4 Scholars in Mehmed II’s Nascent

Imperial Bureaucracy (1453–1481)

The period 1453–81 (from the capture of Istanbul until Mehmed II’s
death) proved to be the beginning of a new phase in the Ottoman gov-
ernment’s relationship with scholars. Flushed with the prestige of cap-
turing Constantinople, Mehmed II initiated an imperial program and
undertook grandiose architectural and legal projects. His unprecedent-
edly large investments in madrasas attracted many scholars to move to
the empire. In addition, he designed and implemented a hierarchical
framework that not only provided scholars with a lifetime career in
the administration, but also created career expectations and caused an
ever-increasing number of them to offer their services to the dynasty. In
this chapter, I discuss the efforts of Mehmed II and his men to establish
Istanbul as the imperial center, project himself as a patron of scholars
and artists, and create a civil bureaucratic class of scholar-bureaucrats
based on the appropriate institutional and legal frameworks. I show
how the internal and external conditions, as well as deliberate policies,
of those years enabled the dynasty to start developing a bureaucratic
structure. In addition, I draw attention to the fact that while this envis-
aged institutional framework was developing, certain features of the
early Ottoman period (for instance, personal ties between the sultan
and scholars and the scholars’ reluctance to wholeheartedly dedicate
themselves to the Ottoman project) still existed.

Rebuilding Istanbul and Supporting Scholars

A significant component of the imperial program was architectural.
Building mosques, madrasas, public bathhouses, marketplaces, and
other establishments and converting Byzantine buildings to new pur-
poses projected the sultan’s imperial vision on Istanbul and other cities
in stone.1 Another component was to increase the importance of
1
For an interpretation of the architectural undertakings in Istanbul under
Mehmed II, see Çiğdem Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis/Istanbul: Cultural

59

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316819326.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 60 Part II The Formation of the Hierarchy (1453–1530)

Ottoman cities, especially Istanbul, as centers of learning. To this end,

Mehmed II and his men erected madrasas in Istanbul and elsewhere.
It seems that Istanbul’s reconstruction was central to creating a hier-
archical institutional framework through which scholars could affiliate
themselves with the dynasty and its enterprise. I contend that control-
ling the planning and completion process of architectural projects in
Istanbul, especially madrasas, enabled Mehmed II to project a hierar-
chy of madrasas and impose a hierarchical structure on the scholars.
Eager to repopulate his capital city, Mehmed II forced people to
migrate to it; others came willingly.2 The commercial center was rebuilt
to propel economic development. These policies succeeded, and the
population grew from about 10,000 in 1453 to more than 50,000 in
1478.3 However, it seems that he and his men were a bit hesitant to
commission monumental buildings during the first decade of his rule.
Çiğdem Kafescioğlu suggests that the elite’s confusion and questions as
to whether Istanbul should become the capital delayed the undertaking
of expensive projects.4
Islamic learning was introduced in the city by converting some
churches into madrasas and appointing scholars to teach in them. For
example, the Pantokrator church and monastery became a madrasa
and was renamed after its first professor, Molla Zeyrek.5 When the
Church of Hagia Sophia (Ayasofya) became a mosque, part of it was
reserved for teaching. It seems that these churches-turned-madrasas,
except for Ayasofya (where a separate building was constructed for
teaching later on), were discontinued after the sultan founded his own
madrasas in Istanbul.6

Encounter, Imperial Vision, and the Construction of the Ottoman Capital

(University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2009). See also Ekrem
Hakkı Ayverdi, Fatih Devri Mimarî Eserleri (Istanbul: İstanbul Matbaası, 1953).
2
Tursun Bey, Târîh-i Ebü’l-Feth, ed. and transliterated by Mertol Tulum
(Istanbul: Baha Matbaası, 1977), 67.
3
Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis/Istanbul, 30.
4
Ibid., 17–18. See also Genç, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Devlet ve Ekonomi,
317–26.
5
Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis/Istanbul, 22. For Molla Zeyrek’s biography, see
SHAQAʾIQ, 23–125; MECDI, 142–45. According to Taşköprizade, Mehmed II
turned eight churches into madrasas and appointed Alaeddin Tusi (d. 1482),
Molla Abdülkerim (d. ca. 1489), Hocazade Muslihuddin (d. 1487/88), and
others as professors. For this, see SHAQAʾIQ, 97.
6
Baltacı, XV–XVI. Asırlarda Osmanlı Medreseleri, 474–75.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316819326.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Scholars in Mehmed II’s Bureaucracy (1453–1481) 61

As for the construction of new buildings in Istanbul, Mehmed II

appears to have asserted paramount rights over Istanbul’s land.
According to the Islamic legal tradition, the ruler or his agents had the
right to assign public estates to be endowed for public good. Such an
assignment was called irsadi vakf (lit., “endowment of supervision”).7
Presumably considering this particular sharia institution, Mehmed II,
as the custodian of public property and interests, viewed the entire city
as an endowment and called himself its endower (vâkıf).8
In 1459, Mehmed II established his first madrasa outside the walled
city of Istanbul in the area known as Eyüp today. During the siege of the
city, his mentor Akşemseddin had determined, with spiritual insight,
that this area hosted the grave of Halid bin Zeyd (popularly known
as Ebu Eyyüb el-Ensari), a Companion who supposedly joined the
Umayyad army that attempted to capture Constantinople in 672. After
the city fell, Mehmed II ordered the erection of a complex, including a
mosque, a tomb for Halid bin Zeyd, a madrasa, and a soup kitchen in
this area.9 The madrasa was quite modest: its six rooms housed eleven
students in the late sixteenth century.10

7
I am grateful to Engin Deniz Akarlı for attracting my attention to the concept
of irsadi vakf in my efforts to understand Mehmed II’s policies as regards the
reconstruction of Istanbul. Akgündüz, İslâm Hukukunda ve Osmanlı
Tatbikatında Vakıf Müessesesi, 524–25. Nothwithstanding the terminology
used (irsadi vakf), these assignments differed from the endowments (vakfs) of
the regular type, which could be established out of private properties. For this
reason, irsadi vakfs were also called invalid endowments (gayr-i sahih vakfs).
8
One of Mehmed II’s endowment deeds mentioned that during the siege of
Constantinople, he had promised God that if he was successful he would
endow all of the city’s lands for religious and charitable purposes. Fatih
Mehmet II Vakfiyeleri, “Türkçe Vakıf Vesikası” (Ankara: Vakıflar Umum
Müdürlüğü, 1938), facs. 31–32 and 63–65. This document is a
sixteenth-century translation of the original fifteenth-century Arabic-language
endowment deed. For a comparison of and discussion of the relationship
between the multiple copies of Mehmed II’s endowment deeds, see Kayoko
Hayashi, “Fatih Vakfiyeleri’nin Tanzim Süreci Üzerine,” Belleten 72, no. 263
(2008): 1–15. In the same vein, after the conquest Mehmed II invited people
from all over the Ottoman realm to Istanbul and promised to transfer the
vacant houses of the city to them (as private property). But after a while he
imposed a tax/rent on them on the grounds that the lots on which they were
built (as opposed to houses themselves) were endowments (vakf).
Aşıkpaşazade, Osmanoğullarının Tarihi, 415; Tursun Bey, Târîh-i Ebü’l-Feth,
68.
9
Ibid., 201–5.
10
See Fatih Mehmet II Vakfiyeleri, “Eyyup Vakfiyesinin Faksimilesi,” facs. 10–11,
32. The original endowment deed of the complex in Eyüp is missing. The

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316819326.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 62 Part II The Formation of the Hierarchy (1453–1530)

Mehmed II’s more important contribution to education arose in the

building complex named after him in Istanbul. This complex, which
included a mosque, eight madrasas (which later became known as the
Sahn madrasas), eight preparatory schools, an elementary school, a
library, a hospital, and a soup kitchen, was under construction from
1463 to 1470. Its madrasas surpassed all previous Ottoman invest-
ments in education in both size and endowment. Professors as well
as their assistants and students were assigned salaries and stipends.11
Clearly, one of the sultan’s motives for building the Sahn madrasas
was to impress his contemporaries with his generosity to scholars
and to emphasize his commitment to learning. Providing the highest
salaries and creating the best research environment in this complex,12
he wanted to attract scholars and encourage their commitment to the
Ottoman project.13
According to Kritovoulos, in 1459 Mehmed II ordered “able persons
to build splendid and costly buildings inside the City.”14 One of his
endowment deeds refers to this order and provides further details.

