles-ci se répandit assez vite parmi les populations de l'Empire ottoman, mais on peut penser
que le phénomène n'était pas encore très développé en 1525 : cf. Halil Inalcik, "The Socio-
qu'ils aient été janissaires, titulaires d'un timar ou dépendants d'un timariote. La
tradition veut d'ailleurs que ce soit à l'occasion d'une partie de chasse que le
Kapûdân Pafa Kiliç 'Alî Paja ait découvert Samos et conçu le désir bientôt
exaucé de se la faire accorder par le Sultan, très vraisemblablement en 1572 18 . Un
autre indice du sentiment de la Porte que Samos était sous sa souveraineté est la
tentative que Kara Mustafà Pa$a aurait faite en 1558 pour y construire un fort 19 .
En tout cas, une véritable occupation de l'île par les Ottomans n'eut pas lieu
avant 1572 et encore en 1585, François de Pavie notait que Samos était "toute
destruite, et presque point habitée"20.
Tels sont les faits. Encore convient-il de se demander pourquoi une île que
la Porte avait occupée et commencé à repeupler en 1479, qui était apparemment
considérée comme ottomane au XVI e siècle, était encore en ruine et vide
d'habitants en 1572.
* *
La réponse à cette question est vraisemblablement politique. En effet, le

statu quo consécutif au traité vénéto-ottoman de 1479, qui impliquait de fait la
main-mise du Sultan sur un certain nombre d'îles proches du continent anatolien,
fut remis en question par la mort de Mehmed II en avril 1481. À Gênes, on vit
dans cet heureux événement une occasion inespérée pour recouvrer les territoires
Political Effects of the Diffusion of Fire-arms in the Middle East", in War, Technology and
Society in the Middle East, V J. Parry et M.E. Yapp éd., Oxford Un. Press, Londres, 1975, pp.
195-217 (repr. in H. tnalcik. The Ottoman Empire : Conquest, Organization and Economy,
Variorum Reprints, Londres. 1978).
I8
C f . Joseph Georgirenes, Archbishop of Samos, Now living in London, A description of the
present state of Santos, Nicaria, Patmos and Mount Alhos, Londres, 1678, repr. Athènes, 1967,
pp. 2 sq. : "It is certain, that what time it pleas'd God for our sins to permit the Turks to subdue
Constantinople, and the Archipelago, the Island of Samos was totally dispeopl'd. Afterwards one
Kilitch Aly Basha arrived here, and Landing with a small company to Hunt, was so taken with the
place, that he was resolv'd to ask leave of the Grand signior, to re-people the island : which
having done, he transported several Families from all the Voisinage especially from Metelyne,
so that by degrees, it became full of Inhabitants". En ce qui concerne la date de 1572 (et non
1562), cf. Hasluck, art. cit., pp. 169 sq.
" c f . Vlsolario d'Antonio da Millo, cité par Hasluck, art. cit., pp. 170 sq.
20
Relations de François de Pavie, Seigneur de Forquevauls, d'un sien voyage fait en l'an 1585 aux
terres du Turc et aux divers lieux de l'Europe, ms. de la Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris, Nouvelles
Acquisitions Françaises n ' 6277, p. 167. Passé au large de Samos en mars 1582, Jean Palerne
écrit seulement : "Contimians nostre voyage trou vas mes une autre petite Isle, ioignant celles de
Samos, lesquelles sont quasi deshabitees." Je ne suis pas certain du sens exact qu'il faut donner à
cette phrase, faute de pouvoir déterminer avec certitude l'antécédent de "lesquelles" (cf. Jean
Paleme, Peregrinations du S. lean Palerne (...) oi est traicté de plusieurs singularités, et antiquités
remarquées es provinces d'Egypte, Arabie deserte .... Lyon, 1606, p. 349.
344 N i c o l a s V A TI N
conquis par Mehmed II 21 . Mais c'est Pera, Caffa et Mytilène qu'on nommait, et
non pas Icaria ou Samos. Prudents, les Génois renoncèrent à leur projet, qu'ils
étaient du reste inacapables de réaliser seuls, lorsqu'ils apprirent que Bajazet II
l'avait emporté sur son frère Djem et se trouvait donc solidement installé sur le
trône. À Rhodes, les Chevaliers de Saint-Jean-de-Jérusalem, qui venaient de
repousser le siège ottoman de 1480, virent eux aussi, dans le décès de Mehmed II
et dans la guerre civile qui opposait ses héritiers, une chance dont il convenait de
profiter. Dans un violent discours célébrant la mort du "tyran", le vice-chancelier
de l'Ordre de Saint-Jean, Guillaume Caoursin, appelait en juin 1481 à la
reconquête des terres perdues par les Chrétiens 22 . On peut noter à ce propos que
lorsque le prince Djem, battu par Bajazet II, dut chercher refuge auprès des
Chevaliers de Rhodes, il promit, en cas de victoire future sur son frère, de leur
remettre toutes les îles, villes, terres ou forteresses prises par Mehmed II aux
Chrétiens 23 . Le malheureux étant destiné à servir d'otage, cette clause était assez
théorique. Elle n'en est pas moins caractéristique de l'esprit de croisade et de
"reconquête" qui régna quelques temps dans les esprits à la disparition du
conquérant de Constantinople.
Dans l'immédiat, c'est à une expédition contre Mytilène que les Chevaliers
de Rhodes se préparèrent eux aussi, en secret 24 . Ils abandonnèrent cependant
bientôt ce projet qui leur aurait permis d'occuper une importante place stratégique
non loin des détroits. Or à la même époque, à un moment où les cartes
semblaient en cours de redistribution dans le bassin oriental de la Méditerranée,
l'Ordre de Saint-Jean se trouva aussi mêlé au sort d'Icaria et Samos, îles qui se
trouvaient à la frontière de l'archipel rhodien qu'il contrôlait.
Plusieurs auteurs affirment que la Mahone de Chio céda en 1481 ses droits
sur Icaria à l'Ordre de Saint-Jean25. Hasluck 26 au contraire expose que ce sont les
21
"Inter omnes chrislianos sumus qui ex suo obitu vehementer letamur, quod non modo ab
imminentibus periculis sallem propier Chium nostrum cripti sumus. sed oblata est nobis facultas
recuperando de minibus suis que a nobis eripuerat, si modo nobiscum adsit benignitas Sue
Sanctitatis": instructions du 5 juin 1481 à Bartolomeo Senarega, envoyé auprès du pape Sixte (V.
in Giacomo Grasso, Documenti riguardanti la costituzione di una lega contro il Turco nel 1481,
Gines, 1880 (extrait du Giornale Ligustico), p. 33. C'est sur cette étude que sont fondées les
quelques lignes concernant le projet génois de 1481, qu'on trouvera aussi résumé par Ph. Argenti,
The Occupation of Chios by the Genoese and their Administration of the Island, Cambridge,
1958, pp. 241 sqq.
22
Cf. Guillaume Caourein, Opera, Ulm, 14%, cllr'-cIVr'.
23
C f . Bosio, op. cit. (Rome, 1594) II, p. 374.
24
Cf. le Liber consiliorum de l'Ordre, conservé à la National Library de Malte: AOM 76 66v° sq.
25
C f . Hopf, op. cit., p. 76 (on trouvera ses références dans la version italienne de son étude,
"Stoni dei Giustiniani di Genova", in Giornale Ligustico Vl-VIl (1881), pp. 316-330, 362-373,
400-409, 471-477 et IX (1882), pp. 13-18, 49-65, 100-130); Miller, op. cit., p. 301 ; Argenti,
op. cit., p. 243 ; Pitcher, op. cit., carte n' XIV.
26
Art. cit., p. 168.
insulaires qui demandèrent à être rattachés Ì Rhodes 2 7 , mais que leur offre fut
repoussée. C'est assurément cette seconde version qu'il faut retenir, car c'est celle
de Bosio, dont le livre est fondé sur les archives de l'Ordre 2 8 : il racont en effet
qu'au début de l'été 1481 le chevalier Charles Allemand, passant par Icaria avec
deux galères de l'Ordre, fut prié par les insulaires de les mener à Rhodes. Informé
par lettre, le Grand-Maître et son conseil auraient refusé de s'embarrasser de cette
île 29 . À première vue, cette réponse négative paraît d'ailleurs pleine de bon sens :
dès lors que l'offre émanait non de la Mahone de Chio, mais des habitants
d'Icaria, l'Ordre aurait nui à sa réputation en Occident s'il s'était emparé d'une île
dépendant d'une puissance catholique. De plus Icaria, déjà pauvre, aurait été un
poids inutile si sa population la quittait pour s'installer à Rhodes. De toute
manière, les témoignages de Pîïî Rets en 1525 30 et de Belon du Mans en 1547 31
confirment que l'île demeura habitée et resta sous la souveraineté de la Mahone de
Chio. On n'imagine pas le Sultan rendant l'île aux Génois après la prise de
Rhodes en 1522. Il faut donc admettre qu'Icaria ne passa jamais sous l'autorité de
l'Ordre de Saint-Jean, mais resta sous celle de la Mahone jusqu'à la chute de Chio
en 1566.
En ce qui concerne Samos, Bosio est le seul à parler d'une curieuse

tentative des Chevaliers en novembre 1481 : ayant entendu dire que le Sultan
avait ordonné la destruction de la forteresse de Samos et l'abandon de l'île, le
Grand-maître avait ordonné aux galères de l'Ordre d'aller à Samos et d'y profiter de
la situation pour nuire le plus possible aux Ottomans. Mais à leur arrivée dans
les parages, les Rhodiens avaient appris que l'information était fausse : bien au
contraire, les Ottomans renforçaient la garnison. Les galères étaient donc
revenues sans avoir rien entrepris 32 .
il
II est d'accord sur ce point avec Lacroix, op. cit., p. 211 ; mais ce dernier affirme qu'en
conséquence Icaria fut de 1481 à 1522 sous la dépendance de l'Ordre.
70
" J e n'ai pas vu à Malte les documents sur lesquels Bosio s'est fondé pour le récit de l'action des
Chevaliers ì Icaria et Samos. Je ne trouve pas non plus de référence possible en consultant W.
Mizzi, Catalogue ofthe Records of the Order of St. John of Jérusalem in the Royal Malta Library
II/l, Malte, 1970. Mais Bosio put trouver son information dans un autre fond que le Liber
consiliorum. Quoi qu'il en soit, une longue pratique de l'ouvrage de Bosio et des archives de l'Ordre
m'a convaincu du sérieux du travail de cet historien.
•"Cf. Bosio, op. cit., II, p. 351 : "In questi tempi trovandosi il Cavalier Fra Carlo Aleman
Commendatore di laies nell'Arcipelago, con due Galere della Religione, da lui capitaneggiate ; fi
pregato di Popoli dell'Isola di Nicaria, ch'imbarcare, e portar à Rodi gli volesse. Percioche
grandemente desideravano d'essere vassali della Religione. Di che Havendo scritto al Gran
Maestro, & al Consiglio ; gli fu risposto, che la Religione non voleva de'fatti di quell'Isal
impedirsi."
. cit., p. 195 : "Gun batist tarafindan kara yéle kar&u bir kaVesi var-dur ma'mûr. Mfçkûr kal'e
iimdikihâlde $âkiz beglerine tdbi'-dUr".
31
Cf. supra, note 15.
32
Cf.
Bosio, op. cit., II, p. 352 : "Intanto inteso essendosi in Rodi, che i Turchi, ch'erano in
presidiò dell'Isola di Samo, per ordine del Gran Turco rovinare quel castello, A abbandonar
quell'Isola dovessero. Tosto, che le cinque Galere, ch'in soccorso del sopradetto Gran Caramano
mandar si dovevano furono in ordine ; commandò il Gran Maestro, ch'alia volta di dell'Isola
346 Nicolas VATIN
Pourtant, il a été démontré que les Ottomans abandonnèrent bel et bien

Samos et Pîrî Rels précisé que cet événement eut lieu, en effet, dans les premiers
temps du règne de Bajazet II. "Feu le sultan Muhamad ôâzî, écrit-il, fit construire
un fort dans cette île. Par la suite, quand feu le sultan Bajazet fian monta sur le
trône, i! fit détruire ce fort qui ne justifiait pas les dépenses qu'on faisait pour
lui." 33
Le témoignage de Pîrî Re'îs est précieux dans la mesure où il confirme

l'abandon du fort par les soldats de la Porte, abandon qu'ignore ou dissimule
Bihigtî. H paraît cependant en contradiction avec le récit de Bosio. Sauf à conclure
que l'un des deux auteurs se trompe, la seule façon de résoudre le problème ainsi
posé est de supposer qu'ils disent vrai l'un et l'autre, mais qu'ils parlent de deux
événements différents et non contemporains. Du reste, en novembre 1481,
Bajazet II, qui venait de gagner la première manche de la lutte qui l'opposait à son
frère Djem, savait ce dernier en Égypte et était loin d'avoir encore parfaitement
assis son pouvoir. Dans ces conditions, on peut se demander si l'évacuation du
fort de Samos pour des raisons d'économie constituait une affaire urgente pour la
Porte. Bien plus, tant que Djem demeurait une menace, aurait-il été sage
d'abandonner un point de contrôle de la côte ? En novembre 1481, précisément,
un représentant du Sultan discutait et concluait avec le Grand-Maître une trêve de
six mois qui permettait à la flotte ottomane d'emprunter les eaux du
Dodécanèse 34 . Au moment où Bajazet II avait besoin de pouvoir intercepter son
frère s'il tentait de gagner la Roumélie, la Porte pouvait-elle considérer que le fort
de Samos "ne justifiait pas les dépenses qu'on faisait pour lui"? Or cette situation
ne put guère changer qu'après le départ de Djem pour la France en septembre
1482, et même une fois seulement que Bajazet II eut l'assurance que son
encombrant rival serait soigneusement tenu prisonnier dans l'Occident lointain.
Or il se trouve que c'est précisément au moment où, dans les premiers

jours de décembre 1482, on apprenait à Rhodes l'arrivée de Djem sain et sauf à
Villefranche, que le Grand-Maître Pierre d'Aubusson émit une exigence
navigassero ; procurando di far in quel movimento. <4 m quei tumulto, à Turchi il maggior danno,
che potessero ; e che dopo questo ritornare in Rodi se ne dovessero (...). Andarono adunque le
Galere ; e giunte essendo all'Isola di Samo, trovarono, che gli avvisi venuti al Gran Maestro non
erano veri. Percioche da alcuni Humini, che presero, hebbero certa informatione, che non
solamente non ¡¡avevano i Turchi havuta commissione, <t ordine alcuno di partirsi, e
d'abbandonar quell'Isola ; ma rinforzato havendo il presidio, molto più diligentia guardie de!
solito, per tema dell'Armata di Rodi facevano. Perilche, senza poter far in dett'Isola buon efetto
alcuno, in Rodi se ne tornarono."
33
Op. cit., p. 182 : 'Merhûm ve magf&r Sul/ân Muhammad tian ôâzî likr olan adada bir kal 'e binâ
eyletmii, Ba 'dahu merhûm Sultan Bâyeztd ¡fan latta ciilûs étdiikde mentir kal 'eniiR ¡¡arci hufÛftyçUn
bir nâ-ehil sebebolub likr olan kal'e'i harâb étdiirmis, "
34
L S tréve de 1481 fait l'objet d'une étude par mes soins dans le chapitre 1-1-2 de mon ouvrage
encore inédit, L'Ordre de Saint-Jean-de-Jérusalem, l'Empire ottoman et la Méditerranée orientale
entre les deux sièges de Rhodes (1480-1522).
surprenante. Il écrivait en effet dans une lettre au Sultan, après avoir annoncé
l'envoi du frère de celui-ci en France : "En échange de mes dépenses et de mes
peines, j'espère et je compte bien obtenir de Votre Hautesse de Grandes
récompenses, de grands bienfaits, des îles et d'autres choses dont l'envoyé de
Votre brillante Hautesse a pris connaissance"33. L'envoyé en question, un certain
Eayrii-d-dîn Beg, confirmait dans une lettre à son maître qu'après lui avoir
annoncé l'arrivée de Djem à bon port, les Chevaliers avaient énoncé des exigences
financières justifiées par les sommes dépensées et le coût de la garde du prince, et
conclu : "Tout cela entraîne des irais et en contrepartie il faut nous donner deux
îles"36.
Cette précision est précieuse. Au sud et à l'ouest, l'archipel rhodien était

entouré de dépendances vénitiennes. À l'est, Castellorizo appartenait au roi
d'Aragon. Au nord-nord-est, les possessions de l'Ordre faisaient face au continent
ottoman. D'un point de vue géographique, les "deux îles" évoquées par Hayrii'd-
dîn ne peuvent être que Samos et Icaria. D'un point de vue politique, la première
était ottomane et le bruit avait au moins couru que le Sultan envisageait de
l'évacuer. Quant à Icaria, le précédent de Samos en 1475-1479 et le rapport de
Charles Allemand en juillet 1481 pouvaient susciter quelques doutes sur la
pérennité de la souveraineté génoise. Le risque existait alors que la Sultan la fît
occuper. La présence ottomane dans les deux îles qui formaient au nord-ouest
(avec Pathmos) la limite des eaux rhodiennes ne pouvait qu'être désagréable aux
Chevaliers de Saint-Jean. Il n'est donc pas impossible qu'ils aient voulu profiter
de la position de force inespérée dont ils jouissaient à la fin de 1482 pour
résoudre cette question à leur avantage.
Aucun document d'archivé ne nous renseigne sur la réponse que la Porte

fit à la demande du Grand-Maître, mais l'examen des faits permet d'émettre une
hypothèse. L'évacuation de Samos est avérée. Les raisons invoquées par Bajazet
II d'après Pîiî Rets n'emportent pas absolument la conviction, à moins de les
comprendre dans un contexte plus large : utile aux yeux de Mehmed II en 1479,
le fort de Samos ne pouvait paraître inutile à Bajazet II que si les circonstances
géo-politiques avaient changé. Dans cette zone et à cette époque, la seule
modification importante dans ce domaine concerne les relations entre l'Ordre de
Saint-Jean et la Porte, avec la conclusion d'un traité de paix en décembre 1482,
^Lettre de Pierre d'Aubusson à Bajazet II du 7 déambre 1482, conservée dans les archives de
l'Ordre et publiée par Miklosich et Millier, Acla et diplomata graeca Medii Aevi III, repr.
Darmstadt, 1968, gp. 320-322 : "Kal èya tlç raïr tfàSouç fiov xal fis- rois- kAitovç pou
iXrtCw «rai Sofia, ni tx®. àmû TT)V aimanta aou ¡leyâkis àimutjpàr tcai fieyàkis'
tficpyfoia?, mai vtfAa irai âXa ronréras, rà birâa fâeûpri «ri A dmxfiriadpioç ri?
¿KXaiiirpMTdn
« erov aMkvrias " (pp. 321 sq.)
™"Mûbâlaga nesneyk olur ve hem bize 'ivaj iki ada vérmek gerek": document conservé aux
archives du palais de Topkapi (TKS E 6071/15), reproduit et partiellement édité par 1. H. Ertaylan,
Sultan Cem, Istanbul, 1951, pp. 156-158. Sur l'attribution de ce document à Hayril-d-dîn et sa
datation, cf. le chapitre II-1-4 de mon livre inédit cité infra, note 42.
348 Nicolas VATIN
au moment précisément où, négociant un accord sur la garde de Djem, le Grand-