[After the conquest of Constantinople] this emperor, who had a pure dis-
position, was occupied with the conquest and submission of countries, the
establishment of the signs of holy war, and the reform of conditions of people
for ten years. Then, he gave permission to the kadıaskers, other dignitaries,
honorable scholars, great sheikhs, respectable jurists . . . to build charitable
institutions in Istanbul with the wealth acquired as booty . . . 15

Probably relying on his rights as the custodian of public property in

Istanbul, Mehmed II distributed chunks of real estate to the statesmen
and asked them to undertake projects and establish endowments
of supervision (irsadi vakfs) for public good. After receiving this

existing endowment deed was prepared by a group of experts appointed by

Murad III (r. 1574–95) in December 1582.
11
Fatih Mehmet II Vakfiyeleri, “Türkçe Vakıf Vesikası,” facs. 49–56, 262–65. See
also Unan, Kuruluşundan Günümüze Fâtih Külliyesi, 50–89.
12
Mehmed II’s complex (including the Sahn madrasas) was endowed with a large
collection of books. Fatih Mehmet II Vakfiyeleri, “Türkçe Vakıf Vesikası,” facs.
53–54. See also İsmail E. Erünsal, Osmanlılarda Kütüphaneler ve
Kütüphanecilik (Istanbul: Timaş, 2015), 106–15.
13
Unan, Kuruluşundan Günümüze Fâtih Külliyesi, 60–68.
14
Kritovoulos, History of Mehmed the Conqueror, 140.
15
Fatih Mehmet II Vakfiyeleri, “Türkçe Vakıf Vesikası,” facs. 33–34.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316819326.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Scholars in Mehmed II’s Bureaucracy (1453–1481) 63

permission/command, viziers Mahmud Pasha (d. 1474)16 and Murad

Pasha (d. 1473)17 established complexes that included mosques and
madrasas. Rum Mehmed Pasha (d. 1474 [?]) established a mosque and
a madrasa in Üsküdar.18 Predictably, such institutions and their endow-
ments were unpretentious when compared with the sultan’s complex;
their madrasas accommodated fewer students, and their professors
and students were paid less. As I will show below, all such madrasas
in Istanbul were deemed hierarchically inferior to the sultan’s Sahn
madrasas. Therefore, professors at the former consistently moved to
the latter, if they could.
Under Mehmed II, Istanbul became the focus of most public archi-
tectural patronage. But madrasas were established elsewhere as well.
For example, the sultan added a madrasa to the Üç Şerefeli complex in
Edirne.19 Mahmud Pasha constructed one in Hasköy (Kırklareli), and
his son Ali Bey built another one (which later became known as Taşlık
Madrasa) in Edirne.20 Molla Hüsrev and İshak Pasha (d. 1487) also
founded madrasas in Bursa and İnegöl, respectively.21
Mehmed II’s splendid and well-funded madrasas, as well as those
built by other individuals, increased the dynasty’s ability to support
students and professors and, not coincidentally, to draw even more
of them to the empire’s major cities. Their varying sizes and resources

16
For Mahmud Pasha’s architectural patronage, see Stavrides, The Sultan of
Vezirs, 267–87. For an interpretation of the architectural features of his
institutions in Constantinople, see Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis/Istanbul,
109–19.
17
For Murad Pasha’s architectural patronage in Istanbul, see Stavrides, The
Sultan of Vezirs, 415–16; Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis/Istanbul, 122–25. For
Murad Pasha’s endowments in Edirne for maintaining his institutions in
Istanbul, see M. Tayyib Gökbilgin, XV.–XVI. Asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı:
Vakıflar, Mülkler, Mukataalar (Istanbul: Üçler Basımevi, 1952), 335–37.
18
Stavrides, The Sultan of Vezirs, 413–14; Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis/
Istanbul, 119–22. For their endowments, see Gökbilgin, XV.–XVI. Asırlarda
Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı, 334–35.
19
This new madrasa was attached to Üç Şerefeli Madrasa, built by Murad II. For
this, see Baltacı, XV–XVI. Asırlarda Osmanlı Medreseleri, 450–51;
SHAQAʾIQ, 97–100.
20
For Mahmud Pasha’s buildings in Kırklareli, see Stavrides, The Sultan of
Vezirs, 278–79. For Ali Bey’s madrasa in Edirne, see Stavrides, The Sultan of
Vezirs, 446. For its endowments, see Gökbilgin, XV. –XVI. Asırlarda Edirne ve
Paşa Livâsı. 322–23.
21
For Molla Hüsrev’s madrasa and others built in Bursa during this period, see
Hızlı, Osmanlı Klasik Döneminde Bursa Medreseleri, 109–31. For İshak
Pasha’s institutions in İnegöl, see Stavrides, The Sultan of Vezirs, 412–13.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316819326.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 64 Part II The Formation of the Hierarchy (1453–1530)

facilitated the establishment of a hierarchical ordering of madrasas and

of their professors.

The Migration of Scholars from Iran

As discussed in Chapter 2, Mehmed II’s predecessors had established
madrasas in Ottoman cities and tried to attract important scholars to
teach in them instead of those run by the Mamluks (Syria and Egypt),
the Turkmens and Timurids (eastern Anatolia, Iran, Khorasan, and
Transoxiana), or other Anatolian principalities. Some important schol-
ars did come; however, most of them usually left after a while for lands
with better living conditions or that possessed a richer cultural environ-
ment. It seems that the Ottoman cities could not yet compete effectively
with the older Islamic centers of Cairo, Damascus, Baghdad, Tabriz,
Bukhara, and Samarkand.
To counteract this situation, Mehmed II invested heavily in educa-
tional institutions. It seems that he and his Ottoman contemporaries
viewed the Persianate courts in Iran22 as representing the pinnacle of
cultural development and believed that attracting their scholars would
increase both the quality of the empire’s learning and its scholarly
production, as well as support the dynasty’s imperial claims. Seek-
ing to establish himself as the greatest patron of learning, he there-
fore invited Mahmud Gilani, Abdurrahman Cami (d. 1492), Celaled-
din Devvani (d. 1501), and Fethullah Şirvani (d. 1486) to settle in his
realm. Although they did not come, he nevertheless sent them hand-
some gifts.23

22
Here, I refer to Iran as comprising all Persianate countries of the time (acem
diyarı): Fars, Azerbaijan, Khorasan, and Transoxiana. For this, see Arslan,
“Osmanlılar’da Coğrafî Terim Olarak ‘Acem’ Kelimesinin Mânâsı.”
23
Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time, 471–72; Hanna Sohrweide,
“Dichter und Gelehrte aus dem Osten im Osmanischen Reich (1453–1600):
Eine Beitrag zur türkisch-persischen Kulturgeschichte,” Der Islam 46 (1470):
265–66. For Mehmed II’s relationship with Abdurrahman Cami, see Ertuğrul İ.
Ökten, “Jāmı̄ (817–898/1414–1492): His Biography and Intellectual Influence
in Herat” (PhD diss., University of Chicago, 2007), 193–94; SHAQAʾIQ,
261–63. For Cami’s letter to Mehmed II, see his Namah-ha va Munshaʾat-i
Jami (Tehran: Mirath-i Maktub, 1999), 272–74 (I am grateful to Ertuğrul İ.
Ökten for helping me locate this letter). For a Turkish translation of this letter,
see Mustafa Runyun and Osman Keskioğlu, Fâtih Devrinde İlim (Ankara:
Diyanet İşleri Reisliği Yayınları, 1953), 23–24. For a copy of the invitation

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316819326.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Scholars in Mehmed II’s Bureaucracy (1453–1481) 65

The sultan was more successful with Ali Kuşçu (d. 1474), the famous
theologian, astronomer, and mathematician who had served in the
court of Timur’s grandson Uluğ Beg (d. 1449) and had accepted Uzun
Hasan’s (d. 1478) patronage, Mehmed II’s Akkoyunlu rival. Ali Kuşçu
gave up Uzun Hasan’s court to teach in Istanbul. On Kuşçu’s arrival
in 1472, the sultan sent his servants to welcome him and to accom-
pany him to Istanbul. He ordered that 1000 aspers be spent when-
ever the caravan stopped. Kuşçu, appointed to the professorship of
Ayasofya Madrasa, received 200 aspers a day, which was even higher
than the salary of the professors teaching in the Sahn madrasas.24 This
sending of gifts to illustrious learned men, as well as the spectacle
of Ali Kuşçu’s reception and appointment, were intended to display
the sultan’s sincerity and generous support of scholarly pursuits, as
well as the superiority of the Ottomans to other Muslim rulers in that
respect.
Many scholars came to the Ottoman lands on their own initia-
tive, mainly to escape the political turmoil following Timur’s death.
The rise of the Turkmen powers, the Karakoyunlus and Akkoyun-
lus, and the Timurid-Turkmen struggle for control over more or less
the same territories (viz., Fars, Azerbaijan, Khorasan, and Transoxi-
ana) caused political destabilization and a rapid turnover of rulers.25
Many scholars, bureaucrats, artists, and poets who had not been on
the winning side had to seek refuge elsewhere. Some migrated to the
Ottoman realm, which would have appeared relatively stable politi-
cally and full of opportunity. For example, Sirac Hatib, who served a
Karakoyunlu commander, probably fled after the Akkoyunlus defeated
the Karakoyunlus in 1467. His arrival coincided with the completion
of Mehmed II’s new mosque in Istanbul. On Alaeddin Ali bin Yusuf

letter sent to Fethullah Şirvani, see Fâtih Devrine Âit Münşeât Mecmuası, ed.
Necati Lugal and Adnan Erzi (Istanbul: İstanbul Matbaası, 1956), 45.
24
SHAQAʾIQ, 159–62. See also Süheyl Ünver, Ali Kuşci, Hayatı ve Eserleri
(Istanbul: Kenan Matbaası, 1948), 16–21.
25
This is not to deny that Transoxiana and Khorasan experienced a cultural
florescence under the Timurids during the fifteenth century. For this, see
Beatrice Manz, Power, Politics and Religion in Timurid Iran (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2007), 208–44; Maria E. Subtelny, “Tamerlane
and His Descendants: From Paladins to Patrons,” in The New Cambridge
History of Islam, vol 3: The Eastern Islamic World Eleventh to Eighteenth
Centuries, ed. David O. Morgan and Anthony Reid (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2010), 190–99.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316819326.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 66 Part II The Formation of the Hierarchy (1453–1530)

Fenari’s (d. ca. 1497/98) recommendation, Mehmed II appointed Sirac

Hatib as preacher and prayer leader in his new mosque with a daily
salary of 50 aspers.26 Similarly, when Uzun Hasan defeated Timurid
Sultan Abu Said in 1469, the latter’s seal-keeper and physician Hekim
Kutbuddin Acemi was imprisoned. As soon as he was released, he left
Khorasan for the Ottoman realm where, due to his medical knowledge,
Mehmed II found him a place in his retinue where he received a daily
salary of 500 aspers, as well as 20,000 aspers per year and various
gifts.27
It is more difficult to discern the motivations of other scholars. For
example, Herat-educated Musannifek (d. 1470/71) moved to Anatolia
and began teaching in Karamanid-ruled Konya in the 1440s. Grand
Vizier Mahmud Pasha arranged for his transfer to Istanbul, where
he was given a daily stipend of 80 aspers.28 In addition, the physi-
cian Şükrullah Şirvani, who was an expert in Qur’anic commentary
and hadith, arrived and accepted Mehmed II’s patronage.29 Moreover,
Hoca Ataullah Acemi, a polymath who was well versed in medicine,
mathematics, and the religious and rational sciences, as well as the
physician Lari Acemi (d. 1485) arrived in the Ottoman lands during
Mehmed II’s reign.30
Clearly, many scholars and other learned men far beyond the
Ottoman realm appreciated the sultan’s capture of Constantinople
and subsequent establishment of monumental madrasas there. This
can be seen in the fact that such a highly respected scholar as Ali
Kuşçu rejected Timurid and Akkoyunlu patronage and that oth-
ers spent their entire careers in the empire. Moreover, the presence
of so many immigrant resident scholars as well as graduates of
Ottoman institutions provided the human capital for, and enabled
the dynasty and its agents to implement policies designed to cre-
ate, a hierarchical class of scholars dedicated to the dynasty and its
enterprise.

26
SHAQAʾIQ, 218–19; MECDI, 234–35. See also Sohrweide, “Dichter und
Gelehrte aus dem Osten im Osmanischen Reich,” 267.
27
SHAQAʾIQ, 220; MECDI, 235–36. See also Sohrweide, “Dichter und Gelehrte
aus dem Osten im Osmanischen Reich,” 267, 283–84.
28
SHAQAʾIQ, 165. See also MECDI, 186.
29
SHAQAʾIQ, 220–21. See also MECDI, 236.
30
SHAQAʾIQ, 221–24. See also MECDI, 236–39.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316819326.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Scholars in Mehmed II’s Bureaucracy (1453–1481) 67

Mehmed II’s Attempt to Monopolize the Patronage of Scholars

I mentioned above that beginning in the eleventh century, madrasas
and their personnel were maintained and supported by endowments
(vakf ). The legal tradition protected endowments and the conditions
set by their endowers (vâkıf ). Hence, scholars enjoyed economic auton-
omy and relatively strong positions vis-à-vis the sultans.31
During the Ottoman expansion, newly conquered lands were rec-
ognized as public lands (miri) and had their revenues assigned pri-
marily to Muslim and Christian soldiers in return for their military
service.32 On the other hand, the status of the lands categorized as Mus-
lim and Christian endowments (vakf ) before the Ottoman conquest
was confirmed.33 In addition, some Muslim families maintained their
hereditary rights to collect a share of tax revenues after the Ottoman
expansion into Anatolia.34 Moreover, the rulers occasionally assigned
some lands and buildings as private property (mülk). For example,
Mehmed II, who wanted to increase Istanbul’s population and pros-
perity, granted houses as private property to new inhabitants.35
During the last decade of his reign, Mehmed II himself appeared
to have disregarded the legal principle of eternal adherence to the
endower’s conditions. According to Aşıkpaşazade, Mehmed II, influ-
enced by his grand vizier Karamani Mehmed Pasha (d. 1481), con-
verted endowment lands (vakf) into public lands (miri) and proclaimed