Maître Pierre d'Aubusson émettait des prétentions sur deux îles qui ont toutes les
chances d'avoir été Samos et Icaria.
En tout cas postérieure à novembre 1481, l'évacuation de Samos pourrait

donc bien n'avoir eu lieu qu'en 1483, constituant une clause tacite de l'accord sur
Djem. Le silence de Sa'dii-d-dîn sur l'occupation de 1479 et celui de Bihiçtî sur
l'abandon sous Bajazet II'-pourraient en outre trouver là une explication. Il me
paraît donc possible de supposer que les Chevaliers de Rhodes profitèrent des
circonstances pour obtenir du Sultan, non pas l'attribution de deux îles dont on a
vu qu'ils n'en avaient pas plus l'usage que les Génois, mais leur démilitarisation.
En obtenant la promesse ottomane de quitter Samos et de ne pas s'implanter à
Icaria, l'Ordre assurait sa sécurité. Il gagnait aussi la possibilité, pour lui-même
et pour ses ressortissants, d'exploiter le bois des riches forêts de Samos 3 7 : Pîrî
Rets indique en effet que les Rhodiens étaient très actifs dans ce domaine avant
152238. Il est d'ailleurs remarquable que juste après avoir fourni cette information
et mentionné que les mécréants faisaient en outre du pastirma de biche, l'auteur
ottoman ajoute que "maintenant" (}imdikihâlde) les gens d'Anatolie et de Cos
venaient chasser la biche 39 . Le texte n'est pourtant pas assez précis pour qu'on
puisse en conclure que Samos était avant 1522 à la disposition des seuls
Rhodiens. Mais il paraît probable qu'avec Icaria peuplée mais négligée de tous,
Samos déserte constituait par accord tacite avec la Porte un no maris land
avantageux pour l'Ordre et ses sujets.
Si l'on admet cette hypothèse, on conviendra que le sort de Samos et Icaria

fut lié à des considérations politiques qui dépassaient l'intérêt propre des deux
îles. Il faut cependant rappeler que, malgré la réputation de faiblesse que les
historiens lui ont faite, Bajazet II ne céda jamais sur ce qu'il considérait comme
essentiel. La petite étude qui précède fournit donc l'occasion de s'interroger à
nouveau sur la politique égéenne de la Porte. Mehmed II donne assurément
l'impression d'avoir systématiquement cherché à contrôler les îles de l'Égée
septentrionale. Leur possession constituait-elle un but se suffisant à soi-même ?
En fait, tenir Thasos, Limnos. Samothrace, Imros, Ténédos (Bozcaada) et Lesbos
devait être de première importance pour assurer la sécurité des détroits et de
l'approvisionnement en blé d'Istanbul. Il est pourtant remarquable que Sa'dii-d-
dîn, parlant de l'occupation de Lemnos et Ténédos 40 , en donne d'autres raisons.
Cf. Belon de Mans, op. cil., p. 86 v" : "Samos est grandement abondante en bois de moult
haulte fustée, dont les coursaires en bien peu de temps se peuvent armer de fustes pour aller piller
& courir sur la mer."
38
C f . Pîrî Rets, op. cit., p. 186.
39
C f . supra, note 12.
*°Op. cit., p. 569.
La première île valait surtout à ses yeux par la terra siggilata (tîn-i mahfân)41.
Quant à la seconde, elle était un repaire de pirates proches de la côte anatolieime.
Ce dernier point ¿tait évidemment très important, et l'on peut sans doute y voir
une des raison majeures de l'hostilité ottomane aux Chevaliers de Rhodes et de
l'occupation de Samos, île dont chroniqueurs et voyageurs s'accordent à dire que
ses bons ports, ses forêts et ses sources attiraient pirates et corsaires. Dès lors
que Bajazet II parvenait à une entente avec l'Ordre de Saint-Jean, la question de la
piraterie se posait-elle avec moins d'acuité ? Il faut ajouter que la possession
théorique d'une place ne permettait pas nécessairement d'en assurer le contrôle
effectif. En 1482, le subafi de Limnos se plaignait auprès du Sultan de ne pas
disposer d'un bateau lui permettant d'accomplir convenablement sa tâche42. La
Porte n'eut jamais les moyens d'assurer la sécurité de l'Égée. Il est d'ailleurs
caractéristique qu'un demi-siècle se soit écoulé entre la chute de Rhodes en 1522
et la réoccupation de Samos par les Ottomans. Du reste la présence de ces
derniers n'empêcha pas l'île de continuer à être régulièrement la victime des
pirates43.
Après la mort de Mehmed II en tout cas, la conquête systématique des îles

de la Méditerranée orientale ne semble pas avoir été un axe fondamental de la
politique ottomane. C'est la valeur particulière de chaque île qui dictait son sort.
Dans ces conditions, même si c'est très vraisemblablement sous la pression des
Chevaliers de Rhodes que Bajazet II fit évacuer Samos et détruire son fort, Pîrî
Re'îs n'avait pas tout-à-fait tort d'écrire qu'il le faisait parce que ce fort "ne
justifiait pas les dépenses qu'on faisait pour lui".
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris
Sur ce produit auquel on attribuait une valeur curative contre la peste, cf. F. W. Hasluck, "Terra
Lemnia", in Annals of the British School at Athens XVI (1909-1910), pp. 220-231 ; et les pp.
237-241 de H. Lowry, "The Island of L.imnos : A Case Study on the Continuity of Byzantine
Forms under Ottoman Rule' , in A. Bryer et H. Lowry éd., Continuity and Change in Late
Byzantine and Early Ottoman Society, Birmingham-Dumbarton Oaks, 1986, pp. 235-259. Pour
H. Lowry, il ne fait pas de doute que le grand intérêt porté à Limnos par Mehmed II n'était pas
d'ordre stratégique, mais lié à la valeur de la terra siggilata.
42
C f . le document TKS E 5457 des archives du palais de Topkapi, document reproduit par
Eitaylan, op. cit., pp. 189 sq„ et dont j'ai fait l'édition et la traduction dans mon travail inédit sur
L'ordre de Saint-Jean-de-Jérusalem, l'Empire ottoman et la Méditerranée Orientale.
43
L e récit de Thomas Dallam, qui passa par Samos en 1599, se passe de tout commentaire ; "The
people in the towne, seeinge our shipp come to anker, we sawe them Run into the fetds and drive
awaye their cattel with great speede up into the mountaines. Also in the Rood, halfe a myle from
us, was a litle shipp or barke, the which they hailed ashore, and carriede awaye the goodes that
was in her" : cf. "Dallam's Travels with an organ to the Grand Sigmeur", in J. Th. Brent, Early-
Voyages and Travels in the Levant, Londres, 1893, p. 40.
Gilles VEINSTEIN
A PROPOS DES EHL-IHIREF ET DU DEVÇIRME
Parmi les nombreux corps du palais impérial et du pouvoir central

ottoman figuraient des artistes et artisans. lis étaient destinés à subvenir par leurs
productions variées aux besoins du sultan et de sa cour. Une institution analogue
avait existé chez les Mongols et les Timourides et d'autres souverains
musulmans contemporains des Ottomans, comme les Safavides et les Grands
Moghols, disposèrent d'organisations similaires.
En raison de leur caractère officiel, du fait surtout qu'ils faisaient partie des
catégories régulièrement rémunérées par la Porte, des mUlazimân-i dergâh-i 'âli,
les artisans du palais, appelés généralement ehl-i fùref-i hâssa, n'ont pas manqué
de laisser des traces dans les archives centrales, essentiellement sous la forme de
documents comptables. Les listes qu'on a retrouvées dont les plus anciennes
remontent au règne de Bâyezîd II1 sont «succinctes» ou «détaillées». Ce sont de
simples récapitulations ne fournissant que des chiffres globaux, ou au contraire,
des états plus précis entrant dans le détail des différents métiers et apportant sur
chaque individu enregistré des indications plus ou moins développées.
A cet égard, le registre de 1526 (Topkapi, D 9306/3), publié par î. H.

Uzunçar§ih, au terme d'une longue vie de savant exceptionnellement remplie 2 ,
est d'un intérêt tout particulier. Il donne, métier par métier, le nom et la solde de
chaque maître ou apprenti ; en outre il accompagne ces indications de brèves
notices individuelles relatant l'origine de chacun, les conditions et la date de son
recrutement, remontant même, le cas échéant, à la situation de son père. II y a là,
comme l'a souligné l'éditeur du document, un luxe de précisions inhabituel dans
les pièces de ce genre, dépassant les seules préoccupations comptables pour faire
place à un souci d'investigation biographique dont d'ailleurs la finalité concrète
'Cf. Ô. L. Barkan, "H. 933-934 (M. 1527-1528) malî yilina ait biltçe 6rnegi", Istanbul
Üniversitesi fklisat Fakiiltesi Mecmuasi, XV, 1-4 (citó infra Baifcan, IFM, XV), pp. 309-311.
2
1. H. Uzunçarçih, "Osmanli saraymda Ehl-i hiref (SanatkSrlar) dcfteri", Belgeler. Ttirk Turih
Belgeleri Dergisi, XI, 15, 1981-1986 (cité infra Uzunçarçili). pp. 23-76.
352 Gilles VEINSTEIN
— s'il y en eut une — nous échappe. Mais l'utilisateur des archives ottomanes
n'est-il pas accoutumé à profiter empiriquement des aubaines, sans trop chercher
à qui ou à quoi il les doit ?
Au total, à l'aide de ces matériaux hétérogènes, il nous est possible de

connaître les différents métiers pratiqués par les ehl-i hiref-i ftâffa(voir tableau 1),
par leurs noms du moins, car l'identification des opérations concrètes
correspondant à ces intitulés pose parfois d'autres problèmes, relevant de
l'histoire des techniques. Il faut tenir compte aussi de possibles changements
d'intitulés d'un document à l'autre. Par exemple, les bijoutiers appelés kuyumcu
dans une liste des environs de 1495, deviennent des zergerân en 1526. Nous
pouvons également retracer l'évolution des effectifs et de la "masse salariale"
correspondante (voir tableau 2). On constate ainsi, entre le règne de Bâyezîd II et
la fin de celui de Siileymân, un important accroissement du nombre des ehl-i
hiref comme des autres catégories d'agents du Palais ou de l'État : on passe de
360 à 647 individus et d'un coût annuel de 762 336 aspres à 1 977 088 aspres. Il
faut cependant rester conscient de certaines ambiguïtés des sources dans
l'interprétation des chiffres. Quelques métiers ont pu être, selon les périodes,
rattachés aux ehl-i hiref ou au contraire mis à part ou encore intégrés à d'autres
catégories d'agents de l'État, que leur statut ait effectivement changé dans la
hiérarchie des fonctions du Palais ou que ces déplacements correspondent à de
simples expédients budgétaires, familiers à tout État. On voit ainsi que les
fabricants de sabres et d'arcs (¡emergerán et kemângerân), les charpentiers
(neccârân) et les tailleurs de pierre (harratîn) qui font partie des ehl-i hiref en
1526, étaient rangés vers 1495 parmi les miifâherehôrân, catégorie plus noble
dont les salaires étaient versés non par trimestre mais mensuellement. Les
architectes au contraire resteront dans cette catégorie supérieure, au même titre
que d'autres «techniciens» : astrologues, médecins, poètes, musiciens3.
De même, l'apparition ou la disparition d'un métier dans le corps des ehl-i

hiref, indépendamment des variations de la terminologie déjà évoquées, ou la
place relative accordée à ce métier selon le nombre des artisans et les sommes qui
y sont consacrées, n'autorisent pas de conclusions trop catégoriques sur la
structure de la production étatique en général : l'État avait d'autres moyens de
rétribuer un artisan à son service que de l'enregistrer dans le corps des artisans du
Palais stricto sensu : on constate, par exemple, qu'un nombre important des
artisans inscrits dans le registre de 1526, avait été préalablement rémunéré sur le
compte des dépenses publiques d'Istanbul ou d'Edirne, ou sur celui des «dépenses
•t
• Au surplus, on constate dans une liste de 1514 (Topkapi, E S47S) que les maîtres de certains
métiers (au nombre de 21), pouvaient constituer une catégorie de mlisâherehôrân et ¿tre payés
"mois par mois" : uslâdân-i ekl-i hiref mâh be mâh, quand le reste de leurs collègues étaient rangés
ailleurs, parmi les simples mUiâzimân-1 dergâh-i 'âlî, sous la nibriqUe ehl-i hiref ; Barkan, ¡FM,
XV, pp. 312-313.
À PROPOS DES EHL-I HIREF 353
privées» du sultan Qjarc-i fyâffa)*. De même, un fabricant de flèches avait pu

émarger antérieurement au budget des «écuries impériales» (p. 45). Rétribués sur
divers «postes budgétaires», tous n'en étaient pas moins des artisans de l'État.
Ce sont là quelques pièges dont il faut se garder en étudiant la production

du Palais. Pour l'heure, ces études n'en sont qu'à leurs débuts, et il faut savoir
gré aux historiens de l'art d'y avoir joué un rôle pionnier 3 . La situation n'est
pourtant pas sans conséquences. Le projecteur a été placé prioritairement sur les
métiers de plus grande portée artistique, surtout sur celui des nakkâf, les peintres
ornemanistes dont l'influence dépassait d'ailleurs le seul domaine (te la peinture
puisqu'ils inspiraient aussi bien par leurs motifs les décors de la calligraphie, des
textiles ou de la céramique ; ainsi que sur celui des relieurs (miieellid). De même,
des informations fournies sur l'origine des hommes de métier, notamment celles
du précieux registre de 1526, les historiens de l'art ont retenu principalement le
clivage opposant les artistes amenés de Perse à ceux qui provenaient du pays
même et avaient été formés dans la capitale ottomane 6 , une dualité que Gulrii
Necipoglu résume¡df façon frappante par l'opposition entre stirgun déportés de
Tabriz et kul issus du devfirme. Sans doute, sur le plan de l'art, ce clivage est-il
le plus pertinent, le plus lourd de conséquences esthétiques. La portée n'en a
d'ailleurs pas échappé aux contemporains eux-mêmes puisque tout au long du
règne de Soliman, les bureaucrates distinguent dans leurs états deux catégories de
nakkâf : Rûmiyân et 'Acemân, même si dans le détail, la première catégorie ne
comprenait pas uniquement des ressortissants des provinces centrales de l'Empire,
Anatolie et Roumélie, ni la seconde, les seuls expatriés de Tabriz ou d'Ispahan. Il
faudra attendre la liste des nakkâç de 1596 pour que cette division disparaisse et
que soit ainsi consacrée la mainmise à peu près totale sur les ateliers de peinture
du Palais d'indigènes localement formés.
Si pourtant, plus qu'on ne l'a fait jusqu'ici, on considère ces listes

d'artisans — et tout spécialement celle de 1526 —, d'un point de vue socio-
administratif plus large, comme une source susceptible d'éclairer les modes de
Ôn rencontre également l'expression: "¡ehremininden bir akça alub. .. " (il recevait un aspre de
l'intendant de la ville d'Istanbul ; p. 55). Dans tous ces cas Uzunçarçili a transcrit harâc pour fjarc.
5
Cf. R. Meriç, "Türk naki;; sanati tarihi arajUrmalan, l : vesikalar, Ankara, 1953 ; idem, Türk cild
sanati tarihi araftirmalari. I : vesikalar, Ankara, 1954 ; idem, "Türk sanati tarihi vesikalari:
bayramlarda padijahlara hediye edilen sanat eserleri ve karçiliklan", Türk sanati tarihi: arafttrma
ve inceiemeleri, 1, 1963, pp. 764-786 ; E. Atil, The Age qj Sultan Siileymm the Magnifiant,
New Yoik, 1987, pp. 29-35, 289-299. Deux études importantes à ce sujet nous ont été confiées
par leurs auteurs pour être publiées dans les actes du colloque Soliman It Magnifique et son temps
(Paris, mars 1990), Parus en 1992 aux Editions de la Documentation française, et nous saisissons
l'occasion de les en remercier : M. Rogers : "Kara Mehmed çelebi (Kara Memi) and the raie of the
Ser-nakkâ}ân" ; et G. Neeipoglu : "A Kândn for the State, a Canon for the Arts ; conceptualizing
the classical synthesis of Ottoman Art and Architecture".
Ê Atil a un peu trop oublié dans son bel ouvrage que l'Empire ottoman n'était pas la Turquie
d'aujourd'hui et Qu'on pouvait y être "of local origin" et non un "foreigner", tout en étant
bosniaque ou albanais, ou en se nommant Torna Manol. . . ; op. cit., p. 289.
recrutement du personnel étatique ottoman, et singulièrement le fonctionnement

pratique du fameux devfirme, le tableau se complique.7 L'opposition kul'Acem
apparaît beaucoup trop simpliste : à considérer les origines et les cursus des
membres des ehl-i hiref, bien d'autres clivages se font jour en leur sein.
Dans la sixième année du règne de Soliman, les artisans placés sous

l'autorité de l'eunuque chargé de la cassette privée du sultan, Davud Aga,
Serffâzin-i ender&ni, rétribués quatre fois l'an sur cette cassette, soit les ehl-i
hiref-i hâfsa proprement dits, sont au nombre de 590 dont 376 maîtres et 214
apprentis. Ce sont, dans une écrasante majorité, des musulmans, de naissance ou
par conversion : il semblerait même, dans le cas d'un jeune Albanais (Arnavud
oglani), parent d'un certain Siileymân Aga que l'enrôlement comme apprenti
bonnetier (ktilâhdûz) ait eu pour préalable ou pour cause une conversion à l'islam
(p. 30).
Pour autant, il n'est pas indispensable d'être musulman pour appartenir à

ce corps ; 13 membres ont gardé leur religion d'origine : deux Géorgiens
chrétiens, Toroz et Simon fabriquent des boucliers (siperdûzân). Un chrétien et un
Juif sont cannoniers ( t o p ç i y â n - i âhen). Six autres Juifs sont arquebusiers
(tiifekçiyân), de même que deux Russes (Rus) chrétiens, deux frères, Garde et
Kirkor. On note que les chrétiens sont désignés comme gebr quand ils
proviennent des lointaines contrées du nord de la mer Noire et du Caucase,
comme na$rânî dans le cas du cannonier Yani8. En outre, tous ces mécréants ont
des spécialités liées à l'armement. Fait exception pourtant, le treizième infidèle,
le Juif Abraham, dont le métier de /uyeger serattacheà la joaillerie®.
En entrant dans les ehl-i hiref-i hâssa tous ces artisans sont devenus des
kul, des esclaves du souverain dans le sens large où ils sont passés au service du
7En somme, nous chercherons à illustrer pour une catégorie et une époque particulières la
discussion générale sur le recrutement du personnel officiel ottoman, et notamment sur la place du
devfirme, dont on trouve des expressions chez N. Itzkowitz, "Eighteenth Century Ottoman
Realities", Studia Islamica, 16. 1962, pp. 73-94: ou, pour une période plus ancienne et plus
proche de celle qui sera considérée ici, I. M. Kunt, The Sultan's Servants. The Transformation of
Ottoman Provincial Govemmem, 1550-1650, New York, 1983, pp. 32-44.
8
Le terme persan gebr, désignant initialement les zoroastriens reçoit une acception plus large
dans l'usage ottoman où il est appliqué, par exemple dans des registres de recensement, à la
population — en fait chrétienne — des villages du sud de la Crimée : voir notre "La population du
sud de la Crimée au début de la domination ottomane" dans Mémorial Orner Lûtft Barkaa, Paris,
1980, pp. 238-239. Ces nuances de l'administration ottomane entre plusieurs sortes de chrétiens
seraient à apprécier de plus près.
®Foya, mot d'origine italienne, désigne la feuille d'or ou d'argent très mince insérée dans la
monture sous les pienes précieuses (fausses éventuellement), pour en rehausser l'éclat. L e f o y a g e r
serait le spécialiste de cette opération de joaillerie: cf. D. Kelekian, Dictionnaire turc-français,
Istanbul, 1928, s. v.; J. W. Redhouse, A Turkish and English Lexicon, Constantinople, 1921.
sultan et reçoivent de lui leur subsistance 10 . Mais avant de se fondre dans ce