31
Akgündüz, İslâm Hukukunda ve Osmanlı Tatbikatında Vakıf Müessesesi,
266–67.
32
İnalcık, “Ottoman Methods of Conquest,” 113–16.
33
For an example of the endorsement of a pre-Ottoman endowment deed during
the Ottoman period, see İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, “Karamanoğulları Devri
Vesikalarından İbrahim Beyin Karaman İmareti Vakfiyesi,” Belleten 1, no. 1
(1937): 57. For the church endowments, see Eugenia Kermeli, “Ebū’s Suʿūd’s
Definition of Church Vak.fs: Theory and Practice in Ottoman Law,” in Islamic
Law, Theory, and Practice, ed. Robert Gleave and E. Kermeli (London: I. B.
Tauris, 1997), 141–45. See also Eugenia Kermeli, “Central Administration
versus Provincial Arbitrary Governance: Patmos and Mount Athos
Monasteries in the 16th Century,” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 32
(2008): 189–202.
34
Ömer Lütfi Barkan, “Türk-İslam Toprak Hukuku Tatbikatının Osmanlı
İmparatorluğunda Aldığı Şekiller I: Malikane-Divani Sistemi,” Türk Hukuk ve
İktisat Tarihi Mecmuası 2 (1932–39): 119–84. Oktay Özel, “Limits of the
Almighty: Mehmed II’s ‘Land Reform’ Revisited,” Journal of the Economic and
Social History of the Orient 42 (1999): 231–32.
35
Tursun Tursun Bey, Târîh-i Ebü’l-Feth, 67.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316819326.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 68 Part II The Formation of the Hierarchy (1453–1530)

that the central government would either collect their revenue or assign
them to soldiers.36 Tursun Bey mentions that more than 20,000 villages
were reclassified as public land.37
As I will examine in Chapter 5, early in his reign Bayezid II reversed
Mehmed II’s policy and reinstituted the former rights concerning
endowments. Mehmed II’s policy thus did not last longer than three
to four years. The level of current scholarship on this does not allow
us to reveal the legal and political reasoning behind Mehmed II and
Bayezid II’s decisions.38 However, it is not far-fetched to consider
that Mehmed II’s decision showed just how insecure such patronage
could be for scholars who were not directly affiliated with the central
government.

Creating the Opportunity for a Lifetime Career in the Service

of the Empire
As the Ottomans always needed more scholars who would willingly
serve in the imperial administration, they pursued policies of establish-
ing new madrasas, attracting scholars from Iran, and trying to elimi-
nate alternative sources of patronage. It appears that the promise of a
lifetime career, a hierarchical organization, and constant promotions,
all of which were essential to inculcating career-related expectations,
played a significant role in ensuring scholars’ continued loyalty and
enthusiastic service.
It seems that the sultan had a predilection for a hierarchical order-
ing of scholars right from the beginning. For example, he liked to have
them debate in his presence and then identify and reward the win-
ner with gifts or high positions; the loser would be dismissed and/or
receive nothing.39 However, the most critical factor for creating this

36
Aşıkpaşazade, Osmanoğullarının Tarihi, 479.
37
Tursun Bey, Târîh-i Ebü’l-Feth, 27. In another context, Tursun Bey says that
more than 1000 endowed villages were appropriated for the treasury. For this,
see ibid., 197. For a copy of Mehmed II’s 1480 decree abrogating the
endowments in Bursa and its environs, see Halil İnalcık, “Bursa Şer’iye
Sicillerinde Fatih Sultan Mehmed’in Fermanları,” Belleten 11 (1947): 702–3
[document no. 14].
38
Akgündüz, İslâm Hukukunda ve Osmanlı Tatbikatında Vakıf Müessesesi, 544.
39
For the debate between Alaeddin Tusi and Hocazade Muslihuddin, see
SHAQAʾIQ, 97–100; MECDI, 117–20. For the debate between Molla Zeyrek
and Hocazade Muslihuddin, see SHAQAʾIQ, 123–25; MECDI, 142–45.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316819326.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Scholars in Mehmed II’s Bureaucracy (1453–1481) 69

overarching hierarchical framework was probably the establishment

of the Sahn madrasas. Clearly enjoying the highest status in terms of
salaries and resources, these madrasas were immediately distinguished
as prestigious institutions. In fact, most scholars probably dreamed of
teaching in them. Another related significant act was arranging the pro-
fessorships of the Sahn madrasas into a hierarchical relationship with
other positions under the control of the dynasty. These hierarchically
organized positions constituted specific steps in a scholar-bureaucrat’s
career path. Generally speaking, professorships in the Sahn madrasas
became recognized as the top teaching positions. The judgeships of
Bursa, Edirne, and Istanbul, as well as the offices of chancellor (nişancı)
and chief judge (kadıasker), were identified as the positions to be taken
after teaching in the Sahn madrasas.
An obvious question is whether a hierarchical order existed among
those scholars who were serving the dynasty before the establishment
of the Sahn madrasas and even before the capture of Istanbul. After all,
as discussed in Chapter 2, during the early Ottoman period, the dynas-
tic family and others had built several madrasas in Bursa, Edirne, İznik,
and other cities.40 It seems that under each sultan, one or two of these
madrasas were recognized as the highest in the realm and their profes-
sors were honored with handsome salaries. Usually, the reigning sultan
appointed his favorite scholar to his madrasa and thus proclaimed it,
either explicitly or implicitly, to be the highest one.41 However, the idea
that they constituted distinct parts of an integrated hierarchical system
and that one was a stepping-stone to another did not exist, for these
scholars usually remained in their first teaching position for many years
without (expecting) any change in position or promotion.42
Here, it must be stressed that as far as the biographical evidence in
Al-Shaqaʾiq indicates, the hierarchical framework – at the center of
which were the professorships in the Sahn madrasas – began operat-
ing after the completion of these madrasas in 1470. All scholars men-
tioned in Al-Shaqaʾiq who received the judgeships of Bursa, Edirne,
or Istanbul, as well as those who held the chancellorship after 1470
and through the first years of Bayezid II’s reign, had taught in the Sahn
madrasas as their last teaching position. This clearly shows that the

40
For information about these madrasas and their professors, see Bilge, İlk
Osmanlı Medreseleri.
41
Ibid., 6–8. 42
For example, see SHAQAʾIQ, 33, 168.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316819326.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 70 Part II The Formation of the Hierarchy (1453–1530)

professorships and judgeships were connected with each other in a hier-

archical order and that scholars moved from one to another according
to this order.43

Codifying the Hierarchical Order

The law code (kanunname) that Mehmed II promulgated toward the
end of his reign (probably between 1477 and 1481) is usually pre-
sented as the first attempt to set out the hierarchical rules related to the
appointment and promotion of officials and servants as well as fixing
their place in official court protocol.44 However, the above-mentioned
biographical evidence indicates that the rules included in Mehmed II’s
law code were based on existing practice.45 Therefore, the law code
should be considered the culmination of a trend, not its beginning.
Mehmed II’s law code, as we have received it, contains a preamble
and three sections. The preamble starts with his memorandum: “[T]his
law code is my ancestor’s law. It is my law too. Let my noble progeny,
generation after generation, act with it . . . ” This is followed by Chan-
cellor Leyszade Mehmed’s brief note, in which he describes how the law
code was formed. He says that after the conquest of Istanbul, Mehmed
II ordered that his ancestors’ laws be collected and bound together in a
book. He supplemented it with his own laws to make it a comprehen-
sive law code.46 The first section includes the rules for determining the