cadre, ils avaient connu des statuts différents ; esclaves, au sens plus étroit,
juridique, du terme ; hommes libres, ou déportés (surgUn) — un statut en quelque
sorte intermédiaire 11 .
Les anciens siirgiin ne comptaient pas seulement des Tabrîzî, ces artistes
raffinés auxquels on songe en premier lieu, ramenés par l'armée ottomane dans
ses bagages, après les campagnes de Bâyezîd II contre les Akkoyunlu et surtout
de Selîm 1er contre Chah Ismâ'îl. D'autres avaient été déportés d'Egypte comme
ce Bastiyan Efrenc, tailleur de diamants (elmâs yonar) recruté en 1520 (p. 35), ou
encore d'Akkerman, à la suite cette fois de la campagne de Biyezîd contre la cité
moldave en 1484 : cas du maître damasquineur nommé Ahmed Akkerman. (p.
51).
Quant aux Tabrîzî, il faut distinguer, du point de vue des statuts initiaux,
les siirgun proprement dits — hommes libres déportés de force —, et d'autres
éléments qui avaient été des esclaves de Chah Ismâ'îl et que Selîm s'était
appropriés en entrant dans Tabriz : $ah Ismâ'îl kullarindan Tebrîz 'de bulunub
beylik olmuf (pp. 3 3 , 3 6 , 38).
Si ces spécialistes étaient entrés de force au service du sultan ottoman, il

s'était agi chez d'autres d'un choix délibéré et sans doute même d'une ambition
âprement poursuivie. On constate en effet de nombreux cas d'hommes d'origine
libre, admis dans les ateliers impériaux et enregistrés sur les rôles officiels «en
raison de leur compétence professionnelle» (kabiliyyetbirle ou san 'âtbirle
yazilmtf). Vraisemblablement remarqués pour leur excellence et, de leur côté,
attirés par le prestige de la position et l'appât d'un salaire régulier destiné à
progresser et qu'augmentaient encore des gratifications circonstancielles, ceux-là
devenaient des kul de leur plein gré. Il est vraisemblable qu'une partie provenait
de l'élite du bazar ; pour d'autres, il nous est précisé, soit qu'ils étaient fils de
maîtres artisans du palais {hâssa ustâd), ou qu'originaires des provinces dont le
sultan avait été gouverneur en tant que fehzâde, ils l'avaient suivi dans la capitale
à son avènement, ou encore que le souverain les avait ramenés de pays où il avait
guerroyé : le bonnetier (kiilâhdûi), Pervâne-i Ungurus était ainsi rentré de
Hongrie avec Soliman ( H a i r e t - i pâdiçâh-i 'alempenâh birle girmif) :
apparemment, il ne s'agissait plus cette fois d'un surgUn mais d'un compagnon
consentant.
,0
C f . la mise au point de V. L. Ménage, "Some notes on the Devshirme", BSOAS, 29, 1966, p.
66.
l
' S u r les siirgiin, cf. Ò. L. Barkan, "Osmanli imparatorlugunda bir iskan ve kolonisasyon metodu
olarak siirgUnler", 1FM, XV, 1-4, Istanbul, 1955, pp. 202-237 ; H. tnalcik, "Ottoman Methods of
Conquest", Studia ¡slamica, 2, 1954, pp. 103-129 ; N. Beldiceanu, Recherche sur la ville
ottomane au XVi siicìe. Elude et Actes, Paris, 1973, pp. 36-44 ; N. Beldiceanu et 1. BeUiwami-
Steinherr, "Déportation et pêche à Kilia entre 1484 et 1508", BSOAS, 38, 1975, pp. 40-54.
356 Gilles V E I N S TEI N
D'autres enfin étaient bien d'anciens esclaves mais, pour autant, ils ne
provenaient pas tous du devfirme. Au contraire, le registre de 1526 est éloquent
sur les multiples façon de devenir l'esclave du sultan, sur la variété des sources
d'approvisionnement de ce dernier.
Une partie des recrues était issue de la part du souverain dans le butin des
campagnes. Elles sont désignées sous les noms de pençik kul ou gilmân-i
pençik12. Plusieurs avaient été ainsi acquis ainsi par Bâyezîd II à la suite de la
campagne d'Akkerman. Les anciens esclaves de Chah Ismâ'îl, trouvés à Tabriz,
déjà évoqués, relevaient d'un cas similaire.
Plus singulière est la destinée de Kâsm Egriboz : enlevé aux pirates qui
l'avaient capturé, il se retrouve au Palais comme apprenti bonnetier (p. 29).
L'apprenti fourreur (pôstindûz) Yûsuf Rûm était lui aussi un pençik kul récupéré
sur un bateau de pirates (p. 39).
D'autres avaient été purement et simplement achetés sur le marché pour le

compte du sultan et sont caractérisés par la formule : akça île alinmif kul
Plus original est le mode d'acquisition de sept tisseurs de brocard

(kemtyâpâfân) dont quatre sont qualifiés de Rus et l'un de Tatar : ils étaient les
esclaves de Hoca §âh ' Alî, mais endetté vis-à-vis de Selîm 1er, ce dernier avait dû
se résoudre à les lui céder. D'abord rémunérés au titre des «dépenses propres du
sultan» (hâssa (farci) ces artisans ne furent intégrés dans le registre qu'en juin
1523 (pp" 56-57).
Beaucoup ayant été offerts au souverain entraient dans la catégorie des

gtlman-i pi}ke§ ou pifke} gelmi§kulu. Si c e s f o r m u l e s sont e m p l o y é e s à
plusieurs reprises, sans précision du donateur — nous supposons qu'il s'agissait
de princes, amis ou vassaux, de courtisans soucieux de plaire —, d'autres
mentions sont plus explicites. C'était, par exemple, une pratique apparemment
assez courante chez les maîtres des différents métiers, d'offrir au sultan un esclave
qu'ils avaient préalablement formé. Ce présent n'était évidemment pas tout à fait
désintéressé : lorsque, par exemple, Ustâd 'Alî avait offert à Bâyezîd II (Sultan
Bâyezîd Han'a pi}ke$ ediib), l'esclave Ahmed Bosna qui confectionnera des
i2
S u r le pençik (penc-yek ), part de l'Etat dans le butin d'une expédition, cf. 1. Beldiceanu-
Steinherr, "En marge d'un acte concernant le penjjyek et les aqingi ", Revue des Eludes islamiques,
XXXVII, 1, 1969, pp. 35-37.
' •'Cette expression a été mal comprise par E. Atil dans les notes qu'elle fournit sur quelques-uns
des nalfkÛ! cités en 1526 : Ayâs-i Arnavud, Femih-i Çerfces et HUseyin : elle les présente comme
"gift of I pige" ou comme "given to the Sultan by a page", alors qu'ils avaient été initialement de
jeunes esclaves offerts au sultan avant d'être placés chez les nakkâi ; E. Atil, op. cil., pp. 292-
294.
sabres, le donateur avait reçu en contrepartie une gratification appréciable de 3000

aspres ( m u k â b e l e s i n d e iiç but akça verilmif).
D'autres esclaves étaient passés d'un dignitaire décédé au trésor du sultan,

p a r « c a d e a u » ( f U n u g u n d a n ) o u « p a r h é r i t a g e » ( b e y t i g e irsile ( o u irsen) miintakil
olmuf). D'autres avaient été purement et simplement confisqués par le fisc après
l'exécution de leur ancien maître, comme l'apprenti nakkô{ YÛsuf qui avait
appartenu au grand vizir Yûnus pacha avant la condamnation de ce dernier par
Selîm 1er. De même, on retrouve à trois reprises d'anciens esclaves du «traître»
(hâin) Ahmed pacha : l'un apprend à travailler l'argent (stmger), un autre la soie
(kaaâz) ; le troisième est apprenti chirurgien (pp. 35,37,64).
Ce simple aperçu en dit assez sur les origines très variées des artisans du
sultan. H n'y a pas que le siirgiin et le devfirme et dans le recrutement des
indigènes, le second n'est qu'un procédé parmi d'autres. Pour autant celui-ci est
bien présent dans le registre de 1526 — que le lien avec le devfirme des individus
qu'il recense ressorte comme certain ou seulement comme possible des
formulations utilisées —, et c'est précisément un grand intérêt de cette source
d'offrir une illustration concrète du fonctionnement d'un système dont nos
représentations restent assez théoriques.
On sait ainsi que le dev§irme proprement dit, le ramassage des jeunes

garçons chrétiens des campagnes d'Anatolie et de Roumélie n'est que la première
étape d'un cursus qui, par degré, fera accéder les 'acemî oglan aux rangs des
janissaires, ou les meilleures recrues, ies iç oglan, préalablement passés par les
palais sultaniens, aux rangs de la cavalerie impériale et aux hautes fonctions de la
cour et de l'Etat 14 . Ce schéma à l'esprit, à quelle étape de ces processus situer la
«dérivation» de quelques éléments vers les ehl-i hirefl II apparaît qu'il n'y a pas
de réponse unique à cette question.
Nous constatons que 79 des artisans de 1526 (13,5 % des effectifs totaux)
étaient entrés immédiatement dans les ateliers du Palais, directement après avoir
été «ramassés», et donc sans étape intermédiaire. Il semble bien que tous les
éléments dans ce cas soient entrés, aux différentes époques, comme simples
apprentis ( f â g i r d ) avec la solde minimum d'un aspre par jour. Mais il est clair
'^Quelques exposés généraux et études de base sont à rappeler ici : E12, art. "Devshirme"(V. L.
Ménage) et art. "Ghulam", IVè partie : Empire ottoman (H. Inalcik) ; A. Lybyer, The Government
of the Ottoman Empire in the time of Suleiman the Magnificent, Cambridge, Mass., 1913 ; B.
Miller, The Palace School of Mohammad the Conqueror, Cambridge, Mass., 1941 : I. H.
Uzunçarçili, Osmanli Devletinin Tefkilâtmdan Kapikulu Ocaklari, 2 vols., Ankara, 1943-1944 ;
H. A. R. Gibb et H. Bowen, Islamic Society and the West, I, Oxford, ¡950 ; P. Wittek,
"Devshirme and Shari'a", BSOAS, 17, 1955, pp. 271-278 ; V. L. Ménage, "Sidelights on the
àershìrme", BSOAS, XVIII, 1, I9J6, pp. 181-183; B. Papoulia, Ursprung und Wesen der
"Knabenlese" im Osmanischen Reich, Munich, 1963; A. Matkovski, "Prilog pitanju devSirme",
Prilozi za Orijentabiu Filologiju, XIV-XV, Sarajevo, 1969, ff. 273-309.
358 Gilles VEI N S T E 1 N
qu'ils avaient pu progresser avec le temps : en 1526, les plus anciens, le vétéran
recruté sous Mehmed II, et tous ceux qui l'avaient été sous Bâyezîd II, sont
devenus des maîtres dont les gages quotidiens varient entre 7 et 21 aspres (les
années d'admission n'étant pas précisées pour ces règnes, on ne peut faire la part
de «l'ancienneté» et du «choix» dans ces variations). Trois d'entre eux sont
mêmes devenus chefs de leurs corporations respectives : Hayreddin Nigbolu, kul
levé sous Fâtih est à la tête des fabricants de flèches (tîrgerân) avec 21 aspres ;
Mustafa Mitjaliç qui avait été un Anadolu oglani sous Bâyezîd II, est le premier
cité des fabricants de fourreaux (niyâtngerân) avec 15,5 aspres ; Evrenos Egridir,
également issu du devfirme sous Bâyezîd II est chef (ser) des blanchisseurs
(câmefûyân) avec 21 aspres. L'hypothèse selon laquelle tous ceux qui étaient
passés maîtres n'en avaient pas moins été recrutés initialement comme simples
apprentis est expressément confirmée dans trois cas : il est écrit, par exemple, du
fabricant d'arc (kemânger) Hâci Muslihiiddîn, aux gages de 12,5 aspres, qu'il
avait été levé par le devfirme sous Bâyezîd II et orienté vers ce corps de métier
pour y être affecté comme apprenti (Sultán Bâyezîd zamâmnda devîrmeden gelüb
mezkur bôliijfe yâgird verílüb cihet olunmuç).
En revanche, parmi les treize recrues du temps de Selîm 1er, deux

seulement sont devenus maîtres entre temps avec des appointements encore
limités à 3,5 et 4 aspres. Les autres restent des apprentis mais leurs soldes
varient entre 1 et 4 aspres. On observe d'ailleurs à ce propos que l'ancienneté ou
le grade ne sont pas seuls à déterminer le niveau de la solde : parmi les quatre
recrues de 1518, il y a un maître et trois apprentis. D'autre part le maître est
appointé à 3,5 aspres, tandis que l'un des apprentis l'est à 4 aspres. Un autre
apprenti, embauché en 1519, gagne un aspre alors que deux collègues entrés
l'année suivante sont payés respectivement 1,5 et 2 aspres.
Toutes les recrues faites sous Siileymân en 1520 et 1525 — la partie la

plus nombreuse des produits directs du devfirme (34 individus dont 27 pour la
seule année 1524) en sont encore au stade d'apprentis, mais on observe, ici
encore, quelques différences de soldes — même limitées : à ancienneté égale, les
uns gagneront un aspre. les autres 1,5 ou 2 aspres. Les apprentis à 2 aspres
correspondent d'ailleurs à des cas particuliers : deux céramistes (kâfîgerân). Bâlî
Bosna et Timurhan qui avaient été préalablement rémunérés sur les dépenses
impériales d'Istanbul avant d'être intégrés tous deux à la même date, au registre
des ehl-i hiref-i hâssa.
Les apprentis recevaient leur formation des maîtres dans le cadre de

l'atelier et le registre précise généralement à quel maître chacun des apprentis était
rattaché. Il arrive d'ailleurs que ce maître ne se retrouve pas dans la liste de 1526.
Il était ainsi dans l'ordre des choses que d'anciens kul du devçirme devenus
maîtres avec le temps soient amenés à former à leur tour des garçons levés de la
même manière. Ustâd Hiisâm en offre l'exemple : ramassé sous Bâyezîd II et
À PROPOS DES EHL-I HJREF 359
devenu damasquineur (dime{kiger), il a sous sa coupe en 1526 sept apprentis

amenés par le devfirme à différentes dates. De même, Ahmed Midillii, issu du
dev}irme, est l'un des deux maîtres à représenter un métier rare, la fabrique de
limes (sûhenger), et il forme à son tour l'unique apprenti dans cette spécialité,
Yûsuf Pirlepe, également issu du devfirme.
Sans qu'on puisse relever aucun souci de système sur ce point, il pouvait
arriver, à l'occasion, qu'un apprenti d'une origine ethnique donnée soit formé par
un maître de même origine : c'est ainsi, par exemple, que l'apprenti chirurgien
Hasan Arnavud, un ancien page du Palais d'Edirne, est confié aux soins d'un
autre Albanais, le maître Iskender (pp. 63-64).
La question se pose naturellement de savoir ce qui déterminait l'affectation

immédiate d'un oglan à un corps de métier particulier. Notamment, il serait
logique de supposer qu'une spécialité régionale entraînait une assez large
diffusion dans la population de compétences correspondantes pour prédisposer des
éléments levés sur cette population à certains métiers. Toutefois nous n'avons
relevé dans le registre que peu d'illustrations évidentes à l'appui de cette
hypothèse : il n'est peut-être pas fortuit que Hasan Samakov, réquisitionné
d'après son nom dans une importante région métallurgique, ait été placé comme
apprenti parmi les serruriers (çilingir) 15 . Le fait qu'on retrouve dans quelques
métiers plusieurs anciens du devfirme de même origine géographique (par
exemple, quatre blanchisseurs provenant d'Egridir) 16 pourrait aller dans le même
sens bien que d'autres explications puissent être envisagées.
D'autre part, comme nous l'annoncions, l'affectation dans les corps

d'artisans ne suit pas toujours immédiatement l'enrôlement dans le devfirme.
D'autres artisans ont été recrutés au niveau des étapes ultérieures du cursus : des
'acemî oglan, des içoglan issus des palais d'Edirne, de Galata, voire de
l'entourage impérial (içerden verilmif /c«/)17; des janissaires également ou des
membres d'autres corps militaires et palatiaux ont été retirés de leurs unités
respectives pour être versés, vraisemblablement en raison d'aptitudes
particulières, dans l'un des ateliers.
Sur les mines de fer et les forges de Samakov, cf. Ô. L. Barkan, Suleymaniye Camii ve Inuireti
infaati (1550-1557), Ankara, 1972, pp. 361, sq.
16
Des ateliers de teinturiers (boyahâne) sont signalés à Egridir ; cf. S. Faroqhi, Towns and
Townsmen of Ottoman Anatolia. Trade, Crafts and Food Production in an urban Setting 1520-
1650, Cambridge, 1984, p. 149.
n
A propos de deux nakkû} cités en 1526, 'Ait et Iskender, E. Atil indique que le premier a été
"sent to the Edime Palace", et le second "given to Edime Palace" : il faut comprendre au contraire
que tous deux étaient des pages de ce palais quand ils en ont été soustraits pout être affectés au
corps des nakkâj des ehl-i liiref-i Ijâsfa ; E. Atil, op. cit., pp. 291, 294.
360 Gilles V E I N S TEI N
Néanmoins, dans le cas d'artisans recrutés à ces différents stades, le

registre ne précise pas toujours si le sujet provenait initialement du devfirme. Or
nous savons qu'un 'acemî oglan, un page du Palais, un janissaire, un silâhdâr,
etc., pouvaient avoir cette origine mais aussi bien provenir d'autres modes de
recrutement.
Si nous voulons nous concentrer uniquement sur les produits du devgirme,

il en résulte une ambiguïté qui n'est levée que lorsqu'une précision
supplémentaire est apportée dans un sens ou dans l'autre. Nous écarterons ainsi le
sellier (serrâc) Hamza Arnavud, enlevé aux pages du Palais pour être placé parmi
les artisans «divers» (miiteferrika) puisque nous apprenons qu'il s'agissait d'un
pençik kul, ou un ancien silâhdâr passé maître dans l'art des masses d'armes
(,bazdogani) puisqu'il était à l'origine un esclave acquis moyennant finances.
A l'inverse, nous retiendrons les cas où l'origine devfirme est

expressément soulignée. On pourrait d'ailleurs être tenté de considérer que
puisque cette origine est parfois notée, elle ferait défaut quand elle ne l'est pas,
mais ce serait prêter aux notices du registre une cohérence dans la formulation qui
n'est nullement garantie.
Parmi les anciens avérés du devfirme, nous rencontrons le nom de Hâci

Ibrâhîm. Derrière cette désignation de pieux musulman (mais a-t-il effectivement
accompli le pèlerinage à La Mecque ?), se dissimule l'identité lointaine mais dont
la trace ne s'est cependant pas effacée, d'un jeune chrétien d'Anatolie, arraché aux
siens du temps de Fâtih, devenu ensuite jardinier (bôstânci) puis huissier (kapuci)
du Palais, avant d'être enrôlé, en raison probablement de ses talents, parmi les
graveurs (kundekârân) du sultan. Sous l'arrière-petit-fils de son premier maître,
nous le retrouvons à la tête de ce corps, avec des appointements de 21 aspres par
jour, qui font de lui le mieux payé de tous les ehl-i hiref. Mais, mis à part cette
vénérable figure, les quelques individus orientés vers les métiers artisanaux après
avoir franchi des étapes du cursus, pour lesquelles le lien avec le devfirme soit
explicité, sont en fait tous d'anciens janissaires. En outre, on les retrouve tous
parmi les chirurgiens (cerrâhîn), corps au demeurant particulièrement nombreux
(51 membres) et comprenant aussi bien d'anciens janissaires sans références au
devfirme, et des garçons enrôlés comme apprentis, aussitôt ramassés. Seul fait
exception à cette constatation, le fabricant d'arc Yûsuf Ivranya : esclave issu du
devfirme, il avait fait partie des janissaires (yeniçeriler cemâ'atinden devfirme kul
olub) ; par la suite, sous Bâyezîd, il avait été rattaché au registre des artisans en
raison de son savoir-faire (ba 'dehu san 'âtbirle mezkur deftere ilhâk olunmuç
sultan Bâyezîd ixmuminda)
Le fait que le registre de 1526 livre à notre connaissance un certain

nombre d'individus (89 au total) dont nous soyons certains qu'ils provenaient du
devfirme, qu'ils aient été immédiatement placés chez les artisans ou qu'ils aient
À PROPOS DES EHL-I H1REF 361
eu d'autres affectations préalables, autorise quelques remarques sur le

fonctionnement de l'institution. L'occasion est d'autant plus à saisir qu'il ne
s'agit pas ici des quelques cas passés à l'histoire de grands vizirs et autres
dignitaires, destinées illustres et donc exceptionnelles, mais de sorts plus
modestes et par conséquent plus représentatifs des réalités courantes.
Il nous semblerait conforme à la logique du système que l'arrachement au

milieu d'origine, le changement de condition, la conversion & l'islam et la
turquification, correspondent à une seconde naissance, celle d'un homme
nouveau, sans passé, tout entier consacré au service du souverain. Il n'en est que
plus remarquable qu'on ait conservé des traces précises — les notices du registre
en témoignent — des origines et du parcours de chacun, fût-ce plusieurs
décennies après son enrôlement. Où ? Peut-être dans la mémoire de l'intéressé ou
d'éventuels autres témoins ; probablement en tout cas dans des archives
soigneusement tenues. Notons à ce propos que les dates d'enrôlement sont
données conformément à un «journal» (ber mûcib-i râznâme) dans lequel les
entrées étaient apparemment consignées au fur et à mesure. Qu'inscrivait-on de
plus sur l'individu concerné ? Il faudrait pour répondre à la question retrouver
des exemplaires de ce rûznâme. Au demeurant, notons que la date la plus ancienne
pour laquelle il soit invoqué est l'année 904 de l'Hégire (923 pour les cas
expressément liés au devfirme ; pp. 26, 62, 63). En général, pour les périodes
antérieures à 1518, seul est indiqué le nom du souverain régnant au moment du
recrutement.
Au surplus, la manière dont étaient nommés ces rejetons du devjirme leur

attachait jusqu'à la mort une étiquette correspondant à leur origine géographique
ou ethnique. En effet, leur prénom n'était jamais suivi d'un patronyme — fût-ce
le fictif bin 'Abdullâh habituellement utilisé pour les convertis qui — il est est
vrai — aurait été sans objet ici puisqu'également applicable à tous et donc dénué
de toute fonction discriminante. Quelquefois (6 cas), ce prénom apparaît seul,
éventuellement accompagné du titre correspondant à une fonction antérieure (un
chirurgien, ancien janissaire en effet, figure comme Mustafa Yeniçeri), mais le
plus souvent le prénom est suivi d'un nom de lieu, plus rarement de peuple,
correspondant de toute évidence à une indication d'origine. Les termes
géographiques sont des noms de provinces historiques (Bosna, le plus cité avec
huit occurrences, Hersek, Mora, Rûm...), d'îles (Midillii), de villes : Gôrice,
Kirçova, Drama, Ùskub, Izvornik, Badra, Nigbolu, Mihaliç (le plus cité des
toponymes anatoliens, actuel Karaca Bey, avec six occurrences), Trabzon,
Egridir, etc. Comme on sait que les garçons provenaient principalement des
campagnes et qu'aucun village n'est nommé, il faut considérer qu'on retenait
pour qualifier les recrues le chef-lieu du canton où elles avaient été levées. Deux
termes ethniques sont cités, Arnavud et Bulgar (deux occurrences) : le second
adjectif est remarquable puisqu'appliqué à des esclaves du devfirme, il ne peut
renvoyer aux «Bulgares de la Volga», comme ce peut être par ailleurs le cas dans
l'usage ottoman 18 , mais bien à ceux de Bulgarie (pp. 36-40). Ces notations
mettent en évidence la nette supériorité des Rouméliotes sur les Anatoliens chez
les anciens du devjirme devenus artisans impériaux : 64 contre 19.
Quant aux prénoms de ces convertis, ils sont extrêmement variés. Sans
doute, comme prévisible, les prénoms musulmans «canoniques» sont-ils les plus
fréquents (Mustafa surtout, avec seize occurrences ; Ahmed, Hiiseyn, Hasan,
Mehmed, Mahmûd, 'Alî, etc.) ; mais sans exclure d'autres, entièrement dénués de
connotations religieuses : Evrenos, Timurhan. On peut même se demander si la
relative fréquence de prénoms comme Yûsuf (neuf occurrences), Çizir (cinq
occurrences), Ilyls, Iskender, ne correspondrait pas à la recherche d'équivalents
islamiques de prénoms chrétiens antérieurs. Ajoutons que deux de nos renégats
se sont acquis le titre de Hâct : le vieil IbrâMm déjà évoqué, et Hâci Miislihuddîn,
un vétéran lui aussi, engagé comme apprenti chez les fabricants d'arc sous
Bâyezîd D.
D'autre part, la répartition des éléments certainement issus du devjirme

entre les différents métiers des ehl-i hiref-i hâssa suggère quelques observations :
ils sont présents dans 26 de ces métiers et absents des quatorze autres. Il est
frappant en particulier qu'on ne trouve en 1526 aucun d'entre eux parmi des
métiers d'art comme ceux des nakkâ§ ou des mucellid (relieurs) ou les métiers
d'une technicité avancée comme ceux des fabricants de canons (topciyân-i âhen),
d'arquebuses (tiifekçiyân) ou de bateaux (? ktiftegerân). En revanche les
spécialités où les éléments du devjirme sont les plus nombreux, en tant
qu'apprentis plus souvent qu'en tant que maîtres, sont celles dont les effectifs
accusent une hausse particulièrement élevée entre la liste de 1495 env. et celle de
1526 : les chirurgiens qui passent de 4 à 51 membres (dont 12 issus du
devfirme19) ou les serruriers qui passent de 10 à 20 membres (dont 6 issus du
devjirme) ; ou bien ce sont les métiers qui apparaissent comme des innovations
de la liste de 1526 par rapport à la précédente : tisseurs de bure ('abâyipâfân) :
trois kul du devçirme ; tisseurs de brocard (kemhâpâfân) : cinq ; blanchisseurs
(câmefûyân) : cinq : céramistes (kâ§îgerân) : neuf ; et surtout damasquineurs
(dimefkigerân) : 14.
'^Notamment dans le terme bulgari qui s'applique au "cuir de Russie". Pour d'autres attestations de
l'épithète Bulgar dans des registres de Kul du XVI e siècle, cf. Osmanski Izvoriza
isljamizatcionnite procesi na balkanite (XVI-XIXv ), Serija livori, 2, Sofia, 1990.
" N o t o n s toutefois que la place des chirurgiens à l'intérieur des mlilâzimân-i dergâh-i 'âlî varie
selon les époques : dans une liste de 1514 (Topkapi, E 5475), ils sont 42 mais constituent une
rubrique ì part, distincte des ehl-i kiref (qui sont alors 308) ; en outre, dans une autre liste
(Topkapi, D 7843 ; avant 1537?) donnant le détail des médecins (cemâ'at-i e/ibbâ), ces derniers
incluent trois cerrâhtn dont le statut est supérieur à celui de leurs confrères puisque les efibbâ
faisaient partie des mu;aherehôrân ; Barkan, IFM, XV, pp. 312, 321.
Mais l'institution du devfirme est présente dans le registre de 1526 d'une

autre façon encore, indirecte cette fois : plusieurs des artisans cités sont des fils
d'anciens esclaves du devfirme, sujets libres, musulmans de naissance quant &
eux, mais qui, apparemment, n'ont pas eu d'autre ambition que de continuer à
servir le sultan, comme leur père, que de rester des kul, au sens large du moins.
A vrai dire, on retrouve ici certaines ambiguïtés du document, déjà

rencontrées plus haut. Tantôt il précise que le père était un kul, d'une origine
autre que le devgirme : c'est le cas du fabricant de flèches Hiiseyin bin Çâhîn, fils
d'un janissaire provenant du pençik (babasi yeniçeri cemâ'atinden pençik kul
olub, p. 45). D'autres fois, il fait au contraire explicitement mention du
dev firme. Dans ces conditions, quand il nous apprend seulement que les pères
étaient janissaires, sipâhîoglan, çavu{-i dergâh-i 'âlî ou bôstânci ba$i d'Edirne,
sans plus d'explication, il ne permet pas de trancher. D'autres formulations, sans
être décisives — le mot devçirme ne figure pas — laissent davantage déduire une
origine de cette nature :. 'Isâ Bâlî b. Ilyâs qui travaille la soie (kazzâz) avait pour
père un silâhdâr d'origine albanaise (babasi Arnavudii't-asil silâhdârlar
cemâ'atinden ; p. 36) ; le fourreur (pôstîndûz) Uveys était également fils d'un
silâhdâr, cette fois d'origine bosniaque (babasi Bosnevî yU'l-asilj20.
Concentrons-nous plutôt sur les six artisans «fils de kul» (l'expression

sert de patronyme à l'un d'eux) dont les pères sont expressément présentés
comme issus du devfirme :
Le maître orfèvre (zerger) Hayreddîn Sikkezen, recruté en 1523, était fils

d'un silâhdâr (p. 32). Le maître fabricant de lame (kârdger), Mustafa bin Kul,
intégré «en raison de son savoir-faire» sous Bâyezîd II était lui-aussi fils d'un
silâhdâr. Le maître fabricant d'arcs (kêmânger) 'Alî b. Yûsuf avait été recruté lui-
aussi sous Bâyezîd II, en raison de ses compétences 21 ; son père avait aussi fait
partie des artisans du palais comme bottier : il avait été en son temps l'un de ces
garçons directement orientés vers les ateliers du Palais dont nous avons évoqué
les nombreux cas plus récents (p. 46). Le chirurgien Sâdik Manaslir, fils de
sipâhîoglan avait été inscrit en 1517, «en raison de ses capacités» apprenti du
chef des chirurgiens (cerrâhbafi) de l'époque Ustâd Sinân Merhemmî 22 II était
passé maître depuis lors.
Il est également question d'un chaudronnier dont le père avait été un jeune esclave arménien
(Ermeni oglam) pour devenir cebeci. L'origine devfirme de ce père n'est pas explicitée mais paraît
néanmoins probable.
2
' D a n s la liste des bottiers de 1526, le seul Yfisuf cité, un apprenti enrôlé sous Selîm 1er, ne peu!
correspondre au père de 'Ali : ce dernier était donc à la retraite ou plus probablement décédé à cette
date.
Ce dernier ne figure pas dans la liste de 1526, où la première place dans la cemâ'ut-i cerrâltîn
revenait à un Dogan Ketljiidâ aux appointements quotidiens de 1S,S aspres. Un Sinta —
probablement notre cerrâhbafi Merhemci Sinân — était néanmoins encore en fonction à une date
364 Gilles VEI NSTEIN
Le père d'un autre chirurgien, Hamza b. ' Alî, avait d'abord été janissaire
avant de devenir «en raison de son savoir-faire» lui-même chirurgien. A sa mort,
un salaire d'apprenti (fâgird 'ulûfesi) avait été attribué à son fils. Un troisième
chirurgien, Musfafa b. tyizir avait reçu un salaire d'apprenti en 1517 alors que
son père était huissier du Palais (dergâh-i 'âlî kapuctlanndan). Il était encore
apprenti en 1S26 (ce qui n'autorise pourtant pas à conclure que sa nomination
avait plus été due à la faveur qu'à son habileté chirurgicale ).
La fonction d'artisan du sultan pouvait ainsi être héréditaire ou servir de

«point de chute» à un fils de kapikuh mais seulement au gré de circonstances
particulières : en raison d'aptitudes propres, peut-être aussi parfois de protections
spéciales ou simplement de chance. H n'y avait pas de règle.
D'une manière générale, les enseignements du registre de 1526 vont à

rencontre de toute conception systématique du mode de recrutement des artisans
impériaux. Manifestement le pragmatisme est roi. Recours est fait au devfirme
mais parmi bien d'autres sources possibles, y compris pour les éléments
d'origine servile. Plus inattendue, sans doute, est la façon dont le devfirme lui-
même est utilisé : le recrutement ne se fait pas à une étape bien déterminée du
cursus habituellement décrit ; ou bien il le court-circuite et se fait avant même le
démarrage du cursus r ou bien il se fait à n'importe laquelle des étapes
successives, le fameux clivage entre içoglan et 'acemî oglan étant lui-même
transgressé.
Dans quelle mesure ces constatations tirées du cas des ehl-i tiiref peuvent-
elles être étendues à d'autres corps d'agents du pouvoir ? Sans doute sommes-
nous portés à estimer que les ehl-i hiref n'étaient pas des fonctionnaires comme
les autres, puisque leurs métiers exigeaient à la fois une formation technique et
des dons essentiellement individuels. Pourtant la part respective des deux
composantes était inégale selon les spécialités extrêmement diverses des ehl-i
hiref, englobant aussi bien le peintre, que le chirurgien ou le blanchisseur, le
relieur que le fabricant de flèches ou le cannonier, la catégorie réunissant ainsi
sous un terme unique des spécialistes que nous qualifierions plutôt, selon les cas,
d'artistes, d'artisans, voire de techniciens. Dans ces conditions il n'est pas sûr que
le sultan faisait une distinction si tranchée entre ce corps qu'il avait organisé de
façon paramilitaire avec ses bôliik et sa hiérarchie, et bien d'autres corps du
Palais et de l'Armée.
Une autre question serait de savoir si le pragmatisme et même l'espèce

d'anarchie à laquelle on assiste en 1526 fait place dans la suite du règne de
postérieure, mais il était passé aux mufâherchôrân, parmi lesquels on le retrouve, intégré aux
t/ibbâ, sous le titre de ser-cerrâhin, avec 30 aspres de gages ; Barican, IFM, XV, p. 321. Dogan
n'était que son adjoint, ce que d'ailleurs indique son titre de ketfridâ.
À PROPOS DES EHL-I HÏREF 365
Siileymân et sous ses successeurs à des procédures plus codifiées. On est tenté de
le supposer à travers ce qu'on sait du souci de réglementation affirmé sous le
règne du Kânûtiî, mais il faudrait pour en être sûr disposer sur ces époques
d'informations équivalentes.
ANNEXES
TABLEAU I. Métiers et effectifs des eht-i hiref-i hâfsa
vers 1495 1526

effectifs effectifs Origine devfirme
certaine
tîrgerân (fabr. de flèches) 20 15 2

kârdgerân (fabr. de lames) 7 11 1
sipergerân (fabr. de boucliers) 2 7
giriftgerân (fabr. de lances) 8
zerniçâniyân (incrusteurs d'or) 2 22
kuyumciyân/zergerân (joalliers) 35 52 2
kiilâhdûzân (bonnetiers) 19 25 1
pôstîlidûzân (fourreurs) 10 14 2
mûzedûzân (bottiers) 8 13
âhengerân (forgerons) 13
çilingirân (serruriers) 10 20 6
bozdoganiyân (fabr. de masses d'arme) 7 16 2
topçiyân-i top-i âhen (canonniers) 15 8
tiifekçiyân (arquebusiers) 2 10
kazganiyân (chaudronniers) 22 18 1
miicellidân (relieurs) 9 7
nakkâ$ân (peintres-ornemanistes) 22 41
naklbendân (modeleurs sur cire) 4
kaliçepâfân (tisseurs de petits tapis) 18 16 3
kazzâz (travailleurs de la soie) 7 15
habbâzîn (boulangers) 11
cerrâhîn (chirurgiens) 4 51 12
'a§;âbân (herboristes) 4
serrâcîn (selliers) 4
kendekâriyân(gravcu['s sur bois et sur métal) 8 14 3
zthgeri (fabr. de cordes d'arc) 3
sûhengerân (fabr. de limes) 3 7 2
niyâmgerân (fabr. de fourreaux) 4 7 1
sâztira$ân (fabr. de rasoires) 4 11 1
'anberineciyân (bijoutiers sur ambre) 4 3

sîmke§in (bijoutiers sur argent) 4
hakkâkîn (graveurs sur pierre) 9 1
zerdûzfin (brodeurs au fi] d'or) 5
kûftegeràn (marteleurs) 5
$em$îrgerân (fabr. de sabres) 19* 18 1
kemângerân, (fabr. d'arcs) 44* 23 3
dimeçkigerân (damasquineurs) 22 13
neccârân (charpentiers) * 9
harratÎB (tailleurs de pierre) *
10 2
'abâ-yi pâfan (tisseurs de bure) 8 3
kembâpâfln (tisseurs de brocart) 21 5
câme§ûyân (blanchisseurs) 16 5
destvâneî (gantiers) 3
kâ$îgerân (céramistes) 11 9
ke§tigerân (fabr. de bateaux] 12* 7
•Classés parmi les miifâherehôrân.
TABLEAU II. Evolution des effectifs et des soldes des ehl-i hiref-i hâssa
(1487-1567)
Période effectifs totaux soldes annuelles (en aspres)
vers 1485(1) 360 762 336

1514 (2) 308
1520 (fin Selîm 1er) (3) 425 878 982
1520 (début Suleymân)(4) 485 1 263 249
1521 (5) 546 1 326 792
nov. 1522-janv. 1523 (6) 523 1 316 526
juin-juil. 1523 (7) 570 1 427 682
nov. 1523-janv. 1524 (8) 562 1 425 912
oct. -déc. 1524(9) 612 1 701 324
janvier 1526 (10) 590 1 419 186
juin-août 1527 (11) 585 1 422 726
1547-1548(12) 1 719 194
1567-1568(13) 647 1 977 088
À PROPOS DES EHL-Î HIREF 367
NOTES DU TABLEAU 2
1. Topkapi, D9587 ; Barkan, IFM, XV, pp. 309-311. Malgré le total indiqué, il n'en est citi que
302.
2. Topkapi, E 5475 ; Barkan, tFM, XV, p. 312. Comme nous l'avons relevi supra n. 2, il faudrait
ajouter 21 maîtres rétribués comme mâjfikerehôrûn.
3. Ba;bakanhk arçivi, Maliyeden MUdtwer (cité infra BBA, MM), n°23, f. 9r.
4. Ibid.. f. 3v.
5. Ibid., f. 16v.
6. Ibid., f. 14r.
7. Ibid., f. 34v.
8. Ibid., f. 9v.
9. Ibid., f. 5r.
10. Topkapi, D 9306/3, publié in Uzunçarçili, Belgeler, XI, 15.
U. Topkapi, D 3342, in Barkan, IFM, XV, p. 300.
12 BBA. MM, n° 117 in Ö. L. Barkan, "954-955(1547-1548) malî yilma Sit bir osmanli
biitçesi". IFM, XIX, 1-4, 1957-1958. p. 252
13 Atif Efendi kiitüphanesi, n°1734 in Ö. L. Barkan, "974-975 (1567-1568) malî yilina âit bir
osmanli biitçesi", tFM, XIX, 1-4, 1957-1958, p. 306.
École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Paris