43
For the biographies of Molla Kestelli (d. 1595/96), Hasan Samsuni (d. 1486),
Efdalzade Hamidüddin (d. between 1496 and 1503), Yakub Pasha (d. 1486),
Kadızade Kasım (d. 1494), Manisazade Muhyiddin (d. after 1481), Molla
Siraceddin, and Ali Fenari (a.k.a. Fenari Alisi), all of whom followed the same
hierarchical scheme (viz., from the Sahn madrasas to a judgeship in Bursa,
Edirne, and Istanbul or the office of chancellor, and then to the office of chief
judge), see SHAQAʾIQ, 142–47, 157, 171–73, 177, 189–92, 196–97, 210–11.
See also MECDI, 161–66, 179, 191–93, 196–97, 207–10, 214–15, 227–28.
The careers of Hocazade Muslihuddin, Molla Abdülkerim, Hacıhasanzade
Mehmed, Alaeddin Ali bin Yusuf Fenari, and Molla Vildan (d. 1488) are
possible exceptions. Nonetheless, it is highly probable that they were appointed
as judges or chief judges before the Sahn madrasas were completed. For their
biographies, see SHAQAʾIQ, 126–39, 155–57, 158, 181–85, 198–199; MECDI,
145–58, 176–78, 179–80, 199–204, 215–17.
44
For example, see Repp, The Müfti of Istanbul, 32–36.
45
In fact, the preamble of the law code makes it clear that it to a certain extent
relies on the existing practice.
46
KANUNNAME, 3–4. Abdülkadir Özcan points out the possibility that the
preamble was a later addition to the text of the law code. For this, see his
“Giriş,” in KANUNNAME.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316819326.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Scholars in Mehmed II’s Bureaucracy (1453–1481) 71

ranking of those in his service, their place in the protocol, their privi-
leges and duties, and the rules for their promotion. The second section
contains the rules for organizing life in the private part of the royal
palace (i.e., the sultan’s daily personal life and relationship with his
servants and the outside world). The third section deals mainly with
the salaries of certain officials and servants in his service, and the titles
and honorifics of various officials.
The language of the main three sections is simple. The rules were
recorded in the form of direct speech, as if the sultan actually uttered
them to his servants and subjects. For example: “Know that the grand
vizier is the head of viziers and commanders. He is above all oth-
ers . . . ”47 and “those who have the right to submit a petition in per-
son [to me] are viziers, chief judges (kadıaskers), and treasurers . . . ”48
They are not organized coherently into specific sections,49 apparently
because this law code was a compilation of oral or written commands
that Mehmed II himself, and possibly former Ottoman sultans, enacted.
The compiler did not attempt to rationalize them, but only sorted
them into three general categories and recorded them as he received
them.
Most of the articles related to scholars are found in the first sec-
tion. Scholars serving in teaching and judicial positions are treated
together with the other people in the ruler’s service and placed in a
hierarchy:

“the new initiate/novice (mülazım) takes up a madrasa position paying 20

aspers and moves to madrasa positions of 25 aspers, 30 aspers, 35 aspers,
40 aspers, 45 aspers and 50 aspers in sequence . . . ”50
“haric, dahil, and Sahn madrasas pay 50 aspers . . . ” Their professors “have
the rank of dignitary (mevleviyet) . . . ”51
“after teaching at the Sahn madrasas, they [the scholars] receive a 500
asper judgeship and then become chief judge (kadıasker) . . . ” The Ayasofya
Madrasa is at the same level as the Sahn madrasas.52

47 48
Ibid., 5. Ibid., 7.
49
For example, in the first section the rules of protocol are followed by the
commands concerning the right of petitioning the sultan and the rules related
to promoting servants and officials. After this, the rules of protocol are
supplemented, the duties and uniforms of the vizier’s servants are ordered, and
other rules for promoting officials are enumerated. Ibid., 5–10.
50 51 52
Ibid., 11. Ibid., 11. Ibid., 11.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316819326.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 72 Part II The Formation of the Hierarchy (1453–1530)

“if a professor in a madrasa position of 25 aspers in the içil [Istanbul, Edirne,

Bursa and their environs] wants to become a judge, he is appointed to a
judgeship with a salary of 45 aspers . . . ”53
“unless a judge reaches a position paying 300 aspers, he cannot be appointed
as finance director . . . ”54
“professors of dahil and Sahn madrasas can be appointed as chancellor
(nişancı) . . . ”55
“professors of dahil madrasas can be appointed as finance director . . . ”56
A judge with 500 aspers can become governor-general.57
“the chief jurist (şeyhülislam) is the head of scholars, and the sultan’s tutor
is also the chief of scholars . . . ”58

These articles indicate that a continuous lifetime career in the govern-

ment service with predictable promotions was envisaged for scholars.
Only those formally accepted into the hierarchical service (mülazım)
by acquiring the status of novice (mülazemet) could expect to be
appointed and promoted. A position’s actual or presumed daily salary
reflected its holder’s hierarchical status. It seems that there were two
main options for entry-level scholars: teaching and serving as a judge.
Those who chose to teach and persisted in this track could rise to
the positions with a dignitary rank (mevleviyet) – top positions in the
scholarly hierarchy, as will be detailed in Chapters 7 and 10. For exam-
ple, they could teach in a Sahn madrasa or the Ayasofya Madrasa, and
then, in theory, could become chancellor or receive a top judgeship
position (judgeships with 500 aspers), and later on become chief judge
(kadıasker).
Those who opted to become judges earned more money at first –
as illustrated by the raise received by the professor in the central
cities (içil) when he became a judge – but lost the right to occupy a
position of dignitary in the hierarchy (mevleviyet). Those who rose
to the top positions in both paths could be appointed to financial,
scribal, and military positions. The law code insinuates that chief jurist
and tutor to the sultan were prestigious individuals in the retinue of
the sultan but outside the hierarchy, for their positions were neither

53 54 55
Ibid., 12. Ibid., 12. Ibid., 7.
56 57 58
Ibid., 12. Ibid., 7. Ibid., 5.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316819326.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Scholars in Mehmed II’s Bureaucracy (1453–1481) 73

considered steps to other positions nor designated for the holders of

specific positions.59
That the law code was reconstructed from copies dating to the sev-
enteenth century and that it included some anachronistic elements have
called its authenticity into question. Some historians have argued that
the law code in its present form is a forgery and that the likely cul-
prits were the bureaucrats of the late sixteenth century.60 The law code
clearly does contain various anachronisms, such as terms and positions
that neither were used nor existed during the fifteenth century. Any
attempt to identify certain terms,61 or to determine what they meant
in the fifteenth century, will probably prove futile.62
Cornell H. Fleischer has argued that such discrepancies do not
always indicate forgery; rather, they reveal the law code’s continu-
ing importance for later generations. In the Ottoman understanding,
the rulers’ law codes were “accretive and, within limits, mutable.”63
In accord with this opinion, Mehmed II’s law code was amended, as
needed, but continued to be attributed to him.
Indeed, the form of the bureaucracy, described in the text of the law
code that we have, is so simple and rudimentary that it is hard to imag-
ine why the late-sixteenth-century bureaucrats would fabricate such a
text. As will be seen in Part III, the empire’s bureaucratic and scholarly
realities at that time were more complicated and sophisticated than
what was described and prescribed in Mehmed II’s law code. Beginning
in the second half of the sixteenth century, scholars became specialized
in the educational and judicial services. Scribal and financial positions,