Stéphane YERASIMOS
FATÎH: UNE RÉGION D'ISTANBUL

AUX XV e ET XVIe SIÈCLES
Le peuplement d'Istanbul après la conquête ottomane est un sujet encore

peu abordé, or les sources d'information ne manquent pas. Parmi les plus
importantes on trouve les registres des waqf de la ville, dont trois ont été
conservés sur une série de quatre. Le plus ancien, celui de 927/1521, est perdu.
Celui de 953/1546, conservé aux archives dé la Présidence du Conseil
(Bajbakanlik Arçivi) à Istanbul, sous le n° TT 251, a été publié en 1970 par
Ómer Lutfi Barkan et Ekrem Hakki Ayverdi1. Le troisième, datable de 988/1580,
se trouve également aux archives de la Présidence à Istanbul sous la côte TT 670
et le quatrième, daté de 1005/1596 à Ankara, à la Direction Générale du Cadastre
sous les numéros 542 et 543. La contribution ici présentée constitue une
première approche du traitement de cette information, à partir des registres de
1546 et 1580, appliquée au district de Fatih.
L'implantation ottomane à Istanbul dans les années qui suivent la

conquête s'opère en deux phases. La première, qui correspond à la décennie qui
suit 1453, est celle d'une installation limitée sur la partie centrale des crêtes
dominant la Corne d'Or, à un moment où la décision de faire de la ville la
nouvelle capitale ne semble pas avoir été définitivement prise. L'ancien forum
théodosien et ses prolongements surplombant la Corne d'Or sont choisis comme
le site du nouveau palais-citadelle, en dessous duquel se groupent les activités
commerciales, dans le quartier qui sera désormais connu sous le nom de Taht-al
kala' (auj. Tahtakale). Il s'agit d'une implantation classique pour les villes
conquises par les Ottomans, avec la différence notable que, tandis qu'ailleurs (p.e.
à Bursa) on se trouve devant l'explosion de l'ancienne cité fortifiée vers les
faubourgs, où s'installent les marchés, è Istanbul au contraire c'est d'une
' Istanbul Vatuflan Tahrir Defteri. 953 (1546) TârMi, Istanbul, 1970.
370 Stéphane YERASIMOS
implosion qu'il est question, le noyau nouveau flottant à l'intérieur de l'espace

intramuros.
Un deuxième noyau religieux-culturel s'implante pendant la même période

au delà du vallon menant de l'aqueduc de Valens à la Corne d'Or, sur les pentes
nord - nord-ouest, autour de deux églises, Pantocrator et Pantepopte, transformés
en medrese et connues respectivement sous le nom de Zeyiek et cTEski Imaret. A
proximité s'installent les oulema, comme ce Paçmakçizâde Husameddin Huseyin
Efendi, mufti d'Amasya en 846/1442, signalé à Istanbul en 859/14SS, où il
meurt l'année suivante pour être enterré dans la cour de la mosquée qu'il avait
fondée au nord de Zeyrek, noyau du plus ancien quartier connu dans le secteur 3 .
La décision de faire d'Istanbul la capitale de l'Empire semble être

définitivement prise au début des années 1460 et se manifeste par la mise en
chantier de deux ensembles monumentaux, le palais de Topkapi et la kulliye de
Fatih, lequels, en invalidant les choix précédents, se placent sur l'axe principal et
naturel de la ville, la ligne de crête menant de Sainte-Sophie à la Porte
d'Adrinople (Edirnekapi). Cet axe sera aussitôt renforcé par une armature militaire
et commerciale, composée des deux grands bedesten, noyaux du Grand-Bazar,
bordant l'axe central — la Divanyolu — entre le vieux et le nouveau palais et,
plus à l'ouest, de la caserne de janissaires, à proximité du passage stratégique où
la voie naturelle reliant la mer de Marmara à la Corne d'Or coupe l'axe central
devant l'aqueduc de Valens.
L'ensemble de Fatih est composé de la kulliye proprement dite, où une

mosquée monumentale — qui entend rivaliser avec Sainte-Sophie 3 — s'entoure
du plus grand complexe éducationnel de l'Empire, et d'un important équipement
commercial. La première pierre de la mosquée est posée en janvier-février 1463
— ce qui implique des travaux de démolition du complexe byzantin des Saints
Apôtres et de terrassement s'étalant au moins sur une année avant cette date — et
inaugurée fin décembre - début janvier 14714. Quand l'architecte, Sinan l'Ancien,
mourut le 13 septembre suivant la construction des medrese n'arrivait encore qu à
la hauteur des fenêtres 5 , on peut supposer alors que la kulliye fut complétée en
1472 ou 1473. On y trouve également un hôpital, un imaret, un labhâne
2
Pour les dates voir Abizâde Hiiseyin Hiisameddin Efendi, Amasya Tarihi, vol. 3, 1927, p. 214,
224, cité in Ekrem Hakki Ayverdi, Osmanli mi'mârisinde Fatih devri (1451-1481), Vol III,
Istanbul, 1973, p. 424 et Hafu Hiiseyin Ayvansarayî, HadikaMÏ cerami', Istanbul, 1987, Vol. 1,
p. 58, ainsi que pour la biographie du personnage, Mecdî Mehmed Efendi, Hadaiku's $akuik,
(reprint), Istanbul, 1989, p. 122.
3
Cf. Stéphane Yerasimos, La fondation de Constantinople et de Sainte-Sophie dans les traditions
turques, Paris, 1990.
^D'après l'inscription de fondation citée in Ayverdi, op. cit., p. 386.
-"D'après la chronique atribuée à Edimevî Rflhi, citée in Victor Louis Ménage, "Edirneli Rûhi'ye
atfedilen Osmanli tarihinden ilei parça" in Ord. Prof, ismaii Hakkt Uzunçarfth'ya Armagan,
Ankara, 1976, p. 330. Voir aussi Yerasimos, op. cit., p. 147.
FATIH AUX X Ve E T XVI'SIÈCLES 371
(logement des derviches) et un caravansérail, le tout disposé à l'est de la mosquée

— d o n t du côté du centre-ville — de part et d'aube de l'axe central qui traverse la
cour de la mosquée. Au delà, et toujours versl'est, se constitue le grand marché
impérial (Sultan Bazan), composé de 268 boutiques et 32 cellules (hôcerât),
léguées par Mehmed II à sa mosquée 6 , connu dès la fin du XVe siècle sous le
nom de Karaman Bazan 7 . Des personnages importants continuent à y ajouter des
boutiques le long du XVIe siècle. Ce marché aboutit au grand bazar des selliers,
dont l'acte de fondation est daté de février 1475*, composé de 110 boutiques à
l'intérieur et de 35 autres à l'extérieur, le tout légué par Mehmed II à sa
mosquée 9 . Cet ensemble est situé dans le quartier de l'église dite Can Alici, dont
nous ne connaissons pas le nom antérieur et qui a dû disparaître au cour du XVIe
siècle 10 . Au nord du marché des selliers et de l'autre côté de l'aqueduc de Valens
est situé le marché aux chevaux. L'ensemble de ces activités n'est pas étranger à
la présence de la caserne des janissaires qui se trouve de l'autre côté du chemin
reliant la mer de Marmara à la Corne d'Or en passant sous l'aqueduc de Valens.
L'évolution d e l'ensemble
C'est donc autour de ce noyau, essentiellement mis en place sous le règne

de Mehmed II, que sera constitué ce que les registres des waqfs du XVI e siècle
appellent la nahiye de Fatih. Le plus grand des treize districts de la ville, il
dépasse les environs immédiats du complexe pour s'étendre au sud jusqu'à la
vallée du Lycus, au nord jusqu'aux bords de la Corne d'Or tandis qu'à l'est il est
en gros limité par l'axe reliant la mer de Marmara à la Corne d'Or, le débordant
vers le sud, restant en deçà au nord. Enfin, au nord il s'arrête aux abords de la
mosquée de Selim 1 e r . Cet ensemble se décompose en 42 quartiers sur les
quelques 220 de la ville intra-muros11 ; la présence de 18 d'entre eux est attestée
pendant le règne de Mehmed II, tandis que 16 autres sont fondés pendant les trente
dernières années du XV e siècle. Enfin, l'ensemble est pratiquement mis en place à
la fin du règne de Bayezid II en 1512.
Ce processus n'a pas dû toutefois être exempt de tâtonnements,

notamment suggérés par des changements des noms de quartier lors de cette
^Waqfiyye 11 de Mehmed II, publiée par Tahsin Öz, "Zwei Stiftungsuritunden des sultan Mehmed H
Fatih" in Istanbuler Mitteilungen, Istanbul, 1935. p. 21.
^Première mention dans le waqf de Mevlânâ Ahî Sinan Çelebi, daté de 1499.
"Texte publié par Çagatay Uluçay, "Istanbul saraçhanesi ve saraçlanna dair bir araçtirma" in
Tarih Dergisi, n'5-6 (1951-1952), p. 151-152.
9
Waqfiyye II, op. cit. p. 21, 24.
' " C e nom apparaît dans les légendes turques de la fondation de Constantinople comme
synonyme du "couvent d'Azra'il" dont les restes figureraient à la fin du XVe siècle au sud du
complexe de Fatih. Voir Yerasimos, op. cit., p. 115-116.
11
" 4 1 dans le registre de 1543, auxquels vient de se rajouter un autre registre de 1580.
période de mise en place. Ainsi l'espace situé au nord de la kiiliiye de Fatih devait
former è l'origine le quartier de Kizta§i, tirant son nom d'une colonne qu'il ne faut
pas confondre avec la colonne de Marcien toujours début, puisque celle-ci, située
dans la propriété d'un certain Ibrahim Beg bin Abdullah, transformée en waqf en
895/1490, elle fut enlevée en novembre 1551 — entraînant la ruine de la maison
— pour être intégrée dans la construction de la Siileymaniye. 12 Dans ce quartier,
Sinan, l'architecte de Mehmed II, reçut en donation (temlik) pris de 4.000 m 2 de
terrains où il bâtit une mosquée, une école, des maisons et treize boutiques, le
tout transformé en waqf par deux actes respectivement datées de janvier 1464 et de
septembre 1468. Mais ce n'est qu'au début du siècle suivant que le nom de
Mi'mar Sinan remplace celui de Kiztaji pour la dénomination du quartier, sans
qu'on puisse évidemment connaître les limites de l'un et de l'autre puisque nous
ne possédons aucun document délimitant les quartiers d'Istanbul avant leur refonte
complète en 1934.
A l'extrémité sud de la kiiliiye, le quartier de l'église Can Alici sera

progressivement remplacé par celui fondé par le Kapicibaçi de Mehmed II
Muslihttddin Mustafa Beg bin Abdullah, attesté dès 1466 et par le quartier fondé
par Mimar Ayas, successeur de Mimar Sinan, avant 1471, autour de sa mosquée
située au carrefour entre l'axe principal de la ville et le chemin reliant la Marmara
à la Corne d'Or. Immédiatemment au nord de l'aqueduc de Valens, ce chemin
prend le nom de Kirkçe$me — nom donné à l'adduction d'eau byzantine utilisant
l'aqueduc de Valens, renovée par Mehmed II — et un quartier du même nom est
attesté dès 1474. Deux quartiers lui seront substitués au XVIe siècle, celui de
Ferhad Aga et celui de Sekbanbaji Ibrahim Beg, dépendant de la nahiye voisine de
Vefa.
L'implantation précoce des quartiers aux environs de la kUlliye de Fatih et

aux abords des grands axes explique ces changements. On trouve le même
phénomène aux bords de la Corne d'Or et sur les pentes qui y mènent. Nous
avons déjà vu Pa§makçizâde Husameddin Efendi fonder un quartier attesté en
1479. Plus au nord, près de la muraille maritime, le quartier du Cheikh
Muhyiddin Kocevî, dont la waqfiyye date de 942/1535 et la mosquée est attestée
pour la première fois en 1510, remplace le quartier antérieur des Tanneurs où un
certain Mûsâ Beg bin Abdullah avait fondé une mosquée et constitué une
waqfiyye dès 1466. La note annexée au waqf d'el-Hâcc 'Ivaz, qui avait légué en
1476 une tannerie, nous apprend que par ordre impérial, sans doute de Siileyman
le Magnifique, les tanneries ont été transférées à l'extérieur de la ville 13 . Dans le
même secteur le quartier d'Ùskùblu, fondé par Çakir Aga — qui édifia trois autres
mosquées dans la ville —, antérieur è 1479 et celui du deuxième kadi et premier
12
Voir registre de 1580 (TT 670), p. 717, ainsi que ômer Lulfi Barkan, Siileymaniye Carni ve
Îmareti tniaan, Vol. I, Ankara. 1972, p. 344-345.
13
Barkan-Ayverdi, op. cil., p. 259.
F A T l H AUX XV® ET XVIeSIÈCLES 373
mufti de la ville, Mevlânâ Hiisrev — fondateur également de deux autres

mosquées —, antérieur à 1465 conservèrent les mêmes noms, maïs plus es
amont du rivage, l'église byzantine, qui fut peut être celle de Sainte Théodosie,
est dans la waqfiyye de Fâtih le centre d'un quartier dénommé Mahalle-i Aya et ce
n'est qu'en 1512 qu'on trouve mention du Mahalle-i Cami'-i Gui attestant en
même temps la transformation de l'église en mosquée. De même, derrière ces
quartiers, sur les pentes dominant la Corne d'Or, les quartiers fondés par
l'historien Ajikpaçazâde à la fin du XV e siècle et par le Miifti Zembilli Ali
Efendi au début du siècle suivant, remplacent le quartier de Demiiicili, attesté dès
1464. pour le second et celui de Sam Saltuk, groupé autour d'une zaviye fondée
par Mi'mar Sinan l'Ancien et figurant dans son waqf, daté de 1464 également.
Enfin les nouvelles casernes des janissaires, où sera transférée une partie
des anciennes casernes après l'édification, à partir de 1543, de la mosquée de
§ehzâde sur la portion de leur emplacement située au nord de l'axe principal de la
ville, mais dont la présence au sud-ouest de la kttlliye de Fâtih — entre celle-ci et
la vallée du Lycus — est attestée dès 1488, entraînent aussi quelques
changements. Ainsi, le monastère de Constantin Lips, qui est le centre d'un
quartier portant ce nom dans la waqfiyye de Fâtih, sera tranformé en mosquée par
Alaiiddin Ali Fenârî, mort en 1496. Toutefois, le nouveau quartier prendra le
nom de Niikreci Bâlî, dont nous ne savons rien, fondateur d'une mosquée
mentionnée pour la première fois en 1497.
L'aspect général
Les deux registres des waqfs, celui de 1543 et celui de 1580 totalisent pour
les quarante-deux quartiers de la nahiye de Fâtih 825 waqfs14. Le total pour le
registre de 1543 est de 598, dont 279 indiquées comme repris du registre
précédent de 1521, mais comme celui-ci est perdu nous ne connaissons pas les
waqfs qui ont pu disparaître entre les deux dates. Or, leur nombre peut être
important si on en juge par la période suivante. Ainsi 231 waqfs figurant dans le
registre de 1543 ne se retrouvent plus dans celui de 1580. Il y a donc plus de
disparitions que de créations puisque les waqfs nouveaux sont 227' 5 . Cette
disparition affecte exclusivement les waqfs en argent, effectivement tous les
waqfs léguant uniquement des sommes d'argent, figurant dans le registre de 1543
(231) ont disparu de celui de 1580 tandis que tous les waqfs concernant des biens
14
I1 s'agit du total des waqfs enregistrés dans ces quartiers, or de waqfs enregistrés dans d'autres
quartiers de la ville peuvent contenir des biens, ou affecter des revenus à des fondations situées
dans cette nahiye et vice-versa.
" P a r m i eux se trouve une majorité de waqfs créés entre ces deux dates mais aussi des fondations
antérieures à IS43 — et même à 1521 — qui ne figuraient pas dans les registres précédents. Ces
changements sont moins importants dans le registre de 1596 — non encore consulté —, 9 waqfs
disparus et 96 créés d'après le tableau fourni par Baïkan-Ayverdi, op. cit., p. VIII.
immeubles, ou mixtes, subsistent. Le revenu procuré par ces sommes provenant

de leur prêt, on peut penser aux aléas des opérations et aux débiteurs ou gérants
peu scrupuleux, mais il faut aussi ajouter le phénomène de l'inflation. La quasi
totalité des sommes leguées sont en aspres (akçai), or, si au milieu du XVIe siècle
il faut 50 à 55 aspres pour un florin, il en faudra 120 en 1584 et 220 en 1598.
Ainsi, parmi les 227 waqfs nouveaux du registre de 1580 il n'y aura que deux en
argent 16 , dont l'un disparaîtra quinze ans plus tard.
Les quatre-cinquième de l'ensemble des waqfs (671 au total) sont datés ce

qui permet un certain nombre d'hypothèses sur leur progression dans le temps.
Un première repartition par règne montre une progression constante. De 0,6 par
an en moyenne sous Mehmed II (1453-1481), nous passons à 4,6 sous le règne
de Bayezid II (1481-1512), à 7,4 pendant l'époque de Selim I e r (1512-1520), pour
culminer sous Siileyman (1520-1566) avec 8,3 créations par an. Même si on
peut supposer que la majorité des waqfs non datés pourraient concerner les
périodes les plus anciennes l'évolution est nette. Une approche un peu plus fine
faite par décennies permet de préciser les tendances. Ainsi, la moyenne pour les
années 920 de l'hégire (1514-1523) est déjà de 8,6 par an, elle sera de 9,4 pendant
la décennie suivante (1524-1533), et culminera à 11 dans les années 940 (1534-
1543). Ensuite c'est la chute: 6,5 par an en moyenne le long des années 950
(1544-1552), 4 pendant les années 960 (1553-1562) et un étalement pendant la
dernière période: 5 par an pour les années 970 (1563-1572) et 5,3 pour les années
980-987 (1573-1580) couvertes par le registre de 1580. La baisse est trop
importante pour qu'elle puisse être expliquée uniquement par la quasi-disparition
des waqfs en argent. On peut remarquer que la décision d'un nouveau recensement
des waqfs qui aboutit au registre de 1546 a dû être prise lors de l'accélération du
chiffre de création et qu'elle a pu être accompagné par des mesures de restriction
dont nous ignorons le contenu. Le manque à gagner du trésor, héritier des
personnes sans descendance, par le détournement — grâce aux waqfs — des biens
vers des personnes ne pouvant pas en bénéficier selon le droit successoral, ou
l'encombrement de l'espace urbain par des biens inamovibles rendant difficiles les
grandes opérations impériales, comme les ensembles de la Çehzâde ou de la
S i i l e y m a n i y e 1 7 a pu entraîner une réglementation, mais ces hypothèses
demandent d'être confirmés. Déjà l'établissement de statistiques annuelles à partir
des plus de 4.000 waqfs contenus dans les trois registres — une fois ceux-ci
dépouillés — nous permettra sans doute de cerner de plus près la question.
"*La tendance se vérifie sur l'ensemble de la ville. Des 845 waqfs en argent du registre de 1543,
15 seulement survivront en 1580 et dix seulement seront créés à cette date, Barkan-Ayverdi, loc.
cil.
' 7 Dans ce cas l'aménageur devait recourir au lebdil, l'échange du bien à exproprier contre un autre,
de valeur équivalente, situé ailleurs. Dans l'échantillon de notre nahiye, nous avons des cas de
lebdil liés à l'édification de la mosquée de Çehiâde.
FATlH AUX XVe ET XVI'SIÈCLES 375
Au delà de ces considérations générales, les informations fournies par les