59
In his seminal study, Richard C. Repp showed that during the fifteenth century
the office of chief jurist was outside the official hierarchy, but gradually
acquired relative significance and during the next century became its top
position. See Repp, The Müfti of Istanbul, esp. 293–304. See also Akgündüz,
Osmanlı Devletinde Şeyhülislâmlık, 37–75.
60
Konrad Dilger, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des osmanischen
Hofzeremoniells im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert (München: Dr. Rudolf Trofenik,
1967), 35; Klaus Röhrborn, “Die Emanzipation der Finanzbürokratie im
Osmanischen Reich (Ende 16. Jahrhundert),” Zeitschrift der deutschen
Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 122 (1972): 124, 135–37. See also Ahmet
Mumcu, Divan-ı Hümayun (Ankara: Phoenix, 2007), 7–9.
61
For instance, dahil, haric, içil, 300-asper judgeship, and 500-asper judgeship.
62
Dilger, Untersuchungen, 14–34; Repp, The Müfti of Istanbul, 32–41.
63
Fleischer, Bureaucrat and Intellectual, 197–200. See also Matuz, Das
Kanzleiwesen, 35; Necipoğlu, Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power, 20.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316819326.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 74 Part II The Formation of the Hierarchy (1453–1530)

which constituted a different career path, were given to officials specif-

ically trained to undertake those tasks.64
When historian Mustafa Âlî (d. 1600) described the scholars’ hier-
archy according to Mehmed II’s law code, he explicitly mentioned
those sixteenth-century amendments and additions in his discussion
of how new positions were ranked, the madrasa hierarchy, and who
appointed the scholars to the positions reserved for them. Nonetheless,
he said that “the law that I explicated is what Celalzade Mustafa Çelebi
[d. 1567], who was . . . the chancellor of the Imperial Council, taught
this poor one [Mustafa Âlî]. He [Celalzade] reported from the former
chancellor Seyyidi Çelebi that this was the Conqueror’s [Mehmed II’s]
law.”65 It is clear from Mustafa Âlî’s statement that there was a con-
tinuing commitment to Mehmed II’s law code in the late sixteenth cen-
tury. But this does not mean that Mustafa Âlî and his younger contem-
poraries understood the order of law code as it appears in its extant
copies.
Considering all of these, one can suggest that the extant copies were
based on a copy of the original,66 contained a few updates (termino-
logical and substantive), and reflected its outline and approach.

Scholars in the Government Service

Now, examining the biographical material contained in Al-Shaqaʾiq
with a prosopographical approach and consulting an archival docu-
ment from the early years of Bayezid II’s reign, I will comment on the
meaning of some articles in the law code at the time. I will also make
some observations about the level of correspondence between the law
code as reconstructed from its seventeenth-century extant copies and
what actually occurred during Mehmed II’s reign.

64
Matuz, Das Kanzleiwesen, 33–45; Fleischer, Bureaucrat and Intellectual,
214–31; Linda T. Darling, Revenue-Raising and Legitimacy: Tax Collection
and Finance Administration in the Ottoman Empire 1560–1660 (Leiden: Brill,
1996), 49–67; Christine Woodhead, “After Celalzade: The Ottoman Nişancı c.
1560–1700,” Journal of Semitic Studies, supplement 23: Studies in Islamic
Law: A Festschrift for Colin Imber, ed. Andreas Christmann and Robert
Gleave (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 299–304.
65
Mustafa Âlî, Künhü’l-Ahbar, Dördüncü Rükn: C. I. Tıpkıbasım (Ankara: Türk
Tarih Kurumu, 2009), facs. 110a–113b.
66
Bosnalı Hüseyin Efendi, the author of one of the two copies, saw a copy of the
original in the Imperial Council. Özcan, “Giriş,” in KANUNNAME.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316819326.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Scholars in Mehmed II’s Bureaucracy (1453–1481) 75

It is important to keep in mind that the law code was probably

compiled toward the end of Mehmed II’s reign. As mentioned above,
some of the hierarchical principles related to scholars were in practice
even before its compilation. Moreover, there were updates to the orig-
inal text later and some of the new articles had no connection with
the practices and rules during Mehmed II’s reign. Considering this,
it is quite normal to notice certain correspondences and discrepan-
cies between the law code’s order and the functioning of the hierarchy
under Mehmed II.
With the benefit of hindsight, one can say that the law code’s
most critical element was the reservation of teaching and judicial
appointments to those who had been formally accepted into the
hierarchical service (mülazıms/novices, lit., “those who adhered” or
“those who received the status of novice/mülazemet”). Mülazemet
was the status of novice conferring the right to seek employment
in government-controlled positions. Although it resembled the cer-
tificate authorizing knowledge and skills (icazet), mülazemet and
icazet differed. Mülazemet was official and brought rights before the
government, while icazet was personal and depended on the authority
of the scholar who gave it. In other words, not all of those who held
icazet had the status of mülazım.67 But caution should be exerted,
because during Mehmed II’s time novice (mülazım) seems to have
had a meaning different from the meaning it acquired later, unless the
word was added to the law code’s text during the following period.68
The reports in Al-Shaqaʾiq suggest that for most of his reign, Mehmed
II personally supervised the entrance into the official service, and the
method of introducing a potential member lacked the formal rules and
procedures that applied during the later period. Viziers and prominent
scholars appear to have proposed candidates, but the sultan had
the last word. For example, Grand Vizier Mahmud Pasha advised
the appointment and promotion of several scholars. He promoted
Hocazade Muslihuddin and arranged for a scholarly debate in which
Hocazade could showcase his knowledge to Mehmed II. As a result, he

67
Mehmet İpşirli, “Mülâzemet,” TDVIA; Akpınar, “İcâzet.”
68
As will be seen in Chapter 5 and Part III, beginning in the first decades of the
sixteenth century, in the most common vein, the prominent scholar-bureaucrats
(mevali, those who received a mevleviyet position) introduced to the scholarly
bureaucracy new scholar-bureaucrats by granting them the status of novice.
For this, see İpşirli, “Mülâzemet.”

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316819326.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 76 Part II The Formation of the Hierarchy (1453–1530)

became the sultan’s tutor and then received various positions within
the hierarchy.69 Mahmud Pasha praised Hayali Şemseddin Ahmed
(d. 1470/71) and convinced Mehmed II to appoint him as the profes-
sor of one of the madrasas in İznik.70 Molla Hüsrev recommended
his hard-working student Manisazade Muhyiddin and ensured his
appointment to Mahmud Pasha Madrasa in Istanbul.71 Molla Gürani
urged that Alaeddin Ali bin Yusuf Fenari be appointed as the professor
of Manastır Madrasa in Bursa.72 It seems that these and other inter-
cessors did not have the duty or prerogative of finding and then intro-
ducing qualified scholars to the hierarchy73 and that the introduction
to and promotion within it mostly depended on Mehmed II’s goodwill.
Appointing two chief judges (instead of one, as in the past) to oversee
the affairs of scholar-bureaucrats in Anatolia and Rumeli, respectively,
may indicate the beginning of change in the official hierarchy’s admin-
istration toward the end of Mehmed II’s reign (probably in 1481).74
This division suggests that the sultan had relinquished certain authori-
ties and duties to the chief judges. Clearly, if this official had continued
to administer justice only in the Imperial Council, as described in the
law code,75 or in the army during military campaigns, as was the case

69
SHAQAʾIQ, 127–28.
70
Ibid., 140–41. For Mahmud Pasha’s intercession on behalf of some other
scholars, see ibid., 165, 198–99.
71 72
Ibid., 190–92. Ibid., 181.
73
Taşköprizade never uses the words mülazım and mülazemet in Al-Shaqaʾiq to
express the practice of initiation into the hierarchy or attendance at the court
of chief judges. Rather, he uses their cognate, lazama, in the sense of a dervish’s
or a student’s attendance on his master or teacher. For this, see SHAQAʾIQ,
141, 245, 352, 365, 550.
74
Ibid., 143, 158; Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Devletinin İlmiye Teşkilâtı, 151–52;
Mustafa Şentop, Osmanlı Yargı Sistemi ve Kazaskerlik (Istanbul: Klasik, 2005),
37. Taşköprizade ascribes this change to Grand Vizier Karamani Mehmed
Pasha’s fear that Molla Kestelli, the incumbent chief judge, could lobby against
him before the sultan. He therefore wanted a second chief judge to attend the
meetings with Mehmed II and to inform him of what Molla Kestelli said about
him. For this, see SHAQAʾIQ, 143; MECDI, 162.
75
The law code described chief judges as Imperial Council members who heard
legal cases, imprinted the decrees pertaining to judicial matters with the
imperial seal, and had the right to assign clerical positions that had a salary of
less than 2 aspers. For this, see KANUNNAME, 9, 13. A report in Al-Shaqaʾiq
suggests that the chief judge could make appointments at the beginning of
Mehmed II’s reign. According to that report, Mehmed II offered his tutor Molla
Gürani a vizier post. The latter rejected it, saying that such posts were for the
royal households’ slave servants and that if somebody who did not belong to