résumés des waqfîyye contenus dans ces registres 18 , constituent des sources de
premier ordre pour connaître de plus près les habitants des quartiers, leur habitat
et plus généralement l'organisation de l'espace à l'intérieur de la ville 19 . Ici on
donnera quelques éléments sur les deux premières points, puisque le dernier
nécessite un important appareil cartographique.
Les registres nous font connaître les personnages impliqués dans la vie
d'un quartier à travers trois de leurs aspects : fondateurs des waqfs, bénéficiaires de
ceux-ci, ou propriétaires, ces aspects n'étant nullement exclusifs les uns des
autres. Nous voyons ainsi défilé sur une période d'environ un siècle — puisque
les waqfs antérieurs à 1480 sont rares — quelques 2.500 personnes 20 , dont un
tiers de femmes 21 . Les éléments permettant une différenciation sociale entre eux
sont leurs titres et leurs patronymes, les métiers sont trop rarement cités pour
être représentatifs. Les titres offrant surtout des indications permettant de
différencier les quartiers entre eux et étant peu significatifs globalement nous
insisteront ici sur les patronymes, ou plutôt sur un d'entre eux, celui de bin
Abdallah, indiquant une origine servile. Dans l'ensemble, sur 1419 personnes à
patronyme connu près de la moitié (49,4%) sont d'origine serville. Ce chiffre
nous paraît suffisamment important pour mériter reflexion.
Les éditeurs du registre de 1543 ont remarqué ce phénomène l'attribuant

notamment à la tendance de choisir de préférence des affranchis comme
bénéficiaires ou gérants de waqfs, soit pour recompenser des serviteurs fidèles, qui
ne pouvaient pas trouver de place dans un testament, soit pour éviter la saisie par
le trésor, en cas d'extinction des descendants directs 22 . Effectivement, dans notre
échantillon, les fils et les filles d'Abdullah de première génération atteignent
parmi les bénéficiaires, avec près de 55 %, un taux bien plus fort que la
moyenne 23 . Mais cette remarque, fort juste par ailleurs, n'épuise pas la question,
puisque la présence des personnes d'origine servile reste toujours forte dans les
Un des détails généralement omis est celui concernant la superficie des terrains, indispensable
à une vision spatiale, mais il est très rare qu'on puisse trouver les originaux des waqfiyyes dont le
résumé figure dans les registres.
"Cette source est d'autant plus précieuse que les registres des tribunaux des XV e et XVI e siècle
pour la ville intra-muros, sont presque tous perdus.
20
En réalité, le total des personnes récensées par quartier atteint les 2.800, mais certains
individus apparaissent dans plus d'un quartier et les homonymies ne sont pas toujours réparables,
21
Leur proportion atteint les 44 % chez les bénéficiaires des dispositions des waqfs puisque leur
position de faiblesse dans l'ordre successoral est une des causes de la création de ceux-ci. Mais
elles figurent aussi en bonne place (34,5 %) parmi les fondateurs de waqfs.
22
op.cit„ p. XXV-XXVII.
il s'agit toujours de personnes libres à terme sinon dans l'immédiat, c'est à dire des 'atik,
esclaves affranchis, ou des madebber, des esclaves qui seront affranchis à la mort du Fondateur,
auxquels s'ajoutent des épouses d'origine servile ou des Umm-i veled, mères des enfants 4v>'
fondateur.
376 S t é p h a n e Y E R A S I M O S
autres catégories, 45,9% chez les fondateurs des waqfs, 44,6 % chez les
propriétaires24. A ce stade des hypothèses il ne serait donc pas faux de dire que le
"dessus du panier" de la société musulmane de la capitale, détenant ou gérant des
biens meubles ou immeubles, se renouvelle au XVI e siècle par moitié grâce à un
apport extérieur, par définition d'origine non-musulmane et non-turque25. Cette
situation peut résulter de deux phénomènes fort divers : l'abondance d'une main
d'oeuvre servile domestique, qui finit par s'intégrer à la famille, et la fragilité des
composants naturels de celle-ci. Si nos sources ne sont pas de nature à expliquer
le prémier de ces phénomènes elles nous permettent de le constater à travers
l'abondance d'affranchis souvent rencontrée parmi les bénéficiaires d'un seul waqf.
Ainsi, cette Cemile Hâtun qui lègue en 1566 sa maison, composée de deux
pièces au rez-de-chaussée, deux autres à l'étage et d'une cuisine à sept affranchis,
trois hommes et quatre femmes et à leur descendance ; en 1580 la fondatrice est
encore en vie et tout le monde habite la maison. Ou Mihrimah Hâtun, léguant en
1563 une maison un peu plus grande, composée de six pièces et des sofa, à onze
de ses affranchis, cinq hommes et six femmes, dont les huit au moins forment
des couples26.
Quant à la fragilité de la descendance, due à une faible natalité ou, plus

probablement à une forte mortalité, nos informations sont trop fragmentaires et
peuvent même être biaisées si on imagine à côté des waqfiyye qu'on possède et
qui privilégient les affranchis, des actes testamentaires qu'on ignore, où on verrait
défiler la descendance. Nous pouvons toutefois déceler un indice à travers les 123
waqfiyye où les bénéficiaires en première ligne sont des membres de la famille
jusqu'à extinction complète de la lignée et dont nous connaissons les
bénéficiaires une ou deux générations plus tard en moyenne, à l'occasion des
récensements de 1543 ou de 1580. Nous voyons que dans plus de la moitié des
cas (64) les biens se trouvent soit aux mains des affranchis, bénéficiaires en
deuxième position, soit gérés par leurs destinataires ultimes : imams et muezzin
des mosquées ou personnages pieux. Ainsi, dans une quarantaine d'années en
moyenne, toute descendance de la majorité des waqfs familiaux se trouve éteinte,
ce qui constitue une indication sur la fragilité de la famille à cette époque.
24 Cette catégorie semble même sous-représentée dans la nahiye de Fatih, puisque dans l'ensemble
du registre de 1543, les fondateurs de waqfs d'origine servile consituent les 49,9 % du total, (op.
citp. XXVI).
2 ^Cette moyenne cache bien entendu des écarts très importants d'une catégorie sociale à l'autre.
Ainsi, l'origine servile, très faible chez les ulemâ, elle est en revanche très forte parmi les limerà.
Cette situation étant toutefois connue par ailleurs ce qui'importe ici est le taux élevé de la
moyenne.
^Registre de 1580, p. 581 et 634-635. D'autre sources attestent également l'abondance
d'esclaves détenus par des gens de condition moyenne sinon modeste. Ainsi, cet étameur nommé
Hayriiddin, assassiné par trois de ses esclaves, tandis que les autres, de nombre indéterminé,
furent reconnus complices. (Acte du 17 Zilhicce 967/8 septembre 1560, Miihimme Defteri 4, n"
1285).
FA TI H AUX XV " E T XVIeSIÈCLES 377
En ce qui concerne l'habitat, nous possédons une description sommaire de

555 maisons situées dans la nahiye. Plus de la moitié (54%) disposent des pièces
à l'étage et une seule a deux étages, les autres sont à rez-de chaussée. Plus des
trois-quarts (76,9%) ont une cour et près d'un tiers (31%) possède un jardin,
souvent planté d'arbres fruitiers. Les maisons sont dans leur très grande majorité
petites, ainsi on compte 1341 pièces principales pour 555 maisons, ce qui nous
fait une moyene de 2,4 pièces par maison. A ces pièces s'ajoutent pour un tiers
des cas des sofa21 et pour un quart des hôcre, c'est à dire des cellules, le terme turc
étant ici aussi vague que le français. Des informations assez précises sur
l'équipement de la maison nous indiquent que si 70% d'entre elles possèdent un
cabinet d'aisance 1% seulement sont dotées d'une cuisine et il s'agit presque
toujours des maisons importantes. Or, près de la moitié disposent d'un puits,
plus d'un quart d'un four et près d'un tiers d'une écurie. D'autres indications rares
concernent des kiler (celliers, 10 cas), des mahzen (caves, 10 cas également), des
mahtabe (pièces à déposer le bois de chauffage, 9 cas), des tahtapuf (pièces sous
le toit, combles, 7 cas), des anbar (greniers, 4 cas), des mahba (cabinets, 3 cas).
Huit maisons possèdent par ailleurs leur hammam privé, tandis que trente-cinq
disposent de soixante-huit boutiques au total ouvrant sans doute sur la rue.
Les indications concernant les matériaux de constrution sont quasi

inexistantes. Deux mentions précisant que des maisons sont construites en bois
ne permettent pas de tirer la conclusion que toutes les autres ne le sont pas. De
même, si les indications concernant la disposition des pièces ne manquent pas,
leur interprétation est extrêmement malaisée. Tout au plus on peut constater
quelques regroupements partiels : des pièces situées de part et d'autre d'un sofa,
des pièces à l'étage au dessus d'une écurie, d'un cellier ou d'une cave, ainsi que des
pièces situées au dessus des portes, ou plutôt des portails donnant accès à la cour.
L'impression générale qui se dégage est celle de la présence régulière d'une cour, à
laquelle vient se joindre éventuellement un jardin, où se trouve un, ou plusieurs,
corps de bâtiments principaux accompagnés de bâtiments annexes. Il est toutefois
impossible de deviner la position du bâtiment principal d'habitation dans la cour
et à fortiori par rapport à la rue. Des maisons importantes son composées de deux
— et même dans des très rares cas de trois — cours. Celles-ci sont alors
qualifiées d'extérieure (médiane) et intérieure et on trouve dans la partie extérieure
les bâtiments de service, fours, écuries etc. accompagnés de cellules, sans doute
pour le logement des domestiques, tandis que les pièces principales d'habitation
sont dans la cour intérieure. Toutefois, cet aspect d'intimité vole en éclats lors
des dispositions de la waqfiyye puisque souvent chaque pièce est affectée
séparément à une personne et à sa descendance jusqu'à extinction de celle-ci avec
utilisation conjointe des parties communes. Dans le cas des maisons à deux cours
27
Nous pensons qu'il faut prendre ici le terme de sofa dans le sens d'une "antichambre"— centrale
ou non. ouverte sur les côtés ou non-distribuant les pièces d'habitation.
378 Stéphane YER A S I M O S
il est même précisé que les habitants de la cour extérieure ne peuvent pas interdire
le passage des ceux de l'intérieure.
Les quartiers
Après cette approche un peu quantitative, quels sont les éléments précisant
la spécificité des quartiers ? Mais avant tout comment se présent un quartier de
Fatih au X V ? siècle ? De ces quartiers nous ne pouvons localiser avec précision
que la mosquée qui constitue le centre, encore qu'il ne s'agisse pas toujours du
centre géométrique. En remarquant toutefois que la distance entre les mosquées
de quartier varie entre 150 et 200 mètres on peut supposer des quartiers d'une
superficie de 2,5 à 4 hectares chacun.
L'élément de base du quartier est évidemment la mosquée, mais comme il

y a plus de mosquées que de quartiers (55 pour 42 quartiers) 28 , il y a des
mosquées sans quartier et d'une façon générale les mosquées édifiées à Istanbul au
delà du milieu du XVI e siècle ne disposeraient plus de quartier, le plein des
quartiers ayant déjà été atteint à cette date. Les bâtiments d'accompagnement les
plus courants sont l'école et la zâviye, ainsi sur nos 42 quartiers 23 possèdent au
moins une école et 13 une zâviye. A moins que le fondateur de la mosquée du
quartier ne soit un cheikh, la zâviye est fondée par une autre personne et ne se
trouve pas liée au bâtiment de la mosquée. De même on ne trouve que six cas
d'écoles fondées en même temps que les mosquées. Il en résulte que pour la
plupart mosquée, école et zâviye ne forment pas un noyau compact au centre du
quartier. De même les deux derniers bâtiments, de facture sans doute plus modeste
avaient déjà en grande partie disparu au XIXe siècle.
Contrairement à l'école, la medrese n'est pas un équipement de quartier,

ainsi on n'en trouve qu'autour des principaux centres religieux-culturels de la
nahiye : le nord du complexe de Fatih et les environs de Zeyrek. Enfin, les
hammams — il y a une douzaine dans la nahiye — peuvent être qualifiés
d'équipements inter-quartier, puisqu'on en trouve un tous les trois au quatre
q u a r t i e r s 2 9 , mais leur disposition semble également obéir à d'autres
préoccupations. Ainsi ils sont naturellement plus nombreux dans les lieux
2
®Ces chiffres et ceux qui suivent reflètent la situation à la fin du XVIe siècle.
Le hammam est pourtant considéré comme un équipement de base comme il apparaît des
différents textes de l'époque. Ainsi, les habitants du nouveau quartier constitué autour de la
mosquée édifiée par Hadim Ibrahim Pacha à Silivrikapi en ISSt, se plaignant de l'éloignement du
hammam le plus proche obtiennent par acte du 3 Safer 964 (6/12/1556) l'autorisation d'en édifier
un dans le quartier (Miihimme Defteri 2, n' 1748). De mime l'ouverture du hammam waqf de Haci
Birader & Be$iktas les mardis et les jeudis aux femmes et les autres jours aux hommes posant des
problèmes pratiques de fréquentation il est décidé par acte du 10 Çevval 963 (17/08/1556) d'y
ajouter un second édifice pour en faire un hammam double (op. cil., n* 1302).
FATlH AUX XV e
ET X V I ' S I È C L E S 379
d'activité plus dense, autour du Saraçhane (le marché des selliers) et du Kapan-i
Dakiyk (Unkapan, la balance de la farine), mais aussi, gros consommateurs d'eau,
ils se placent à proximité des conduites eau, celles de Kirkçesme, d'origine
byzantine, restaurées par Mehmed II et SUleyman30, qui longent d'une part les
hauteurs de la Corne d'Or et de l'autre les pentes ouest du complexe de Fatih.
Les bâtiments privés mentionnés dans les waqfs sont de trois catégories :
les maisons, les hôcre (cellules) et les boutiques. Ces dernières qui forment
l'armature commerciale du quartier sont reparties fort inégalement Ainsi dix-sept
quartiers n'en possèdent aucune 31 et six autres en ont moins de cinq. A l'autre
bout de l'échelle six possèdent plus de quarante. Ces sont évidemment les
quartiers situés autour du complexe de Fatih, le marché au selliers et le marché au
chevaux, ainsi que près du Kapan-i Dakiyk sur la Corne d'Or. Sur un total de 615
boutiques waqf repérées dans la nahiye 35 seulement sont liées à des maisons.
Les autres sont indépendantes, souvent disposées en rangées, formant des petits
marchés groupés autour des mosquées. La présence des hôcre, qui, le plus
souvent groupés, servent au logement des "célibataires" est liée à celle des
boutiques. Enfin, les fontaines répérables datant de cette période se trouvent sur le
passage des deux conduites d'eau alimentant la ville, le long des pentes de la
Corne d'Or et des pentes ouest du complexe de Fatih, auxquelles il faut ajouter la
fontaine monumentale de Kirkçesme devant l'aqueduc de Valens. On peut se
demander s'il n'existe une corrélation entre la présence des puits et celle des
fontaines. La présence de puits dans les maisons est plus faible dans les quartiers
proches de la Corne d'Or, qui sont en contrepartie bien équipés dès cette époque
en fontaines. Mais c'est probablement la proximité de la mer, laquelle rendant
mauvaise l'eau des puits rend nécessaire la présence des fontaines. Au total douze
à quinze quartiers semblent avoir été à l'époque équipés d'une fontaine.
Si on résume cet ensemble d'impressions la disparité entre quartiers

devient la caractéristique dominant et l'image stréréotypée qu'on pourrait avoir
d'un centre de quartier composé d'un noyau d'équipements publics (école,
fontaine) groupés autour de la mosquée et entourés d'un petit centre d'activités ne
semble se vérifier que dans peu de cas.
L'ensemble des données contenus dans les registres des waqfs peuvent
enfin faire amorcer une étude de différenciation sociale entre les quartiers.
La frange nord du complexe de Fatih semble constituer — avec le secteur

de Zeyrek — la partie la plus aristocratique de la nahiye. Près de la moitié des
fondateurs masculins de waqfs dans les quatre quartiers de ce secteur sont des
' ' V o i r les cartes établies par Kâzim Çeçen, Mimar Sinon ve Kirhçefme tesisleri, Istanbul, 1988.
31
Des boutiques waqf bien entendu, ce qui n'empêche pas en principe la présence des boutiques
miilk.
380 Stéphane YER A S I M O S
'ulema des Umera ou des çelebfl2. On y trouve parmi les fondateurs des bâtiments
publics deux cheikhulislam, deux kazasker, un kadi d'Istanbul, un beylerbey
d'Egypte. On y trouve également trois medrese, en plus du complexe impérial,
mais l'armature commerciale est inégalement repartie. Forte au centre à cause de
la présence de l'axe menant à la porte d'AdrinopIe elle est nulle au nord-est dans
les quartiers résidentiels de Cheikh Resmi et de Cheikh 'Abîd Çelebi.
Toute la partie située à l'ouest du complexe de Fatih sur les pentes menant
à la vallée du Lycus est occupée par les quartiers fondés par des artisans ou
commerçants. On trouve deux grands commerçants, fondateurs également des
mosquées et des quartiers dans le principal centre d'activités de la ville, qui
s'implantent à proximité de l'axe central reliant Fatih à la Port d'AdrinopIe, tandis
que des personnages plus modestes, un boucher, un rebouteux, un orfèvre, se
placent autour de la nouvelle caserne des janissaires, qui devait couvrir une
surface dépassant largement la taille d'un quartier sur les pentes. Ici le nombre des
fondateurs "titrés" atteint le quart du total et parmi eux se distinguent surtout les
militaires. On y trouve un seul centre bien structuré, celui de Sarigiizel, avec
mosquée, école, hammam et zâviye ainsi que 24 boutiques, tandis qu'au fur et à
mesure qu'on descend vers la vallée du Lycus les équipements, à l'exception des
zâviye, se font rares.
Les abords sud-est du complexe de Fatih, au sud de l'aqueduc de Valens, se

distinguent par une intense activité. Celle-ci attire les grands personnages, avec
une nette prépondérance des militaires, qui y cherchent des biens immobiliers de
bon rapport pour leur waqf. Cette activité chasse en revanche les zâviye et même
les écoles sont rares.
A l'extrême sud-est et au delà de l'axe montant de la Marmara vers

l'aqueduc du Valens une excroissance de la nahiye est composée de quatre petits
quartiers sans aucune armature commerciale, fondés par des personnages mal
connus et où on trouve à peine sept personnages "titrés", cinq iimerâ et deux
ulemâ sur 29 fondateurs mâles. On remarque aussi qu'entre 1546 et 1580, dates de
deux premiers registres conservés, les quartiers ne reçoivent aucun nouveau waqf,
signe très probable de stagnation.
Au nord de l'aqueduc de Valens et sur les pentes de Zeyrek se situe le

second quartier aristocratique de la nahiye, avec des caractéristiques assez proches
du premier. Ici aussi près de la moitié de fondateurs sont "titrés", trois
cheikhulislam et un père de cheikhulislam, deux kazasker et un grand-vizir
possèdent des waqfs et des fondations, l'ensemble se structure sur deux pôles :
activités autour du marché aux chevaux, medrese, zâviye et écoles près de Zeyrek,
mais ici tous les quartiers possèdent une bonne armature commerciale.
titre indique, plus qu'une appeitenance précise à un corps, une ascendance prestigieuse.
F A T 1 H AUX X V e ET X V I e S I È C L E S 381
Le reste de la nahiye, c'est à dire le vaste espace situé entre le complexe de

Fatih et la Corne d'Or reste plus rebelle aux classifications. Aux bords de la
Corne d'Or il y a sans doute un effet de colonisation. Le grand nombre de
propriétaires chrétiens et juifs cité pour cette région dans la waqfiyye de Mehmed
II, disparaît entièrement dans les waqfiyyes postérieures. De même, le geste de
fondation de mosquées — et des quartiers — en cet endroit ressemble plus à une
colonisation qu'à une véritable installation. C'est le cas du Cheikhulislam Molla
Hiisrev qui fonde une mosquée dans le secteur et deux autres dans la ville et se
fait enterrer à Bursa, aussi celui de Çakir Aga, fondateur également de trois
mosquées dans la ville, dont une ici, tandis que ses propriétés sont ailleurs. Sur
les hauteurs, les deux mosquées-zâviye d'A$ik Pacha et de Seyyid Velâyet
forment un centre culturel important, mais cela est beaucoup plus visible dans
les stèles du cimetière que dans les noms figurant dans les registres. En dehors
des activités importantes, concentrées à proximité d'Unkapan — dont le centre
n'appartient pas à la nahiye — et de la porte de Cibali, l'intérieur est sous-équipé
et on chercherait en vain un centre structurant l'ensemble.
En conclusion on voit que ce sont les axes et les centres créés pendant les
premières décennies après la conquête qui semblent déterminer l'évolution
ultérieure. Le centre religieux et culturel principal de Fatih et secondaire de
Zeyrek, l'axe principal de la ville sur lequel se greffent les activités, le rôle joué
par les casernes des janissaires et par la Corne d'Or.
Cette première approche, qui choisit comme exemple le district de Fatih,

visait beaucoup plus à explorer une source: les registres des waqfs d'Istanbul, qu'à
aboutir à des conclusions. Déjà le caractère partiel de l'exploitation limite les
résultats, notamment en nous privant des comparaisons avec les autres parties de
la ville. Toutefois la richesse du matériel, qui peut être encore améliorée avec une
exploitation cartographique, nous semble prometteuse en vue d'une étude qui
reste encore à faire, celle de l'histoire urbaine d'Istanbul.
École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Paris

Elizabeth A. ZACHARIADOU
THE WORRISOME WEALTH OF

THECELNIK RADIC
The two Ottoman documents of the years 1439 and 1441, which are
published in this article,1 have been preseryed in the archive of the Monastery
of Kastamonitou, on Mount Athos. They obviously derive from the personal
archive of the wealthy Serbian aristocrat Radxi, who finished his days there as
the monk Romanos. Radid was the Great Celnik, that is the General-in-Chief,
of the Serbian Despot Stefan Lazarevi<i and, after the latter's death in1427, of his
son-in-law and successor George Brankovid Radid did not remain in the latter's
service for long, and shortly after 1433 he decided to retreat to Mount Athos. He
chose to settle in the Monastery of Kastamonitou which had already received
benefits from him. This monastery was destroyed by fire and almost deserted in
the 1420's, but it was restored and reorganised thanks to his generous donations,
including a part of the revenues of a silver mine.2 Radii had a strong interest
in religious foundations. He was the founder of a church and of a monastery in
Serbia and he also made a donation to another monastery of Mount Athos,
Vatopedi.3
The life of a monk is supposed to be quiet and free from the daily worries
of this world, but this was not to be for Radid Our two documents reflect his
anxiety to preserve his great fortune, endangered as his country went through an
agitated period after the death of Stefan Lazarevici. Serbia was a vassal state of
the Ottoman Sultan, which, whenever the Hungarians intervened militarily
south of the Danube, reverted to the status of Dar ul-harb.4 Mount Athos had
' ] am really grateful to Prof. H. tnalcik for helping me to read and understand the documents.
2
Several lords of Serbia also made donations to Athos from the silver produced in their
country; Si Cirkovic', in P. Lemerie - A. Guillou - N. Svoronos - D. Papachiyssanthou, Actes de
Uma, IV, Paris 1982, p. 184-185, 194-200.
3
N, Oikonomidis, Actes de Kastmwmtou, Paris 1978, p. 4-7.
4
C. lmber, The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1481, Istanbul 1990, p. 104-105, 115-116; cf. H.
lnalcik, El1, s.v, Dar al-ahd ; idem, IsISm Ansiklopedisi, s. v. MurSd II:
384 E. A. ZACHARIADOU
long been under the protection of the Ottoman Sultans, and had became a
permanent part of Dar ul-lslam in 1423.5 Radicf could thus defend his
interests in Serbia from there, after having placed himself among the Sultan's
non-Muslim subjects by becoming a ¡¡¿immi. In addition, he was not affected
by the military events which were shaking his own countiy. The two documents
make it clear that the monasteries of Mount Athos, after having been recognized
and granted certain privileges by the Sultans, became places of refuge not only
for the poor faithful but also for rich aristocrats, who wanted to avoid the warfare
and political turmoil which were so characteristic of the fifteenth- century
Balkans.
Furthermore, our two documets reveal that Radki was able to defend his
fortune through his close relations with a very influential political figure of the
Ottoman state, namely Shahin pasha, later named Shihab ed-din, 6 who was
appointed beglerbegi of Rumili around that time. These relations were certainly
more effective than the theoretical protection offered by the Sultan to a dhjmmi
It was Siiahin pasha who sent orders for the arrangement of the trial recorded in
the earlier document; it was also he who issued the second document, making
provisional arrangements regarding Radicfs revenues from the mines of
Novobrdo and his house there. Therefore the two documents reveal a network of
common interests existing among the Sultan's high officials and his vassals.7
I.
The first document is, as far as 1 know, the oldest judicial Ottoman
document (hiidjdjet) recording a lawsuit.8 It was issued by the kadi of Serres,
Mahmud ibn Mehemmed. Serres or Siroz as is well-known, was one of the
important towns of Macedonia during the fifteenth century.9 The whole story
begins with two brothers, Yakov and Dimitri, the sons of Ieremia, who make a
deposit, 10 consisting of one sealed purse containing 35, 000 akfa and another
tnglcik, El2, s.v. Daral-ahd ; idem. Isiàm Ansiklopedisi, s. v. Murädll.

Ê. A. Zachariadou, 'Ottoman Documents from the Archives of Dtonysiou (Mount Athos)',
Südost Forschungen, 30 (1971)1-4; N. Oikonomides, 'Monastères et moines lors de la conquête
ottomane', Südost Forschungen, 35 (1976) 1-10.
Ôn this personage, known also as Hädim pasha, and his role during the reign of Muräd II and
Mehemmed II, see H. Inalcik, Fatih devri Uzer'mde tetkikler ve vesikalar, i Ankara 1954, p. 74-
75, 84-89, 93, 109-112, 135.
7
On this network of mutual interests cf. E. A. Zachariadou, 'Marginalia on the History of
Epinis and Albania (1380-1418)', Wiener Zeilschrift fir die Kunde des Morgenlandes, 78 (1988)
209-210.
®On trial according to Islamic law see, 'da'wa', E? s.v., by E.Tyan.
o
P. NaSturel - N. Beldiceanu, 'Les églises byzantines et la situation économique de Drama,
Serrés et Zichna aux XlVe et XVe siècles', Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik,
27(1978) 269-285.
' " o n deposit (wadi'a) see D. Santillana, Istituzioni di diritto musulmano malichita con
riguardo anche al sistema sciafiita, Rome 1938, ii p. 360-372. 1 am indebted to Prof. A.
Udovitch for this reference.
THE CELNIK RADIC 385
containing 6,000 ftluri, together with several precious objects, to the Celnik
Radii. The amount of money involved is quite impressive, at least when
compared to the yearly revenue from a timar, which at that time varied from
3,000 to 15,000 akça; a timar yielding the latter amount, however, was a rare
case."
The documents pose many questions which cannot be answered. The

motive which induced the sons of Ieremia to deposit this sum of money and
valuables with Radii are not stated: was it for deposit; for safekeeping; in trust
or as a guarantee, or was it a loan? It is also not stated when this event took
place: was it when Radii was still in Serbia, or after he had settled on Athos?
Finally, it is nowhere stated for how long the deposit was left in Radie? s hands.
Nonetheless, one may, perhaps, assume that the depository for the treasure was
the monastery of Kastamonitou, where Radii lived and which was considered as
a safe place.12
The sons of Ieremia applied to the depositee asking for the return of their
deposit. When Radii restored it to them, they allegedly extorted 1,000 filuri
from him. It is again not stated how this was done, nor why . According to the
sons of Ieremia the sum was given as a musâlaha but, again, the meaning of
the word in this context is not clear. The word means in general "a making
peace" but also "a compromise for a loan".13 One could imagine that the 1,000
florins was interest which had been paid in advance, as indicated by Radii's
suspicious refusal to admit that he knew the amount of coins contained in the
two purses. What is certain is that neither party could make reference to interest
or usury, when giving evidence in an Islamic court.14
Radii, displeased with the loss of COO filuri , turned for assistance to
the beglerbegi of Rumili, gfcahin pasha, 15 who ordered the kâdï of Serres to
investigate the case. A trial was held in the kà4ts court, in which Radii enjoyed
the support of the Athonite monks, who came to testify for him, while the sons
of Ieremia could not produce any witnesses. Despite that the judicial decision
" n . Beldiceana, Le timar dans l'état ottoman (début XlVe-début XVIe siècle), Wiesbaden
1980, p. 48-50.
12
The monasteries of Mount Alhos were considered as safe places for deposits; cf. the case in
L. Petit, 'Actes de Chilandar', Vizantiskij Vremennikt Priloïenie 17, St. Petersburg 191) p
279-282.
Chloros, AefiKÔv TovpK<xMr)Mcàv, Constantinople 1899, s.v.
14
Hard!y anything is known about the conception of interest during the early Ottoman period.
For the later years see, N. Çagatay, ' R i b î and Interest Concept and Banking in the Ottoman
Empire', Stadia hlamica, 32 (1970) 53-68.
13
Shahin was familiar with Athonite affairs, as shown by documents of a somewhat later date;
Denise Papachryssamhou, Actes de Xenophon, Paris 1986, p. 223 (laiinarmmalai) V
BoSkov, 'Aus Athos-Tarcica : Eine Urkunde Sehab ed-Dïn Sahin PaSa's des Wesirs und
Statthaltere von Rnmelien; aus dem Jahre 1453', Fèstschrift A. Tietze, Wiener Zeitschrifi fur die
Kunde des Morgenlondes, 76 (1986) 65-72; P. Lemerle, Actes de M u m s , second edition,
Paris 1988, p. 406-409.
was not fully satisfactory for Radiò.
After the end of the trial the two parties left the court and reached a
compromise before a mixed group of people, both Muslims and diimmis.
Raditi gave up his claim to the 1,000 filuri, and was obliged to be satisfied with
a settlement of only 400 florins, which was offered to him by the sons of
Ieremia. This is another indication that his opponents had some right to keep at
least a part of the sum allegedly extorted from him. The negotiations for the
compromise, which did not take place before the judge, suggest that a problem
of usury was involved. Subsequently, the two parties again appeared before the
judge in order to secure their agreement on paper. It appears to have been Raditi
who wanted the document: an additional indication that it was he who was not
entirely comfortable with the whole matter.
The document, though unclear about the real circumstances, is very

instructive about the process of this case between ¿¿immis in the ¿ ¿ a r i ' a
court. Two "infidel" Athonite monks and two secular persons were present to
depose in Radicfs favour; their testimony, although given on oath, had to be
corroborated by other "infidels" whom the Ottomans regarded as the chiefs of the
Christians, 16 that is to say the local ecclesiastical authority, the metropolitan
of Serres, and the head of the Orthodox community, the protogeros
(wpuTÓYfpos')• After the court's decision the two parties reached a compromise
through the intervention of members of the Orthodox society of the town.
Finally, it is obvious that the status of the monastic community of

Kastamonitou was recognized by the Ottomans, since the 1 sons of Ieremia
thought it appropriate to insert a clause in the document, making clear that
none of the monks of Kastamonitou would have a claim against them in the
future. The signatures of the witnesses show that the whole affair was followed
by the cream of the Muslim community of Serres. None of the witnesses seem
to be converts,11 and three among them were sons of imàms.
One can add some details concerning the persons mentioned in the
document. lakov and Dimitri, the sons of Ieremia are, as far as I know, not
mentioned by other sources. It is worth, however, recalling, that in 1428 a
certain Ieremias, who had been entrusted with the defence of the Danubian
fortress of Golubac, committed treason and surrendered the place to the
Ottomans. 18 It is possible that he was compensated by Murâd II and granted
16
M . Grignaschi, 'La valeur du témoignage des sujets non-musulmans (ihimmi) dans l'empite
ottoman', Receuil de ta Société Jean Bodin, 17 (1963) 211-323; on oaths taken by dhimmïs,
cf. F. Selle, Prozessrecht des 16. Jahrhunderts im Osmanischen Reich, Wiesbaden 1962, p.
57; also A. Cohen, Jewish Life under Islam, Jerusalem in the Sixteenth Century, Cambridge
Mass.- London 1984, p. 122-123.
'^Cf. another Athonite document signed by several witnesses who were sons of 'Abdullàh :
Zachariadou, supra note 5„p. 17. On the patronym 'Abdullàh see V. L. Minage, 'Seven Ottoman
Documents from the Reign of Mehemmed II', in. Documents from Islamic Chanceries, ed. S, M.
Stern, Cambridge. 1965, p. 112-116.
THE CELNIK RADIO 387
land iir the Strymon region, where the sultans used to settle down favoured
dhimmis.19 This could explain why the case took place in Serres, although
matters connected with Mount Athos were usually handled by administrative
organs in Thessalonica.20
The head of the Christian community of Serres is mentioned with the

title protogeros, which was used also to designate a consul.21 His name,
Balaban, is purely Turkish. This is explained by the fact that the region of
Zichna, in the vicinity of Serres, was inhabited by a Turkish population which
was christianized during the second part of the XIHth century but which
continued to speak Turkish and take Turkish names.22 The name of the
metropolitan of Serres who appeared at the kadts, court is not known. It is only
known that he was fairly anti-Latin in his views; it seems that he passed away
around'i446-47.23
DOCUMENT
843, Ramazan, 2nd decade =1440, February 15th-24th.

Paper, 705x140 (photograph 17,6).
O n t h e v e r s o : 1 ) paras' l é pas TOO 'lepeplov roOç vLovç (XVth
century), 2) ér. [[181 ] ] 3 . 'Air6<PAOIy rrepl mÎÎFIAAPTOO TOO POVAXOD
KakkivlKov, ml 6VO KOO(UKÛV. ''¡Se (kfiMov, 'éroç 841 = 1423 (XIXth
century), 3) note in Slavonic.
Translation
[torn out} confirming its contents, written by the poor Mahmud ibn
Mehemmed, the kadi of the well-protected town of Seires.
18
W. Altmann, Die Urkunden Kaisers Sigmunds (1410-1437), v, ii, Innsbruck 1900, p 78, n"
7136; cf. C. Jireiek, Geschichte der Serben, v II, Gotha 1918, p. 164.
19
P. Wittek, 'Yazijioghto 'Ali on the Christian Turks of the Dobruja', BSOAS, 14 (1952) 650,
661-662; N, Beldiceanu - I. Beldiceanu-Steinherr, 'Un Paléologue inconnu de la région de
Serres', Byzantion, 41(1971) 5-17; E. A. Zachariadou, BSOAS 52 (1989)146.
20Zachariadou, supra note 5, p. 25.
21
. F.Miklosich- I. Millier, Acta el Diplomala Graeca, iii, Vienna 1865, p. 288 ; cf,
preposilum vulgariter nmcupatum protogerum locus ille regitur, in: Alti della Società Ligure di
Storia Patria , 6 (1868) 20.
22
Wittek, Yazijioghlu 'Ali on the Christian Turks of the Dobruja, 650, 661-662; Ingvar
Svanberg, 'Gagavouzika and Juruiki, Urgent Tasks for Turkologists', Central Asiatic Journal,
32(1988) 109-116; cf. N. Beldiceanu, 'Margarid : Un timar monastique', Revues des Etudes
Byzantines , 33 (1975) 249-250; also, N, G. Philippides, Makedonika', Pumassos 1(1877)
129-130. The hellenized form of the name Balaban, IïaAandç, appears as early as 1330 in that
region : J. Lefort, Actes d'Esphigmenou, Paris 1973, p, 9, note 36.
23
V, Laurent, 'La métropole de Serrés contre le concile de Florence', Revue des Etudes
Byzantines, 17 (1959) 195-200.
388 E. A. Z A C H A R I A D O U
The reason for drawing up the sacred document is the following. The
monk Celnikoz went to the residence of the Commander among the greater
Commanders, [torn out] the beg-pasha-sul|an of Rum-ili and explained that
"The sons of Ieremia, Yakov and Dimitri, took one thousand florins of mine
unjustly and oppressively". An order, which must be obeyed, was sent, together
with the secretary Hamza, to us the judge and the following has been
commanded. "There is a lawsuit between the monk Celnikoz and the sons of
Ieremia. You will bring them together and you will investigate the case. If
something belonging to the monk Celnikoz was taken in a way contrary to the
holy law, you will restore it to its place. In short you will not allow something
contrary to the holy law to be done". This was commanded.
We brought the two parties together and we made an investigation when

they were face to face. The aforesaid Yakov and Dimitri claimed the following.
"I deposited24 for safe keeping with this monk Celnikoz one sealed purse with
35,000 a k ( a , also one sealed purse with six thousand florins, six silver goblets
and twelve golden crosses. Then I asked for them back. Then as a way to
compromise he gave me one thousand florins and I took them". This is what he
claimed but he was unable to confirm that these one thousand florins were for a
compromise.
On the other hand the aforesaid Celnikoz claimed : "These sons of Ieremia
placed with me in deposit the two aforesaid sealed purses but I do not know how
many akga and how many florins were contained within them. I restored to the
aforesaid sons of Ieremia the two sealed purses with their seals, the six silver
goblets and the twelve golden crosses exactly as they were. Also I did not give
those one thousand florins for compromise; he took them violently and
oppressively".
After this testimony the aforesaid Celnikoz presented the monk Antonios
of the monastery of Gregoriou, the monk Dionysios of the monastery of
Zographou, Panitho from Thessalonica and Nikash Radici as witnesses to
testify. The aforesaid witnesses, by testifying, agreed in word as well as in
content that: "This Celnikoz restored those two aforesaid sealed purses with their
seals, the six silver goblets and the twelve golden crosses, exactly as they were,
to the aforesaid sons of Ieremia. And also the above-mentioned sons of Ieremia
had acknowledged : 'We took what we deposited with you. Nothing of ours is
left with you'. And he took 25 these one thousand florins oppressively and
violently." This is what they said to testify and they even took an oath.
24
Although the defendants were two the verb is in the first person singular, perhaps because
only one of them spoke.
25
The third person singular suggests that the one son of Ieremia was the protagonist of the
event.
THE CELNIK RADIC 389
Then the metropolitan of Series and the protogeros Balaban pronounced

those aforesaid witnesses acceptable by saying: "Those are good infidels".
This being so, the testimony of the above mentioned witnesses was
accepted by the judge, and it was decided that the deposited objects were to be
restored. Then the aforesaid sons of Ieremia, Yakov and Diinitri, placed between
the two parties some individuals from among the Muslims and the ¿¿«mmis
and for reconciliation they gave 400 florins out of the 1,000 florins taken from
Celnikoz. The aforesaid Celnikoz took the 400 florins which were in exchange
for peace and he subtracted them from the sum of money due to him from Yakov
and Dimitri.
Then again they appeared before the judge and the aforesaid Celnikoz
made peace for those one thousand florins and acknowledged : "I take four
hundred florins and I quit; I will never again have a trial or dispute or any legal
demand with respect to the aforesaid Yakov and Dimitri". Also the aforesaid
Yakov and Dimitri acknowledged : "There is no trial or dispute or any legal
demand between us and this Celnikoz and also any of the monks of the
monastery of Kastamonitou in which the Celnikoz stays.26 We are alright and
we quit".
This being so, their acknowledgements were recorded in this document,

which was given into the hands of the aforesaid Celnikoz, to be used as a proof
in case of need.
It was written in the second decade of the month of the blessed Ramaian
in the year 843 of the Hidjra of the Prophet.
The witnesses : Mehemmed son of 'Ali the Imam; Hadji Tursun son of
Hadji Dursan; Mehemmed son of Koyun Yusuf; Ibrahim son of Halil the Imam;
Mehemmed son of Kasim the Imam; Hadji Fakih; Miihyi ed-din the Scribe.
This phrase was added after the document was drawn up and it is written oo the right margin.
It reveals that the Ottomans recognized the monastic community.
. . . . jftÂ
4»« ^ 1 1 Jjjyw
fUà.^1 I JAM jçaI JJJÚ.U. fS j-iJ»! ^ k j i W^Sili VI-
Oitfjj l&L ¿J
JoJI f . t U l l ó J» Ü > ' V'J'
^ >1 ij-f^l'IlI «¿-»„¿I j** Vo'
»jjl —Mi iLjJi ^¡w J