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316819326.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Scholars in Mehmed II’s Bureaucracy (1453–1481) 77

in the early years of the Ottoman polity, dividing the office according
to geography would have been meaningless.
In fact, a document of complaint submitted to Bayezid II, probably
during the 1480s, testifies to the chief judges’ prerogatives in admin-
istering the official hierarchy. Its anonymous author informs the sul-
tan that “unqualified” people (na-ehil) have been appointed as judges
since he ascended the throne in 1481. Chief judges had the right and
responsibility to appoint judges. However, they mishandled this task
because they conceded to the demands of those who pled on behalf of
the unqualified. Although those educated by dignitaries (mevali) were
qualified (ehil), they would never receive a suitable position unless they
had a patron, regardless of how long they attended the chief judges’
court (mülazemet). The use of mülazemet in the sense of attendance at
this particular court76 indicates that by the 1480s, the sultan empow-
ered the chief judges as his agents as regards appointments and pro-
motions in the hierarchy of scholar-bureaucrats.
The biographical evidence related to the scholars active during the
reign of Mehmed II presented in Al-Shaqaʾiq does not help corrobo-
rate the ranking of all madrasas and scholars, as indicated in the law
code – namely, their stratification according to the daily salary of pro-
fessors from 20 to 50 aspers.77 Taşköprizade usually provides little or
no information about the scholars’ early careers and how much they
were paid in specific madrasas. However, an analysis of this material
shows that when the Sahn madrasas were completed in 1470, they
were regarded as offering the highest teaching positions available and

their group received one, they would be disappointed. Pleased with this
explanation, Mehmed II appointed him the chief judge. However, according to
the report, Molla Gürani conducted his office-related affairs so independently
that he did not even inform Mehmed II of whom he had appointed to
educational and judicial institutions. Consequently, Mehmed II arranged his
removal. For this, see SHAQAʾIQ, 85. See also MECDI, 104–5. For a
discussion of this report’s reliability, see Repp, The Müfti of Istanbul, 169–70.
76
Halil İnalcık, “A Report on Corrupt K.ād.ı̄s under Bayezid II,” in Studia
Ottomanica, Festgabe für György Hazai sum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Barbara
Kellner-Heinkele and Peter Zieme (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1997), 78,
80, 81.
77
The claim that Mehmed II assigned Ali Kuşçu and Molla Hüsrev to grade
madrasas and organize their curriculum is unfounded. See Ekmeleddin
İhsanoğlu, “Osmanlı Medrese Tarihçiliğinin İlk Safhası (1916–1965),” Belleten
64 (2000): 554–56.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316819326.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 78 Part II The Formation of the Hierarchy (1453–1530)

were considered stepping-stones to the judgeships of Istanbul, Edirne,

and Bursa, as well as the offices of chancellor and chief judge. For
example, Molla Kestelli taught in the madrasas of Mudurnu and Dime-
toka before receiving a professorship in a Sahn madrasa. He was later
appointed to the judgeships of Bursa, Edirne, and Istanbul in sequence
and, toward the end of Mehmed II’s reign, became a chief judge.
Similarly, Manisazade Muhyiddin taught in Mahmud Pasha Madrasa,
moved to a Sahn madrasa, and eventually became the judge of Istanbul
before ascending to the office of chief judge.78 All of this was before
the law code’s composition but in accordance with its order.
The above-mentioned complaint, composed during the first years
of Bayezid II’s reign, includes significant clues about the organiza-
tion of judgeships in small towns and their holders under Mehmed
II. It suggests a transition in judicial administration and provides
evidence of the central government’s increased involvement in judi-
cial appointments.79 As mentioned earlier, the complaint’s anonymous
author distinguished between those who were “qualified” (ehil) and
“unqualified” (na-ehil) for judgeship positions. For him, scholars edu-
cated in the central cities and affiliated with dignitaries (mevali) were
“qualified,” whereas those who had served only as substitute judges or
in clerical positions in mosques were “unqualified.”80 He complained
that the former could not receive appointments despite their long peri-
ods of attendance (mülazemet) to the courts of chief judges, whereas
the latter received them with no attendance at all. In addition, he listed
the names and positions of 30 “unqualified” judges in Anatolia and
then accused Molla Vildan, the chief judge of Anatolia since 1481,81
of not disqualifying them. The author called on Bayezid II to dismiss
them.
The issue here does not seem to be lack of proper education, for
these “unqualified” scholars probably had studied in their hometowns’
local madrasas and gained the required skills. Rather, it is an issue of
the central government’s control of provincial judgeships and appoint-
ment of its own agents, recruited and trained in the center. People
with local connections (the “unqualified”) either were preferred or
could ensure their appointment, thereby preventing the appointments
78
For the biographies of Molla Kestelli and Manisazade Muhyiddin, see
SHAQAʾIQ, 142–47, 190–92; MECDI, 161–66 and 208–10.
79
İnalcık, “A Report on Corrupt K.ād.ı̄s,” 75–86.
80
Ibid., 78–80. 81
Ibid., 75. See also SHAQAʾIQ, 198–99; MECDI, 215–17.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316819326.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Scholars in Mehmed II’s Bureaucracy (1453–1481) 79

of those educated in the center (the “qualified”) and in attendance

of chief judges. For example the incumbent judge of Kestel, who had
administered Grand Vizier Gedik Ahmed Pasha’s (d. 1482) properties,
somehow received the 15-asper judgeship of Mazin and then the 30-
asper judgeship of Kestel with the help of Hacı Yusuf (Molla Vildan’s
steward).82
The author of the complaint, who did not mention any new arrange-
ment concerning the lower judgeships during the early years of Bayezid
II’s reign, nevertheless blamed Molla Vildan for acting inappropriately.
Thus, one can assume that Mehmed II ordered the appointment of
small-town judges from among the attendees of chief judges. Or per-
haps his policies had convinced some people that this was what should
have happened, and therefore led them to criticize the appointment
of people not directly affiliated with the central government. The high
number of “unqualified” incumbents (30) suggests that not too long
ago they had been considered “qualified.”
Al-Shaqaʾiq does not provide much information about those who
became judges early in their careers. Instead, it mostly includes the
biographies of those scholars who chose to teach at that point in their
careers and were destined to fill the hierarchy’s highest positions.83
However, there are references to the appointments of Hacıhasanzade
Mehmed (d. 1505/6) and Molla Vildan to the judgeship of Gallipoli
early in their respective careers.84 After this, they were appointed to
teaching positions and began their ascent to the highest posts. Their
careers suggest that under Mehmed II, those who became judges early
in their careers could change their paths and receive a dignitary posi-
tion (mevleviyet) at a later date.
Biographical evidence shows that scholars could assume scribal,
financial, and military positions. For example, Molla Siraceddin first
taught at a Sahn madrasa and then assumed the chancellorship.85
Karamani Mehmed Pasha taught in Mahmud Pasha’s madrasa and

82
İnalcık, “A Report on Corrupt K.ād.ı̄s,” 79–80. 83
SHAQAʾIQ, 2–3.
84
Ibid., 158, 198. See also MECDI, 179, 215. Taşköprizade mentions Hocazade
Muslihuddin’s appointment to the judgeship of İznik, of Sinan Pasha (d. 1486)
to the judgeship of Seferihisar, of İbrahim Pasha to the judgeship of Amasya,
and of Müfti Ahmed Pasha (d. 1520/21) to the judgeship of Üsküp. In all of
these cases, the appointment was not a regular assignment but a punishment
and demotion for displeasing the sultan. For these appointments, see
SHAQAʾIQ, 131, 175, 178, 204.
85
Ibid., 196–97; MECDI, 214–15.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316819326.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 80 Part II The Formation of the Hierarchy (1453–1530)

served as scribe in the Imperial Council before being appointed

chancellor.86 Moreover, although there was a tendency to appoint peo-
ple with slave or non-Muslim backgrounds as viziers and to mili-
tary posts under Mehmed II,87 one does come across some scholars
in those positions. For example, Karamani Mehmed Pasha became
grand vizier,88 and both Sinan Pasha (d. 1486) and Ahmed Pasha bin
Veliyyüddin (d. 1496/97) served as viziers under Mehmed II. At the
end of his career, the latter became the governor of Bursa.89 Although
no detailed information is provided about the careers of financial offi-
cials serving under Mehmed II, it seems that most of them received
scholarly training and moved back and forth between financial and
scholarly careers.90
In addition to scholars within the hierarchy, some scholars received a
nonhierarchical position, such as the chief jurist, the sultan’s tutor, and
his doctor. During Mehmed II’s reign, Fahreddin Acemi, Abdülkerim
(d. ca. 1489), Molla Hüsrev, and Molla Gürani served as chief jurists.91
According to Taşköprizade’s account in Al-Shaqaʾiq, Hocazade Musli-
huddin, Hatibzade Muhyiddin (d. 1495/96), Hasan Samsuni (d. 1486),
Molla Ayas, Hoca Hayreddin, Sinan Pasha, Molla Abdülkadir, and
Ahmed Pasha bin Veliyyüddin all tutored Mehmed II.92 Based on this
evidence in Al-Shaqaʾiq, we can mention that scholars Hoca Ataullah
Acemi, Hekim Şükrullah Şirvani, Hekim Lari Çelebi, Hekim Kutbud-
din Acemi, Yakub Hekim, Arab Hekim, and Altıncızade served as the
sultan’s personal physicians.93 Although members of the court held all
of these scholars in high esteem, their posts were not a step before or
after another position.

86
Yusuf Küçükdağ, “Karamânî Mehmed Paşa,” TDVIA.
87
Stavrides, The Sultan of Vezirs, 59–67; Lowry, The Nature of the Early
Ottoman State, 115–30.
88
Küçükdağ, “Karamânî Mehmed Paşa.”
89
SHAQAʾIQ, 193–96; MECDI, 217–20.
90
SHAQAʾIQ, 315–16. Mehmet Zeki Pakalın, Maliye Teşkilâtı Tarihi
(1442–1930), 4 vols. (Ankara: Maliye Bakanlığı Tetkik Kurulu, 1977), 1:
55–69.
91
SHAQAʾIQ, 59–61, 155–57, 116–20, 83–90; MECDI, 81–83, 176–78, 102–11,
135–39. See also Repp, The Müfti of Istanbul, 105–11, 125–74.
92
SHAQAʾIQ, 126–39, 147–50, 157, 169–70, 170–71, 173–77, 179–80, 200–2.
93
Ibid., 220–25. See also MECDI, 235–40.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316819326.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Scholars in Mehmed II’s Bureaucracy (1453–1481) 81

Scholars’ Perceptions of the New Order

The foregoing discussion shows that under Mehmed II, more and
more scholars became affiliated with and accepted positions from
the government. As the number of government-controlled madrasas
and judgeships increased, attractive alternative options shrank. After
the establishment of the Sahn madrasas in 1470, Mehmed II and his
agents tended to follow an identifiable pattern when employing and
promoting scholars. Scholars had the opportunity to have a lifetime
career in the government service by fulfilling educational, judicial, and
scribal duties. They started from low-level positions and received reg-
ular promotions until they reached the top ranks. Toward the end of
Mehmed II’s reign, this pattern was codified in a law code (kanun-
name). In other words, a system of objective rules developed and pro-
tected the rights of scholars in the government service. As a conse-
quence, scholars in the government service began to resemble bureau-
crats. Hence, one can say that the reforms undertaken during Mehmed
II’s reign initiated the emergence of scholar-bureaucrats as a distinctive
group.
However, this unmistakable trend toward the establishment of pre-
dictable rules for the lifetime career of scholars in the government
service should not blind us to the divergent perceptions of what was
happening on the part of scholars. Although Mehmed II significantly
increased the dynasty’s prestige as a patron of learning and gathered
within his domain a large group of scholars, he could not close off
all other options. For example, during the early 1470s he dismissed
Taşköprizade Hayreddin Halil, who had been a professor at the Muzaf-
feruddin Madrasa in Taşköprü, so that he would be forced to come
to Istanbul in search of employment. But the scholar, who preferred
to stay near his hometown, refused to do so.94 Alaeddin Tusi left for
Transoxiana after Mehmed II favored Hocazade Muslihuddin over
him in an academic debate.95 Similarly, after he lost a competition
with Hocazade, Molla Zeyrek moved to Bursa and found a merchant
patron who allowed him to continue his studies. Later on, he report-
edly rejected the sultan’s offer of a position in Istanbul.96

94
SHAQAʾIQ, 120–23; MECDI, 139–42.
95
SHAQAʾIQ, 97–100; MECDI, 117–20.
96
SHAQAʾIQ, 123–25; MECDI, 142–45.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316819326.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 82 Part II The Formation of the Hierarchy (1453–1530)

While it was certainly prestigious to have a close relationship with

the dynasty, not all scholars subscribed to the idea that success in the
government service or proximity to the sultan showed one’s level of
academic proficiency.97 In other words, a parallel hierarchy of respect
still existed outside Mehmed II’s codified system. It seems that Sadeddin
Taftazani’s and Seyyid Şerif Cürcani’s studies represented the pinnacle
of academic achievement for scholars of the time. Scholars expressed
their claims to excellence by asserting that they had surpassed these
two laureates. For example, Molla Zeyrek claimed to be superior to
Cürcani, while Molla Abdülkadir made the same claim in respect to
both Taftazani and Cürcani.98
In fact, some scholars considered accepting an official position as a
black mark on their reputation and as something that compromised
their moral integrity and hence scholarship.99 In addition, some schol-
ars who were not averse to governmental service considered judge-
ship positions as impediments to intellectual progress. According to
Hocazade Muslihuddin, one of the reasons why he could not reach
Cürcani’s level was that he had served as a judge.100 The famous
scholar Molla Hüsrev, who reluctantly accepted judicial positions, con-
sidered the years spent in these positions as wasted time.101

97
For example, Hatibzade Muhyiddin claimed to be intellectually superior to
Hocazade Muslihuddin because he was Mehmed II’s tutor. But the sultan, who
did not like this claim, dismissed Hatibzade. SHAQAʾIQ, 147–50; MECDI,
166–71.
98
SHAQAʾIQ, 123–25, 178–80. Hoca Hayreddin and Efdalzade Hamidüddin
once even claimed that Cürcani was infallible. For this see, SHAQAʾIQ,
126–39; MECDI, 145–58.
99
For example Alaeddin Yetim, one of Taşköprizade’s professors, refused a
position and taught students for free. SHAQAʾIQ, 338–39; MECDI, 345–46.
100
SHAQAʾIQ, 126–39; MECDI, 145–58.
101
Molla Hüsrev, Durar al-Hukkam fi Sharh Ghurar al-Ahkam, 2 vols. (Istanbul:
Matbaʿa-i Mehmed Es ʿad, 1299 [1881/82]), 1: 3. About Molla Hüsrev and his
jurisprudential work, see Kevin Reinhart, “Mollā Hüsrev: Ottoman Jurist and
Us.ūlı̄,” Journal of Semitic Studies, supplement 23: Studies in Islamic Law: A
Festschrift for Colin Imber, 245–58.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316819326.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press