îlj ^ I j c«:
jixlî «JLi ¿jZ+tiJ) y 7>7
y -i—- ».vt.ij*» ^ »j^ KK jfcJiS yJLI
uJLsa jà. 1 f-iSÎ V ^ ^ j l p«>>i «fr»-- 4.» g » O 1 " U*' <»'
^Jîi fi (5-^1 >--> p-*-" <j->jj tSjjti
"4*='J-> A * * l i 5 ' O^-»1 v 5 ^ J j 1 «s-»J

jIAÏJ» <C ¿ uJfl j f j j U ojJjJUI Ul JJJ^J
S?*' O.»' > u i j - l - J1^ J (,^1 J»' oJ-Ji
J>' > p-*-1*' J_> ^ j J J j i ' V , / ' o ' - » ^ - * ¿pJI
Jîlil w j t ^ i íIJI J ^ J i U cot^Ü)

E. A. ZACHARIADOU
¿ j j j í l » tSîfl j U » l J 1 * 3 -' -> tf^1* ^ ^ J

^JÙL.1 o j t ^ i j"4_,L»JI •»!>.*.» j J -làiUt ^ I j
^¿.L. j ^S J^l j ^ S i U
(jj-l-i j ( j J ^ í ' nl.Ujf g ì ¿jl >
JoJI Jj a-li- jjiju» (^jpLilil «uajI ¿¿¿-y»
¿ j j l i j jJXwl j l ^ j ^5-aIUÌ J ^ l - J é J i -
^ j i j l ^ J ^ I j ¿^m-j WjI w j I ^ Ì . <5 J J > 3 ^à-lj
¿Mr j Jj^—• (¿^Joalì. ¿ j j ^ Í I j ^
i ? ¿ j j j j í - Ì - » t-J_jl tLI j J - i í - l •uji^r ^Jjjli j ^ L
LJ,I ^ •r'-'^' "o-»!^
¿J^ü^í-I ¿ I - i l - l ^ - f l î» l i t o t i
'b/U ó-Ar^ s* 3 J ¿ J ^ l l L L * » ( S ^ U f J j >3L
^ J j j t ' i l i . J^Ü ÍSLJ; J j f w ^ J
«rJI wjJ g i - J-i;
isljL»! ^ L j f t j jül ^ ^l^îjkA j ^ j c*J(
•^íí v V » J ^ ß jjf-lj ^ i l
4
¿IjySlt fyJU», f f j J I ( ¿ j ß i jyt ^ j j v ' c ^
j ^ l Jß\ ¿ J Í 1 3 j J » j fx/^: j fl jt.1 » ^ j f ( j / w J ,, jSL.

j r & f J »-^vJ 1 Jt er 1,J (SJ^^ J PW o'v^^» j
J •LUJ. J gjk o j J ^ ^ L û l l » J ^JjJ
THE CELNÏK RADIC 393
n.
The second document concerns Radi<fs share of the important silver

mines of Novobrdo, which constituted the wealth of the Serbian state.27 As
the power of Serbia declined, its two strong neighbours, the Hungarians and the
Ottomans, manifested their interest in seizing Serbian territory, which was the
main reason for the long wars between them during Mur&d ITs reign. 28 The
confrontation between the two powers generated a strong echo within the town
of Novobrdo. The Hungarians were Roman Catholics, and the town was visited
by many Westerners. The Serbians were suspicious toward those Latins and their
hostile feelings were shared by the Greeks who had been attracted to the town.
The strong opposition between Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christians
was expressed in various ways and Novobrdo became the centre of an anti-
Catholic propaganda. It is worth recalling that a member of the Kantakouzenos
family, 29 which was closely connected with the exploitation of the mines,
Demetrios Kantakouzenos, wrote a treatise against the Latins. 30 One can
assume that the anti-Latin party of Novobrdo favoured the Ottomans; in any case
the Kantakouzenos family maintained its position in the exploitation of the
mines both before and after the Ottoman conquest.
In 1440 Muräd II and Shahin pasha, who was then vizir and beglerbegi^
conducted military operations in Serbia. The Ottomans were unable to capture
Belgrade but they placed Novobrdo under siege until it was taken, probably in
July 1441. 31 Apparently the Sultan departed immediately thereafter, while
27
R. Anhegger. Btitraege zur Geschichte des Bergbaus im Osmotischen Reich, i. Istanbul
1943, p. 155-166, S. Cirkovic", "The Production of Gold, Silver and Copper in the Central Parts
of the Balkans from the 13th to the 16th Century', in, Precious Mêlais in the Age of
Expansion. Papers of the XlVth International Congress of the Historical Sciences, ¡975, ed. H.
Kellenbenz, Stuttgart 1981 Beiträge zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte 2. Unfortunately I do not know
Serbocroat to take advantage of several valuable studies written in this language, such as M.
Corovtf-Ljubinkovic', 'Le role de Novo Brdo dans l'état des familles de Lazarevic" et Brankovil",
L'École de Morava et son Temps'. Symposium de ReSava, Beograd 1972, p. 123-141
28
Supra note 4.
29
For the Kantakouzenoi of Novobrdo see D. Nicol, The Byzantine Family of Kantakouzenos
(Cantacuzenus) ca. 1100- 1460, Dumbarton Oaks 1968, p.176-179, 200-201, 213-215, 225-
228; cf. M. Cazacu, 'Les parentés byzantines et ottomanes de l'historien Laonikos
Chalkokondyle (c.1423 - 1470)', Turcica, 16 (1984) 107; A. Pertusi, Martina Segono di
Novo Brdo vescovo di Dulcigno, Rome 1981, 25-26.
30
1. DujCev, 'Propaganda anticatholica a Novo Brdo (Serbia) nel secolo XV', In Memoriam G.
Mover, Hicerche Slavistiche, 17-19 (1970-1972) 179-190; idem, 'Démélrius Cantacuzène,
écrivain byzantinoslave du XVe siècle'. Revue d'Histoire Ecclésiastique, 61(1966)811-819; A
E. Tachiaos, 'Nouvelles considérations sur l'oeuvre littéraire de Démétrius Cantacuzène'
Cyrillomethodianum 1 (1971) 131-182.
31
M. Dinii, Contributions à /' histoire de l'industrie minière dans la Serbie et la Bosnie du
Moyen Age. U. partie : Rudnik et Novo Brdo, Belgrade 1962, p. 60. This work is written in
Serbocroat and I am indebted to Prof. B. Krekic', who made it accessible to me On the Turkish
sources about the conquest of Novobrdo see H. lnalcik, 'The Rise of the Ottoman
Historiography', in Historians of the Middle East, ed. B. Lewis - P.M. Holt, London 1962, p.
158. On the topography of Novobrdo see V. Jovanovic", 'Une contribution à la topographie
archéologique de Novo Brdo', Starinar, n.s. 12(1961)169-174; Pertusi, Martino Segono di
Siiahin remained at Novobrdo up to the middle of August, as is shown by a

document issued by him there, regarding atimar,32 Then, as shown by the
present document, he moved to Lab, which in the XVth century was the centre
of an important administrative unit (vilayet).33 When he left Novobrdo the
administration of the mines was reorganized and three emins were appointed,
two Muslims and one Christian, the latter of the previously involved family of
Kantakouzenoi.34
Apparently Radid met the sultan somewhere on his way back to his
capital and obtained a command regarding his share from the mines, which
Shahin later received in Lab. In addition to that Radid had a house in Novobrdo
and, being already of dkimmi status, thought that his property would not be
affected by the Ottoman conquest of the town. Shahin temporarily satisfied
Radius demand regarding his share from the mines and promised to bring the
delicate case of the house at Novobrdo to the attention of the Sultan, whom he
was going to meet, apparently for a divan meeting in Edirne.
DOCUMENT
845, Rebf II, 1st decade= 1441, August 19th-28th.

Paper, 391x144 (photograph 15,2)
O n the verso : 1) 'Icrov àvrLypa<f>ov tpepnavlov (XlXth century), 2)
note in Slavonic.
Translation
Hadji Shahin ibn 'Abdullah
The ornaments among the trusted ones, supported by Kings ancl Sultans,
the emins of our sultan who are in Novobrdo, 'Ala' ed-din, and Hayr ed-din and
Katakouzino, may their glory endure. Following the salutation be it known that
the Celnik Radii.', who is in Mount Athos, has a part of the mines there [in
Novo Brdo, p. 11-17.
32
On the 13th of June Shahin issued a document at Vufitrin, near Novobrdo; see C,, Truhelka,
'Tursko-slovjenski Spomenici Dubrovaike Arhive', Giasnik Zemaljskog Muzeja u Bosni i
Hercegovini, 23 (1911) p. 7-8. Two reliable sources mention Murâd's presence in the conquest
of Novobrdo : V.L.Ménage, 'The "Annals of Muràd U"',BSOAS 39(1976) p. 577 and Ducas,
Historia Turco-byzmtina, ed. V. Grecu, Bucarest 1958, p.263; cf. H. lnalcik, Suret-i Defter-i
SancuA-i Arvanid, Ankara 1954, p. 89; the document was apparently issued by the beglerbegi
in the third decade of Rebf 1, i.e. 9-18 August 1441.
33
ô . L. Barkan, '894(1488/1489) yili cizyesinin tahsilâtina âit muhasebe bilânçolari',
Belgeler 1( 1964) p. 72; cf. T. Gâkbilgin, 'Kanun! Sultan SUIeyman devri baçlannda Rumeli
eyaleti, livalan, jehir ve kasabalan', Belieten. 20 (1956) 281-282.
34
On the emins see, N. Beldiceanu, Les actes des premiers sultans conservés dans les
manuscrits turcs de la Bibliothèque Nationale à Paris, ii, Paris - La Haye 1964, , p. 127-132.
The Kantakouzenos is probably to be identified with the "gabelotto" at Novobrdo; see Nicol,
The Byzantine Family of Kantakouzenos, p. 225-226.
Novobrdo], and that he has a house in full property in Novobrdo.
Presently one of his men came and brought a command thence. Now, if
he has a part of the mines there, which he was holding when the gate of
Novobrdo was still closed [to the Ottomans], you will present no obstacles. Let
him also hold it now.
And let him also pay the Sultan what the others who have parts in the
mines customarily give in tax. When, God willing, we safely reach the
[Sultan's] court, let his man also come. We shall present a petition to our Lord
the Sultan concerning that house in full property and him. Whatever he
commands so it shall be, but for now you present no obstacles. Let him have
usage of it. Thus you are to know. Don't do the opposite.
Written in the first decade of Rebi 'til ahir of the year eight hundred forty
five, in the residence of Lab.
E. A. ZACHARIADOU
" ' A
• *»
iH¿
j.
¿a . t / »
^ i i . V i ' - i i ' . , '

I f f ;
¿OI**** Jtt' ^
y ii w
T H E CELNTK RADIC 397
•111 A»«, ¿x ^taJI
¿ ¡ j t j j j j i j i ¿-Lit-Ji j J^JUI ¿MSÎ >»ii»
^ » j t ÎJ j J j y i j ¿¡jjJI^ji j ¿¿olbtc. jj^tx^l
•¿Ivly »•A—jji-l fS fjl** ¿JutX—

mjjfljl j jlj u » » J ^ ¿j^JIj
IS I <$.>1 » j j J I <¿»1» o l 3
jtijt ^ **** ¿¡HjjsS I o-iJI )JtS <0 ¿¿J*

«III& <•,! & ^ j i t j yL * * J * O O U i>L& j U
J . , ! its ^ J ^ - J j > «Xili.iL,
jjWi* ¿^v-» jl^y* j ^

J-.LXjl ¿¡U ^j-ui L I V^f v L I <— ¿ L i j*I o-J
«ilaJlw > ¿ ^ « j j l j J»-*»- ¿¡¡tj J - ' i ' (ji
Diplomatic and lexical notes.

Document 1. The structure of the document is similar to that of the
hiidjdjet documents with one important difference, that the names of the parties
are not followed by the name of their domicile. 35 Radid is mentioned with a
graecized form of his title, Celniksa. On the right margin an addition to 1.40 of
the document.
Document 2. The pendje has the form of a tughra, although in other

documents of Shahin pasha it is placed in the right margin. 36 Here the right
margin is employed for the place of issue.
University of Crete
35
Klara Hegyi, 'The Terminology of the Ottoman-Turkish Judicial Documents on the Basis of
the Sources from Hungary', Acta Orientalin Hungarica, 18 (1965)191-203; V. Boikov, 'Die
huccet-Vtkmie - Diplomatische Analyse', Studio Turcologica Memoriae Alexii Bombaci
Dicata, Naples 1982, p. 81-87.
36 Truhelka, 'Tursko-slovjenski Spomenici DubrovaCke Arhive', p. 7-8.

Colin Heywood, Colin Imber (Eds) - Studies in Ottoman History

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Colin Heywood, Colin Imber (Eds) - Studies in Ottoman History

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Studies in Ottoman History

Analecta Isisiana: Ottoman and Turkish Studies

A co-publication with The Isis Press, Istanbul, the series consists of

In Honor of Professor V.L. Ménage

The Isis Press, Istanbul preSS

Reprinted from the 1994 Istanbul edition.

Printed in the United States of America

Bibliography of the Works of Professor V. L. Ménage (1956-1991)

Jean-Louis Bacqué-Grammont, Sur quelques pèlerins et réfugiés d'Asie

Nicoarä Beldiceanu et Irène Beldiceanu-Steinherr, Considérations sur la

chronologie des sources ottomanes et ses pièges 15

Géza Dâvid, Ottoman Administrative Strategies in Western Hungary 31

Cornell H. Fleischer, Between the Lines: Realities of Scribal life in the

B. H. Flemming, The Sultan's Prayer Before Battle 63

Aldo Gallotta, Il «Gazavât-i Hayreddîn Pa$a » Pars Secunda e la

P. M. Holt, A Notable in an Age of Transition: Jânim Bey al-Hamzàwi

Colin Imber, Canon and Apocrypha in Early Ottoman History 117

Halil înalcik, How to Read 'Äshtk Pasha-Zäde 's History 139

î. Metin Kunt, The Waqf as an Instrument of Public Policy: Notes on

the KöpriilU Family Endowments 189

Rudi Paul Lindner, Beginning Ottoman History 199

Anthony Luttrell, Timur's Dominican Envoy 209

N. Oikonomides, From Soldiers of Fortune to Gazi Warriors: the

Stephen W. Reinert, A Byzantine Source on the Battles ofBileéa (?) and

Claudia Römer, On Some Hâss-Estates Illegally Claimed by Arslan

Peter Sebastian, Ottoman Government Officials and their Relations with

the Republic of Venice in the Early Sixteenth Century 319

Gilles Veinstein, A propos des ehl-i hiref et du devfirme 351

Stéphane Yerasimos, Fatih: une région d'Istanbul aux XVe et XVIe

Elizabeth A. Zachariadou, The Worrisome Wealth of the Celnik Radié 383

The idea of producing a Festschrift in honour of Professor Ménage had its

Wendover, Rùz-iHiZr 1994. Colin HEYWOOD

Sidelights on the devskirme from Idris and S a ' d u d d l n .

'The M a p of Hajji A h m e d ' and its makers.

On the recensions of U r u j ' s 'History of the Ottomans'.

relations. London: Oxford University Press for the British Academy,

'Preface' to Paul Wittek, La formation de l'Empire ottoman. Edited by V. L.

On the constituent elements of certain sixteenth-century Ottoman

Review of. A. C. Schaendlinger, Die Schreiben Süleymäns des Prächtigen an

Articles in the Encyclopaedia of Islam (new edition):

1958: 'À§ik Celebi Elbasan

SUR QUELQUES PÈLERINS ET RÉFUGIÉS

Nous rassemblons dans cette étude trois documents ottomans ™nservés

Le document E. 10042 est une requête, probablement autographe, d'un

La présente étude s'inscrit dans le programme de recherche de "Histoire et sciences auxiliaires de

À une époque où l'engouement pour les modes venues d'Asie Centrale

1 yiiz yere koyub ot siidde-i sâmiyyeniin gubâr-i tayyibesin çejm-i umide

Après qu'il ait prosterné le visage à terre et fait de la bonne poussière du

Je suis de la ville de Samarcande et un noble seyyid, fils de Seyyid 'Atâ u -

Sultân Abû Sa'îd, dans la ville de Samarcande et les lieux qui en

Quant au reste, l'ordre appartient à cette sublime Seigneurie.

Le document E.2575 est un procès-verbal des déclarations faites à la Porte

l'existence : Sâlih b. B a d P ' - z z a m â n , soit un petit-fils de Sultân Husayn Mîrzâ

Il convient tout d'abord de relever et de souligner d i v e r s points

Quant à la carrière aventureuse de Muhammad-i Zamân, fils bien connu de

Ces observations préliminaires étant faites, il faut en venir à l'essentiel :

La suite du récit de Sâlih recèle d'autres points inconciliables avec ce qu'on

Le séjour de Sâlih à Bagdad fournit un point de chronologie précis

en territoire ennemi ? À l'époque en question, Chypre était toujours vénitienne

En définitive, qui était donc Sâlih ? Un authentique mîrzâ timouride dont

1 bundan evvel emr-i pâdi$âhî-ile mahfûz olan Èedî'u-zzamân ogh

cemâ'at-i tiiccâr-ile Diyâr Bekre geldiim andan Kayseriyyeye geldiim andan

Muhammed Sâlih, fils de Bedî'ii-zzamân, qui était précédemment détenu

Je suis le fils légitime de Bedî'"-zzamân. Lorsque mon père Bedî' u -zzamân